GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, when one hears of the horrendous debt that has built up in many African states, the first reaction is one of deep sympathy. However, I have had the privilege of visiting many of these countries in the past year and I have to say that, in many cases, one’s sympathy turns to anger when one sees the abject poverty that people in these countries live in while their leaders and ministers revel in wealth and prosperity and one begins to question the distribution of aid and debt relief. Despite all the help given from Europe, individual nation states and institutions, Africa’s external debt is growing by about 12% per annum and some countries are repaying more in interest than they are receiving in aid. That cannot be allowed to continue, but neither can the historic reasons for causing it to happen. I will be criticised by some honourable Members for saying it, but conditionality must be built into not only development aid but also debt relief. I have always maintained that good governance was more important than pure democracy if you are going to stamp out corrupt practices, and if we cannot wipe these practices out we are only pouring good money after bad. We must therefore be in a position to monitor the effect of debt relief and make sure that all of it is spent on civil society to give better health, education and employment prospects to the people who are being denied it. There is a secondary effect of bad governance and that is the lack of external investment into these countries which denies them the chance of improved prosperity, better employment prospects and a higher standard of living. The fight against fraud and corruption should be made a condition for allocating debt relief and development aid – not my words, Mr President, but the words of President Obasanjo of Nigeria in Abuja at the opening of the 13th session of the ACP-EU Assembly. If only that could be echoed by every other president in Africa, the resistance to giving debt relief would diminish and some real progress could be made in alleviating the misery and poverty of millions of people.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the amendment provides for the words ‘adequately qualified’ to be inserted before the word ‘professionals’. (As more than 32 Members objected, the oral amendment was not accepted) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0025/2004) by Giuseppe Gargani, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (COM(2003) 418 – C5-0320/2003 – 2003/0153(COD)) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0024/2004) by Dominique F.C. Souchet, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the proposal for a Council regulation establishing measures for the recovery of the Northern hake stock (COM(2003) 374 – C5-0314/2003 – 2003/0137(CNS)) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0026/2004) by Alejandro Cercas, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on the organisation of working time (Amendment of Directive 93/104/EC) (2003/2165(INI)) Before the vote on paragraph 12:

Political group: PPE-DE
The Pomés Ruiz report rigorously defends the principles of the Solidarity Pact, particularly as regards fiscal consolidation as a means of ensuring the sole objective of price stability. The analysis of the nominal convergence criteria is silent with regard to its consequences in terms of the risk of economic deflation, the adverse effect on public investment, economic growth and policies to combat unemployment. However, the rapporteur goes even further in supporting the Commission’s recommendations. He believes that it is necessary to anticipate in good time the objectives put forward in the stability and convergence programmes, so as to take advantage of the current ‘much-improved economic environment’. He therefore proposes swifter acceleration of fiscal consolidation, of structural reforms and of privatisation, and the “modernisation” of social protection, recommendations which have, in fact, already been made by the European Commission, particularly with regard to Portugal, in relation to the liberalisation of transport and energy and labour market flexibility, which is unacceptable. We have accordingly voted against the report. - Goebbels report (A5-0135/2000)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, this is a cooperation agreement between the European Union and Chile. I voted for the motion, and in this explanation of vote I cannot help stressing that, insofar as I am competent in the matter of pensions, I am aware of the problems we are having in paying pensions in Italy and throughout the 15 Member States of the European Union. I hope that the method first used in Chile of changing from a pay-back system to a contributory system can be introduced in Europe. You surely know, Mr President, that in Chile there has been a pension revolution: whereas pensioners could barely live on the miserable pensions there used to be before, now, through investment in pension funds, regulated and controlled by the State, the size of old-age pensions has bloomed again. So why should we not do here what they have done in Chile?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this relates to the situation we have with the Council. The Budget Control Committee requested information from the Council on the common foreign and security policy. Initially, the Council was reluctant to provide this information which is why the text, as it stands at the moment, postpones discharge for the Council. Late last night, however, following a meeting of the Council Finance Ministers, they agreed to answer the questions by Friday of this week. Due to this change in the situation, and as I wish to avoid a clash with Council if at all possible, I would like to propose an oral amendment to Amendment No 4, which has now not been withdrawn. This amendment is almost identical to the oral amendment relating to Amendment No 3: 'Is grateful for the answers that, in principle, the Council has agreed to provide to questions relating to aspects of the common foreign and security policy within seven days'. I would therefore urge that we first vote on Amendment No 4, with the oral amendment, and if this falls, we then have to vote on Amendment No 3 And I wish to indicate that if this should happen, I withdraw paragraph 3e. I am sorry if it is a bit complicated but it is because of the changing situation.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, I too would like to extend special congratulations to Mr Piétrasanta, for he and I worked well together in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy; he was a sympathetic and agreeable colleague and was open to all his fellow-Members’ suggestions, misgivings and questions. In the course of our deliberations on this report, we had interesting hearings with experts, whom we were able to ask about their reports, and who had interesting things to say about Galileo’s future uses. Even though some of us had to allow ourselves a slight smile at some of the statements and prognoses, I see Galileo as a model for the future and believe that it will yield returns on what is invested in it, something that is apparent from the fact that there have already been four responses to the invitation to tender. I can remember how, some two years or so ago, things looked very different and there was often doubt as to whether industry would get on board financially. Now we are about to open the documents and announce the result. That is something I cannot but welcome. In fact, Mr Piétrasanta’s report contains everything that matters. There is one further thing I want to mention, on which I tabled amendments in the committee and will be tabling another for the plenary; I ask your indulgence, but it is one that matters especially to me. I refer to the rescue and aid services that are to be implemented. Although COSPAS-SARSAT is well-known, there is also the IMMARSAT-E system, which is preferable to COSPAS-SARSAT in many respects, such as its rapid response times, more precise positioning, permanent availability, 100% compatibility with Galileo, and coverage of the whole of the earth’s surface. This system is important to people in trouble at sea, as such information is highly detailed and help can arrive at very short notice. I think this is something to which we should give some thought; a number of organisations – some of them military, like NATO – and Member States are already fitting this system into their Transall transport aircraft, helicopters and naval vessels. I think it would also be helpful to private individuals, and the two systems can certainly exist alongside each other. I hope that we will implement this tomorrow and that Members will support the one amendment of mine that is still to be voted on. Thank you all, and I wish you, Mr Piétrasanta, all the best for the future; something lies in store for you and we will miss you.

Political group: PSE
What is negative about this proposal is that it gives priority to eliminating barriers to free movement. On a positive note, though, Member States that have, for the protection of their environment, already put legislation in place that is stricter than this regulation will not be hindered in enforcing it. The reason for this regulation is that by washing and cleaning, not only are contaminations added to clean water, but also components of soap and other surfactants. For many years, attempts have been made to encourage the production of phosphate-free detergents. This proposal now also tries to discourage animal tests, the addition of substances that break down with difficulty, toxic chemical substances and substances with hormone-disruptive characteristics. The disclosure of the composition of detergents is indeed a major step forward. Attempts are being made to that effect by requiring manufacturers to inform the government of their products' composition and by obliging them to list the actual content of preservatives, colour-protection products and aromatic substances on the packaging. Openness with regard to harmfulness is to be welcomed, and so we should try to convince the Council of this, but a general ban on harmful substances would be preferable. The proposed adaptations to the regulation in the longer term may be able to contribute to this. Manufacturers may protest, but stricter measures are unavoidable. Report: De Rossa (A5-0355/2003)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, may I confirm that what Mr Swoboda just said applies equally to the Group. We have withdrawn our motion for a resolution for the same reasons, i.e. the debate scheduled for April.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to thank Mrs Banotti for pointing out that we have had a problem with bacteria of this sort before – two years ago, in fact – and in the days before the Friday plenary sittings were done away with. As this topic is back on the agenda in this part-session, I find it very interesting that these same bacteria should choose this of all times to put in a reappearance. This is not to say that I do not take this matter seriously, or that thorough checks should not be made, but I do take the view that an objective examination should be carried out rather than inflaming emotions and mixing up different issues that have nothing to do with each other. If there really is a problem with the building, then, for God's sake, we will just have to move into the Palais de l'Europe across the river. We could be accommodated there for this part-session on a provisional basis. I really do, though, want to take a stand against the ballyhoo and hysteria with which this serious topic is being treated.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioner Monti, ladies and gentlemen, the threat of the Alstom Group’s imminent bankruptcy has been averted through a compromise solution between more than thirty lending banks, the French Government and the Commission. The support package amounts to EUR 2.8 billion. EUR 2.8 billion, that is a generous package, and it could also be said that it is, for the most part, a generous present from the state that is of doubtful benefit. In my view, it is impossible to eradicate from Europe the erroneous belief that money can be used to prop up uncompetitive structures. I would argue for temporary support to avoid structures breaking down and to allow them to change, but I am concerned that even in this way uncompetitive structures will continue to be supported. The convertible loan, which is on the cards as a compromise, is nothing more than an invitation to the French state to exchange this for shares after this enquiry, which would once again result in the re-nationalisation of Alstom. It is precisely this mindset in Europe of not wanting to allow structural change, the belief that state money should, as a matter of principle, be used to avoid structural change, that is damaging for Europe as a business location. The International Monetary Fund has once again pointed out that it is the large states, Germany, France and Italy, that act as bottlenecks on the continent and are thus responsible for the fact that the next boom will probably pass Europe by. The elimination of businesses that cannot sustain competition is part of the market economy, and, let me add, also part of the social market economy. Something else of importance for me is that today, Mr Monti, we can read the headlines saying that the test of strength has been passed. I see that as positive and I should like to congratulate you on this in this House. It was important that the French state should not put before the Commission a fait accompli without being asked. No, this European Union is a Community based on the rule of law and this includes competition law. I can only invite all national states to heed this law. From 2001 to date there has been an increase in state aid – EUR 88 billion to date within the European Union – that is revealing and something to fear. I think that the nation states are well advised to adhere to competition law, in particular on the eve of the enlargement of the European Union.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, you may not, but Mrs Fontaine certainly will be aware of the following matter which we have raised in the European Parliament, time and again, over the last ten years. It concerns three Greek seamen from the lower ranks of the crew of a Greek ship who were arrested in Egypt, found responsible for the 7.5 tonnes of drugs on board the ship and handed down very heavy sentences. To give the Egyptian courts their due, it was not the owners per se or the master of the ship who were responsible, it was the three unfortunate lower-ranking members of the crew. Mrs Fontaine and all her predecessors have already expressed their support and asked for them to be released and sent to Greece. Two and a half years ago, one of the three prisoners died as a result of their appalling conditions of detention. A few days ago, a second man died of tonsillitis of all things. The third man is still alive but his health is shot to pieces. The Bureau should call for his release before he, too, gives up the ghost.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Russia is a major and important partner for us, one with whom we are joined – or one could say, from whom we are separated – by two things: shared interests and common values. As regards the values, today finds us criticising the way in which democracy and the rule of law are developing, as well as the situation in Chechnya, but, in so doing, we must not lose sight of our many shared interests. Now that the European Union is enlarging, it is vital that the borders between the European Union and Russia should not become new barricades; instead, we should also use them as bridges and as a means whereby the partnership and cooperation agreement may be extended. Our provision of aid is important, for it also helps to promote liberalisation within Russia. It is important that Russia should be able to join the WTO – in the same way as everyone else rather than subject to special conditions – and, if the normal conditions apply, then we should also support it in doing so. We have shared interests in energy, security and the combating of terrorism. This, I think, is something we should make clear, and we should not allow the situation in Belarus to result in energy not being supplied to the European Union as contractually agreed. In many areas, the enlargement of the EU does not create a new situation, and we should not confuse the issues. The continuation of the partnership and cooperation agreement after the European Union is enlarged must not mean that we accept claims for compensation arising out of trade issues, for then the whole world could do likewise, and I do not believe that a precedent of this kind would be acceptable; the question also arises of whether the figures Russia has produced are correct. We also have to make it clear, though, that the Baltic States’ negotiation of accession to the European Union has helped to put minorities there in a position not shared by minorities in many other parts of the world and perhaps not in certain parts of Russia. The issue of the minorities cannot be an excuse for delaying the signature of the border treaties or, in any case, for delaying their ratification. This has to be done now, and for that clarity is needed. Both by means of technology and through cooperation, we should help Russia to establish exemption from visa requirements, but this must be done in such a way that the Schengen standards for the acceding countries can be maintained, in order to maintain internal security. In doing this, we should work for good relations with Russia, and recognise that it can be a factor for stability only if we accept that it, too, possesses territorial stability. This is something else we have to take on board.

Political group: PPE-DE
I wish to refer to the disgraceful demonstration that took place in the Foreign Affairs Committee of this Parliament yesterday morning when the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs was involved in discussions with us. A number of members of a Marxist-Leninist group tried to disrupt the meeting and threatened the Chairman. This was an abuse of this Parliament's proceedings, a gross discourtesy to a distinguished guest and an event that could have had very serious consequences. Mr President, will you please instruct the Quaestors to identify the culprits, to identify how they obtained access to the Parliament and ensure that they are banned from future access. Will you also take steps generally to tighten security in appropriate ways so that there could be no recurrence. It is sometimes difficult to get legitimate visitors and groups into this building but those with malign intentions seem to have no difficulty. We began this session by expressing our condolences for the latest victim of terrorism in Spain. It would seem that those responsible for the demonstration in the Foreign Affairs Committee may have connections with a Turkish terrorist group. I am sure that all in this House will join me in condemning all terrorism whatever its alleged motivation. In relation to Turkey, we are making many demands of the Turkish Government and people as they embark on the long road to accession to the European Union. At the same time, we expect that opposition groups in Turkey will resort exclusively to peaceful means. I shall be placing a declaration to this effect before the House and I trust all Members will give it their support. Mr President, I would be grateful if you would report back to the House on the points that I have raised.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mrs Lalumière for a very erudite report. I want to focus on two matters. The Union’s management of civil crises has not progressed; the conflicts are by nature social, economic, intellectual, ecological and ethnic. In all of these, preventive civil crisis management is a better approach than the military option. My fear is that a rapid armed reaction force will be used more and more often instead of civil crisis management, and more and more rapidly. The European flag is not to be promoted by means of a tank but by social equality, and therein lies a difference of principle. I suggest that we organise as effective a rapid reaction civil crisis management centre as has now been planned. Then we will be acting in accordance with priorities and our own philosophy. My other fear is the involvement of states in NATO that do not wish to be involved. There is one solution that might make the situation easier here: involving Russia in crisis management. It is likely that Russia will often be either party to or otherwise connected with the crises we will one day have to face. It is also known that President Putin does not take a categorically negative view of these crisis management forces, which I think means there are opportunities for cooperation, and when we know what type of crises we are dealing with, this for me would be an additional factor in achieving a balance in the process as a whole. It would also make it easier for the nations of Europe to understand the whole issue.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ambition is a practical joke played by the gods on mankind. They give us ambitions so we believe we can climb the heights of Olympus and then they ensure that we never reach the top. The programme of the Belgian presidency is ambitious. It would be ambitious for a two-year presidency, but for one of 99 days, as the President-in-Office has pointed out, I fear that it is too ambitious. I welcome, of course, his intention that the Union should listen to the people. 'We have to resolve the Irish question.' How often have those words been uttered down the centuries? But Mr Verhofstadt has to lead the Council towards a resolution of the problem, posed by the failure of Nice and by the Irish referendum. The democratic decision of the Irish people cannot be ignored or ridden roughshod over. Democracy may be inconvenient, but it is all we have between freedom and tyranny. Moreover, the Irish referendum and the concerns exposed in the demonstrations – even though they were hijacked by extremists – should be telling us something. As the President-in-Office has said: they are telling us that Europe is not being listened to. People all over the Union, and indeed in the global market all over the world, have lost their faith in the institutions of governance. They are looking to us, their elected representatives, not for initiatives, but for reassurance. Not for change piled upon change, but for stability. Not for ambition, but, for that rarest of all human virtues – common sense. If I may paraphrase the ancient Greek proverb for the President-in-Office: 'Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first raise high.'

Political group: PPE-DE
I have listened to the French Presidency’s answer with a great deal of interest. The Pelinka case is a very serious legal case which may be said to constitute direct interference with freedom of expression in so far as the legal apparatus is being used in practice to silence political criticism. The Council has now explained that it cannot comment “in its capacity as the Council of Ministers”, but the French Government may perhaps comment in its own capacity. Is this matter not thought to be serious and to need to be included in the assessment being made in the Wise Men’s report?

Political group: GUE-NGL