GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would firstly like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Jensen, for her good work and for the efforts she has made so that we may be in this position today. In the Minutes of the Turin European Council we notice that, if Europe were to advance only in the economic and monetary fields, its success would not be guaranteed – I am quoting from memory here – because we would be forgetting the most important thing Europe has: its citizens. To involve European citizens in the process of European integration, the European Union has to take a greater interest in their concerns. An example of this appears in the introduction to Title VIII of the Treaty, with regard to employment, following Amsterdam, with an important reference made in Luxembourg, as well as the 2000 Lisbon European Council, where the conversion to a competitive and dynamic knowledge-based society that can grow in an economically-sustainable fashion with more and better jobs and better social cohesion was set as a new strategic objective for the European Union, and therefore to achieve the conditions for full employment. This objective was highlighted once again at the Barcelona Summit. For these reasons, I believe that this Parliament and Council decision on Community measures to stimulate employment seeks to noticeably improve cooperation with Member States in analysis and research in the field of employment and the implementation of these results in the labour market. It also seeks to coordinate employment policies within the general Lisbon and Barcelona objectives and to apply an information and transparency policy as a response to the aspirations of European citizens to be well informed on European employment strategy, in which they place great hopes. It also intends to support the Member States’ efforts to evaluate their action plans, exchange experiences and good practices, carry out a follow-up to the employment strategy, particularly through the European employment survey, involving the various players to a greater extent, from the authorities to those seeking work, and to rationalise and guarantee coherence in order to avoid duplicating actions and of course expenditure. I think therefore that we are dealing with an important decision full of good content and good intentions which hopes to rationalise and optimise European employment strategy and which will constitute a step forward in the process of European integration for all European citizens.

Political group: PPE-DE
The MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece voted against the report on Belarus because it represents monumental intervention by the ΕU in the internal affairs of an independent country. The problem for the EU is not one of democracy; it is the fact that Belarus insists on respect for international law, territorial integrity and national sovereignty and is against selling out to the multinationals. The report – and this is pure blackmail – makes future relations with Belarus dependent on its immediate transition to a market economy and even calls for cooperation with the USA in a bid to make its intervention – which nowadays can mean anything and everything, including military intervention – more effective. There is a problem in Belarus with respect for human rights and democratic freedoms. However, this is a matter for its own people and does not warrant foreign intervention. The supposed democratic freedoms which international imperialist organisations and this report are endeavouring to blackmail Belarus into accepting are freedom of action for big business and the freedom to wipe out any achievements over from the regime. All this is illustrated by the fact that the amendment proposed by the MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece, calling on the ΕU to cooperate directly with Belarus in combating trafficking in human beings, was rejected in favour of an amendment requiring Belarus to toe the EU line.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I simply wanted to pass on some news. There was a terrorist attack this morning in Madrid. Someone planted a car bomb and one person has died. On behalf of my Group, I once again condemn these terrorist acts.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to address the House to talk about the issue of sustainable development at the Barcelona European Council. The Commission’s resolution clearly contains many interesting points; but in relation to Amendment No 10, which discusses information and the sustainability reports which have to be produced in order to receive Structural Funds and in relation to the Spanish National Hydrological Plan, I wish to say that I am very concerned, because the criteria for sustainability are not well-defined at the moment. We have no good definition of what we consider to be sustainable and this leads to subjective views, propaganda and unjust positions. I believe it is necessary to improve the criteria that are going to define sustainability with an open mind, because the integral policy requires that we incorporate the multifaceted nature of sustainability. But we must also take account of territorial criteria. We must therefore employ objective and territorial parameters, since sustainable development always affects a specific territory. In this respect, climate change, for example, cannot only be applied to gas emissions, but also to desertification, which is perfectly quantifiable, and to rain levels. Something else also worries me, however. While we have managed to incorporate sustainability and the environment into a transversal policy, the latter, the environment, must also open the door to social and economic criteria. There cannot be sustainability without an assessment of the social impact, of the habitability of regions, of the negative economic impact and of the costs. We must therefore enrich the criteria for sustainable development, otherwise we will create situations of asymmetry and injustice which make it difficult to implement energy and water policies in the future.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, a majority of my Group will be voting for the framework agreement before us, even, and I would like to make this very clear, if we are not satisfied with all the points in this agreement. However, we assume that this agreement will serve to strengthen the relationship between the Commission and the Parliament, a relationship based on trust. You may be sure that if this House approves the framework agreement, Members in my Group will watch very closely to ensure that it is actually adhered to. I would like to make two critical comments and I am in agreement with the other members of my Group here. Firstly, the issue of openness and transparency as regards documents and information is extremely important for my Group. We assume that the agreement stipulated in point 13 will be strictly adhered to, in accordance with which the Members of this House will, as the only institution which has democratic legitimacy, be the first to be provided with information – and I mean all information – as only in that way can we exercise our mandate as the public expects of us. I therefore hope that this point 18, which relates to the exceptional provision of point 13, will never need to be applied. Secondly, we too have a comment for the Council. We were astonished by the Council’s intervention. I think that this really amounted to a very dubious form of interference in an agreement between the Commission and the Parliament, and, at that, by an institution that has quite rightly attracted criticism itself for meeting behind closed doors. Furthermore, given that the common security and defence policy is referred to here, at a time when we are aware that Europe is involved in establishing emergency armed forces for military intervention, this really does not bode well. One final comment: we all heard President Chirac address this House yesterday. He promised that the Council’s modus operandi would change in future. I believe that we will all be paying very close attention to what happens during the French Presidency and to whether the Council operates in a more transparent and democratic way in future.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, Commissioner Reding, Commissioner Lamy, ladies and gentlemen, I believe this is the fourth time we have discussed this issue. Does that mean we are stupid, deaf or stuck in a rut? No, I think it is just that the time has come to admit that, quite simply, we do not want the same European project for our citizens. Thus, GATS has served to highlight this difference in the way we see the world and has prompted a debate involving more participants than the limited circle of specialists and decision-makers usually consulted on matters of international trade. We can say that we have learned from experience – and I believe that the dock workers outside can bear witness to that – how great the desire of some countries is to dominate in the market place where production is concerned. We witness the fight to preserve public services daily. No, we do not have confidence in the prospect you are presenting to us, and although your response to our concerns is to say, quite simply, that neither the audiovisual sector nor public services will be under any threat, we believe that the protests and reactions coming from the associations and trade unions expressing social concern are evidence that we are by no means the only ones to hold this view. Is cultural exception really sufficient if we only exclude the audiovisual sector? No, for we can identify sectors related to education and culture which could prove to be veritable Trojan horses and sabotage our efforts to preserve education and culture. We support the international instrument, but how much progress has been made on it? That would, perhaps, be a good indication of your intentions. We must also admit that we do not have the same classification systems at all or the same definitions. You are setting in motion a machine but you are unable to tell us what qualitative benefits it will bring. Forgive us for wondering what use it will be to you in the future.

Political group: PSE
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Miguel Ángel Martínez and myself, who have both been in politics since 1977, have discussed these matters a great deal and I would like to make one or two comments. Firstly, what Cuba wants – as the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Pérez Roque, stated to the parliamentary delegation – is for the European Union to guarantee that if Cuba applies for entry into the ACP there will be no opposition on their part. Before they make their request to join they want a formal guarantee it will not be opposed. Secondly, Mr Martínez and myself have different perceptions of Cuba. I met members of the opposition, dissidents, who literally told me that those who are not part of the regime simply do not exist. Secondly, there was an amicable debate on the ambassadors’ assessments – at least in the meeting I attended – but I would like to know how the opinion of all the governments, with the slight reservation of Germany, can be contrary to the opinion which, according to Mr Martínez, was expressed by the ambassadors: these are keen to establish unconditional dialogue, whilst the governments are keen to uphold the common position and have been since as far back as December. I would like to ask the President-in-Office of the Council if he agrees with me in his assessment that the Cuban government has a long way to go before it can fulfil the obligations of the democratic clause, both for an Association Agreement and to establish other links with the European Union, and I would like him to expand on the subject of economic freedom, fundamental rights – which was previously called formal democracy, that we now all share – and above all political pluralism, which are the prerequisites of the common position.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, as we now all know, the state of fish stocks is a cause for concern throughout the world. As we have just heard, part of the problem is extensive environmental pollution, such as the recent tanker accidents and, let us face it, there is no shortage of tanker accidents nowadays. However, the main reason is overexploitation of fish stocks due to the huge catching capacity of the fishing fleets. For the sake of the environment, and fishermen, we must aim to achieve sustainable management of fish resources. However, if we are to achieve this objective, the Community still has a few important steps to take. And time is running out. In its communication to the Council and Parliament, the Commission criticises the lack of uniform regulations governing fisheries within and beyond exclusive economic zones. The law of the survival of the fittest still applies on the high seas. This law is based on the overriding principle of the freedom of the high seas. The sea knows no borders. There is hardly a fish in it which is permanently domiciled. I am referring here to all migratory fish stocks. Any over-fishing has a domino effect, and careful handling of fish resources is a pointless exercise if everyone else is ruthlessly pursuing their own economic interests and paying no heed whatsoever to the need to protect stocks. The EU has the fourth largest fishing capacity in the world. However, its importance does not give it the right to take measures at its own convenience and any measures taken must be in keeping with its international obligations. It is because of this global perspective that international collaboration is needed and, to be sure, the most important committees – and this brings us back to the basis for collaboration – are made up mainly of regional fisheries organisations. It is not just since the 1995 New York Agreement that their importance has been recognised; basically they are the best way of fostering responsible fishing. They alone are able to implement supra-regional regulations in keeping with local conditions. They carry out statistical programmes and are responsible for inspections and the monitoring system. They are the most efficient way of ensuring that rules are not ignored. Given the importance of regional fisheries organisations to sustainable fishing, it is imperative that the EU be granted a seat in every regional fisheries organisation. That way we can be sure that we will all end up pulling in the same direction.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, what I have to say has to do with the safety of MEPs and the measures taken by Parliament to that end. On 19 January, I left the Parliament building in Brussels around 8 p.m. by the exit onto the Wiertzstraat, going towards the rue de Wavre. Barely 100 metres from the Parliament building, having halted at a red light, I heard an enormous bang and the passenger-side window of my car was smashed in. My handbag, which had been on the floor, was snatched. I can assure you that a lady’s handbag contains everything imaginable – cards, passport, and so on. Such a thing can of course happen anywhere, but I find it an extraordinarily serious matter that it should happen so close to the Parliament building. What I find incomprehensible is that this happens time and time again; I could name more than one other Dutch lady MEP to whom it has happened. I came back to the Parliament building, where I had a very kind reception; about that I have no complaints. The security guards came when called but – you are probably not aware of this – I could not make a phone call outside Belgium. I could not, therefore, make a call to block my credit cards, and I think that you will understand why that was my first concern. The police were then called and I was able to go with them to the police station, albeit only by following them in my damaged car. I managed to get to the police station, where there was an officer who spoke Flemish, but not the sort that has any similarity with Dutch. He was a kind man, and there was nothing wrong with him, but it all got very involved. As I of course had nothing left on me – no money, no driving licence – I was told that I would be given an escort to Carglass, but that was not forthcoming. It was at around midnight that I got to my hotel, where I was dealt with more efficiently. I have sustained enormous loss, and I now want to ask you to ensure first of all that, in any such situation an international call can be made from the exits to the Parliament building if an MEP wishes to do so, and that assistance is available in getting to the police station, for I could have been a Dane with absolutely no knowledge of Dutch or a citizen of any other country. It would of course also be very useful if money were available to make it possible to take a taxi. Moreover, I think it is of the utmost importance that there should be better security protection for MEPs. As I have just said, the loss is enormous. I will not say how much is involved, but I expect Parliament to see to it that I am fully reimbursed.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Mr Duisenberg, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank Mr Maaten for his report and also for having incorporated the content of previous reports including mine into his own, and for reiterating those points that have not yet been fully implemented, because they have not lost any of their importance. Thank you very much for that. Secondly, there is a lot of juggling with figures, but they are all relative. I would just like to mention a couple from my own country, where we heard yesterday that 63% of people think it is right that Austria should be a member of the economic and currency union from the outset, 43% see the euro as an advantage and 24% are neutral on this, which means that 67% are in favour. That does mean, however, that we still have a great deal to do. I would also like to make a few points clear for the benefit of the public. The euro is not 'coming', as you see on many posters, it already exists, and it is a success. Every country has benefited from it, price stability has grown, Europe's economic independence has been enhanced, exports and tourism have been given a lasting boost by eliminating exchange rate fluctuations, and a start has been made on reducing government and budget deficits. I call on the governments of all the Member States to inform their parliaments and the public about the advantages of the euro in the euro area and not just to give the impression that something new and unknown is about to arrive. The next point that I consider important is that the euro is not a political project and, please excuse me, Mr Duisenberg, you cannot say that it is just a matter for the ECB – that is a point in your favour, you are doing your job well in this respect – and for the banks, nor is it just something for finance ministers. It is a political project and not just a financial product and I therefore believe that we should involve education policy, small and medium-sized enterprises and consumers more in information policy.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr Lamy, this morning the President-in-Office of the Council reminded us of the importance of the agriculture portfolio in the WTO negotiations, and I thank him for this. You already know that farmers in Europe are going to have to make great efforts to adapt in order to apply the Berlin compromise which, last March, represented the acceptable balance for the fifteen Member States of the European Union. You know that developing countries must be able to count on Europe in order to guarantee the legitimate rapid expansion of their own agriculture which is often the major sector in their economic development. You know that the United States is demonstrating today that the market alone finds it difficult to guarantee agricultural revenue. You must also know, then, that we are counting specifically on you to ensure that the WTO negotiations result in the outcome that we expect. Regarding access to the market, how is it possible not to recognise that Europe is not the well-defended fortress that it is unjustly accused of being, since we are the leading importer worldwide with a deficit trade balance in the food processing sector? This reality, Commissioner, must make it possible for you to campaign so that markets are opened up and tariff barriers are reduced according to gradual processes, varying according to sector. As for market protection mechanisms, if they must be adjusted, should they not be retained or reinforced for particular countries, and I refer to developing countries in particular? Regarding internal support, how is it possible not to make the most of the fact that Agenda 2000 is leading to a significant reduction in the overall extent of support, at a time when the United States are adopting a policy which goes in the opposite direction? This situation must make it possible for you to ensure that the blue box and the green box accepted at Marrakech are retained, and that the peace clause is renewed. Regarding export subsidies, how is it possible not to capitalise on the strategy of reduction which we are undertaking with the new common agricultural policy? This development must give you the possibility of demanding transparency and handling of the various forms of export aid used by our competitors. Commissioner, the Berlin Agreement was drawn up in order to give the European Union real room for manoeuvre in the Millennium Round. We have no doubt that you will be able to make use of this by building on the concept of multi-functionality which makes it possible to meet the various expectations of our societies as regards food quality, employment and sustainable rural development, the protection and conservation of the natural heritage and also regarding the balance between regions. This approach must afford Europe the opportunity to be open to interesting possibilities of alliance. This is why we are counting on you to take the offensive in these negotiations, in which you may count on our critical support.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to comment on the second proposal for a directive and I shall also take this opportunity to congratulate you on your election. I would like to inform the House that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs unanimously adopted the opinion for which I am rapporteur on 12 June 2001. This unanimous vote is important, in that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs fully acknowledged that the procedures on public contracts were instruments falling under the sustainable development strategy and that the environment should be integrated across all the European Union’s policies, as advocated by the Treaty. Within this framework, the relevant authorities, which have political responsibility, must be permitted to draw up environmental as well as social criteria that they intend to use in awarding public contracts, whilst, of course, respecting the principle of non-discrimination. To avoid repeating what other speakers have already said, I would like to draw attention to two points. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs proposed simplifying the award procedures, firstly by doubling the thresholds above which the directive applies for public contracts and, secondly, it is also proposing to give special protection to small and medium-sized companies by stipulating that the contracting authorities have the power to decide that 15% of the total number of contracts that they award can be granted to small and medium-sized firms.

Political group: Verts-ALE