GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I am only going to comment on and explain the majority position of the Socialist Group on one of the proposals, the one that modifies the directive regulating inspection organisations. The guarantees of the seaworthiness of vessels required that considerable measures be adopted on the societies responsible and on inspections, as has already been said. The current situation is simply unacceptable. In this sense, the text proposed contains some new elements that are interesting and positive but which, in our opinion, are not sufficient. Public opinion is demanding that we act swiftly in this situation, as the President-in-Office of the Council has said, but that speed needs to be compatible with an acceptable minimum text. No one in the Council of which you are the Chairman should be tempted to accuse of us of moving too slowly; we demand some minimums and everyone will understand that. Our fundamental discrepancies are to do with two areas: on the one hand, the issue of responsibility and compensation, for which the amounts and the minimums should be adequate and equal across the whole of the European Union – we do not think that subsidiarity is acceptable. On the other hand, there is the independence of classification societies. That independence should be very clear at this time when many shipowners and proprietors are forming their own societies that are authorising boats. This is unacceptable. Therefore, in general, we are not happy with the compromise text. As we understand that it is the minimum text that the Council will accept, we are not going to contribute to its adoption in the hope that it will be improved at second reading, but we will not vote against it because we recognise the excellent work done by the rapporteur, Mr Ortuondo, which resulted in some agreed amendments which show us the path to take for the next reading. So, there are some interesting new elements, but they are not enough.

Political group: PSE
The procedure to repeat the trial of Leyla Zana and her three other Kurdish fellow members of the Turkish parliament, at the request of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, was a parody of a trial just like the original proceedings which sentenced her to 15 years in prison for 'crimes' of opinion. The new judgment against Leyla Zana and her three fellow members is a fresh insult to the European Parliament, which honoured Leyla Zana with the Sakharov prize in 1995, it is an insult to the European Court of Human Rights and it is an insult to European law and civilisation. As long as Leyla Zana and her fellow members remain in prison in Turkey, as long as people are being sentenced for crimes of opinion, it is clear that any reforms in Turkey clash with the deeply conservative state. We expect the Commission, in view of the report on Turkey to be issued towards the end of the year, to multiply its efforts to bring about the release of Leyla Zana and a general amnesty for prisoners being detained for 'crimes' of opinion.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we would like to give our opinion on the GALILEO programme, taking into account the decisions made, namely by the Stockholm European Council on 23 March 2001. At this Council meeting, great emphasis was placed on the need to launch this satellite navigation programme immediately. Our Committee acknowledges the benefits of such a programme, the main feature of which is that it is European as well as civilian in nature, and is therefore independent of systems developed by the military, such as the American GPS and Russian GLONASS systems, and that is reliable and has greater precision than these two existing systems. We are proposing, however, that the following points be implemented during the development and validation phase from 2001 to 2005, the deployment phase from 2006 to 2007, and the operation phase, which begins in 2008, essentially under the aegis of the European Space Agency and the Commission. First of all, we must accurately monitor the funding, initially estimated to be in the region of EUR three billion, as well as the partners chosen, particularly private industries, and their involvement. We must also carry out an in-depth analysis of the cost-effectiveness and the implications for the economy and employment. We are demanding the greatest level of transparency in this matter and to receive regular information from Parliament. Secondly, we stress the fact that the structures established during the development of the programme should be used solely for civilian purposes, and we point out that it is vital, in this case, to develop the use of space for purposes related to the general interest and public service. Thirdly, the GALILEO programme must not be applied in such a way that will jeopardise the right to or the protection of privacy and it must not under any circumstances be used for the surveillance of citizens. It must, in particular, be developed in order to protect and safeguard the environment, to protect the lives of citizens and natural resources, and ensure early detection and even prevention of natural or man-made disasters. It must also contribute to progress in European research, when drawing up the future Sixth Framework Programme. Lastly, we are proposing – and this is important – to set up an advisory ethics committee, whose task would be to ensure respect for the aforementioned requirements and which would assist the Commission and the European Space Agency in their decision-making duties. I want to emphasise – and I call on Mrs De Palacio to give us her point of view – the fact that it will be civilian organisations that set up the system. Of course, we cannot say that, ‘we will not vote in favour of GALILEO if it is used by the military in the future’, because, when we set up transport and communication systems, for instance, anyone can use them. What matters is that Europe is independent and that it is not dependent on the USSR or the US. We believe that these various provisions are realistic conditions, which must accompany and justify GALILEO, and we would also hope to hear Mrs De Palacio’s point of view on setting up the ethics committee.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I can well understand why the rapporteur is asking this question. On the other hand all that this is about is a different legal assessment of the relevance of the Financial Regulation. We believe that our amendment is clearer on this point. But it actually does not make much difference which of the two amendments is adopted. That is why I would request that we first vote on the Liberals' amendment and then on ours. We believe that even taking into account the oral alteration we have a rather clearer amendment. It will not, however, be of great consequence to either party, whatever is adopted. (Parliament adopted the decision) *** Report (A5-0094/2002) by Eluned Morgan, on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control, 1. concerning discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the 2000 financial year Section IV – Court of Justice (SEC(2001) 530 – C5-0240/2001 –2001/2105(C)) Section V – Court of Auditors (SEC(2001) 530 – C5-0241/2001 –2001/2106(C)) Section VI – Economic and Social Committee (SEC(2001) 530 – C5-0242/2001 –2001/2107(C)) Section VII – Committee of the Regions (SEC(2001) 530 – C5-0243/2001 –2001/2108(C)) Section VIII – Ombudsman (SEC(2001) 530 – C5-0244/2001 –2001/2109(C)) and concerning discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the 1996-1999 financial years Section VI – Economic and Social Committee (SEC(1997) 402 – C4-0197/1997 – 1997/2076(C) SEC(1998) 521 – C4-0353/1998 – 1998/2011(C) SEC(1999) 414 – C5-0008/1999 – 1999/2166 (C) SEC(2000) 539 – C5-312/2000 – 2000/2156 (C)) 2. on postponement of the decision concerning discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the 2000 financial year Section II – Council (SEC(2001) 530 – C5-0239/2001 – 2001/2104(C)) Amendment No 4:

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on behalf of my Committee, I would like to emphasise one point, namely the PRINCE programme. We see it as very important that the information campaign on the euro should be carried on for another half-year, for we find an information deficit here despite great campaigning efforts. It is particularly marked among small and medium-sized enterprises, and this programme is intended to make good this deficit. As permanent rapporteur for the agencies, I can say at the present time that the most acute problems have been resolved with the help not only of our colleagues in the Committee on Budgets, but also that of the general rapporteur. We decided, on the basis of the facts, to consider the agencies individually. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to say a few things for future reference. The agencies carry on growing, as they have done for years. Everyone who works in one seems to have a vested interest in the agencies' expansion. To give an example, between 1995 and 2001, the personnel complement of the agencies increased by 366%. We are creating another 99 posts this year alone. I get the impression that many of the European agencies maintain to some degree a separate existence. In the Budget procedure, we always have to deal with one demand – they say they need more money. The consequences of this development are clear to see. The agencies take up all the scope for other programmes, and at some point the Community ends up having to pay the pension costs as well. We must make changes here. No longer must the Budget be adapted to the programmes decided on by the Management Board, but the programmes must fit the resources provided by the Budget. We need a working audit of the agencies, involving all the actors concerned on a permanent basis. In other words, Parliament's specialised committees must likewise carry out an evaluation. We urgently need to examine the question of whether the services provided by the agencies are actually needed and then put to good use. The Budgetary Control Committee, the Court of Auditors and all the other actors must be involved in helping us get a grip on the whole thing. Over the coming weeks, I will be attempting to create a structure for this purpose, one which can be put to use in the next Budget procedure.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I did not understand a thing; I especially did not understand about point 1. Mr Wynn asked a specific question. You were asked to clarify your solemn declaration at the end of this afternoon’s debate when you said, if I correctly understood the translation which I heard, that the Council opposed a permanent review. (I am not about to say what a permanent review is but as you were the one who said it, you should know what it means.) You said that the Council opposed a permanent review “at this moment”. “At this moment” does not mean a thing. Mr Wynn asked you, Madam President-in-Office, if “at this moment” meant that the Council was opposed to a review of the financial perspectives for the year 2000, which would appear to us to be perfectly in keeping with the compromise which is being forged, or if “at this moment” meant something even vaguer? You were asked to reply, and you said that you would reply but your reply was incomprehensible. So please clarify, enlighten those of us who are not clever enough to understand when others speak in tongues.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, when Europe’s leaders go on state visits, they take weighty political baggage with them. The focus is on economic relations, trade agreements, financial assistance, and so on. Ecological issues are seldom dealt with, while human rights are a peripheral issue. Yet human rights and the rule of law are the foundation of our society. My experiences with Asia, from India via Nepal to Korea, show that our commitment to human rights awakens great hopes among citizens there, among the disadvantaged, the excluded, the persecuted, and families and children. They invest their hopes in our resolution and active involvement on the ground, although we must include the NHO, our competent partner in dialogue, at a much earlier stage in this process. Their hopes are also awakened by our partnership agreements with the human rights clauses. These agreements are suspended if massive and systematic human rights violations take place. This is an effective way of bringing pressure to bear. The more resolutely we address specific problems, the clearer it becomes that human rights are not a Western but a universal concept. Our approach does not constitute impermissible intervention in the internal affairs of states, but necessary action against racism, torture, exploitation and the death penalty. Commissioner, the European Union must take on a far more pro-active and leading role on human rights issues at international level. Was enough achieved at the 57th Session of the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, for example? The EU Member States were united in their support for the United States’ initiative to put the ongoing human rights violations in China on the agenda. However, there was no support from Africa or South America in the overall vote, although we certainly have traditional alliance partners there. In advance of important decisions, the European Union therefore needs a far better coordinated strategy so that our commitment to human rights is much more successful in future.

Political group: PPE-DE
We of course voted against the right-wing amendment which apparently viewed the report’s proposal that the proportion of women, or of men, in elected bodies should be at least 40% as excessive. We voted in favour of this disputed clause in the Karamanou report even though we are convinced that quotas are no solution, far from it, to the inequalities which women suffer both in decision-making positions and, much more, in society in general.

Political group: GUE-NGL
My second comment, Madam President, I am sorry, but we have not had a debate in this House. I think that we also need to make a clear distinction ... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I also wish to emphasise that people’s opportunity to move freely to another EU country and work across frontiers is one of the major advances in European cooperation, and I believe we can all appreciate that it is only right and proper for people who obtain work in another EU country to be able to retain their social security rights. Our framework – Regulation No 1408/71 – whereby countries’ reciprocal agreements ensure that people also have these rights in practice has become more and more complex throughout the years and, what with this and general bureaucracy, it is often no simple matter at all to move from country to country. That is something we must change, and I therefore think it is right to call for more progress in the work on simplifying the regulation, as proposed by the Commission at the end of 1998. The question arises as to whether, in addition to simplifying and improving the regulation for EU citizens, we can also ensure that it will be possible for third-country nationals engaged in active employment and resident in EU countries to be covered by the regulation. Several countries, including Denmark, have opposed the Commission’s proposal by referring to the legal basis, Article 42, which of course only covers EU citizens. At the Nice Summit, Denmark fought hard against changing Article 42 and against majority voting in connection with Article 42. I understand that work has been done on possibly seeking another legal basis, for example in terms of legal cooperation. I would urge that it not all be allowed to collapse in legal wranglings and problems concerning the legal basis, for Danish business too will have an interest in a solution’s being found to this problem so that, for example, foreign experts legally resident in Denmark can be posted to another EU country for a period and retain their social security rights and so that we can have experts over to Denmark from other EU countries.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, when this House debated language diversity and lesser-used languages for the first time at the beginning of the 1980s, your predecessor, Commissioner Nielson, said a few sentences in Welsh and, although we did not understand a word, we rejoiced in this declaration of the cultural diversity of Europe. In this respect, I should like to say to you that our vision of Europe is not a technocratic, bureaucratic or economic project; for us, Europe is, first and foremost, a cultural project, the language diversity of which deserves to be safeguarded. That includes your mother tongue, Mr President, the English language, because we need to guard against a standard global language which, if it were to be called English, would be an insult to Shakespeare. Even the main languages of the European Union, such as French, which is also one of the UN official languages, Spanish, which is one of the up-and-coming world languages and was officially used for the first time in the American electoral campaign and will soon become the second language of the USA, and German, which is the mother tongue of the majority of the inhabitants of the EU, are now minority languages. Our former fellow member Siegbert Alber once said that in Europe we are all minorities. But our main concern is – of course – to safeguard the lesser-used languages which are official languages but, more to the point, to safeguard the languages which are the subject of today's debate, namely the lesser-used languages which are not official languages of the EU, but which need our massive support. Unfortunately, we cannot even introduce them as official languages in our committees. That would probably be asking too much. But we must do all we can to safeguard the regional and lesser-used languages of the European Union. Because, taken together, the people who make up national minorities are already the second largest nationality in today's European Union – never mind tomorrow's – after the Germans and before the French. That gives you an idea of the quantitative dimension of this issue, and if you then look at the qualitative dimension of the nationality problems in the Balkans and elsewhere, then minorities are obviously set to become either the mortar or the explosive in the foundations of Europe. We are fighting for them to become the mortar of Europe, which is why we support the lesser-used languages.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in recent weeks, Slovakia has set income tax and corporation tax at a flat rate of 19%. As a result, many firms in Austria are now planning to open plants in Slovakia, which means that they will of course be employing their workforce in Slovakia as well. Does the Commission have any studies indicating how many workers from the current European Union are likely to migrate to these attractive tax regions as industry is relocated? Will the balance be maintained, or will there even be a clear out-migration of workers from the Member States in the first two years, especially since the opportunity to move from the new Member States to the current EU will only exist thereafter? Thank you.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this is my third vote against the request of a European Union State for a directive: this time, the subject is the mutual recognition of decisions to expel third-country citizens. I have to say that the French Republic did well to present this initiative, even though it was rejected. Why is this? Because clearly, Mr President – as I am sure you agree – it is vital to have uniform standards in all 15 States on who is to be expelled from European Union territory and who is to be accepted. Once again, therefore, I am taking the opportunity afforded by this proposal for a directive to call strongly for a European regulation on the procedures, conditions and rules for expelling undesirable immigrants from Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we are constantly calling for environmentally-friendly, ecological production methods in multipurpose agriculture. We already have a long tradition of this in Austria, where the rethinking process started in the minds of farmers and consumers a long time ago, unlike in many other countries of the EU. We farmers in Austria are at the vanguard here and I am convinced that this approach is also the right approach for European agriculture. I therefore support the Commission proposal, which could be integrated into a European agricultural model. That is why I voted against the proposed amendments which seek to exceed the 90-animal limit for premium payments – I refer to Amendments Nos 1, 10, 2 and 12 – and I am sorry that they attracted a majority during the vote.

Political group: PPE-DE
In a world where men have arrogated to themselves a domineering role, women are condemned to a life of providing for the sexual pleasures of men, of bearing and raising children, and of doing household work. In a world where all people have equal rights, opportunities and freedom of choice, women decide for themselves how they organise their lives, with whom they want possible sexual contact and if they want children. In most EU Member States, there is already an arrangement in place by means of which a pregnancy which is not wanted by the woman can be terminated on her initiative in a medically responsible manner. Better still is to prevent such pregnancies, by, among other things, easy access to contraception and information about it. Such measures prevent people from having to raise children whom they do not, or not yet, want. Or from pregnancies being terminated in the old-fashioned, dangerous way using knitting needles and douche bags, or by a costly trip abroad. I do expect objections to this development from a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, which is expressly founded on gender inequality, but not from mainstream European Christianity. The Van Lancker proposal does not impose anything on any Member States, but merely encourages us to learn from each other in order to develop the best possible practice.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Commissioner Barnier, the Dehaene report contains positive and negative points, like almost everything in life. I would like to add that the main ideas have been advanced by the European Parliament for decades, so it does not seem particularly original. I would like to make the most of my short speaking time to invite you and President Prodi to reflect on the risks we are running in only talking to the governments and trying to convince them alone, especially the most reluctant ones, and always trying to combine realism and credibility in proposals which are often ambiguous and moderate. In my view, it is worrying that even the Wise Men, who no longer have any obligations to anyone, consider trying to reach a compromise as a priority and that they want to play a part which is not theirs. I hope that in the proposal that you put to us, the Commission and yourself will have the courage to aim higher and that you will be able to justify the need to establish a constitutional section in the founding texts of the European Union with something more inspiring than the mere reorganisation of the confused texts of the Treaties. I am sorry that President Dehaene could not find this courage. I also hope that the Commission will be able to free itself of the inefficient and anachronistic pillar structure and clearly refute the extremely odd idea which the Wise Men put forward, that Parliament’s power of codecision is legitimised only under the first pillar. The courage to seek alliances and a consensus outside the palaces of power, among the people, and in this Parliament, is a challenge that the Commission must accept. If it does not, we will all lose.

Political group: Verts-ALE