GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, this is on a mistake in translation too, though not as important as the one just mentioned. In Amendment No 24, the words ‘difficulté injustifiée’ in the French version are a mistranslation. I trust this will not change the way we vote, but the French translation really must be checked. The words in the English version are the authentic ones. (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0260/2000) by Mr van Hulten, on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control, on the proposal for a Council regulation amending the Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977 and separating the internal audit function from the ex ante financial control function (Article 24, Paragraph 5, of the Financial Regulation) (COM(2000)341 – C5-0293/2000) – 2000/0135(CNS)) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0211/2000) by Mr Titley, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, on the Council's 1999 Annual Report on the Implementation of the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports (11384/1999 – C5­0021/2000 – 2000/2012(COS)) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0258/2000) by Mr Angelilli, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, on the Commission communication 'Study on Parental Control of Television Broadcasting (COM(1999) 371 – C5­0324/1999 – 1999/2210(COS)) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0198/2000) by Mrs Dybkjær, on behalf of the Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities on the Commission annual reports 'Equal Opportunities for Women and Men in the European Union – 1997, 1998, 1999 (COM(1998) 302 – C5­0106/1999) (COM(1999) 106 – C5-0289/2000) (COM(2000) 123 – C5- 0290/2000 –1999/2109(COS)) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Explanations of vote - Recommendation for second reading Palacio Vallelersundi (A5-0254/2000)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, the population of Nepal has known poverty and a ruthless caste system for centuries, and a government that has not been able to offer any solutions. This formed a fertile breeding ground for a Maoist insurgency, which claimed 7 000 lives. In January of this year, a ceasefire was agreed, which came to an end in August, but the negotiations then ended immediately. Since then, again according to the sources available to me, there have been more than 800 deaths, mainly Maoists and poor farmers and villagers. The deaths, on 13 October, of four students caught in the crossfire between Maoists and the army are the latest outrage. The government of Nepal receives supplies of arms from the United States on a massive scale, aid from India, military aid from the United Kingdom and other countries, and supplies of arms from Belgium, which even amended its Arms Act in order to be able to supply those arms. More than half of the revenues on which the country survives are now derived from foreign aid. The government lacks any democratic legitimacy; power rests with the King and the army. Thanks to those supplies of arms, the government has evidently chosen to halt the dialogue and to opt for what is known as the military solution: stamping out the rebels and so-called rebels – poor villagers – by force of arms. Human rights are trampled on with impunity in the process, as the British representative, Sir Jeffrey James, found on the scene. Every possible means must be employed in an attempt to get the parties back around the negotiating table. Supplies of arms must cease, and those who think that arms can effect a solution here will see nothing but the total destruction of the country. Even more children will be tricked into leaving their homes and recruited as child soldiers; even more farmers will be shot dead in their fields; there will be even more killing in general. In the meanwhile, this people has become so weary. We now have a delegation there. Will we now take genuine action there, and also harness our efforts to bring about a return to peace? Or will we continue to give aid with one hand and supply weapons with the other, whilst closing our eyes to the fact that the government is, of course, using that money to pay for those weapons? I wonder what kind of hypocritical game we are playing.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the EU-Lithuania Joint Parliamentary Committee met in Brussels last week and the discussions confirmed the progress made towards accession which is spelt out in paragraphs 78 to 84 of the report. Two chapters remain to be closed. Firstly in agriculture, where some flexibility on the issue of quotas would be welcome and secondly, in the financial chapter, where the contribution to the financing of the closure of the Ignalina nuclear power plant and the provision of alternative electricity generation are outstanding matters. This requires agreement on the decommissioning procedures and the timescale. The JPC noted the need to closely monitor progress with the SAPARD, Phare and Ispra programmes and to ensure that Lithuania is fully prepared to exploit the structural and rural funding possibilities after accession. The early approval of the single programming document is essential in this respect. Regarding the recent agreement made over the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, I want to stress that Lithuanian sovereignty must be respected and Schengen membership not compromised. We are, however, concerned that the practical problems may delay the implementation. I have made a study of the nuclear aspects of accession. The closures of the nuclear power plants at Ignalina and Kozloduy both require an energy strategy which takes neighbouring countries into account. For example the completion of Unit 2 at Cernovoda is fully justified by the Phare study of August 2001. The closure of units 3 and 4 at Kozloduy should be reassessed in the light of the International Atomic Energy Agency's conclusion, in its report, issued in June that these units have reached a level of operational safety which corresponds to those of the same age in other parts of the world. I hope that the Council will agree to such a revaluation.

Political group: PSE
For some companies, it is appealing to carry out their activities in an area where there is little or no government control, so that they are not hindered in their profitable activities which could constitute a risk for their workers, for other people or for the environment. For a long time, anything that was not allowed on land seemed to be permitted at sea, and certainly when this concerned the sea area outside the territorial waters. Most of the damage was done and most indignation caused when oil tankers made water, as a result of which their cargo covered the coasts and animals living on them for a long time. Decisions have already been taken on the use of ships that knowingly dump parts of their cargo that has become unusable, or the remainder of their fuel, as well as on the phasing out of single-hulled tankers. This has not yet made the maritime environment sufficiently safe. There are transitional periods, and unexpected situations arise all the time that constitute risks for passengers and crew and for a large area at sea or on the coast. This is why it is useful that a body will be set up that gathers knowledge and monitors rules. For too long, all eyes have been on the composition of the board and the differences of opinion on that score. This is why I can agree in this case on a prompt start and on moving possible improvements to a later date.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, my question concerns the last part of your intervention. We are very happy that it affects the Member States and that it is intended to be included in the agenda of the 54th Assembly of the United Nations. I am in complete agreement with the spirit of the question and the intervention of Mr Dupuis. However, could the President-in-Office of the Council tell us whether, in those countries with which we maintain political and economic relations, such as China, the Council can have an influence, maintaining a clear and specific position in favour of the abolition of the death penalty which this European Parliament supports so firmly? Can we not in some way have an influence in those countries with which we maintain these commercial and political relations?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, it is with great pleasure that I am able to note that we are finally obtaining comprehensive EU regulations governing public procurement. I am of course particularly pleased that these regulations make it possible for those who procure contracts also to use criteria other than price. I think it is important for us to use public procurement in order also to affect the development of society. We must favour products and manufacturers that, from a social point of view, operate along the lines we advocate. Environmental issues are central. If we wish to reduce food contamination and pollution of the external environment, we must favour manufacturers who have that approach. If we want to see gender equality in working life, we must favour workplaces where this is promoted. If we want everyone to have job opportunities and to be able to support themselves, we must of course favour companies that create jobs for people with disabilities. If we wish to bring about a fairer society that provides greater opportunity for participation, we must ensure that society is designed along those lines. It might be wondered whether we could have achieved more during the conciliation negotiations. That is a question that negotiators always ask themselves. Having devoted most of my adult life to negotiating, I know that, in negotiations, a point must be reached at which the parties agree. When that point has been reached, as I think it was in our own negotiations, it has to be acknowledged that the time has come to present the result. I think that the result we have presented in our decision is something we can defend and, in actual fact, be proud of. Parliament’s position on public procurement shows that decisions at Community level can be important for achieving a more humane society. It is an encouraging decision following a time-consuming and, at times, arduous piece of work. I wish to thank everyone who has contributed to this outcome.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I welcome the fact that we have finally begun to discuss the proposals on the reform of the common fisheries policy. I do not like the route we took. However, there was not much we could do about that. We have to accept the present common fisheries policy has ended in failure. We all know that. We must come to the conclusion, that our responsibility, as Mr Stevenson has said, is to get down to the substance and work with the Commission and the Council to come forward with a policy that hopefully will be infinitely better than the previous one. I welcome the fact that we are going to give more responsibility to local fishermen closer to the areas in which they work. I want to see real responsibility, and not a minimal consultation because if that is what we end up with it will not work. Yes, we all recognise there has to be a reduction in capacity and we must have a sustainable fishing industry and a fishing fleet at the end of all of this. We must develop a policy that will work. For years, the UK Government has totally failed fishermen and the fishing industry. I want the Commissioner to ensure that whatever is brought in is unified throughout the European Union and is financed in a unified way so that no one Member State can pour in more money than another to support their particular industry. We cannot deal with every point here today. We might like to do so, but we cannot. We all recognise that the livelihoods of everyone involved in these industries is at stake and I have no doubt that we will all work to try and resolve that. Finally, Commissioner, I would like to put the point to you which I put in committee last week. I asked you to outline the substance of the report that has changed since Mr Smith was dismissed from office. You agreed that you would inform the Committee on Fisheries. Will you stand by that and tell us what substantial changes have been made to the report since Mr Smith was dismissed?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, clearly, after Bali, there is a great danger that the Johannesburg Summit will be nothing but a great media event which calls forth grand declarations of principle but which does not update or practically advance the Rio process. With regard to this event, it has already been said that the Union will have a delicate, difficult task. It is being called upon once again to show the leadership that it displayed in reinvigorating the Kyoto Protocol. In any case, the fight against climate change is indeed the first of the four priorities on which I believe we must focus at Johannesburg, working towards the conclusion of a binding political agreement involving more countries than have already ratified the Protocol. The second priority is the right to water. In this area too we must work towards a binding agreement regulating bilateral and multilateral relations and establishing time frames and procedures for providing the billion people who are still without access to water with a minimum level of access to this resource too. The third priority item is biodiversity and, in particular, the minimum goal of stabilising the existing situation through an agreement ensuring that the world’s genetic heritage is shared by all. The fourth and last priority, however, is political and institutional in nature: how to establish a United Nations body which has the power to intervene in, monitor and control international environmental undertakings. I know that there are other major issues on which decisive progress needs to be made, but the real success of Johannesburg will be measured according to the progress made in the four areas I have mentioned.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I have already declared, during the debate on the decision to allow Greece to enter the European single currency, that I am totally in favour of Greece’s immediate entry, for it has met all the criteria required by the Treaties of the European Union. I would stress that I particularly welcome the fact – and that is why I voted for this decision – that no more budgetary restrictions are to be imposed on Greece, for, sadly, the brunt of this could not fail to fall upon pensioners and the elderly, in this case Greek pensioners and elderly people, who would be the victims of the exacerbation of the situation as regards the country’s budget, for Greece is willing to further reduce the negative elements of the Maastricht criteria and we have recommended that it do so, even though it does already fulfil these criteria, as has been stated.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Herzog, for the admirable cooperation which we had during the preparation of this report, which was drafted with enhanced cooperation between the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Committee on Legal Affairs. However, I should like to express my regret at the result of the vote in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, which rejected the basic proposals of the Committee on Legal Affairs. The approach which we adopted jointly with the rapporteur does not turn a blind eye to the problems raised by the current situation. The vital question is not who owns services of general interest. It is clear that current developments allow the private and public sectors to work together. However, in order to avoid privatisation having a negative character, the basic rules governing the mission of services of general interest, including their basic operating and funding principles, need to be respected. Among other things, it is important for care to be taken in all cases to satisfy the needs of the entire populace. That is why the principles of universality, continuity, affordability and quality need to be guaranteed at Community level. The difference between ours and a liberal perception is that privatisation is not an end in itself and that it must not under any circumstances mean full dependence of services of general interest on market rules, as any such dependence would reach the point of even precluding funding by local authorities of services of general interest which serve local society. With certain services in particular, such as health, education and social services, the national authorities must have the right to lay down the rules which govern the provision of these services by private, profit-making agencies. I therefore call on the House, especially those who believe in the European social model as part of the European productive system, to vote for the amendments relating to what I have just said. Our resolution will be a balanced resolution if we accept the compatibility of the rule of competition with the mission of the social state. Furthermore, the proposal to adopt a framework directive should be accepted, as it was in the previous resolution by Parliament. If we want to ensure that the basic requirements of the working classes as a whole are satisfied, we must all work to safeguard the future of services of general interest.

Political group: PSE
It cannot be repeated often enough that we support the fight against international terrorism and we approve of taking initiatives to freeze funds if it can be shown that they belong to, or come from, individuals or organisations that carry out acts of terrorism. We recognise the need to react quickly but believe, at the same time, that thorough reflection is important. The proposal for a regulation is an expression of the fact that the EU is in a position to take action, but not to reflect. If we are not voting against Parliament’s approval of the initiative, it is for the following reasons. First of all, we do not believe that Parliament should be consulted on this issue, on which it has no influence. We think it is completely unacceptable that Parliament should take a view on a regulation proposed by the Commission on the basis of the paper before us, which has been presented in a hurry and which Coreper criticises for lack of cohesion and consistency. We believe that the procedure whereby Parliament is asked to approve the hasty adoption of the Council proposal is being used by the Council to legitimise a regulation on which thorough work has not been done. The list attached to the proposal in Annex 1 is of organisations and individuals suspected of being directly or indirectly involved in acts of terrorism. In our view, the fact that a list prepared in the United States has been approved without hesitation is a matter for criticism. The proposal contains no guidelines as to how, or in accordance with which criteria, individuals or organisations are to be added to, or crossed off, the list, and it has not been specified which authorities are authorised to draw up the list and according to what principles. We would criticise the fact that the proposal invalidates fundamental principles of a society governed by law, principles that protect those who have been accused against unfair and unlawful treatment. It is a fact beneath contempt that the traditional, threefold division of power into legislative, judicial and executive authorities has been invalidated so that the EU can comply with the United States’ desire for rapid intervention. At the same time, it must be emphasised that no infringement of these principles can justify acts of terrorism.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Alcohol constitutes the second greatest danger to health in the EU according to a report on health produced by a high-level working party. Alcohol is also the greatest contributory cause of accidents on European roads and a very important contributory cause of the most serious accidents. I find it extremely commendable that the Commission too considers that blood alcohol levels must be kept low among drivers, for safety and alcohol do not go together. We know from the experience of countries which have low upper limits that this is a way of reducing the number of deaths and serious accidents. I should also like to put a following question to the Commissioner. Why should it be impossible to issue a directive covering this area when the majority of countries now have an upper limit of 0.5 per mille and only a few have a limit in excess of 0.5 per mille?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, President-in-Office and Prime Minister. So the day has finally arrived which we all, but particularly you, have been looking forward to and preparing for since you became Denmark’s Prime Minister. I am proud both of Denmark and of you. As a liberal, it is with particular pleasure that I stand here today. Now we have a liberal president of the Council, of the European Parliament and of the Commission. That is a good starting point for getting the working programme of the presidency implemented. Enlargement overshadows all else. We liberals have been fighting for enlargement since the fall of the Berlin Wall. It will secure the new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe their rightful place in the future Europe. Getting enlargement completed on schedule will require not just political skill, but also plenty of hard work. I know from personal experience that the President—in-Office can deliver both, and thus close the circle from Copenhagen to Copenhagen. As a Danish liberal I hope that successful enlargement can lead to Denmark again becoming a full member of the EU. It may seem strange to work towards giving new countries access to full European cooperation when you yourself come from a country that has remained outside the sphere of influence in certain areas. But Denmark’s own foot-dragging in the EU will in no circumstances hamper enlargement. Enlargement will give Europe’s new citizens rights. It is our duty – but a duty that we are happy to comply with – to give these new EU citizens the same rights as we ourselves have. An EU citizen can go out and get work anywhere. Our new citizens must have this right from day one. I would like to wish the presidency every success in its work on implementing one Europe. I am convinced that it will succeed. We in the Liberal group will do everything to help it to do so.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, firstly, I am against the urgency for the reasons expounded by the chairman of the Committee on Budgets. There is, in fact, no urgency because the money would be released for August. Secondly, if we look carefully, in the line which has been applied until now, there are still EUR 20 million which have not been used. Therefore, there is no uncertainty and no urgency and we can study this issue again, calmly, at a later date. (Parliament agreed to urgent procedure)

Political group: PSE
The Council could of course indicate what its response would be if the Commission were to bring forward such a proposal for financing. However, my question to the Council is: does the Council not believe that the European Institutions themselves have a duty to lead by example on the issue of equality, and is it happy about the existing staff quality of the Institutions? Even though Mr Prodi has initiated some reforms, it seems to me that women are still very much under-represented in the hierarchy of both the Council, the Commission and, to be honest, this institution as well.

Political group: PSE