GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, on the second Varela report on the scrapping of fishing vessels, we rejected the report because the number of boats in Europe should match the number of fish available and currently the European fleet is greatly over capacity. We believe the report to support re-directing structural funds in 2004 to 2006 to help reduce the size of the fleet on a voluntary basis. The report suggests that any emergency Community measure would need additional funding up to 2006. This is not logical because it proposes extra funding for scrapping at the same time as providing subsidies for improving efficiency of the existing vessels or even building new ones. It does not respect the precautionary principle. Although not perfect, most scientific evidence suggests that many stocks are in danger of collapse and are being over-fished by an EU fleet that is too big.

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, I would like to ask a supplementary question which focuses on two aspects. Firstly, will women manage some of this economic aid? Secondly, since there are specific risks for women – just today a girl of seven has been sold into marriage by her family in order to deal with hunger and meet their needs – I would like to know whether the Commission intends to create specific funds to prevent this type of violation of women’s rights. Given the situation I have described, which will no doubt be repeated tomorrow and the next day, I would like a concrete reply from the Commission. It is also very important to know whether women will manage these funds. The fact that there are many armed men very much hinders progress in the improvement of the situation of women.

Political group: PSE
The report seeks to obtain new benefits for capital, an aim which it does its best to dress up with modern justifications. It cites the supposed difficulties which start-ups have in obtaining funds, and irresponsibly proposes allowing pension funds to invest in more high-risk projects, even though a considerable amount of money has been swallowed up by the fanciful dreams of the ‘new economy’. The report calls for the removal of “the fiscal, regulatory and administrative barriers” encountered by new small companies, which – if you believe the report – are capable of closing ‘the knowledge gap between Europe and the US’ practically single-handedly. The fact that the report stresses the interdependency of risk-capital and the stock exchange shows clearly what this is all about: oiling the wheels of capitalism on the pretext of innovation, and creating a preferential status for small companies, which would allow the large groups to outsource even more of their activities, reduce their taxes and relax the few constraints that the Labour Code still places on them. For these reasons, I voted against this report. - Report Beazley (A5-0037/2002)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, this debate on my report is most timely, coming as it does only two days ahead of the first formal Justice and Home Affairs Council under the Swedish Presidency. Progress on the directive and framework decision setting common penalties for facilitating entry and residence in the EU will be on the agenda at that Council meeting. When I was the UK Minister responsible for carriers' liability and other immigration issues, I always found that although the UK had strict rules on carriers' liability the system itself was open to criticism for being to some extent unbalanced and unfair. Some carriers were exempt from attention and in the EU as a whole the discrepancies between the way different nation States treated this issue led to loopholes and weaknesses in what should be an area of cooperation and coordination. Because the burden-sharing was clearly unfair, we have an opportunity here. The French Presidency took the initiative but I hope my report has improved upon that initiative in a way that will be seen to be fair and reasonable in dealing with what is undoubtedly a very difficult problem. My report ensures that carriers' liability extends to all transport to the EU of third-country nationals who are undocumented. That is fair and, although individual carriers' groups will be upset that there should be any liability at all, if it is spread across all the responsible carriers it will help them all. I also believe, however, that the responsibility of carriers should be limited. Some have suggested that they should actually be required to retransport the people they have carried or remedy the situation. That would be draconian and excessive. Carriers should, of course, report the matter to the police or other appropriate authorities, who would then take the necessary steps. It is only fair that, if an individual is subsequently granted asylum, the penalty on the carrier should be repaid. That has not been the case up to now but it is included in my report. The final point is that penalties must be approximated throughout Europe. At present some countries have no penalty whatsoever, some impose a very small fine and in some countries the fines are perhaps too penal. Approximating the fines will help to stop this activity and make people work together. It is important that we deal with this matter. Carriers must not be left alone; the authorities have responsibilities too. We wish to be humanitarian but this is an issue that can and must be dealt with by the EU as a whole. On that basis, I commend my report to the House.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this proposal will bring an additional seven million workers in Europe under the protection of the Working Time Directive, allowing them to have reasonable working conditions and proper rest periods. However, to get a 48-hour week, junior doctors must wait nine years minimum and possibly twelve years. I will not pretend to be happy with this situation. It is, however, the best that we could achieve if we were to end once and for all the Council's delaying tactics. It has been obvious since 1993 that those excluded from the directive at that time would eventually come under its protection. One has to ask, therefore, why over that seven-year period virtually nothing was done in Ireland or in Britain to bring the number of doctors forward that would be needed to implement it. In Ireland some junior doctors work over 100 hours per week, the average being 70 to 80. Only last night they suspended strike action which they had threatened because they have now reached an interim agreement which will ensure that they are actually paid for the overtime they work. In some cases they were not paid at all, in some cases only half the normal rate. Some progress has been made and no doubt the conclusion of the conciliation has helped them in that regard. Through the Council of Ministers both Britain and Ireland fought tooth-and-nail to slow the process down. That was unfortunate. The working arrangements for junior doctors are like a horror story from a Dickensian novel of the nineteenth century. I find it bizarre that at the beginning of the 21st century we are still arguing for common sense with regard to health and safety. I would appeal to all national governments, including Ireland, not to utilise the additional provisions for extending the implementation of this directive beyond the nine-year period and would remind them that it is intended only as an exceptional measure if all other genuine steps have been taken to implement the measures here.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Mrs Ries has done an excellent job of reporting on the negotiations at conciliation and on the problems that have arisen in connection with these. Those of us in Parliament’s delegation can be very satisfied with the simple fact that we succeeded in bringing about a settlement that also included octaBDE, meaning of course that it will be possible to introduce a ban more quickly. I nonetheless see it as a failure in terms of EU environmental and health protection that the Commission and the Council did not comply with Parliament’s proposal also to include decaBDE in the ban. At least 75% to 80% of all use of brominated flame retardants involves deca, and the risk assessment we have available to us shows that decaBDE should have been banned immediately. A longer wait will involve further risks to public health. These substances are long-lived and bio-accumulative. They are stored in living organisms, and they cause changes in the behaviour of animals used in experiments. Deca may also be converted into pentaBDE and octaBDE, which are precisely what the Council wishes to ban. It can also be converted into brominated dioxins. The scientific evidence is so worrying in terms of public health and the environment that the European Chemicals Bureau recommended the Member States to take a political decision or, more specifically, to employ the precautionary principle. In June 2002, the competent authority for the Member States considered it was necessary to take measures without delay. In conclusion, I have to say that the outcome is a failure in terms of EU environmental and health policy. I therefore believe that Mrs Ries will understand why my group will abstain from voting in the final vote.

Political group: Verts-ALE
We are able to accept the proposal today, right now. (Parliament agreed to the request)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the Council really has surpassed itself in its proposed draft budget 2001. Demands are increasing, whether we like it not, and yet the Council, year on year, has reduced the overall size of the budget. As a percentage of European GDP, it has fallen from 1.27% to below 1.05%. This has dramatic repercussions on funding for agricultural policy, social policy, employment, research and a whole host of other areas of economic, social and development policy, at the expense of the regions in the Union lagging behind and at the expense of the broader social classes. In the final analysis, it is immoral to cut spending on agricultural policy, on the MEDA programme and on the socially excluded, in order to find the resources to finance the European Union’s commitments in Kosovo and Yugoslavia. It was not the farmers and the poor in the Mediterranean who decided and went ahead with the NATO bombings, but it is they who are paying for the damage. The damage in the Balkans needs to be restored, but it should be paid by for those who were responsible for it. This budget is unacceptable. The European Parliament has just one way of showing that it has self-respect and respect for the people in the Member States and that is to accept the amendment tabled by our group and reject the entire budget.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by congratulating Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra on his clear and comprehensive report. It is indeed time for the European Union to revise its strategy on relations with Latin America. There is still a great deal of room for improvement, especially in the field of economic cooperation, and for us Socialists, this also includes Cuba, a country with which we must finally commence negotiations on a framework agreement, without any preconditions. Economic cooperation must include and take account of appropriate social and ecological minimum standards; after all, we do not want to worsen the social inequalities in Latin America but help to defuse them, for these countries are still marked by massive variations in social conditions. There are wealthy industrialised enclaves surrounded by regions with crippling poverty. We therefore also call, in the field of structural development, for measures to achieve sustainable economic development which promote SMEs in particular. Above all, wherever it is necessary and appropriate, the groups concerned and civil society, especially indigenous ethnic groups, must be included from the planning stage onwards. This applies especially to the Puebla Panama project. The European Union should only participate in this project on the basis of clearly defined substantive agreements. Technology and knowledge transfer, but also the opening of the European market to the partner countries' products, are further steps which must be taken quickly. This House wants an equal economic partnership with the citizens of Latin America, not just with a handful of major corporations.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, the situation in Tunisia gives real cause for considerable concern. At least 1 000 people are still imprisoned for the sake of their views. Human rights activists, trade union members, academics, journalists and students report constant harassment by the authorities. Despite the fact that Tunisia signed up to the UN convention against torture as far back as 1987, torture is becoming increasingly widespread and institutionalised in the country. We in liberal camps are very concerned at this development. We wish to highlight three specific problems. The legal proceedings against Professor Moncef Marzouki and the lawyer, Nejib Hosni, have been mentioned here. These will now be started at the weekend and on Monday. The reasons for prosecution are very unclear. The legal proceedings must naturally be made open and just. The second problem is actually only part of a pattern of harassment. It concerns the dissolution of Tunisia’s League for Human Rights. This organisation is the very oldest in the Maghreb region and the action has given rise to protests the world over. Ambassadors have protested on behalf of the UN. Members of the organisation are harassed and have been prevented from meeting, with disproportionate police action. Sympathisers with the movement abroad have been prevented from returning. What crimes they are guilty of is unclear and the action should be dropped. Finally, we are greatly concerned at the condition of those prisoners who are on hunger strike. Last week one of the prisoners, Rached Jaidane, fell into a coma. His family have been given no information as to his condition. The young student Béchir Habid has been on hunger strike since 18 October. His condition is very, very serious. He needs to receive care and be released immediately. The cooperation between the EU and Tunisia is positive. It must be maintained and developed. However, this requires Tunisia to respect agreements entered into, including those which encompass clauses on human rights. To discuss these matters I would like the Commission to take the initiative to convene an extra meeting of the council on EU-Tunisian association in order to discuss the matter of human rights as soon as possible.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I am going to ask two very short supplementary questions. The first is this, and I am asking Mrs Wallström: what is the amount of and the timetable for the financing of the national hydrological plan by the European Union for 2000-2006? In the second, which also has to do with the environment and Spain, I ask what is the amount forecast by the Commission for the financing of the Galicia plan established by the Spanish Government to recover the Galician coastline and to develop Galicia after the Prestige accident, also for 2000-2006, bearing in mind that the Spanish Government considers that EUR 12 billion of global funding is needed over this period?

Political group: Verts-ALE
You might expect a bit of an old hand in development like me – as you are yourself – to be somewhat sceptical about the possibilities that we can deal with, in particular the coherence issues related to development, foreign policy and other policy areas such as agriculture and trade in the European Union. So there are still outstanding issues. You mentioned the peace facility, which, as an initiative from the European Union, we of course welcome very much indeed, but it is my understanding that certain Member States of the Union are suggesting that funding should go through regional and subregional organisations such as ECOWAS, and I wondered whether you would agree with me that our view should be shared with the African heads of states, who say that finance, organisation, management and decision-making should come through the African Union itself and not be devolved to various other regional organisations? Finally, how would you assess the implications of the failure of the IGC on the proposal – of which you have been very much in favour – related to the creation of a European Foreign Minister to manage some of these issues?

Political group: PSE
NICTs, new information and communication technologies, inevitably result in a new model, a new paradigm based on new relations between students, knowledge and teachers, and they are producing and proposing an educational reorganisation in the world of teaching. The principle aim of using and integrating NICTs in the field of education must be to improve the conditions of student learning and their relations with the world. Any form of use which did not comply with these principles would entail using them just for the sake of using them. Well, NICTs can be wonderful educational allies if they are the means and not the end. If they further the objectives established by the educational and social community, they allow progress and development to take place. These new technologies today offer education an unprecedented opportunity to satisfy an increasingly large and diversified demand for teaching. It is a considerable challenge: in actual fact, it is clear that individuals’ ability to access information and process it is a deciding factor not just for their integration into the labour market, but also into their social and cultural environment. Any inability by an education system to train its pupils to use or master these technologies would consequently further deepen social inequalities, or even create them. Their introduction into educational establishments does not cast doubt over the status of teachers or the basic vocation of schools: quite the opposite, as it can lead to freedom and an opening up to the world. - Klamt report (A5-0084/2003)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would first like to congratulate Mr Bösch on his report – he has done a really excellent job. And his conclusion that there have not yet been any appreciable improvements in the fight against fraud also coincides with the OLAF Supervisory Committee's view. Furthermore, the Commission itself says several times in its own report that there were no significant changes in 1999 as compared with previous years, and that the total of unlawfully used funds in fact increased in some areas, for example in the Structural Funds. Let me emphasise once again that we are talking about taxpayers' money here. We must do our best to protect it. If we are to reach the zero-tolerance limit promised by the Commission, OLAF, the European Fraud Investigation Office established in 1999, must first and foremost be given greater independence. This involves recruiting its staff without interference from the Commission, for example. I support Mr Bösch's suggestion that the appointments committee should be chaired by an independent figure. And the Director himself must set out in advance a clearly structured programme of work. One thing that is clear is that we do not just want the old UCLAF to continue under the new name of OLAF. Unfortunately, an opportunity was missed in Nice to strengthen OLAF by creating a European Financial Public Prosecutor's Office and putting it under judicial control. Despite all Parliament's requests over the years and the commitment demonstrated by Commissioner Barnier and Commissioner Schreyer in particular, this subject was not even on the agenda at Nice. I therefore have some questions for the Commission now, as to whether, in accordance with Paragraphs 9 to 12 of the Bösch report, it will submit proposals by 1 June 2001 for what we might call a European Public Prosecutor's Office with restricted jurisdiction. I would also like put this question to the Commission: not all the Member States have yet ratified the Convention on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests and this is preventing it from entering into force. Could you please tell us which countries have not yet ratified it and what the Commission can do to remedy this intolerable situation? Another point: what is the Commission doing to overcome varying national interpretations of Community law on the recovery of own resources, as described in Paragraph 7(1) of its report? And lastly, there is the recovery of unduly paid funds, for which there are no figures in the Commission's report for 1999. Can the Commission tell me how much the Commission has claimed back and received as compared with the losses calculated, especially in the case of own resources in the EAGGF and in the Structural Funds?

Political group: PPE-DE
The concerns which have inspired this report clearly illustrate that the European Union is designed for money, and not for people. No visa is needed for money to enter, irrespective of its origin, but nationals from numerous countries require a visa, even if they are staying for less than three months. What is more, there are no respectable grounds for segregating a minority of countries, whose nationals are exempt from the visa requirement, from the majority, whose nationals are not. Why refuse a Moroccan, Senegalese or Ukrainian national a right which is granted to a national of New Zealand, Israel or the Sultanate of Brunei. We abstained rather than voting against this report, despite disapproving of the spirit of the report as a whole, solely because, compared with the current situation, it does slightly extend the list of countries with no visa obligation. For our part, we are in favour of people being given at least the same rights which you grant to money, i.e. we are in favour of the free movement of people and the abolition of all visa requirements.

Political group: GUE-NGL
President Danielsson, thank you for that answer and I am pleased to hear what the Council decided yesterday on the matter. However, you leave it to me to confirm that respect for minorities is truly part of the founding spirit of the Union, as is respect for cultural diversity, and multilingualism obviously represents an immediate aspect of that. The ominous fact is that the regional statute adopted by the Regional Council of Istria on 9 April has been suspended, giving the constitutional court a further year to check for any unconstitutionality. Considering that this was also a principal reason for the resignation of the Croatian Minister for Integration, I am wondering whether there is an internal struggle going on to the detriment of the Italian-speaking minority, or whether, instead – and this would be even more serious – the Croatian constitution really does not protect minorities and particular cultures. I wonder how the Croatian government can think about moving towards membership of the European Union with such attitudes.

Political group: PPE-DE