GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, although I agree with many of the comments that have been made today about the year 2001 having been reasonably successful, there are real grounds for concern about the way in which this debate is taking place today. Firstly, as a matter of principle, we have the institutional agreement of 1993, which says that the programme should be presented by October, and then our agreement of 2000, under which we are to have a broad debate about the programme before it is implemented. Neither of these have been fulfilled in this particular case. Why is this totally insufficient? Firstly, the programme which is presented to us lacks focus. It is somewhat difficult to see priorities when you have seven of them and, within the priorities, lots of themes which are generating new ideas. If you have more than three priorities, as Bob Zoellick, the USTR, said, you lose yourself in detail and you can never focus on what is really important. Secondly, we have a lack of detail. I understand that we now have a legislative programme sent by e-mail, but Parliament has not been associated with this and it seems, as other speakers have said, that we had a legislative programme which was not implemented this year. Mr Barón Crespo is right that we did not want it. We wanted a political programme and legislative programme and Parliament to be associated with that. Thirdly, there is a lack of coordination: not just coordination among ourselves but with the national parliaments. As Mrs Kaufmann said: how is it possible to establish a programme for the European Union if not all the actors who are concerned at political level are associated with it? This leads me to say that we were better off with President Santer. We were better off with the last Commission as regards the way in which the programme is presented. At least we had a programme in its outline and there was a real effort to try to get institutional priorities, and we had a legislative programme with details, which we could see in front of us. My conclusion today is that the Commission is there to propose. It has the right of initiative but it is not the European government. It cannot come to us and say this is what the European Union's programme is going to be and expect us simply to accept everything that is in its documents. Do you not agree, Mr President, that it would be better for the success of the European Union if we were to go back to presentation of the proposals of the legislative programme in October? We would then be able to discuss, debate, consult on and conclude a programme which the Union could put forward for the year ahead. If you have all of us with you, you will be better off than if we have interinstitutional wars, which you seem to have started this morning.

Political group: PPE-DE
I welcome the fact that the European Parliament, the body that represents the aspirations of European citizens, has taken its right of initiative to urge the European Commission to propose firm measures in the area of culture. Since 1974, the European Parliament has stressed the importance of developing a cultural policy at Community level, and for a good reason. Culture is a fundamental aspect of the European Union’s identity. Culture is a basis which affords people the opportunity to meet, to relate to one another and experience a shared sense of belonging. Of course, this does not involve putting forward a European cultural policy that seeks to impose uniformity. On the contrary, this involves emphasising cultural and linguistic diversity and the sharing of a common heritage. At a time when our citizens are questioning Europe, we must work in order to enhance the feeling of European citizenship. This is a prerequisite for building a European constitution. This is the background to Mr Ruffolo’s report, which suggests several routes to follow. The Commission is also requested: – to present to the Council and European Parliament a draft recommendation, in which the Commission will undertake to submit an annual report on cultural policies of the Union and of the Member States, and in which the Commission will call on the Member States to contribute actively to drawing up and carrying out a three-year cultural cooperation plan; – to create a European agency to monitor cultural cooperation; – to convene, as part of the review of the Culture 2000 framework programme, a second Cultural Forum which, on the basis of this resolution, will redefine the values, objectives and forms of cultural cooperation in Europe; – to carry out a study into the opportunities for bringing principles more closely into line at Community level governing the tax treatment of works of art and artistic work; – to restate, in view of the forthcoming WTO summit, the position of the European Union. I shall conclude by reiterating that, as rapporteur for the Sixth Research and Development Framework Programme, I proposed amendments that seek to enhance cultural research.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, all possible measures must be taken to ensure that Europe can provide a real answer to the consequences of the horrendous terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, and a part of that, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, has in fact already been done, namely a joint response from the EU finance ministers. I think this symbolises Europe's ability to close ranks when the chips are really down. I believe that this policy should also be pursued further in relation to aid policy. However, it should also give us the flexibility we need, so as to demonstrate that Europe does not want the economic downturn to be further exacerbated. We do in fact have a Stability and Growth Pact that gives us many possibilities, because on the one hand we wish Europe to be a Community of stability, and on the other hand we also want to promote growth and employment. It is no accident that when applying the convergence criteria, exceptional circumstances have sometimes been applied and approved which allow the definition of an excessive deficit to be deviated from. I do not mean by that to speak in favour of a ‘Community of instability’. Just the opposite in fact, I wish to call on the Belgian Presidency and the Commission to contribute to further coordination in this area, by taking advantage of the fact that stability programmes can be updated. I would like to see updated stability programmes for the euro countries which make it clear that the data has significantly changed. What is needed in this context, as you quite rightly said yourself, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, is for us to avoid procyclical policies in Europe, in both the expansionist and restrictive senses. However, we can only do that if we can compare cyclically neutral budget data with structural deficits in updated budget figures. I think that it would be helpful if the excitement that this debate has generated in this House led to further progress being made both in economic policy and in stability policy. I say that because the European Union needs both monetary stability and employment and social stability.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I shall begin by reading a very short extract from the document that we were given today in the delegation to Central America, and I say ‘read it’, because I do not want anyone to believe that I am giving it my own interpretation. The interventions I have heard so far strike me as somewhat lacking in balance. I shall read the words of the non-governmental human rights organisation ‘Human Rights Watch’: “The human rights situation clearly deteriorated in the course of last year. In the first ten months of the year, the office of the Public Advocate recorded 92 massacres, which they defined as the killing of three or more people at the same place and at the same time. Most were linked to paramilitary groups, followed by guerrillas. The national epidemic of kidnappings, half of which were committed by guerrillas, gave no signs of abating.” The report also states that two million Colombians have been displaced and that this year, more people than ever before – 300 000 – have been displaced. It also states that human rights workers, trade unionists, journalists, government investigators and community leaders continue to be murdered because of their work. Mr President, we will be voting on a resolution today. I prefer the resolution we voted for last year, which I felt was more balanced, because it noted and clearly condemned the ongoing fumigation of crops and the fact that alternative crops were not being promoted to prevent human disease and the constant attacks on biodiversity. Last year’s resolution also stated that the European Union should adopt a different, non-militaristic position, which supports the defence of human rights, dialogue and peace. We repeat this demand today and I agree with my fellow Members that this should be done. This resolution also condemned the fact that, since 60% of Colombians live on less than one dollar per day, it is very hard to achieve dialogue, agreements, or peace. This is why, Mr President, I felt that some balance needed to be added to the previous interventions, although I agree with what most of my fellow Members have to say. But it was necessary to mention other parties involved in the war in Colombia, who exert an enormous influence in the absence of peace.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I too wish to stress how important relations with the southern countries are for Europe, in particular with those in the Mediterranean Basin. I share the view that enlargement of the Union to the East is causing us to underestimate the South and the crucial nature – crucial for our future, that is – of our relations with these countries. We have been working in this area for almost ten years and for the last five, the significant MEDA programme has been available to us. The way this programme has been implemented is far from ideal – to say the least – and that is why I share and approve of the objectives of the Commission reform. That is also why I support the calls made by Mr Valdivielso and Mr Piétrasanta to redress the balance, for regional cooperation, for support for ‘micro-projects’ and for projects involving civil society. It must, however, be clearly stated – and also made clear to the general public – that the financial objectives must match up to our speeches and there should be no question of accepting a reduction in credits relative to the previous period. This holds true whatever arguments and quibbles are put forward. Lastly, looking beyond MEDA, we must not lose sight of the urgency of the problem of cancelling the debts of poor countries, the need to speed up the implementation of bilateral agreements and the need to promote new multilateral agreements. To conclude, we must therefore improve the systems that are already in place. Above all, however, we must ensure that the proposals that have already been made, the positions that are adopted in our debates and the way we vote tomorrow are not seen and perceived by our Mediterranean partners as just so many negative messages. There is a serious risk of this, and, if we wish to maintain a political presence, in the region, in conflict management and risk prevention, we must do more and better in the future than we have done in the recent past.

Political group: PSE
I should like to thank the Commissioner for attempting to answer my question, but I should point out that students in Greece are currently somewhat confused because the free study centres are claiming that they are able to issue study diplomas which qualify for recognition under Directive 89/48/EEC, if, and provided that, the course in question is completed in Britain, while the Greek authorities and the competent bodies are refusing to recognise diplomas issued for courses completed in Britain. It looks pretty much to me, at the moment, as if the Commission is washing its hands like Pontius Pilate. The question is: who should these students apply to in order to confirm that, if they take these courses and complete their studies in Britain, they are entitled to have results?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I would like to ask you a supplementary question on behalf of Mr Nogueira and then, if you will allow me, to ask one on my own behalf.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I welcome the Sylla Report on fundamental rights and in particular its conclusions about the treatment of asylum-seekers and their children. The report is correct to be critical of the UK’s record on this and my knowledge of the Dungavel detention centre in my constituency of Scotland illustrates the UK Government’s failures. The UK Government is failing to protect the rights of asylum-seekers’ children by holding them for prolonged periods in the Dungavel centre and the devolved Scottish Government, which is responsible for the provision of education in Scotland, has failed to ensure that they are given access to mainstream education while resident in our country. The Scottish people have been appalled to learn about the long-term detention and lack of educational facilities for families like Yurdigal Ay and her children who were deported to Germany earlier this summer having spent a year at Dungavel. The UK Government’s record on asylum-seekers and their children at Dungavel is a disgrace and I trust that the Sylla report will be heeded by UK ministers and that steps are taken to ensure that the fundamental rights of refugees at Dungavel and throughout the UK are not infringed.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the Group of the can by and large support the Klaβ report. We believe in particular that industry must prove that a substance is non-allergenic. That has fortunately been retained in the compromise. As regards the Olsson report the Group of the supports the compromise. Just like Mr Olsson we would of course have preferred to ban all growth promoters, but there are in particular animal welfare reasons for making a few limited exceptions nonetheless. We are glad that there will be more research into safety and into efficient alternatives, so that eventually we can move away from them altogether. We have a whole lot more difficulty with the Ayuso González report. The Group of the would go much further. Many of these additives and all those substances are unnecessary as far as we are concerned. With the precautionary principle in mind, parabens, polysorbates and aluminium phosphates should be banned immediately. We will however assent to the compromise because it is a step forward compared with the Commission proposal.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the worst thing about this situation in Venezuela is that the two sides have stopped talking to each other. Their inability to enter into a dialogue is causing society, and even the State itself to fragment, leaving behind a vacuum that other undemocratic groups are only too eager to fill. At this stage I should therefore like to draw your attention to the fact that an initiative has emerged from the Latin American Parliament and the European Parliament to form a joint group, to establish a dialogue with Members of Parliament on both sides in Venezuela and in this way also to support the efforts of the Group of Friends of Venezuela to bring the two sides together. I hope that it will eventually be possible for us to build this bridge. Incidentally, I suspect that given the current crisis in Iraq, the longer this conflict lasts the more likely it is that the oil involved will lead the United States to call for action to be taken. The fact that well over 10% of America's oil comes from Venezuela is not without its consequences for them, or for the other countries of Latin America either, because rises in the price of oil are due, at least in part, to the situation in Venezuela. The man in the street in the countries of Latin America is the one who will pay. Apart from getting the two sides talking, what else is to be done? I think that sooner or later we will have no alternative but to let the people decide. Here, though, I think it is important to keep the constitution as a basis, because despite all of its shortcomings the validity of this constitution has not been contested. Latin America's reputation for not respecting constitutions goes before it. This is all the more reason for us to ensure that where a constitution is actually recognised at international level, we do stick to it. If it is to be amended then it should be with the agreement of both sides to perhaps enable elections to be held at an early stage. But as I see it the only way out seems to be for the people to decide, and no one else! (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it was on 23 October, not even a month ago, that we discussed, here in this Parliament, the human rights situation. We all condemned the death sentences and stonings and the general way in which this inhumane Iranian regime treats its people. At that time we also expressed regret – at least my group did – that the Council had decided not to table a human rights motion on Iran at the next meeting of the UN Commission on Human Rights. Now, only a short time later, someone is sentenced to death when all he has done is to urge people to think things over, not to let their opinions be decided for them and not to blindly follow religious dogmatism. In this situation the European Union is continuing to negotiate a cooperation agreement involving economic cooperation. One of the statements in the motion is inadequate in my view. It is obviously good if future cooperation agreements contain a human rights clause. But I think it would be better – and I am saying this on behalf of my group – if there were no cooperation agreements at all and if they were not even concluded while human rights are not respected. It is schizophrenic. We only have a limited number of options when it actually comes to bringing pressure to bear. We should not give up the possibility of exerting economic pressure on Iran. Of course it is positive that the students are going out onto the streets. Of course it is positive that President Khatami is saying that this verdict is unacceptable. Of course it is positive that the Speaker in the Iranian Parliament is taking the same line. But this has not come anywhere near to forcing a restructuring of Iranian society. It is no accident either, in my view, that the Iranian religious leaders and the Iranian Government intend to remove the legitimate opposition in Iran by trying to make them out to be terrorist organisations and having them all put on the corresponding list so that they will have eliminated this opposition once and for all. I think that we too have a great responsibility here. We need to take more notice of who is put on these lists and why. We should ask more questions; the European Union should not always stand to one side like a junior prison warder. That is why we are calling on the Commission to make it quite clear at the next negotiations that there will not be any cooperation with Iran, economic or otherwise, for as long as this inhumane system remains as contemptuous of human rights as it is at present.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, some three years ago I led a march of MEPs down the Champs Elysées in Paris and almost got arrested. My real concern is that we are enlarging the European Union even though we still do not have a single market among the 15 Member States. I have asked the Commission and Parliament to put pressure on the French to lift the illegal ban on British beef. Yet we seem not to have got anywhere. We had the British minister in Paris yesterday refusing to eat British beef. I admit that was terrible. She did not eat it in front of the cameras, but I understand that she ate it in private. I urge this House and you, Mr President, to make every effort to try and put pressure on the French to lift the ban on British beef or at least to put pressure on the Commission to take action against the French, so that we have a single market before we enlarge the European Union.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, there are a number of advantages to this text. Firstly, it gives us the opportunity to reiterate that we all condemn hooliganism and that we all obviously want to fight this phenomenon to the best of our ability. I must also point out, however, that, for two years now, in both the Netherlands and Belgium, the sporting, political and police authorities have been preparing in a professional manner for Euro 2000 and, in practical terms, huge investments have been made. Despite that, is there still a risk? Of course, but then there is always a risk. When faced with such a phenomenon, you can never say that nothing will happen. However, I must say very sportingly to our British colleague that this does not justify an event of this type being used from the outset to incite prejudice. It does not justify the attempt to spread incorrect information in official European Parliament documents either. Paragraph 2, as indicated by Mr Dehousse, is incorrect. The Belgian authorities have given authorisation for the Charleroi stadium to be used. Paragraph 3, which indicates that the King Baudouin stadium in Brussels might be used, is wrong. No authority and no official has indicated this. We must therefore be reasonable and certainly not adopt texts like this. Finally, our fellow member has cited information which he was delighted to indicate was given to him by the BBC. I should like to mention something which was said on the BBC by someone who is not a football referee like you but who is the coach of the England team. What did Mr Keegan say – I am nearly finished, Mr President – during his visit to Charleroi? He said that it is a suitable stadium for a high-level match. He even said that this stadium differs very little from a large number of stadia in England. So, be sporting! As a referee, Mr Heaton-Harris, you have one viewpoint but I prefer that of Mr Kevin Keegan who seems to me to be better qualified. Therefore, please withdraw your motion.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I should like, first of all, to welcome some visitors from Kent who we are fortunate enough to have in the gallery today. I would also like to thank Mr Karas for all the very hard work he has done on a very difficult report. We have to bear in mind that what we are creating here is an optional scheme for companies and financial service providers to take advantage of if they want to. If we do not create an attractive framework, this directive will be a dead letter because no one will use it. If we overload this directive with prescriptive detail, with centralising details, it will not reflect the diversity of pension arrangements across the EU and, again, we will not have people taking up the opportunities provided by the directive. So where would we lose out if companies decided that they were not going to bother to use this directive? We would lose out largely on the prudent investor principle. A European Commission survey recently said that, had we used this principle across the European Union over the last 15 years, our pension funds would probably have performed at least twice as well as they have in fact performed. Private sector estimates put the increase in the return on savings that could result from using the prudent investment principle at up to 3%. Pension assets could be around 21% larger across the European Union if we had been using the prudent investor principle already. What we have here is the potential for increased return on savings without increased risk. That is a very real and practical benefit to the people who elected us to serve in this House on their behalf. That is a benefit that we should not throw away by piling into this directive overly prescriptive details, for example, on authorisation, on biometric risk, on guarantees. We need to take a pragmatic approach in order to gain those benefits of an increased return for our savers in a first attempt at defusing the pensions time-bomb.

Political group: PPE-DE