GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, on behalf of the Socialist Group I would like to say that we supported approval of the interinstitutional agreement as an essential building block in re-establishing the credibility of the European Union in how it relates to fraud and deals with allegations of fraud. It is highly regrettable that we have not been able to approve this today, for the reasons outlined by my colleague Mr David Martin. It leaves Parliament in a highly embarrassing position and with a few honourable exceptions, notably Mr Gil-Robles, the attitude of the European People’s Party is highly hypocritical. They supported this in committee. They supported it in the debate on Monday in which they stated clearly and unequivocally that they would be supporting this proposal, and yet today they back out of it and they fail to adopt it. How can we show ourselves to our electorate and how will the EPP be able to show itself to the electorate when it quite rightly makes a fuss about fraud in the election campaign yet, when it comes to delivering here, it fails to deliver? The EPP Group needs to examine its conscience and to do so rapidly because the position it has created in Parliament today is an embarrassment for all of us.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, in the time available, as Mr Salafranca will understand, I would like to concentrate on paragraph 7 of the resolution on the urgent and overriding need to keep support for the peace process in Colombia as a priority within this strategy. In particular I want to state two points. First, that the pledge made by President Pastrana personally to this Parliament on the dismantling of paramilitary groups has not been, and is not being, honoured. So say the UN special representative on human rights, the Mexican observer commission and the relations of ten fishermen killed in Santa Marta, and of the 18 people forced face down on to the ground and shot dead by paramilitaries in Buga within the last month alone. This is a continued gross abuse of human rights and, as my own UK ambassador has said, in these troubled times the guerrillas and the paramilitaries are both terrorist groups and should be combated through all means as part of the current anti-terrorist programme. We feel that particularly due to the killing of the British backpacker Jeremy Parks on 28 October. The Belgian Presidency rightly included action against paramilitaries as one of its four priorities in Colombia, in August of this year. Could the Commissioner please tell us in his reply what progress is being made as a result of the pressure that is being applied. Secondly, we support Commissioner Patten's proposal for a peace laboratory at Magdalena Medio. It is a major contribution towards the peace process, in contrast to the American military aid in Plan Colombia, which we have roundly condemned. But this Magdalena Medio region has been subject to an incursion by those same guerrillas. They are there, threatening campesinos that they must plant coca or they will die. They are there running their own businesses, having their own taxes and they want to co-opt NGOs to ensure that our European money goes to them to undermine the peace process rather than to support it. I call on the Commissioner now to show how he will introduce control and verification mechanisms so that our European money will achieve progress in the peace process, and not be abused by the paramilitaries to undermine our very aims.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Committee on Development and Cooperation, on whose behalf I speak, broadly supports the report by Mr Dary and, in general, rejects the Commission’s proposal. The European Commission has made this proposal supposedly in a spirit of consensus but, frankly, having analysed it at length with the best will in the world, I cannot find a single reason to accept it. I take comfort in the fact that I am not the only one. The Commission’s proposal has not been well received by anyone, neither by the Community producers, nor by the ACP countries. It seems that the Council cannot easily accept it. Parliament does not like it either. What is even more serious however is that not even the United States like it. In this proposal, the Commission not only renounces the defence of Community interests and the interests of the ACP countries but has also, in my opinion, abandoned the minimum degree of neutrality required. The World Trade Organisation condemned the system of licences in force, which must undoubtedly be modified. However, the Commission proposes many other things. It proposes removing any type of quota, and I would like to ask: does it intend in the future to remove the system of aid to producers? Has the Commission decided to begin the reform of the common agricultural policy with a reform of the COM in bananas? After bananas, will other sectors fall? When will we stop protecting Austrian white wines, for example,? This clearly remains an open question within the WTO. However, after the experience of Seattle, I suppose that we should have learnt something from the point of view expressed by the developing countries and, especially, in this case, by the ACP countries, with whom we have commitments and obligations to fulfil. It is in defence of our obligations and commitments to the ACP countries that the amendments have been presented on behalf of the Committee on Development and Cooperation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as Chairman-in-Office of the College of Quaestors, I wish to point out for the purposes of the Rules that my Group is present but not taking part in the vote.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, scarcely a day goes by without a news report of right-wing extremist acts in central Germany. Citizens’ initiatives, various religious denominations and other social groupings have been warning against right-wing extremism for years. It is there in the East and in the West, even though the acts are perpetrated by a minority. In the East, right-wing groups no longer regard themselves as a minority, but believe they hold centre stage in society, and they have cult status among young people. Silence breeds consent right across the social divide, which means there are certain zones in EU cities where the right wing holds sway and not the state. There may well be various reasons as to why this is so, e.g. people were brought up in a totalitarian state, many people in the East suffer from a lack of self-esteem, there is high unemployment, and young people feel they have no future prospects, but we must not dwell on these explanations and instead, take action at long last. A Europe founded on the inviolability of human dignity and which guarantees freedom of movement, must take a zero tolerance line with right-wing violence. So it is time to break our silence over the right-wing violence that has become an everyday occurrence in parts of the European Union, even if we stand accused of running down our own countries. We need a tolerant government and the pro-active financial support of local groups and players, and of those who have the courage to stand up for their beliefs. Europe must be seen to fly the flag on this issue. It must provide these groups with outside support, so as to encourage them to continue to stand up for their own convictions against the right wing.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, time is short, so my only comment will be on the really historic decision to convene a constituent assembly which has already – albeit inaccurately – been called a Convention. Τhe European Parliament has every right to be proud because the idea of a Convention was mooted here, in this House, and took shape in the reports by the European Parliament, mainly from 1997 onwards. Parliament has insisted ever since that institutional development is a waste of time unless someone else is given the job of drafting new Treaties, i.e. unless a political body takes over the role played hitherto by the bureaucrats. This is not the time to judge whether or not we have finally achieved our aim; that will depend on the degree to which the proposals tabled by the Convention find their way into the new Treaties, which is why the Convention needs to table specific institutional proposals, assuming of course that it reaches an agreement. If the Convention tables a selection of alternatives to the Intergovernmental Conference, rather than specific proposals, then it will have little effect on the shape of the new Treaty. Unfortunately, the instructions to come out of Laeken are rather more open-ended on this point than they should have been. If you stop to consider that no institutional body in the European Union and no institution in any one Member State has studied or tabled more thoughts on the institutional aspects of the European Union than the European Parliament, then a contingent of 16 delegates is hardly in proportion to its contribution to date. However, just so that our fellow citizens know where they stand, the Convention will not table a draft Treaty, it will table a draft Constitutional Treaty. The intergovernmental method will be complemented by the Community method, rather than being abolished, which is perfectly reasonable, given that the European Union is a union of nations and a union of states. However, the Convention takes the fight for greater democracy and greater rule of law in the European Union to a new level. It really is a pity, Mr President, that the chairman of the Convention is appointed by the Council. It would have been more fitting to allow a body made up mainly of members of parliament to elect its own chairman.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the drafting of the agenda for the coming Millennium Round raises quite a few questions with me. I cannot shake off the impression I have that the desiderata of the developing countries threaten to be pulverised by the desiderata of the major economic blocs. When elephants fight, the grass is trampled underfoot. Africa is all too aware of this. If Europe and the US argue today about genetically modified organisms and the use of hormones and antibiotics in cattle breeding, then improved market access for the developing countries and their involvement in the world economy will threaten to fade into the background. So it is up to us to ensure that in a world of liberalised trading, there is room for social and ecological corrections and a gradual and guided involvement of third-world countries in the world economy. Otherwise, we might end up in an American world which only defends commerce with verve, but overlooks the other values of the European dream, namely solidarity alongside competitiveness and responsibility alongside economic growth. Surely it cannot be our intention to render everything subordinate to the one paradigm, which is to be disseminated from Seattle to the rest of the world? Europe, and the European Parliament, in particular, must argue in favour of more equality in world trade relations. The impact of liberalisation of the economy on the development of the third world should be that of the wind that kindles a fire. The wind should be forceful enough, but not too forceful or else it will blow out the fire. In Seattle, we will help blow the bellows of the world economy. In my opinion, the excellent report of Mr Schwaiger indicates very well how we can reach out to the developing countries. I will therefore give it all my support.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the restrictive measures in the Green Paper on fisheries, vessel scrapping, quotas and so forth have put medium and – even more so – small fishing enterprises out of business. I come from an area in Greece with a large number of small and medium–sized fishing enterprises and have seen this for myself. At the same time, and this is not unrelated to what I have just said, there is a burgeoning aquaculture sector, which big business is invading in a big way. I have nothing against aquaculture, but I am against this sort of unaccountable development, which flouts even basic hygiene and environmental standards and, unfortunately, the more aquaculture is taken over by big business, the greater this unaccountability will become. This report reflects the growing importance of this sector. It sets out the conditions needed in order for aquaculture to flourish, such as finding sites, applying principles of sustainable use, advertising products, fair terms of competition, introducing certain hygiene measures, protection against the introduction of genetically–modified fish, respect for the environment and so on. However, these proposals relate mainly to technical matters. They fail to get to the root of the problem and address the issues which will inevitably arise in the future as these enterprises expand, such as serious hygiene problems and anything from unfortunate to disastrous environmental repercussions. The capitalist structure and expansion policies of these companies, in which the profit factor rules supreme, are already leading, where aquaculture is concentrated in the hands of big business, to rearing methods, livestock and fish farms which are bad both for public health and the environment. By failing to address these major problems, the report leaves small producers, the public and the environment out on a limb. Finally, as regards our rapporteur’s call on the Greek presidency to prevent Prestige–type disasters from reoccurring, I fear that this call will fall on deaf ears, given that the Greek presidency has never made any secret of its ties with the shipping industry.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we believe that it is particularly important that in the debate on the budget, amendments have now been approved in committee which support the Commission and ask it to back the campaigns and actions in favour of the moratorium on executions and, in the long term, the abolition of the death penalty. Why am I saying this, Mr President? Because this House has often made commitments on specific issues and has had successes, alongside defeats, as regards the commutation or stays of executions. The important thing is to mark the end of the twentieth century by means of action by Europe – Europe as the home of human rights – involving the abolition of the death penalty. All over the world, there is a vitally important campaign which Europe should be leading. I would ask the Commission to undertake to implement these objectives to make Europe the global home of political action against the death penalty.

Political group: ELDR
Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to thank the two rapporteurs. They have highlighted the importance of cohesion policy for the European Union, and therefore for the people of Europe. The cohesion policy is a policy of solidarity, particularly for the structurally disadvantaged regions. Today the fundamental policies of the European Union are being called into question. The press are referring to the so-called extra costs in exaggerated terms. It is essential to underline how vital these policies are, especially for the regions that have benefited from them to date. How far behind would they have lagged in terms of development without European Union aid? These are the policies that make the European Union come alive for its citizens. They are policies advocating solidarity, redistribution and the creation of bridges between areas that are not experiencing the same difficulties. I have no hesitation in saying that these policies have brought the European Union alive. It is incumbent upon us to ensure policies like these are retained. We must keep on the right track. It is not a question of restructuring the European budget to make it more dynamic; rather it is a matter of increasing the budget. If the European Union wants to do more, it must provide itself with the means to do so. I must emphasise one point in particular. It concerns our development indicators. GDP alone is no longer a relevant criterion. Now we have achieved a certain degree of macro-equity in Europe, it is time to refine these criteria. Micro-economic indicators must be taken into account and this assessment should constantly inform our future action. I am now thinking in particular of the regions affected by desertification and suffering from structural handicaps in relation to employment, training, amenities, accessibility and demography. The Commission should now have all the necessary staff in place following the reform. I trust, therefore, it will ensure that these funds are actually spent.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I want to begin by thanking my colleague, Mrs Swiebel for the sterling work she has done on this report. There is no doubt that we in the EU are well off when it comes to respect for freedoms and rights. That is precisely why we are having this debate, that is to say with a view to constantly improving the situation, retaining a high level of protection and openly debating the deficiencies that exist. It is an important issue that affects what is most basic to a properly functioning EU – mutual trust between the Member States. We are not perfect. Rights are infringed, and there are failures to respect fundamental freedoms and rights, and it is not just ‘everywhere else’ that these things happen. My own country, Sweden, has, for example, been singled out in connection with a high-profile death in which the actions of the police, prosecution service and coroner have been sharply criticised. I want to make it clear that the Swedish Government had been responding to the criticism for a long time and had instituted an inquiry that was completed last year. The perspectives from which the inquiry was conducted clearly included that of citizens’ rights. Another very important issue is that of the rights of European citizens in legal processes such as arrests. There are Member States in which people are held without trial for long periods; we must debate this issue. Our young people travel throughout Europe. No one on EU territory should need to feel anxious that their personal freedom may be infringed because of inefficiency at police stations and in prisons. We must therefore emphasise very clearly that all European citizens are guaranteed certain rights in legal processes in all the EU countries. I look forward to the Commission’s continued work on this issue and to its proposals. Trafficking in human beings, particularly women and children, is a fact in this EU of ours. The EU is in many cases the final destination for people who, in desperation and confusion, are taken away from their home countries. It is a modern slave trade, and we must ask ourselves how that trend can be stopped. I am concerned about the fact that many EU countries accept various forms of prostitution. It turns the EU into a favourable market for traffickers in human beings throughout the world. There is an unambiguous link between human trafficking and prostitution. They are two sides of the same coin. I should have liked to have seen the report be clearer on this point. We must make great demands of ourselves in the EU, now that we are making demands of the candidate countries.

Political group: PSE
The only reason we voted for this proposal for a regulation was because if we had voted against it that might have suggested agreement with those who are opposed even to this minimum aid to poor countries. Having said that, these proposals are inadequate, cynical and hypocritical. For anyone to pretend, for example, that this aid can ‘contribute to world food security’ and ‘respond to emergency food situations and other food needs’ when several hundred of millions of people in the world find themselves in emergency situations, if not in extreme distress, mainly because the European powers represented here in Parliament plundered them in the past, is a cheap attempt to salve their conscience. - Ludford recommendation (B5­340/2001)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to begin by thanking the Commission for the presentation of this Communication and Mrs Almeida Garrett for her report. The Commission will note that there is substantial agreement between the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market and the text presented by Mrs Almeida Garrett. In the field of regulatory agencies, there is a danger of us falling into the North American vice of the proliferation of agencies, which act in a completely autonomous manner and without any real control on the part of the legislative powers. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the resolution contained in Mrs Garrett’s report are very significant. Specifically, when we get into the strictly regulatory field, we are talking about a legislative power and not an executive power. I would therefore call on the Commission, when drawing up a text with specific proposals, to prevent any reference which could imply the assumption of legislative powers by these agencies. In other words, we should try to ensure that, for any type of legislative delegation, there is an interinstitutional agreement, with the Council and Parliament as the legislative power. Secondly, we must prevent the proliferation of agencies, regulatory or non-regulatory, because it appears that, at the moment, they have become a kind of Christmas present, which are given each year to governments, so that they can say in their respective capitals that they have achieved something from an institutional point of view. With regard to the legal basis and the tendency to invoke Article 308, the regulatory agencies would only make sense if there were specific European Union competence in that area, but not by creating special means for justifying that type of creation. Finally, it is important that the regulatory agencies are subject to the same type of scrutiny as the Commission. Even more in fact, given their distance away.

Political group: PSE
chairman of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection. – I think that is all we can do. The committee meets at 7.30 tonight, because we have to deal with a proposal which has come late to us from the European Commission. We understand that we cannot accelerate the procedure so that we come first on the list of subjects for debate, so we will debate this, as usual in a crowded House, at about 11.15 tonight.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, first of all, I should like to thank the rapporteurs warmly for the huge amount of work they have done. Secondly, I should like to echo what Mr Jarzembowski said. I believe that there is a great deal of truth in it. It is all about the procedure at the moment. I am increasingly being driven to distraction with regard to the way in which we are time and time again pushed into codecisions. I would want things to move faster, and that should be possible. In fact, everyone – whether it be the IMO or the Commission – is convinced that such a voyage data recorder, for example, is useful. Ultimately, we have very difficult procedures behind us, involving Mr Gayssot, inter alia. In my opinion, we should be able to achieve results faster one way or another, not just now, but also in future. That is one thing. Secondly, I believe we are right in retrieving the VDR by means of an amendment and, thirdly, it is even more important specifically to consider the evaluation of port State control, for that is what matters. That also includes the quality of that Port State control; not just the technical side of things, but also the human factor, such as the way in which the crew is set up. I have a good mind, pending the second Erika package, to ask again for extra consideration to be given particularly to the crew, the number of crew, the nature of the crew, etc. I believe we simply need to draft another proposal in this connection, for we are not adequately covering that area, and the public will be at a loss to understand why that is.

Political group: Verts-ALE