GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the second world forum at Porto Alegre revealed the peaceful nature, first and foremost, of this movement, and its political nature. I would remind many of the Members that, in the 1970s, the feminist movement used to be described as a social jamboree whereas it was actually highly political in nature. One of the striking things about this movement is precisely the involvement of many women and young people. Secondly, I feel that there is cause for concern in the fact that, after the initial reactions to 11 September, American politicians seem to be light-years away from that heightened state of general awareness that had appeared to make them more open to the world in respect of a number of issues such as the environment, Kyoto, food safety, trade, arms issues and also the form of action to be taken to fight terrorism, which has proved to be chiefly military. I feel that we must convince American society, and American politicians too, that this line will not get them anywhere: that is Europe’s mission. Apart from anything else, it is surprising that no United States congressman attended the forum. We must persuade them to be more open. Thirdly, I feel that Commissioner Solbes is right to say that the ‘Everything but arms’ initiative is not enough and I believe there is another question to be raised, in addition to that of the opening up of trade. We cannot continue to be so racist in our treatment of these countries. We must start to take into consideration the fact that agriculture is more than just an export for them too: it is part of their market, their environment and their way of living and provides their food. I do not think we will get very far if we do not change our approach. Europe has the potential to do a great deal, but those Members may be right who say that it needs to carry out a considerable amount of self-analysis: not only in terms of what it fails to give as regards development aid, but what it fails to give by refusing to change its policies too.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this is not a procedural issue. At this very moment an oil tanker is moored in the port of Gibraltar, the ‘Moskowsky Festival’, which the Spanish Government, specifically the Spanish navy, expelled last Saturday, sending it more than 400 miles from Galicia. This is an oil tanker which is not good for Galicia, which is not good for Community seas and which should not be moored in a free port nor in waters which both Spain and Gibraltar consider to be their own. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, in Europe, every day, every cow receives on average EUR 2 from the European Union. EUR 2 a day: over 2 billion men and women do not have as much as that to live on. The famine and malnutrition which we are protesting about here are not the result of the earth’s inability to feed its inhabitants, but rather the result of specific political situations, and even of a certain number of international policies for which we share part of the responsibility. Sometimes these may be local political situations – war, the collapse of government, the murderous madness of groups of individuals or of leaders – but they may also be the effects of international policies. Some of these have already been mentioned: debt, the size of our agricultural subsidies which are ruining farmers in the countries of the South, the fact that in many developing countries the farming industry and the economy are oriented first and foremost towards exporting certain products, certain raw materials, resulting in a monoculture which is contrary to the objectives of food self-sufficiency and food security, which require agricultural diversification. This is why I agree with what Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf said just now, to the effect that access to the markets of the North, to our markets, is extremely important, but it is also only an extremely partial view. I believe that strict monitoring is essential in order to ensure that regional integration, economic diversification and food security can be guaranteed in these developing countries. Some of us have just come back from Porto Alegre. President Lula’s victory and the policy that he wants to pursue, particularly against hunger, have given rise to an enormous feeling of hope: in Brazil, in Latin America generally and, beyond that, in all developing countries. If this policy produces results, it will open up new prospects not only for development but also for hopes of democracy. What are we going to do to support Brazil, to help it to make this experiment a success? In the IMF, are we going to continue to require these countries to achieve an annual surplus of 3.75%, while at the same time maintaining that a 3% maximum deficit as part of the Stability Pact is rigid and stupid? We have a problem with consistency here. Moreover, at the same time as you are trying to encourage Member States of the Union to increase development aid, within the international bodies – we could quote the WTO as an example here – policies are being pursued which in some cases are preventing these objectives from being achieved. Finally, President Lula launched an appeal, at Porto Alegre and at Davos, for the creation of a major worldwide fund to combat hunger and poverty. Are we going to support him? Are we going to propose – or rather is the Commission going to propose to the Council and to Parliament – a tax on the wealth created by globalisation, which could be used to supply this fund, which would be managed by the United Nations? That would be a practical response and a strong political signal.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to start by saying that I join in the congratulations that have been offered to Mr Napolitano on his magnificent report. It is clear that we need to give the EU a constitution, that we need to put an end to the current democratic deficit, and that we need to set up a division of powers that has its own characteristics, and that this, naturally, will result in the parliamentarisation of the Union, increasing the competences of the European Parliament and the national parliaments. But in what fields? The competences of the European Parliament, logically, in the field of control and legislation on Community affairs, and the national parliaments in the field of control of their own governments. This control is certainly absent in many Member States and this is a hindrance to the participation of the national parliaments in active control and in the proposal of European issues in each State. But there is also another issue: in the debate on the Convention on the future of Europe, I believe that the role of the autonomous communities with legislative powers should also be discussed, in order to produce a coherent and constructive definition of their role within the Union, with the aim, amongst other things, of bringing the process of European integration closer to its citizens and increasing its efficiency. This is also what I believe the role of the national parliaments with legislative powers within the Union should be.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Parliament is once again scrutinising the situation in Indonesia. We are concerned about the continuing violence against defenceless civilian populations in the name of regional and religious disputes. Every life is important and sacred to us, but the situation in Indonesia has already claimed thousands of lives. We deplore the incitement to slaughter Christians by radical Muslim leaders, and we put forward the example of tolerance and democratic spirit shown by East Timor. In a land where more than 95% of the population identifies with the Catholic Church, the current democratically elected prime minister is a Muslim, and this causes no problems. We appreciate the initiatives of the present Indonesia regarding the normalisation of relations with East Timor and Portugal. The symbolic gesture of their representatives being present at the opening of the latest cultural event held in Indonesia with the support of the Portuguese Embassy did not go unnoticed. We appeal to the Indonesian Government, however, to pursue measures to protect the populations and to identify and punish those responsible for human rights violations. Impunity must not be the rule, especially when members of the army or police are involved, as has been proved in some cases. In this context it is desirable and advisable that the international community should be involved in independent inquiries to investigate the truth in some of the reported cases. We appeal to the Indonesian Government to continue trying to find political solutions to the disputes that exist. We respect their attempts to keep the country united, but we stress the need to find solutions other than the mere use of force to respond to the ethnic, religious and regional differences that unsettle life in that country. Finally, we urge the United Nations Human Rights Commission not to persist in its inexplicable silence towards the events in Indonesia.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, a great deal has already been said. I believe we must express clear condemnation of the Fidel Castro regime, but we must also attempt to help the Cuban people, who are currently both suffering from the effects of an embargo and the victims of oppression. We must not make the mistake of failing to understand the tragedy of this people and we – including the Commission – must strive to intervene in the Cuban situation in such a way as to isolate the Cuban regime while upholding the fundamental and economic rights of the Cuban people. I was one of those who – while realising that these few minutes will not allow an in-depth analysis of the situation in Cuba – upheld the need for a resolution to be adopted now on the arrests and, in particular, on the sentences, which are not just excessive but groundless. The incredible thing is that we are talking about detentions and even death sentences. The incredible thing is that the regime is actually in earnest, given that sentences as long as 26 years have already been inflicted. I would also like to point out to the Members that political persuasion is no guarantee of safety here, for countless Social Democrats have seen the inside of Fidel Castro’s prisons. I too, therefore, consider that we in turn must send out a clear message, and we await the reaction of the Commission.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to raise a point of order in relation to the activities organised today by the Association of Parliamentary Assistants in support of their call for a statute for assistants to be adopted as soon as possible. I understand that on 26 January the association wrote to the College of Quaestors requesting permission to set up a table outside the Hemicycle today to publicise their initiative. On the same day, I understand, Mr Balfe gave permission for the assistants to go ahead. The Parliament services asked to meet with the assistants yesterday to make the necessary physical arrangements. However, the appointment was cancelled at the last minute. Parliament has not yet indicated why permission was withdrawn. Mrs Banotti apparently promised to write a letter explaining why permission was withdrawn but so far no letter has been received. Can you explain why the approval given to the assistants was withdrawn at the last minute? Do you agree that the assistants have a legitimate case which must be heard? Will you do everything in your power to ensure that such last-minute cancellations do not happen again? Will you do everything in your power to ensure that a statute for assistants is adopted as soon as possible? Finally, will you make sure that in the meantime Parliament's rules are properly implemented and that assistants are paid, as they should be, on the basis of all the work they do for us? Without them we would not be able to function. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, when it comes to the ecopoints, public perception of Austria is often of a country with an obstinate desire to force through its own interests in the teeth of the EU. This is a matter of concern for us all, and both the Austrian and their counterparts in the Group of the in this European Parliament regard this as an area in which more information is needed. This is not merely a problem for Austria alone; the whole of the Alps – a sensitive area – is also at stake. This is where I disagree with Mr Vermeer. We should not be playing off the free movement of goods against the balance of the ecosystem. I agree with Mr Caveri that this is a problem for the whole of Europe, and so it is Europe that must make an attempt at resolving it. Austria cannot solve on its own something that is a problem for the zone as a whole. Opinions can differ when it comes to the ecopoints. They were an instrument. Austria is open to accusations of not having done its homework, of not having found or even sought out allies. It may have been too cautious in what it did, in that rail capacity was not fully utilised. That may well be so. We are waiting, however! We are waiting for a proposal from Europe. Today's debate would not even have been necessary if we had got a grip on the complex issue of transport in good time, with a fixed tariff for infrastructure costs, and with the transport infrastructure costs directive that we are so keen to have; it is even rumoured that the document actually exists, but nothing is known about it. Nor do we know whether there are measures specific to the sensitive areas in the Alps, or whether there are specific measures for sensitive zones in Europe. I ask you to consider our amendments as an expression of our desire to thereby do justice to the problems with transport, the environment and health arising from both travel within the Alpine region and across it. Without an upper limit, it will not work. Limited and transitional solutions are not what we want. We need an effective solution until such time – the sooner, the better – as a directive on transport infrastructure costs enters into force. I ask you to consider our proposals within the complex framework of a common European transport policy, which, if it were to be along the lines of the Alpine Convention, could be a model not only for the Austrian – or any other – Alps, but for all of Europe's sensitive areas. That would earn us the gratitude of all the Europeans who live in these regions. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, who could be against the construction and maintenance of infrastructures in the energy sector and the integration of energy networks of the countries that are soon to join the European Union? No one would be, of course, if it were truly a matter of meeting the needs of the people. The real issue, however – as the report makes quite clear – is to make the construction and the maintenance of infrastructures in the field of energy subject to the laws of the market. In order to establish a more open and competitive internal market for energy, public funds supplementing private funds will rise from 10% to 20% of total investment. Members from the Lutte ouvrière are opposed to the use of public monies to increase private profits. Besides which, the aim of increasing interconnection between gas and electricity networks is not to rationalise energy distribution at EU scale, but instead to open up the entire gas and electricity market to competition. What this means, where France, for example, is concerned, is another step closer to the privatisation of Électricité and Gaz de France, a process that we reject entirely. We reject it, as do the tens of thousands of workers who demonstrated on 3 October in Paris for Électricité and Gaz de France to remain public services. We also oppose any attack on salaries or on the pensions of workers in this sector. The various States or the European Community itself must be able to fund an energy transport network which is fit for the twenty-first century, whose management criteria are not profitability or the quest for profit for a few but which are to meet the energy needs of everyone and equal access for everyone. We do not think, however, think that by allowing themselves to be guided by private interests, the current European institutions will achieve this.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, it is with great pleasure that I thank Mrs Hautala for this serious piece of work. Mrs Hautala has not just lived with it herself but has also involved quite a few political groups in the course of a very long period, and that has paid dividends. I wish particularly to mention that both parents are now entitled to return to the same, or similar, jobs following parental leave. That only applies, however, if this right is established in the Member States’ legislation. I really do hope that knowledge of this directive will quickly be disseminated among people and also be taken due note of by those Member States which still do not have this type of legislation. It is also worth mentioning that the directive in actual fact gives concrete form to the political ambition always expressed in formal speeches: namely, that of being able to combine family and working life. The directive entails practical action that can contribute to realising this ambition. A lack of will and understanding is revealed when our political ambition collides with employers’ absolute unwillingness to reflect upon their role when it comes to low birth rates in the European Union. Finally, I would remind you, regarding Paragraph 9 of the report, that, in this area, the church and the army have proved to be two solidly reactionary elements in society.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, from the point of view of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, the most important aspect of the budget is the codecision issue. We need a decision by the Convention to the effect that agricultural policy is to be included in the full codecision procedure, so as to overcome the separation of compulsory and non-compulsory resources. We must reach the point where we have full competence as regards the budget, including in agricultural matters. When that has been achieved, we would like to be given the option of flexibility in the items in which the resources have not been used up. Although that is already what we expect of the 2003 budget, we of course know that we have to reckon with resistance on fundamental decisions. We take the view that the law of budgetary discipline has already cut back on the re-use of the compulsory resources or their use for other purposes, so that, if we increase outgoings, we have to have recourse to legislation, whilst the resources left over revert to the countries' Ministers of Finance. I can imagine that they would like that, but that can hardly be what Parliament intended. Secondly, it is always being said that a lot of money is being spent. I favour a thrifty budget, even in the agricultural sphere, but we must again point out that our EUR 20 billion puts us under the 1.27% ceiling. It is not advisable for a parliament to financially restrict itself in this way. Politics always has to do with money – I mean that in a positive sense – and hence it would be sensible, and, from Parliament's point of view, also in the Commission's interests, not to overdo the austerity policy on these countries. Thirdly, there is one point to which I would like to refer. You said, Mrs Schreyer, that preparations for enlargement need to be intensified; to date, EUR 30 million, which is hardly anything, has passed through the SAPARD programme framework. Here there has been no preparation, and that is highly regrettable. Let me again mention the proposal by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, which was, however, taken up by the Committee on Budgets, and under which we are this year instigating an INPARD and a LEAR programme, as could have been done last year. Our intention with this is to facilitate the induction of the candidate countries into this bottom-up programme, so that they will be able to draw on the resources they need from the previous programmes after they have acceded.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I wish to speak on the Poignant report. In committee we tabled an amendment on the increasing problem of fishing vessels flying flags of convenience, which was very narrowly defeated. More and more unscrupulous shipowners are transferring their vessels to countries such as Belize, Honduras or St Vincent and the Grenadines. They know perfectly well that these countries will turn a blind eye to whatever these ships do: how they fish and what they catch. Commissioner Fischler has quite rightly referred to this problem as the 'scourge of the oceans'. At present, there is nothing to prevent a European shipowner from exporting his ship to one of these countries, receiving a very healthy subsidy of EUR 1 million or more and still keeping his ship. We introduced an amendment to try and close this huge loophole, using criteria adopted by international fisheries management organisations. I am glad to hear that the rapporteur supports our amendment, because it is scandalous that this loophole still exists. I do not see how anyone in this House could actually support the use of EU funds – EU taxpayers' money, that is – to allow shipowners to escape controls and then fish in competition with law-abiding shipowners. I urge everyone here today to support this amendment.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Overall, I support the report on access to electronic communications networks, associated facilities and their interconnection as we are in need of a directive to encourage real competition in the European telecommunications market. Since I am convinced that we must at all costs avoid a situation where specific technical issues could slow down the creation of a genuine single market that avoids distortion of competition, particularly in the mobile telephone industry, I had tabled an amendment to force operators which receive demands for access and/or for interconnection to take part in talks and to negotiate the access with other operators able to offer the same type of access and/or interconnection to the network. It is my belief that the demands should only be refused on the basis of objective criteria alone and that, if access is refused, the injured party should be able to submit the case to the National Regulatory Authority. I welcome the fact that this requirement for negotiation of access has been retained, along with the requirement which specifies that access must be made under ‘commercial conditions’ which are, therefore, economically viable for new operators. The only way to guarantee the development of a true, competitive market, able to provide the best option in terms of price and quality, and to defend the interests of the European citizen in the best way possible is to enforce a strict ban on the refusal to negotiate demands. I voted in favour of Mr Brunetta’s report with these added clarifications.

Political group: PPE-DE