GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, the Group of the European People’s Party firmly rejects the latest attempts by the German Chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, to lift the arms embargo on the People’s Republic of China. (Applause) I am glad that the Council representative made it clear that the Council currently maintains the line that the arms embargo must be retained. You described the situation, Commissioner, but I urge you to be cautious. The 1989 European Council was right to impose the arms embargo after the peace demonstrations in Tiananmen Square were put down in such a bloody fashion. Commissioner, we too believe that there have been improvements in the human rights situation in China since then, but they have not been sufficient. Only recently, on 13 October, the Council reconsidered the situation in China and, just as Parliament had done in the same month, noted that the current human rights situation in China, as regards fundamental civil, cultural and political freedoms did not meet even the international standards recognised by China. That being so, although we want progress in China, we should wait before it is achieved, and so it would send completely the wrong message if the embargo were to be lifted at the present time. On the contrary, we should be telling our Chinese friends that they need to make perceptible progress where human rights in China are concerned. There is a second reason why we should do this. You will be aware that presidential elections are to be held in Taiwan on 20 March next year, and the People’s Republic of China has, over recent weeks, been adopting a positively hostile stance towards Taiwan. As long ago as 23 October, this House stated its view that China should withdraw the rockets it had stationed in the coastal provinces opposite Taiwan and should commence peaceful dialogue across the Strait of Taiwan, which amounts to a flash point. That is the second reason why lifting the arms embargo makes no sense whatever. I therefore hope that we will not now send the wrong message, even if only by editing what we say, in the belief that we can lift the arms embargo because everything is laid down in the code of conduct. On the contrary, I believe that the tensions and the human rights situation, which is still unsatisfactory, mean that we have to maintain it. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, you call your communication ‘Modernisation of Accounting’. To put it politely, I call that a misrepresentation of the facts, as what has been revealed to us in the last few weeks has been total chaos. Your administration is about to blow up in spectacular fashion and if you had the courage of your convictions you would admit it. I only wonder why it is only now that you are admitting to this scandalous situation – I only mention the fact that nothing was obviously done to prevent multiple entries – even though the Court of Auditors has drawn attention to it repeatedly since 1994, why you apparently need a few more years, until 2005, to put a stop to them, why you dismissed a chief accountant who was the first to draw attention to these errors early this year and why you subjected her to disciplinary proceedings. I seriously wonder how you think you can sell us your new Financial Regulation as a great success when it is not based on an operational bookkeeping system.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, it is customary in this House to congratulate rapporteurs at length and I often think that this is something of a waste of time when we have so few seconds at our disposal anyway. Surely it is axiomatic that rapporteurs do their work well? However, I should like to make an exception for Mr Maaten. Because this report proves that if one plays an active role as a rapporteur and hence also takes consultations with the Council and the Commission very seriously and makes a point of getting people together around a table, one can actually succeed. That is of course also dependent on the Commission and the Council. That is why it is gratifying that we can present this example at the end of the Swedish Presidency. In fact you could take this report into the schools and say: Look, this is an example of the way in which a European directive can be produced through consultation between the Commission, the Council and Parliament. I wish that were the case on more matters. Now to come to the point. I have been in politics for quite a time and when I first took part in framing legislation on limiting advertising and on warnings on cigarette packets, it was actually seen as something completely absurd by many of my colleagues. Since then the fight against tobacco addiction and the regular use of tobacco has become universally accepted. Still, there are differences. I remember that on the first occasion when I went to Sweden for a meeting – I still smoked at the time – the smokers were put in a separate room together, where of course it stank terribly. That was where you had to smoke, but it did not taste good at all. Smoking was completely forbidden in the meeting room itself. There was a sign, and I had never seen that before since I came from a culture where meeting and smoking were as it were associatively linked. I now observe that the social pressure on smokers has increased in most countries and that great progress has been made thanks to the campaigns, despite scepticism about them many years ago. The number of non-smoking train compartments must be increased everywhere. More and more we insist on using and meeting in non-smoking areas. Nevertheless social pressure must be stepped up to a point where young people especially do not start smoking, and women to not take up smoking either. It is painful to see that despite the campaigns so many people are still starting to smoke. I experienced first hand that giving up smoking is a lot more difficult than starting. Having said this I hope that the strict regulations that run counter to the spirit of the lobbyists and their interests, will be followed up, and I believe that the measures proposed by Mrs Martens to abolish the subsidising of tobacco growing might give a healthy impetus. IN THE CHAIR: MR COLOM I NAVALVice-President

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would firstly like to congratulate our rapporteur, Mrs Miguélez, on her report on a just cause – as others have said – which we have all supported for a very long time, including the Spanish Government, as the Commissioner is aware. I wished to take advantage of this modification of the Regulation on aid for the conversion of the fleet which fished in Morocco to point out that what was done then must not be the exception, but the rule. In other words, when Community fleets need to be converted, either due to a failure to renew international fisheries agreements, or due to a drastic reduction in catches owing to recovery plans – and our British colleagues are well aware of this, particularly the Scottish Members, in relation to cod – the European Commission should automatically provide for additional measures to compensate these fleets and deal with the new situation. We should not therefore make partial modifications to the general Regulation on FIFG structural aid whenever a situation such as this occurs, but rather there should be a permanent general framework in order to provide aid whenever it happens, either as a result of species recovery plans in Community waters or in external waters when they affect our fleet, the Community fleet. This has been the case recently with the Community halibut fleet in NAFO waters, where the Commission proposed a recovery plan for halibut which was accepted and which involves dropping from 42 000 tonnes this year, 2003, to 16 000 tonnes in 2007, a reduction of 62%. And since it appears here that nothing has happened, I say that the Commission must be obliged to do something in order not to jeopardise the future of this fleet. And it must take appropriate action by adopting extraordinary measures such as relocation to other fishing grounds, the promotion of experimental campaigns and the granting of other socio-economic aid which we have been asking for in order to compensate for the situation which has been created. Our intention in presenting this amendment which, Commissioner, is not a ‘Varela’ amendment but an amendment tabled by the Committee on Fisheries, is to resolve these problems and any future problems. If our Parliament approves it tomorrow, my request to you, Commissioner, is that the Commission should consider this since the sector in question is calling for it. It is asking you to do something. The European Parliament wishes to help you and be your ally and an ally of the sector and therefore ensure in this way that the European Commission takes action. This is my opinion and I hope, Mr Fischler, that you will consider what has been said before taking the initiative you have announced. I would like to end – since I will not have time later – by congratulating Chairman Stevenson, rapporteur for the report on Mozambique, which we are going to deal with next, because it is a wonderful report which deserves our support.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the downturn in the economy has proved to be deeper and longer-lasting than was first thought. The present situation clearly highlights how important the Lisbon strategy for growth and competition is. The Union was to have become the world’s most competitive region by 2010 and an engine for growth, as our Member States’ leaders put it so beautifully at Lisbon. It all seems to have gone differently, however. In the last three years Europe has become a continent where the sun is setting, one which cannot keep its promises, which is betraying the confidence of its citizens, and which is leaving future generations to inherit only debts and uncovered pension liabilities. Can we really not do any better than this? Only three countries – Denmark, Sweden and Finland – have done what was agreed at Lisbon. Ireland, Great Britain and the Netherlands have also made considerable progress. The three biggest economies in the euro area, however, have not done enough up till now. If we were at school, ladies and gentlemen, Germany, Italy and France would be kept down a year. I would not use such harsh words normally, but this is a serious business. What in your opinion, after all, does a press report tell you which says that at present a hundred Germans lose their jobs every hour? International business cycles obviously play their part, but this does not alter the fact that our economic structures are so constrained that they are a huge barrier to growth. Moreover, when we then try to eliminate these structural problems, for example with the directive on port services, a whole crowd of brawlers and egotistic anarchists gather in front of the European Parliament. At the moment we do not need new targets or new complicated rules. Now is the time for action. This means genuine commitment to the Stability and Growth Pact and structural reforms. If Member States are to be allowed to deviate from the objective of balancing public finances under the Stability and Growth Pact, this will give out quite the wrong signal. In practice this would lead to rules that are open to interpretation, and would weaken our credibility and our ultimate objectives in coordinating economic policy even further.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, although I value the work of rapporteur Maaten, I have to say that I am greatly disturbed by the European Parliament’s inconsistent line with regard to tobacco. The report once again reflects the ambivalence of the European Union – as has been highlighted in this debate – which subsidises the tobacco cultivation by more than EUR one billion and collects more than EUR 70 billion in tax money annually on the one hand and which curbs the sale of tobacco products on the other. I would also like to emphasise that it is not up to the European Parliament to deny tobacco products, which are legally available on the market, a fair chance of commercialisation. What strikes me in the debate is that we seem to overlook the objective of this directive. It aims to reinforce the internal market by promoting better harmonisation and by removing barriers to trade. In this respect, I notice an imbalance in the present report, an imbalance between the need for harmonisation and the aim of protecting the consumer. I take exception to the fact that the consumer is considered as someone who cannot judge for himself what he should or should not do. The proposed warnings on the packet completely miss the point. Whatever the dimensions, the information will remain ineffective. Information on the dangers of smoking will need to be conveyed in a more effective way if we want to achieve the objective. Above all, we should not forget that it is – and should remain – up to the citizens to decide for themselves how they wish to conduct their lives and they should be able to continue to do so.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I shall take advantage of this second opportunity to address the House to comment in more detail on Mr Jarzembowski’s report. This document contains two groundbreaking proposals. The first involves the abolition of the Trans-European Rail Freight Network and contemplates the complete liberalisation of international as well as national, regional and local freight networks by 2006. The second involves the opening up and liberalisation of the rail passenger network. As regards the first proposal, I share the view that we need to make a strong political gesture in support of railways. Though it may not be wise to be forever changing the dates, I personally support Mr Jarzembowski’s proposals for freight, given that the issue is now so worrying. I have many more reservations however about international rail passenger services. Unlike freight, I do not consider the liberalisation of passenger services to be an absolute priority. I regularly take the train and have not encountered any particular difficulties at border crossings. I am nevertheless aware that there are significant commercial interests at stake in this sector. I do not support the view that we should restrict ourselves simply to creating a rail market. Rather, I think we should work towards a European transport policy, which is not quite the same thing. To conclude, what has emerged clearly from today’s debate is that, whether or not we open up the rail networks, we cannot restrict our work on a European rail network to liberalisation, competition or opening up networks. If we do, we will have parts of the market that duplicate each other within the same area, and rail will constitute a substitute for road transport. Other aspects of the transport strategy therefore need to be implemented. The fixing of price scales has to be considered, as does the reduction of the social and fiscal disparities between different means of transport, especially between road and rail transport. I think that the latter should be a priority if we want to ensure that the opening up of the rail market gives the rail sector an advantage over road. We must create an investment policy, not simply a rail market. Consequently, I personally hope that this debate sends a very strong message from the European Parliament to the Council. For many months trans-European rail network funding policy has been deadlocked in the Council. It has maintained a regressive approach to the matter and does not want to consider fiscal issues, fuel taxation or large European loans. It is my belief that without a major and ambitious policy on rail infrastructure, our attempts at opening up the sector will not put a stop to the dominance of road transport but will only lead to a fight between the various rail companies. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the message I would like to send from the European Parliament to the Council.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we should like to table a compromise amendment. We want to know whether the Group would accept the addition of the words “including those inspired by fundamentalism” at the end of their Amendment No 29, so that the amendment would read thus: “Urges the Commission and Council, when applying penalties based on the human rights clauses in association and other agreements, to take account of violations of women’s rights, including those inspired by fundamentalism.” This is a compromise amendment that would remain as an addition. Furthermore, Mr President, may I say that, if linguistic issues arise, I should like the Spanish version to be taken as authentic. (Parliament rejected the oral amendment) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) President. – That concludes the vote. EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE

Political group: PSE
I have voted in favour of the report on the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and its future status. I am in favour of the incorporation of the Charter into the treaty. On the other hand, I am against the line of reasoning that it is a prerequisite that the EU be a legal person in its own right or that the Charter would be a step along the way towards an EU state.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the Poos report is audacious, cautious and realistic. Audacious because it immediately proposes a set of amendments to improve the workings of the Council. Cautious because it acknowledges the viability of the amendments without needing to modify the Treaties. And realistic because it recognises that it is also becoming politically necessary to make considerable improvements to the workings of both the Commission and Parliament. The report’s proposals even consider the idea that improving the institutional workings of the Union will require major adjustments to the balance of established power which, without endangering the workings of these bodies, guarantee the full participation of all Member States. I would say, as a matter of fact, that this is the fundamental issue. The broad objectives for the European Union in economic, social and security terms and for its external representation will only be achieved in the short term if Europe as a whole, through its various public opinions, and the fifteen Member States, through their representatives in the various bodies, attach priority and urgency to improving political cohesion on the basis of fully egalitarian participation. Passivity, a lack of clear definition, division and disputes between countries, which prevent changes from taking place, help maintain the status quo, prove right those who see the European Union as nothing more than a group of merchants whose primary concern is to divide up the limited financial resources it has available in a way that is not always fair or equitable. Strengthening the institutions, improving their workings and efficiency, drafting and producing Community policies for security and for our external representation is absolutely essential, but this must be carried out by all fifteen Member States without exceptions and without cabinets. For this reason, the report warrants our support and our admiration.

Political group: PSE
Like my colleagues in the UK Conservative Delegation, I have consistently supported the principle and the practice of employee information and consultation. In my previous job as managing director of a large UK food manufacturing company, I was very proud to lead the first such company in the whole of the West Midlands Region to achievement of the coveted Investors People Award. As has already been mentioned, earlier this month I hosted a lunch debate in Brussels with the Involvement and Participation Association for my fellow members of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs to share with them UK best practice and the benefits of flexibility, because that is the issue. The common position as it stands is fine, which is why I personally did not put forward any amendments to that, but the committee amendments propose yet another one-size fits-all straitjacket which would be highly damaging to managers' ability to manage and in particular to their ability to manage rapid change. If companies are held back from taking the key decisions necessary perhaps for the very survival of those businesses, their problems will get worse, which means that more employees could suffer. The UK government has asked all UK MEPs from all political parties to vote down all these amendments and to support the common position. Conservative MEPs will do exactly that, so I now call upon UK Labour MEPs to reverse the position they all took in committee when they supported these amendments and to vote with us in the interests of employment and in the interests of the nation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, you have come here today, Mr Prodi, in a very reformist and ambitious mood. I welcome you and your ambition. Ambition will be needed, given the mammoth task which awaits us. In order to make these reforms, however, and in order to make progress with the 2001 legislative programme, we must be very sure, not only of the strengths of the reformer himself, but also of the opinions of others. You say that you will not hesitate to come to this House to request more resources for the Commission, but the Commission must be aware that we are walking on thin financial ice. We have 1.27% of the Community’s GDP. Not a euro more or a euro less. It will not be us who refuse these new resources. You should ask the Council. These financial perspectives are adjusted to within a millimetre. In order to finance the stability plan for the Balkans, we will have to negotiate a significant revision of Category 4, and you must remember the enormous difficulties we have had in approving the 2000 budget. I would remind you that this Group, the , does not like to finance new political initiatives at the expense of existing ones. The political priorities must be set by this House and the MEPs. Do not believe for one moment that your proposed reform of the budget will disguise the limitations of the Community financial system. It is all very well for us, by mutual consensus, to make an effort in terms of budgetary rationalisation, but you must be very aware that the lack of resources, the absence of financial autonomy and the poor execution of the budget, continue to be urgent issues which must be resolved. We therefore wonder whether the Commission has the political will to resolve them.

Political group: PPE-DE