GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, in the course of the debate yesterday, I presented the reasons why my group could not affirm its confidence in the Prodi Commission. While highlighting the interesting “shift” in the relationship between this institution and Parliament, as well as our desire to work towards the success of the administrative reform announced, I expressed the conviction that in order to respond to the urgent expectations of our fellow citizens it would have been necessary to take the initiative on significant changes affecting not only the operation of the Commission but also on its political orientations. Unfortunately, I have heard nothing of this ilk in the various hearings of the Commissioners-designate or in the speeches of Mr Prodi himself. At a time when the Commission is just emerging from the most serious crisis in its history and the European Union as a whole has food for thought, given the unprecedented alarm signal which millions of voters, male and female, have just given it, the time seemed ripe for strong action likely to open up new perspectives, action likely to regenerate hope. Experience has shown that the European Union cannot be built simply by the market and by directives. It is forged above all by means of living relationships between people who are carrying out projects which motivate and unite them. My conviction is that Europe will win back credibility in the eyes of many of the peoples of the world, and their sympathy, by clearly stating, in the face of the advancing tide of neo-liberalism, its own values and plan. It is this ambition, Madam President, which, in our view, is lacking today. This is the reason why my group cannot affirm its confidence in the Commission.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, as a Member and a President, you have set an example in the way in which you have acted on Parliament’s behalf. This is why I shall take this tribute to you as an opportunity to ask you to do so once again. Three times Parliament has rejected the Agreement between Europe and the United States on PNR data. Next week ... (Protests) ... We are members of a parliament. We do not spend our time patting ourselves on the back; we take our parliamentary role seriously, as Mr Cox has done for five years. This is why I ask you, Mr President, to speak to the Commission to ensure that next week the Council and the Commission do not disregard Parliament’s decision to request a ruling from the European Court of Justice. That is our right, and it is your duty as President to respect the wishes of the large majority of Members of this House, just as it is the duty of the Commission and the Council to respect the wishes of the majority of this House. This is my last wish. You have been an excellent President. We will hold you in even higher regard if you can persuade the Commission and the Council to respect Parliament’s wishes. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, fourteen Member States have imposed bilateral sanctions on another Member State, because a democratically elected government was formed there. Both parties were once part of the government. So far there have been no infringements of the law. Are preventive sanctions reconcilable with the Charter of Human Rights? Would a right of veto on the part of the President-in-Office of the Council, in respect of the formation of national governments, be reconcilable with the Charter of Fundamental Rights? Is the call for violent demonstrations reconcilable with the Charter of Fundamental Rights?

Political group: PPE-DE
Firstly, I would like to say that our Group, as it did in committee, supports the Karas report. We believe that it is a very good report and it makes a very positive contribution to an issue of fundamental importance in the process of introducing the euro into the lives of our citizens. It is clear that the euro is not purely a macroeconomic and financial issue. It is an issue which will reach every European citizen, it is a European distinguishing mark and, therefore, it is of the greatest importance in the process of European construction. To this end, it is very important that a campaign be implemented – and a very good campaign – so that in 2002 the euro may enjoy the degree of confidence and acceptance which we all want. Furthermore, as has been said, there is a great delay in terms of the number of countries and companies prepared for its use and in terms of our citizens’ level of knowledge. In this respect I would like very briefly to highlight three dimensions. The first is decentralisation. The participation of regional and local authorities is very important. Many of them have very significant responsibilities and are better prepared than the Member States themselves to reach the citizen. This is an aspect that the European Central Bank and the Commission should bear in mind. I would like to know Commissioner Solbes’ opinion with regard to participation at this level, which Mr von Wogau has also requested. We must ensure that these administrations play a significant role. It falls to them to do so, since they are best prepared to reach the citizens. Secondly, this decentralisation must also take place at company and industry level and not be limited to the headquarters of managerial or union organisations. Thirdly, I recommend that you read the conclusions of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which introduce a cultural dimension, which is very important to the success of this information campaign.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I also thank Mr Mennea and Mrs Zabell for highlighting the crucial role that sport is now playing in all of our lives, I have to start by saying that sport's importance as an industry is well known, but for sport to become just another industry would be a mistake and a great loss to our society. We are all living longer, and sport is occupying a greater part of our time. It is there not just to revitalise our bodies but also our minds and our souls, and we have to recognise the importance of that fact in European legislation. I therefore support the call for a legal basis that will put our powers on a par with those of the very important international sports organisations. Europeans share a love of watching and participating in football, from Newcastle through Dortmund to Barcelona, but it is important that local people should be inspired to join their clubs. I would therefore say that the most enduring teams should be built up from scratch and not simply bought up. The system needs well-run machinery consisting of clubs of all shapes and sizes and degrees of professionalism and we need to take the opportunity to reform it. I support, therefore, Commission statements and the Commissioner's action on this matter. Sport has a huge potential. It has shown that it can build understanding and fight racism. Let us do more work in sport to bring our communities together. It has shown that it has the power to encourage disabled athletes to succeed. Let us show that we share their pride and build joint events for them and able-bodied people. Violence on the field has been the bad side of sport. Let us work to ensure that sport is violence-free. Doping, finally, is a symptom of the over-commercialisation of sport. As our teams head off to Sydney they are under more pressure than ever. We have to set up facilities that fight doping on an international basis because, as we have seen, one false accusation can ruin a career or cast a shadow over an exemplary career, such as that of Linford Christie. Therefore, we support these reports and hope that they will provide the foundation for us to move forward into the next phase of European sport, a community spirit to build the industry and the potential of sport in Europe.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I too should like to congratulate both rapporteurs. I wish them every success. I concur with the Commission in terms of the priorities. I share the views of others and particularly those of Mr Wynn, who said a moment ago that categories 4 and 5 will cause the greatest difficulties. As far as I am concerned, category 4 should not contain any holy cows. It must be possible to use money that has been budgeted, and we should not end up in a situation whereby we receive various claims in the course of the year on unused funding that was budgeted for a specific purpose for which it may not be used. I would therefore urge the Commission to assess the needs very carefully. The same applies to category 5. From the most recent trialogue meeting, I understand that there is a shortage of only 48 million. Given the total, this is a very small amount. I have seen a draft letter in this respect. The Commission should check with all institutions whether it is still possible to find an amount of around 48 million that can be saved elsewhere. If this is the case, we would remain within the financial perspectives and the flexibility instrument would not be needed for the time being, which means that it can be used in other areas.

Political group: ELDR
I would like to raise a point of order in relation to your announcement that Mr Balfe has joined the EPP Group. Rule 17 of our Rules of Procedure provides that 'when a Member changes political groups he shall retain, for the remainder of his two and a half year term of office, any seat he holds in the Bureau or the College of Quaestors'. Clearly, on the basis of this Rule, Mr Balfe is entitled to retain his seat in the College of Quaestors, even though it says nothing about changing political groups twice in the space of two months. (Laughter) However, Mr President, Mr Balfe stood in the election as an Independent. I did not vote for him, but many Members of my Group did in the belief that, while he stood as an Independent, he was still committed to principles. In view of his recent and unexpected conversion to the Conservative cause, could I ask Mr Balfe, through you, Mr President, whether it would not be more appropriate for him to do the decent thing – which would be to resign from the College of Quaestors and stand again as a British Conservative? (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would firstly like to express the support of the Group of the Europe Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party for the two reports by Mr Trentin and Mr Marinos, which deal with two key issues within the excessively complicated EU economic and monetary policy mechanism, of which the stability pacts and the broad economic policy guidelines are key components. I would like to highlight the following points: firstly, that we fully support the policy of budgetary rigour and the fulfilment of commitments established in the stability pacts. Therefore, we regret very much that the Member States, in the Ecofin Council in February, if my memory serves me correctly, did not support the Commission proposal with regard to the concern for the development of the Portuguese and German economies and the administration of their respective budgets. I would also add our concern at the French Government’s recent announcement. Therefore, I support the policy of budgetary rigour that will hopefully give confidence and strength to the European economy and its single currency, the euro. Lastly, I would like to point out that with regard to the broad economic policy guidelines, we agree with the Trentin report’s proposals, particularly where they aim to implement the Lisbon commitments after revision in the Barcelona Council. We particularly agree with the difficult compromise between achieving greater competitiveness whilst not abandoning the policy of economic and social cohesion. Clearly, this can only be achieved by putting an emphasis – as the Trentin report does, and as proposed by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs – on the information society and the expansion of technological research and development activities. This will clearly give rise to the information- and knowledge-based society that will allow us to improve quality and be more competitive, which we hope for at the end of this decade.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted against Mr Sterckx’s report, which I believe constitutes a serious threat to the future of air transport. In the first place, this report gives no precise analysis of the liberalisation of air traffic. There is no mention of its huge impact on the environment. There is no mention of the major implications for airspace congestion related to the fact that the average number of passengers per flight has been considerably reduced as a result of competition. There is no mention, or only very superficial discussion, of the great decline in the social conditions observed in these sectors of activity, nor is there any mention of the adverse effects on town and country planning, to the extent that, at the present time, it costs a lot to travel to a remote area of Europe, whereas costs have fallen for routes which are already well served. These are the negative results of liberalisation. Worse still, Mr Sterckx’s report proposes a new phase of liberalisation, envisaging not only a single European airspace, a proposal worth considering, but associating this inevitably with the privatisation of air traffic control. Even the United States of America has not privatised its air traffic control agency. It remains subject to the federal authority of the Federal Republic of the United States of America. Even the home of liberalism did not go for this option. One would have to be totally unaware of the deterioration in the safety of British transport systems, and the recurrence of accidents related to the privatisation of this means of transport, not to realise that, in terms of safety, there is nothing better than a public service. Yet the choice made in this report is quite different, in fact the opposite, the complete antithesis. I think that Europe is probably now, more so than before, in need of the confidence of its constituent nations, and that a new phase of liberalisation would run counter to the latter’s expectations. They make this quite clear on a regular basis. A subsequent return of liberalism will come as no surprise.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, coordination and consistency are essential to a policy on human rights. The Union should now be focusing on the effective implementation of agreements. Implementation should cover three important areas: the monitoring of human rights, the establishment of human rights and the structures of a policy on human rights. The EU must develop monitoring mechanisms to observe the human rights situation both within the EU and in third countries. Monitoring must lead to a comprehensive assessment of the situation with regard to human rights. That assessment must include an analysis of the human rights situation, a decision on measures to improve that situation, a programme to monitor the impact of the measures on the situation, an evaluation of their success and a public report on the assessment and its results. It is important that we report on the problems within the EU as effectively and openly as on those in third countries. In recent years, the EU has witnessed within its borders police violence, which has often been targeted against persons from outside the EU, cell deaths and discrimination against sexual minorities. The lack of protection for refugees is perhaps the biggest human rights problem within the EU. The Union policy on refugees, like that of the Member States, lags behind the standards we could expect from economically developed countries. Matters relating to refugees and asylum are for us primarily matters of security and control. The practice clearly contravenes the obligations of the Geneva Convention. The common EU strategy on Russia should emphasise the importance of human rights. Establishing human rights is one of the greatest challenges in the attempt to increase Russian prosperity and stability. The human rights situation in Russia today is alarming. The aims of security, stability and sustainable development associated with the northern dimension will only be of secondary importance if we neglect the issue of human rights. It is time we realised the European Parliament’s idea of a monitoring body to be set up within the Commission to promote an efficient human rights policy and report on questions relating to human rights. A respect for human rights and the protection of the rights of minorities are major requirements for accession to the Union. Taking criteria relating to human rights and minorities as serious conditions of membership would require that these criteria and the obligations of applicant countries towards their minorities be accorded the same status as other fundamental criteria in the negotiations on membership.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, these reports deserve praise for confirming the position of the European Parliament on the important issue of cooperation and solidarity, but they also demonstrate the shortcoming of being simply answers to a consultation, without having the status of a parliamentary ‘opinion’. Despite this limitation, they very clearly express Parliament’s position on the need for the agreements to go beyond what is known as ‘political dialogue and cooperation’ and become genuine association agreements. As a matter of fact, these two reports and four opinions received only three votes against, with the opinions of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy preventing unanimity. Whilst we all know of Parliament’s unhappiness with simply creating the political conditions necessary and imposing a model and whilst it is a matter of regret that the Commission proposals do nothing more than pave the way for future negotiations, Parliament uses these reports to suggest that the agreements on which it has been consulted should constitute a stage of transition and of preparation. We feel that what is at stake is the concept of cooperation and we would, therefore, like to go further, as advocated in the opinions of the Committee on Development and Cooperation. It is indeed regrettable that these agreements are geared towards preparing a political framework that makes matters dependent on free trade agreements and that there is no understanding of these agreements as being part of an integrated strategy for economic and social development to combat poverty. Through these agreements – to use an expression favoured by Commissioner Lamy at the 7th Joint ACP-EU Parliamentary Assembly – it would allow clauses excluded from the WTO Cancun meeting to come in through the back door. The ACP countries are attempting to prevent this in the economic partnership agreements and, amongst other issues, to prevent various forms of liberalisation being imposed in areas for which they are attempting to find solutions that are best suited to their national situations, specific characteristics and processes. In particular, we are talking here about public services, the fields of health, education and water supply – particularly the latter, because this is crucial to many of these countries. It is significant that, amongst the various approaches, as these agreements illustrate, they are looking to achieve the same thing, which is to foist a single-society economic model on a market which is free but not fair. At the moment, the aforementioned cooperation does not cover economic and social development strategies to combat poverty, and everything is dependent on a market- and profit-driven ideology, thus widening the already shocking social disparities.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, painstaking efforts are needed to find any reference at all to the political domain of agriculture and rural development in this 28-page Commission strategy paper for 2003. The word ‘agriculture’ is mentioned all of three times in the course of one three-page section. This is perhaps due in part to the fact that the codecision procedure does not yet apply to agricultural legislation. At the same time, we are called upon for the first time to participate in the strategic assessment of issues such as enlargement, the WTO talks, the development of the Budget and the mid-term evaluation. On enlargement, the plan is to conclude the accession negotiations with the applicant countries in 2003, and then enlargement could begin in 2004. We are all well aware of the monumental tasks that await the Commission, Parliament and the Council in the areas of agriculture and rural development in 2003. In this respect, enlargement will also be a top priority of agriculture policy in 2003 and will require great negotiating skills. Yesterday’s hearing on this subject in the Committee on Budgets highlighted the amount of work that is still to be done. Close dialogue with the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development is essential, as is better use of the resources allocated to pre-accession aid. In the WTO context, agriculture also plays a key role. And so I say to our friends in the Commission that we expect you to provide us with continuous information and consultation on progress in the WTO trade talks. You yourselves refer on page 14 of your crazy paper to a decisive phase in these negotiations. On the Budget, following the result of the vote on the Färm report, or, to be more specific, the adoption by this chamber of Guideline No 9, care should be taken to ensure that the amended mid-term evaluation is taken into account as far as possible in the 2003 Budget. This quite simple precept will cause huge headaches, particularly in view of the fact that the Member States are becoming increasingly accustomed to receiving substantial ring-fenced rebates of unused resources from the agricultural budget; these bonuses are particularly welcome, since they can save some countries from the prospect of an admonitory letter from Brussels. The strategic imperative for 2003 must therefore be full and more efficient utilisation of the agricultural budget, including flexible use of resources for new rural development programmes. One very important requirement is that quality must play a more important role in the allocation of aid under the common agricultural policy. Even non-farmers can see the point of compensatory payments that are based on quality.

Political group: PPE-DE