GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, in the space of one minute I shall mention five points in order to remind the House of the position of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. The first point is our concern over the evaluation report which we asked for from the Commission, on the needs of the applicant countries with regard to general-interest services. Then there is the idea that in the case of the applicant countries we should regard their economic capacity with a certain degree of flexibility, taking into account the need to create in those countries the conditions for continuous and sustainable economic growth. Then there is our concern, again, about the campaign against money laundering and tax havens, which in our view constitutes a real preliminary condition for accession, as other speakers before me have already pointed out. In addition there is the need to encourage these countries to have more regional cooperation, and finally there is the idea that the accession of these countries to the Union will make it easier for them to achieve the objectives pursued by the European Union.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to bring a slightly different dimension to the debate and bring in the experience of Parliament's Committee on Petitions where pensions and social security issues constitute 20% of the petitions brought to the committee's attention. I add my own congratulations to Mr Fatuzzo and his own way of pressing the needs of pensioners. Pensioners across Europe have reason to be grateful to him for the work he has done. The issue that tends to be raised most with the Committee on Petitions is increasingly that of people who in their working lives exercise their right to move across and work in various countries in Europe and then retire elsewhere. I well remember the case of a German citizen, married to a French woman, who had spent much of his working life in Belgium, had then retired to Spain and wanted to know who was going to help him in filling in his pension claim forms. There was also an Italian citizen who worked much of his time in Luxembourg and then retired to Italy. He pointed out that the arrangements (in place at the time) made it possible to accumulate benefits, but nevertheless penalised migrant workers who found themselves having to deal with any number of national pension schemes. In another case earlier this year we considered a petition from a British citizen, on behalf of 40,000 British pensioners living in Spain, who complained that the British Government was refusing to pay them the winter fuel allowance. His argument was that it was paid to all pensioners living in Britain, regardless of means, regardless of how cold or warm it was in the part of Britain they lived in. I represent the Isle of Wight – the sunniest part of the United Kingdom – but the same winter fuel allowance is paid to people living in the cold north of Scotland; the British Government refused to pay this to the UK citizens in Spain. These citizens appealed to the European Parliament and I am delighted to say that as a result of that petition, the winter fuel allowance is now to be paid to British pensioners wherever they live. The point I make is that British pensioners have to look to the British Government, German pensioners to the German Government and so on. I do not disagree that it is the responsibility of national governments, but the point that needs to be made, is that more and more thousands of citizens who are pensioners, who work in different countries in Europe, will retire to different countries in Europe. It is very important that the Member States that have responsibility for pension schemes bear in mind the needs of citizens who use their European rights to work and retire in different countries of the Union.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, the Italian Presidency of the European Union begins in a climate of complex and difficult economic choices. If this Presidency is to be successful, the period of euroscepticism which only a little while ago led the Italian Government to voice reservations about the single currency must be completely left behind. In the meantime, the aim that the Italian Presidency has made its priority should from now on be acknowledged as a positive one. That objective is to reinvigorate the European economy, which is currently stagnant and appears overly-dependent on the recovery of the US economy. It is therefore important to acquire detailed knowledge of the new Presidency’s concrete proposals, from the launch of a broad-based programme of investment in infrastructure, backed by the European Investment Bank (EIB), to a reopening of the debate on the flexibility of the Stability and Growth Pact, which forces European economies into a strait-jacket of budgetary constraints, even when, as now, their growth rates are negative or very close to zero. This Presidency, regardless of who happens to be at the helm, can only succeed fully if everyone shares the desire for European integration to succeed. I wish the President success.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Culture 2000 programme – as this good report establishes very graphically – does not only make clear the increasing need for culture, but also makes a contribution towards the creation of a unitary cultural area. The report, though, shows just as clearly that this programme is marked by a disparity between the wealth of its objectives on the one hand and the astonishing poverty of its budget on the other. The rapporteur is right to highlight the explicit recognition of culture as an economic factor and also as a factor in social integration and citizenship. As with so many other programmes, for example, within the regional policy framework – which is not to excuse it – it cannot but be noted that the first two years were characterised by the late appearance of calls for proposals. Indeed, I will at this point use the same words as the rapporteur, who speaks of ‘chaotic programme management’, in these first two years. At the end of the day, Culture 2000's low level of implementation during its first year of operation can be attributed to that and to lengthy and cumbersome internal procedures. This is where, in my view, the Commission has to make real efforts to shorten the cycle of the projects and guarantee the programme's continuity. In conclusion, I would like to pick out from this report's Explanatory Statement a question that particularly interests me as a regional politician and put it to the Commission. It is this: How can the necessary complementarity and coordination be established between Culture 2000 and the resources of the Structural Funds allocated to culture in the Member States? That might be an interesting angle, and one to which we might give some thought.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, there are just two questions which must be answered. Are state aid to business or inter-company agreements legitimate in a market economy, and who must supervise these exceptions to the absolute rules of the market economy? Regarding the first point, we say quite clearly that, in order to take into consideration the requirements of sustainable development which the European Union has endorsed, it is essential that, in some instances, there is state aid to businesses, be it in the form of tax exemptions, special taxation or even direct aid. It is also legitimate for there to be inter-company agreements and voluntary restraint agreements, since all these agreements make it possible to reduce the detrimental effects of competition on social or ecological requirements. So our clear response is that, yes, such aid and such agreements are legitimate, but we say that every single one of these agreements must be expressly justified. The von Wogau report proposes referring supervision of the legitimacy of individual cases to national level. We feel this is relatively dangerous, but all the same we shall vote in favour of it because we recognise that the Commission cannot do everything. We demand that the greatest possible transparency should be in place and that greater powers of investigation be granted to the Commission in order to check the legitimacy of such exceptions after the fact.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I should like to start by extending warm congratulations to Mrs Scheele, who has handled this difficult dossier with great care. I have to say that I have quite a few reservations about this report. First of all, I think that labels should tell the whole truth, and not be 0.9% removed from the truth. It is regrettable, in my opinion, that we have not decided to introduce a GMO-free label, because that would have made matters much clearer for the consumer. I also regret that we have remained caught up in the small-print mentality; it would, in fact, be much better if a label could indicate in an open and clear manner right from the outset whether a product is GMO-free, contains GMO or may contain GMO. This would at any rate have provided consumers with the clarity for which many are waiting. Despite this, I can agree to this legislation, because I think it is about time the ban was lifted, and I should therefore like to hear from the Commission what steps it intends to take to bring this about. For the Member States, it is time to closely examine not only co-existence in agriculture, in transport and in ports, but also how this is to be monitored. It should not be made too easy to get round this directive, and the Member States should really ensure that it is observed in any event.

Political group: PSE
Oil is essential for countries that waste a lot of energy, especially America. Iraq is rich in petroleum. That is why there is much more interest in the problems in that country than in the injustices in other dictatorships. Saddam Hussein is a cruel dictator. The Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south would have a better life if he stopped interfering with them. Nevertheless, these terrorised population groups never win the support of the outside world to enable then to separate from Iraq. America in particular, which used to be on friendly terms with this dictator, wants to keep Iraq together at any price. The USA is very keen to have a friendly regime that guarantees the continued supply of cheap oil. We must not bomb these people, who are already disadvantaged by sanctions, further into Saddam’s hands. More and more people in Europe and America are demonstrating under the slogan ‘No blood for oil’. Unfortunately America cannot be restrained any longer, but Europe must make sure that it does not become an accessory. The United Kingdom, Italy and Spain are threatening to go along with the creation of destruction and streams of refugees. It is important for the European Parliament to speak out against a war that serves neither human rights nor the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, but only control of the oil wells.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we have already talked about the under-implementation of the Structural Funds, and the menacing shadow of the guillotine has already been invoked. I would now like to add that it is no coincidence that many are in danger of losing part of their entitlement too. In other words, we risk suffering the blows of the stick without even tasting the carrot. We must take action but, Mr Bonde, we must make sure we do not set our sights on the wrong target. The European Commission is not the only one with responsibility in this area: a great deal of responsibility lies with the Member States too. We must make sure that we do not prescribe ourselves the wrong medicine. Personally, I am allergic to the reserves pill, which often does more harm than the original problem, and the idea that some political groups have of putting some of the Commissioners’ expenditure in reserve is downright ridiculous. The direction we must take is that of increasing payments and simplifying procedures. Commissioner Barnier has already told us what he intends to do and we are waiting for further clarification. Nevertheless, I would also like to hear what the Council has to say, if possible, and I call for greater attention to be paid to some of the Member States, who are sleeping the sleep of the unrighteous where this whole issue is concerned.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, Ombudsmen, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I should like to congratulate my colleague, the Earl of Stockton on this report, which my group fully supports. The comparison with a pair of scales is sometimes made when talking about the future of Europe and the future Constitution. On the one hand, the Union has to be democratic and open, and on the other hand, it has to be efficient and functional. We in Parliament have to watch over those scales and ensure that they do not tip at the expense of openness. I extend my greetings to the first European Ombudsman, Mr Söderman, whose last report we are discussing today, and thank him once more, on behalf of my group, for his work over many years. He has never ceased to emphasise that transparency and openness are the cheapest means of ensuring good administration and combating fraud. I shall not embark on a discussion of the Eurostat question here: that would lead us off on too much of a tangent. In addition, the annual reports by the Ombudsman have shown us how complaints by citizens regarding maladministration can lead to tangible improvements in the way in which the institutions work. In most cases, the institutions have reacted positively to the Ombudsman’s comments and solutions have been found to the complaints. Sometimes, however, there is reluctance on the part of the institution concerned to change bad rules and practices. In that case, the Ombudsman can go to Parliament with a special report. Two matters of this kind are currently at issue. There is need of a common Code of Good Administrative Behaviour for all the institutions. Parliament decided on this on the basis of the Perry report. I still do not see why it should be so problematic, especially for the Commission, the very ones that should be setting a good example in this. Why are we waiting for the IGC when we could be taking the lead ourselves? The other report, for which my colleague, Mrs Lambert, was rapporteur, concerns data protection and its use for the purposes of requiring confidentiality in matters that should actually be of a public nature. Two fundamental rights are at odds here: the right to information on the one hand, and the right to the protection of personal data on the other. I should like to ask the Commission, in this connection, how it intends to resolve this matter and the problems between our institutions.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The Commission communication and the Napoletano report follow on from and specify the Solana doctrine presented at the Thessaloniki summit setting the priorities for the Union's foreign policy. Following enlargement, within the framework of competition with the USA to divide up the planet, the ΕU is seeking to control its new eastern and southern neighbours. The texts impudently talk about creating a 'circle of cooperation' at a time when they contain direct or indirect coercion and the stick follows the carrot. For example, for the areas of Transnistria and Moldova, which are seen as sources of instability, ideas are being examined to send even military forces, while in the Ukraine, the carrot of aspiration to join the European Union is offered in order to stop it joining the ΚΕΚ. The prospect of creating a Free Trade Area is also offered, provided that they liberalise their markets and join the EU single market, in other words once the western European monopolies have been allowed to penetrate and plunder their economies. As far as border security is concerned, the position of the ΕU can be summarised as follows: electrified fences for immigrants and 'terrorists', open doors to trade. We are voting against the report, because it endorses the strengthening of the European Union's political and military interventionism, militates against the right of every people to choose their own path to social and economic development and adds new threats to peace.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I rise on a matter which is of great importance to everyone in this House. Yesterday afternoon, we had the Commission with their usual answering of questions. Mr Provan in the chair had a major problem because Mr Byrne took up 29 minutes answering questions. It is particularly important to this House that we have the opportunity to question the Commissioners and for a Commissioner to spend 29 minutes answering questions is, in my opinion, ridiculous. I believe that he was particularly concerned about having to answer a question which I know a number of colleagues – not myself – wanted to ask him concerning the reason why he did not instigate interim measures against the French on beef. That apart, I would suggest that, whoever is in the chair, if we have another situation where a Commissioner is just talking his time out, then the chair should have the power to stop the Commissioner or make him shorten his answers.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I wish to express our indignation at two recent events in the Balkans. The first is the arrest of the former President of Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milosevic, and the other is the imminent agreement between Bulgaria and NATO on free passage for NATO forces. The Americans, NATO and the European Union spent USD 100 million ousting President Milosevic. They spent another 100 million securing his arrest with a view to handing him over to the so-called Hague War Crimes Tribunal set up by the imperialists in order to justify their own crimes. Only nations have the right to judge their leaders, no one else. President Milosevic would not have been arrested had he followed NATO’s orders. Is this the punishment for resistance? Mind you, even those who gave the imperialists everything, such as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, have to suffer armed intervention by the NATO elite. Developments in the Balkans clearly demonstrate that we have not yet seen the end of the war. Only once ΝΑΤΟ leaves the area will the people there be able to foster some hope of living in peace.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteurs, Mr Cashman, Mrs Lynne and Mr Thomas Mann, and congratulate them on their work on the reports on the anti-discrimination programme and equal treatment in employment and working conditions. As shadow rapporteur for the in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, I welcomed the Council's decision to establish a Community Action Plan to fight discrimination. I feel that the great step taken towards consolidating the new powers conferred by Article 13 of the Treaty establishing the European Community in order to fight this very phenomenon of discrimination is satisfactory. In general terms, I agree with the emphasis placed on the development and growth of cultural tools to fight discrimination: in my opinion, we must combat discrimination with a culture of non-discrimination, making up-to-the-minute, accessible information available to all the citizens of all the Member States. In fact, information and awareness campaigns are vital in this area: they must act as hammers to forge new mentalities and bring about a new way of thinking and behaving, in order to drive out those prejudices which are still widespread and to ensure equal rights for all citizens. However, I consider that the overall funds allocated to this programme are inadequate and I call, in particular, upon the Commissioner to secure an increase in funding. The amount should be at least equal to the sums made available for the preparations for this programme, to make it possible to implement it fully and effectively. I would remind you of the additional cost of implementing the programme in respect of the more vulnerable categories such as the elderly, people with varying abilities and the older unemployed. These categories represent 25% of the Union's population. This is a potential which must not be underestimated and the integration of these categories could prove beneficial to the economy as well.

Political group: PPE-DE
It is my pleasure to explain why I voted for the Ebner report, given the far-reaching significance of promoting, respecting and also, where necessary, protecting the languages which enrich the European Union’s cultural and linguistic heritage and which ought to bring to life the motto of the draft Constitution for Europe, ‘United in diversity’. Moreover, those languages are the central nucleus of the linguistic and cultural rights recognised by that draft Constitution and also by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. With that in mind, I want to draw attention in particular to the need to add the official languages of the Member States to the list of official languages of the Union. An example from within the Spanish state is Catalan, a language spoken in an area containing ten million inhabitants, and recognised by Parliament, in the Reding report, as deserving special treatment given its importance and standing at the heart of the European Union. It is a sad fact that successive Spanish Governments have failed to champion the official languages recognised by the relevant Statutes of Autonomy, earmarking for development the principles and rights of the Spanish Constitution itself. For that reason, it is very important that it should be the European Union that recognises and protects these languages, over and above the positions of governments. (Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, twelve years ago, a Czech human rights activist in Prague wanted to appeal to a Western head of government for help in the face of his impending imprisonment. This Western head of government did not receive him. A few months later, the human rights activist became President of Czechoslovakia. His name was Václav Havel. From then on, the Western head of government had a great deal of difficulty in getting an audience with the Czech President, who refused to receive him because he wanted to make it clear that this failure to respond to human rights violations and the flouting of human dignity was unacceptable. European Union states are pursuing a similar policy today with regard to Vietnam. It is a policy of autosuggestion. It is claimed that Vietnam is pursuing a reform course. It is also claimed that Vietnam no longer has such a repressive regime as before. Yet the reality sends out a very different message. Persecution of human rights activists has increased. Injustice and the suppression of press freedom have increased, as has the suppression of religious freedom. If we look at the reality of the situation, we must recognise that this regime cannot be set on a reform course without massive external pressure. Economic and geostrategic interests, too, cannot be sustained in the long term unless there is a stronger emphasis on the rule of law throughout South-East Asia, but especially in Vietnam. That is why it is in the European Union's interests to abandon its policies of autosuggestion at last and speak out about human rights violations in Vietnam. The European Parliament adopted this approach with regard to Central and Eastern Europe before 1989. It was fairly isolated at the time, but events proved that it was right. The European Parliament is pursuing the same course today on Vietnam, and I appeal to the Commission, and especially, of course, to the Council and Member States to adopt a more pro-active human rights policy with regard to Vietnam and genuinely send out a clear signal, for in this region of the world, we are dependent on this important country, with its great culture, returning to a more democratic course based on the rule of law. Only then can it be a real partner – also in the economic field – in the long term.

Political group: PPE-DE