GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the recent breakdown of the ceasefire in Nepal and the ensuing violence have led to a huge loss of life and injury. To achieve lasting peace in Nepal, an open and democratic society, and progress and prosperity for all, all sides must honour the armistice of 19 January as well as the code of conduct which was signed by both the Maoist insurgents and the government on 13 March 2003. The announcement yesterday that the Maoist rebels will no longer carry out political killings, or destroy public utilities or infrastructure is just a crumb of comfort. Sadly, since the breakdown of the ceasefire, 211 people have lost their lives. We must ensure that we support and promote democracy and the rule of law in countries such as Nepal. The recent opening of an EC delegation office in Katmandu is a welcome boost to EU-Nepal relations and cooperation. We must ensure that we do all we can on the ground to help those suffering directly and indirectly from the unrest. We should increase our financial assistance in Nepal and we must ensure that the main goal is the eradication of poverty and provision of universal health and education services. These underlying causes of conflict must remain the target of all EU cooperation assistance to the country. The Commission must work in Nepal through all stages of the conflict, from supplying humanitarian aid for those suffering, to ensuring that conflict resolution and prevention programmes are launched to prevent further violence. I welcome the call in the resolution for the appointment of an EU special representative for Nepal. Such a representative could work to ensure that assistance is provided to the Bhutanese refugee camps. The UNHCR decision to phase out assistance for these camps is worrying and comes at a time when Nepal needs continuing rather than diminishing support. Although Nepal has sheltered many Tibetan and Bhutanese refugees over the years, the deportation of 18 Tibetans to Tibet a few months ago is a worrying development. The well being of all refugees needs to be guaranteed. Peace will only be achieved in Nepal through the democratic process. The EU should help this process and help the Nepalese to build a better future.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I think that there is a contradiction in the Commission's positions and I shall ask a question so that the Commissioner can resolve my doubt: apart from the question of cruise ships, I should like to ask the Commissioner, in relation to other passenger ships, if she believes that the host state can regulate the manning of cabotage vessels not just for the deck and engine crew, but also for the cabin crew and catering personnel. In other words, are the rights of the host state the same when it comes to the deck and engine crew and the cabin crew and catering personnel?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I simply wanted to make a brief comment on the amendments. I think that an incorrect communication was made to the sittings service. I am the rapporteur for all amendments. I just wanted to say this to avoid any misunderstandings. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all fellow MEPs, and also to thank them for these amendments. (With successive votes Parliament adopted the decisions and the resolution) * * * Report (A5-0097/2001) by Mr Seppänen, on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control, concerning the discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) for the 1999 financial yearconcerning the discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) for the 1999 financial year [C5-0654/2000 – C5-0654/2000 – 2000/2167(DEC)] (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0109/2001) by Mrs Rühle, on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control, on the discharge in respect of the financial management of the sixth, seventh and eighth European Development Funds for the 1999 financial year [COM(2000) 357 – C5-0257/2000 – 2000/2164(DEC)] (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0084/2001) by Mrs Hermange, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Towards a barrier-free Europe for people with disabilities [COM(2000) 284 – C5-0632/2000 – 2000/2296(COS)] (Parliament adopted the resolution) EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE - Cereals and rice markets in Portugal (C5-0716/2000)

Political group: ELDR
It is Parliament's responsibility to draw up a statute for its Members, (relating to issues of pay, pensions, social and health insurance, taxation and immunities). The Commission is consulted and the Council must agree to the statute. The Parliament's draft statute (rapporteur: Rothley), has been approved by resolutions of the European Parliament and President Cox was given a mandate by the Council of Presidents in June to undertake exploratory contacts with the Member State Governments and to report back to the Conference of Presidents in the context of the opinion on the Rothley report. I voted for a fair statute for all Members which must go hand in hand with a fair, honest and open expenses regime. The Council needs to state what problems, if any, it has with the Rothley Opinion and, as we face enlargement, the need to bring this issue to a conclusion is pressing, so that the pay and conditions for Members of the next Parliament are clearly laid down in advance.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I think Members should realise what an excellent negotiator we had in Pascal Lamy. Of those taking part in the discussions, he was far and away the most skilful and appeared to show the most stamina. That is important to recognise. The discussions in Seattle were perhaps more complex than could have been anticipated: they were certainly over-ambitious, and that should have been anticipated. There was a quite absurd concentration of time limits, particularly since some of the time was lost because of extraneous events. There was a hysterical press interest, not in what was happening in the discussions, but in what was happening on the streets, which was largely due to complete clumsiness by the local police. There was a complexity because of the sheer number of participants, not only from the countries concerned, but from NGOs, from lobbyists, from national government delegations and from others. The issues themselves were complex. This was not a game of poker, it was a complex game of chess with completely justifiable but contradictory claims taking the stage. The European Union was, in fact, very well placed. Over the years of our existence we have managed to put in place environmental and social rules alongside trade rules. It can be done in international discussions. It is not easy but it is essential and we are well placed because we have, to a limited extent, managed that. We were well placed because of our links with the ACP countries, although there was an issue over their waiver which clouded the discussions, and because we have always worked well with NGOs. We were well placed in having a large parliamentary delegation. I am pleased that our amendment calling for a parliamentary assembly was taken up world-wide. The issue of agriculture: The United States and other countries refused to understand, even though it is a very simple notion, the multifunctional reasons for our common agricultural policy. They refuse to admit that they subsidise their agriculture in a much less transparent way than we do. As far as environmental issues were concerned, these are not and should not be simply concerns of rich countries, but they were portrayed as such and there is a great deal of work to do in bringing those issues to a State where they are not thought of as protectionism. Mr Lamy says that the biotech working group was fact-finding, but the widespread perception was that it would interfere with the setting-up of the bio-safety protocol and colleagues will say more about that. Animal welfare was perceived by poor countries as a rich person's interest which, to some of them, was almost obscene where we are confronted with starving people. That is something again we will have to work on and similarly with core labour standards. It is important that the WTO is restored in a reformed way. The alternative is the United States making bilateral agreements from a position of strength with the poorer countries of the world. That is not what we want. We, in the Parliament, must follow this issue along with Mr Lamy and other Commissioners until we get something that is appropriate to the age which we are moving into.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I should like to begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Grosch, for his excellent cooperation both during the first reading and now during the second reading. This directive is important for several reasons. I should like us to make a leap of imagination and imagine that we were about to develop a road transport system today. Would that transport system look like our present one? I hardly think so. We would have significantly more stringent safety requirements, we would construct our roads differently and we should definitely require road construction workers to be properly trained. That is why this directive is important, for we must first of all be able to make certain demands of drivers of road vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers, making of course stringent demands in terms of, for example, safety. Secondly, our directive would raise the status of their profession. That, I believe, would mean a very great deal, for quality would be guaranteed by those who do the work. Thirdly, well trained drivers would obviously do work that was better from a safety point of view, because they would be more aware of, and more involved in the consequences of, different situations. That too is reflected in the directive. Like the rest of the Group of the , I would hope to avoid conciliation when it comes to this directive. I should have liked it if training could have taken place during working hours. We have tabled an amendment to that effect, but it was unfortunately not accepted. Following mature consideration, we have accepted the possibility of choosing between tests and courses, for we are aware of the fact that there is an extremely large number of people to be trained. What is important now is that we have high-quality training courses and that there are authorised training centres. It is therefore important that Amendment No 8 not be accepted, for it would involve a danger of social dumping where training conditions were concerned, with the shortest courses being chosen and in those places that are most convenient. If we agree to being able to choose between tests and courses, we cannot, unfortunately, agree to being able, at the same time, to choose in which country the courses are to be taken. That is not possible. It would be just too risky. I do not therefore believe that we can accept Amendment No 8. Finally, I hope that we can avoid conciliation. I understood from the Commissioner that the road safety programme would come on stream quite soon, something for which I am most sincerely grateful. We have waited a long time for this and shall examine it with great interest.

Political group: PSE
chairman of the Committee on Budgets. – Mr President, Mrs Haug attended the Detlev Samland school of speaking to the clock and just carried straight on, as Detlev always used to. Though we are talking about a PDB for the year 2001, it is somewhat difficult not to link it to the revision of the Financial Perspective. I know we should not do so, but there is that link between the two which makes me want to comment on both. For the Commission proposals to be successful three factors will be crucial. The first is the assessment of needs for the western Balkans. In a couple of weeks’ time, Parliament will send an ad hoc delegation to Kosovo to try and make an assessment. We will need to opt for the Commission proposal of EUR 5.5 billion in total or move towards the Council which is proposing a somewhat lower figure. The second factor will be Parliament's attitude to redeployment, especially in Category IV, not just for 2001 but for the whole of the Financial Perspective. That is why I say they have to be linked. I will give you an example. One area of great interest for me – I make no secret of it – is South Africa. The proposal to take EUR 2 million per year away from South Africa for six years may not seem much. But EUR 12 million is a lot of money for the projects in South Africa. I would not be happy with that and I am sure other people in other areas of interest in Category IV would adopt a similar attitude. Then we have Parliament's attitude towards redeployment in Category I. Similarly, we have to consider our approach to the use of the flexibility instrument if it was invoked for Serbia, as you suggest. We have to bear in mind what the Interinstitutional Agreement says about a rule not being used for the same things in consecutive years. Once again that would be a challenge for Parliament. The third factor, and probably the most important one, is the attitude of the Council. If they reject what you are proposing, especially as far as the revision goes, the question remains: what will you do next? I know we have a trialogue and a conciliation before their first reading but it is a problem we have to resolve before the Council's first reading. What happens if the Council is adamant and rejects the Commission's proposals? Mrs Schreyer, you are something of a juggler and an illusionist at the same time, with the proposals that have been made. You have to keep several balls in the air and, at the same time, because of what is proposed after 2003, you have to make more appear. One of the great mysteries in your proposals on the revision is where the money will come from after 2003. But that is not for next year. That is for the future. In the meantime we await developments on those three factors. Hopefully, at the end of this process, we will get a satisfactory outcome. IN THE CHAIR: INGO FRIEDRICHVice-President President. – The debate is closed.The vote will take place today at 12 noon.

Political group: PSE
I would like to congratulate Robert Sturdy on bringing forward a common-sense report here. I would also call upon the Commission to accept the recommendations. Otherwise the report should be referred back to committee, because the key to European beef production is quality, and that is what we can sell to the consumer. I think we have to take out the poor-quality calves that are born so that in the long run we can produce quality beef. An attack on suckler cows and their numbers is exactly the wrong way to go, because this is very much quality, grass-fed beef, in which the consumer has great confidence. We need to take a much more positive approach to selling beef again. I think the UK has shown that. We have now returned to consumption above that of the 1996 level, therefore we need to move forward. The 90-head limit is wrong and to bring in individual claims will be a bureaucratic nightmare. We really have to move forward. Destruction is also the key. If you are going to have a buy-up scheme for the over thirty-month cattle, then for goodness sake destroy them, do not bring them back onto the market at a future date, because this will be lower-quality beef, and if you are not very careful, this will actually destroy the future recovery of the market. Mr Busk made a good point. If these cattle over thirty months old are tested and found not to have BSE, why cannot they be provided as aid in the future. Why do we have then to destroy them? What we cannot do is to put them onto the European market. So I think the long-term solution is to take on board Robert Sturdy's report. Let us go out and sell good-quality European beef to the consumer.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the report is more critical on the subject of the export of weapons than any previous report by Mr Titley. Despite this, we must observe that its demands do not reach their target either as regards parliamentary scrutiny or as regards transparency. As far as parliamentary scrutiny is concerned, there is no demand for formal provision for an opinion by the European Parliament, and that is the least we can ask for if we are to have some degree of influence. I take an even more critical line on what is said about transparency. Here, Mr Titley speaks of transparency in the form of a framework agreement. We know, however, that the framework agreement between six EU States to promote the defence of industry and of a global defence market is precisely the most opaque procedure ever, that it clasps tightly what it used to give: no parliamentary scrutiny and no debate, even on the conclusion and ratification of this agreement. That must be changed. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Commissioner Diamantopoulou, I too am very much in favour of increasing the birth rate in the European Union, as, moreover, is the Italian Government. Indeed, Mr Maroni has announced that a law which has just entered into force will provide incentives for young couples. I tell my pensioners to do what they can to increase the number of babies born too, and they have assured me that they will do their best. The question I would like to put to you now is as follows. Do you think that just increasing the birth rate will be enough to resolve the problem of pensions and the huge number of elderly people, or is it not equally important to create new jobs? As long as there are unemployed people, the existence of more young people will not solve the problem of the elderly: there will just be an ever-increasing number of young people who are unemployed, who are unable to pay for the pensions of the elderly. Would it not be better to have more jobs as well as more babies?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I abstained from voting on company restructuring because, after hoping that the Community would intervene on company restructuring, I would like to specifically remind the House that it is indeed true that a thousand people have been left jobless, deprived of the chance to continue working but, if the States had not delayed the official pensionable age – of at least 200 000 people in Italy, who are therefore continuing to work and who would otherwise have freed up 200 000 jobs if the laws which delayed their pensionable age by five years had not intervened – we would not now be looking at a figure of one thousand people unemployed: there would now be a thousand employed workers, albeit in another firm, but they would nevertheless have had a job.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Corbett and Lord Inglewood – whose work has not passed completely unnoticed – for the time and effort they have put into what is certainly not a straightforward report, a report which is based on the question of whether the quality of our work as Members of the European Parliament needs to be improved, whether we need more transparent and effective procedures and whether we need to organise our work according to specific rhythms and requirements. I feel that this evening’s debate confirms the need for us to change the way we work in the European Parliament. A full spectrum of positions have been expressed on Mr Corbett’s report, from opposition to support, veiled criticism and open criticism. This evening’s debate confirms this. Our political family – and this is the first time I have been in this situation – is going to hold a last, lengthy debate tomorrow to decide our final position on the voting list. I would, however, like to focus on the method. The Rules of Procedure are a secondary rather than a primary point of reference. Therefore, we are currently witnessing a period of great change in our institutional architecture. We have two years to decide whether we have made the right changes to our Rules of Procedure or whether further changes need to be made. At the end of the Convention’s work, we will certainly have to compare our work on the Rules of Procedure with the decisions taken on the legislative procedures. We must therefore have confidence, above all in ourselves, and decide to experiment with new ways of doing things. In conclusion, I have to say that, apart from the issue of topical and urgent debates, I do feel that there are problems, and the Corbett report certainly proposes a number of solutions.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the important area of focus in the draft budget for 2003 is enlargement. Our group supports the view that savings from the budgeted enlargement expenditure for 2002 and 2003 can be used to finance enlargement in later years. The rapporteurs think the important area of focus is the administrative reform of the Commission. We are prepared to allow those Eurocrats who cannot be made fit for work through retraining to retire prematurely. A sense of moderation will have to be observed when determining their pension benefits. I would also like to draw your attention to how the Commission has managed to get round the staffing ceilings by employing officials whose salaries are paid by Member States. There are 800 of them. It is our group’s opinion that the rapporteurs do not insist forcefully enough on the clearance of the backlog of commitments that have not been forwarded for payment – the so-called RAL. From one year to the next, the gap between commitments and payments is allowed to grow. That means the Commission may well disregard implementation of the areas of focus specified by Parliament. Our group would like to see the Commission include the RAL question in the areas of focus in its preliminary draft and safeguard the implementation of programmes to a greater extent than is now the case, including the implementation of Structural Funds programmes. Our group sees immense problems with the margins in Section 4 of the budget. There are none. That is why the Commission must propose action in next year’s draft budget to ensure the implementation of political areas of focus under Section 4. While a certain amendment calls for considerable financial support for Afghanistan’s neighbouring countries, we should remember that all the former Soviet Republics, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan, are their presidents’ dictatorships, where there is no respect for human rights. We also have to insist on democracy in those countries that are supposed to be our allies. Our group also considers important the reconstruction of the Palestinian areas in the wake of the havoc wreaked by Israel.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Nowadays, much more than ever, there are large amounts of money lying around throughout the world: money belonging to individual savers, small banks, insurance companies and pension funds. Internationally operating companies that offer high returns have taken a large proportion of that money for themselves and with it gained control over the pension funds, too. This kind of company does not produce anything, but has obtained a dominant position by forming a bridge between those wanting to receive interest or dividends and those who need capital for their activities. These are chiefly US companies with a branch in London. Ten years ago, a directive was adopted for investment services such as this, and that now needs to be updated. The question is, then, what purpose that modernisation serves. Will it result in better protection for savers and pension funds against financial adventurers, or, on the contrary, in greater freedom for those who administer so much money? The rapporteur wants to reduce bureaucracy and costs, and creates a string of exemptions to the transparency she accepts only with difficulty. The obligation to seek out the best deals for clients, as well as low transaction costs and investment products suitable for the client fades into the background. The large groups are divided on account of national interests, and so the investment companies get their own way.

Political group: GUE-NGL