GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, although they are issues which do not only affect cod, I would like to condemn the fact that several European fisheries regulations do not take account of the discrimination that Basque fishermen and fishermen from the Spanish state have been suffering since accession to the European Community. Today it is still intended to maintain this injustice by restricting their access to the so-called Irish Box, the intention being to redefine it as a sensitive area in the Irish Sea. I agree with looking after sensitive areas, but opportunities must be equal for all. Furthermore, for the calculation of the database which will serve as a reference for the future allocation of the permitted kilowatts per day of fishing capacity, account has not been taken of the temporary halts by our vessels in years past, voluntarily, in order to allow for the self recovery of fish species. Others did not stop, they used what they fished and now they are benefiting from it, taking account of those tonnes which they caught. It is now time for the Europe of freedom and of the common market to legislate equitably and for there not to be first-class and second-class fishermen.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Thank you very much, Commissioner, for your positive and specific answer. Macedonia was the victim first of the Communists and their successors, then it was the victim of two different boycotts and then it was the victim of the war in Kosovo. It now has a highly multicultural government which is making a conscious effort to forge links with the Albanian sector of the population. But it needs economic success, otherwise nationalism will break out there again. Hence my question: first, do you believe that you personally could visit Macedonia in the foreseeable future and, secondly, do you believe, although you have already almost said as much, that an association agreement could be signed by next year?

Political group: PPE-DE
The ’s Members of the European Parliament attach importance to the fact that, with today’s decision, Parliament has NOT supported the fourteen prime ministers’ diplomatic sanctions against Austria. The ’s Members of Parliament therefore supported the Liberal decision’s powerful rejection of any form of xenophobia in Austria or elsewhere. We attach crucial importance to applying, if necessary, the new provisions under Article 7 of the Amsterdam Treaty so that a country which, by its actions, infringes fundamental citizens’ rights by means of discrimination and such like will have its voting rights in the EU’s Council of Ministers removed.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would like to amend the beginning of the amendment, where it reads ‘Member States shall report to the Commission on these measures every two years’. I would like ‘every two years’ to be changed to ‘every three years’. (The President declared the common position approved (as amended)) * * * Recommendation for second reading (A5-0212/2002) by Mr Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado, on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, on the draft Council decision [8964/2002 – C5-0225/2002 – 2002/0807(AVC)] amending the Act concerning the election of representatives of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage, annexed to Council Decision 76/787/ECSC, EEC, Euratom of 20 September 1996 (Parliament adopted the draft legislative resolution) * * * Report (A5-0211/2002) by Mr van Velzen, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on the amended proposal for a Council decision [COM(2002) 43 – C5-0212/2002 – 2001/0122(CNS)] adopting a specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration: 'Integrating and Strengthening the European Research Area' (2002-2006) (Parliament adopted the draft legislative resolution) * * * Report (A5-0206/2002) by Mrs Zorba, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on the amended proposal for a Council decision [COM(2002) 43 – C5-0213/2002 – 2001/0123(CNS)] adopting a specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration: 'Structuring the European Research Area' (2002-2006) (Parliament adopted the draft legislative resolution) * * * Report (A5-0210/2002) by Mr Piétrasanta, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on the amended proposal for a Council Decision [COM(2002) 43 – C5-0214/2002 – 2001/0124(CNS)] adopting a specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration to be carried out by means of direct actions by the Joint Research Centre (2002-2006) On Amendment No 19:

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to draw attention to an error in the English version of Amendment No 3, in which the last word, ‘status’, should have read ‘place’. I would therefore ask for this to be corrected in the original English text.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I have taken the floor not just to thank all the Members for the support they have expressed, for their suggestions, such as Mrs Maij-Weggen’s suggestion, on the issues which need further analysis and for their well-structured, stimulating expression of reservations. I have taken the floor principally to confirm what Mr MacCormick said, that is to make public an undertaking which I had mentioned in private. I am fully aware – and I beg Mr MacCormick and the other Members who have signed the amendments to believe me – of the importance of the issue of regional parliaments with legislative powers. However, I do not feel that it is appropriate to address this issue now in the context of a report which is expressly dedicated to the roles of national parliaments and Member States. In any case, as Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs as well as your rapporteur, I hereby undertake to ensure that this issue is addressed specifically in an appropriate manner. Moreover, I would not wish the importance of this issue to be masked by a rejection in Parliament of the amendments tabled.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Pérez Álvarez for an incisive and thoughtful report. The application of health and safety legislation to self-employed workers is an important subject, not least because of the ever-growing number of self-employed, subordinated, sub-contracted or atypical workers. The creation of false forms of independence and self-employment can put workers who are in an employment situation beyond the framework of protection. That is something we need to address. This is something that the Commission recognises and, working together, as Mr Pérez Álvarez has said, we have tried to do something about it over the years. The extension of working time protection to road transport personnel in the directive, agreed at the end of last year, will cover owner-drivers, but only because parallel legal bases covering occupational health and safety on the one hand, and operational safety on the other have been used. As Mr Pérez Álvarez has pointed out this evening, the issue was also tackled in the framework of the directive on temporary and mobile work sites, but in a fairly limited way. We therefore needed a more comprehensive approach and this recommendation may prove to be a useful contribution. But other actions are possible, such as the more general extension of health and safety legislation to the self-employed suggested in Mr Pérez Álvarez's Amendment No 4. I know the Commission has difficulty with that. The Commissioner will say that the legal base in Article 137 will not permit this. But, if the recommendation does not have a positive impact, then we will all collectively need to come back together to reconsider the legal bases that are available to us and maybe take the route suggested in Mr Pérez Álvarez 's Amendments Nos 7 and 22. If not, imagine the sort of problems we face in relation to, for example, the proposed directive we are currently considering on protection of workers from risks related to exposure to asbestos at work. We have massive amounts of asbestos hidden in our workplaces, homes, schools and hospitals. Many people with employment contracts will handle it and, if they work for a demolition, removal or transportation company, they will be covered. But a whole army of self-employed workers are also exposed to asbestos, in particular the electricians, plumbers and carpenters who come across it while doing maintenance work. They will be predominantly self-employed. It is also true that, even if we had a tenfold increase in the number of inspectors, they could not inspect this whole army of self-employed people at work. They need to be able to take responsibility for themselves. They need the information, the support and training to understand the risks they run if they take short cuts. The recommendation is a very useful contribution in that respect.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I asked to speak for personal reasons, because I was one of the people who raised the question today of the demonstration by the young people in our forecourt, at the beginning of the afternoon sitting. Since the effect of Mr Speroni’s words was to discredit the people who raised the question, and seeing as I do not resort to methods other than speaking in this House, I would not like the serious nature of the incident which I condemned now to be played down, so to speak, or the situation to arise where the young people who were demonstrating in that manner are perceived as victims. Mr Vice-President, I cannot repeat here what those young people were shouting because I feel that it would be unworthy of this Chamber to do so, but I would be quite willing to testify to what was said at any given moment. Extremely serious remarks were made regarding the President of the Commission, the Republic of Italy – our country – and 25 April, which is the date of liberation of Italy from the Nazis. I feel that the President of Parliament should set up an inquiry into this matter. Moreover, I myself am a polite person and I did not even look out of the window: I came to the Chamber and condemned the incident. I therefore feel that the matter should be examined in full. I understand from what Mr Speroni said that it was he who invited the group and that he clearly shares and supports these values which I, on the other hand, consider to be reprehensible. However, I do not want to sink into banalities and so I will limit myself to condemning this incident, which I consider is a serious matter for our institution.

Political group: PSE
I have a couple of supplementary questions. In principle is the Commission absolutely committed to reoccupying the Berlaymont building? If not, when do you believe the final decision will be taken within the college of the Commission? Is there any sort of timetable within the Commission for looking at these procedures? How will the final cost of EUR 605 million be borne within the European budget?

Political group: PPE-DE
The ECB is very reminiscent of an old-fashioned money-circulation bank in private hands. The reason for transferring it from private to state ownership was that money circulation should be a democratically verifiable core task of the government. This pertains to the policy regarding exchange rates, interest rates, the extent of money circulation and the implications for employment, public goods, environmental protection and the prices of consumer goods. By disconnecting a centralised European circulation bank from political interference, the link between the electorate and this core government task is severed, and we are back in the old, unsatisfactory situation we were in a century ago. The fact that every year, a report is discussed in this Parliament may be useful in order to air any conflicting views on the policy adopted in the past and to be expected in future, but the bank should not be concerned with this. There is even a tendency to blatantly do the exact opposite from what politicians prescribe. According to Mrs Kauppi, the bank has done a sterling job once again, but opinions may differ on this. The fact that the euro is achieving parity with the dollar again is caused by the tax level in the US which is structurally too low in relation to inevitable government expenditure combined with the waste in defence. I am only satisfied with the proposal to curtail secrecy by making the Minutes public.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I wonder how often we want to continue going through the Zimbabwe ritual here in the topical and urgent debate process. We have passed so many resolutions that we refer to them only en bloc, and hardly even bother to count them anymore. I could really just play back a recording of my last speech, because fundamentally nothing has changed there, unfortunately. If anything things have just become worse for the people in Zimbabwe. Even those who have written for our esteemed Commissioner the words that she is just about to say to us could probably, in the main, have substituted what they wrote last time, because the situation has not changed. The real political problem facing the EU is not so much what it does as what it does not do. I would like to say to the Council, which as usual is not present, that one can do wrong even by doing nothing. Must it come to a situation like the one in the Congo? What Mrs Maes said was right: there are worse situations in Africa than the one in Zimbabwe. Do conditions have to become like those in the Congo? How many deaths will it take before the Council at least stops making the Zimbabwe Minister for Industry and Trade welcome in the EU, or even takes effective action against Mugabe? We are sending an intervention force to the Congo. Obviously the requisite number of people must have been killed there. In the case of Zimbabwe, however, we did not even refuse entry to a minister. I am very much in favour of our attempting, jointly, under French leadership, to restore peace in the Congo, but I would also like to say clearly that we cannot accept it when France, on the subject of Zimbabwe, has for years prevented or delayed effective measures or has actively blocked them. The Council must obviously face up to its responsibilities here and, if necessary, we must invite the relevant individual governments to come and explain themselves to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
I have struggled recently to place Mr Van Hecke on the political spectrum. From the position of left-wing maverick in the previous Flemish Christian-Democratic Government, he is now on his way to seeking affiliation with the Liberals, which are now Belgium’s largest party in government. Fortunately, I recognise the old Mr Van Hecke in the proposals based on this report. His unclear political position might well provide him with additional scope to persuade the Right to adopt views which have never been given much priority by the Right. He does not confine himself to the subjects of child labour, forced labour, sexual abuse and the need to abolish capital punishment in countries governed by authoritarian regimes, such as the United States, China, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Attention is also focused on terrorism emanating from the developing world and on America’s primitive and brutal response to this. He rightly expands on removing the breeding ground for terrorism and states that the fight against terrorism should not adversely affect human rights. President Bush’s military decree, which allows a secret military tribunal to sentence prisoners, is denounced as contravening the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, while Afghanistan’s so-called illegal fighters who are imprisoned on the military base of Guantanamo Bay are recognised as prisoners of war. This approach receives my support.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, UN Resolution 678 and the 1991 US Congressional resolution predicated the whole Gulf War ceasefire agreement on the undertaking that Iraq would dispose of all weapons of mass destruction, but instead UNSCOM inspectors were expelled accused of being American spies. Saddam Hussein still possesses huge quantities of biological and chemical weapons and three years ago he attempted to buy weapons-grade uranium from Serbia. He has been negotiating with North Korea to acquire ballistic missile technology. Therefore he clearly poses a global threat to oil supplies, and, were he to become a nuclear power, could hold the whole world to ransom. Let us also be morally consistent. Nobody in this House asked for UN resolutions to attack Milosevic's Serbia, and human rights violations alone were deemed sufficient. Surely Saddam Hussein's violations of the rights of the Kurds whom he has gassed, the Marsh Arabs and the Shias whom he has tortured and killed, and the Israelis, where he has paid the families of suicide bombers to kill innocent victims, are much worse than any of Milosevic's crimes, – not to mention the British and the Americans whom he has sworn revenge against for our participation in the Gulf War. I remain sceptical about neighbouring countries' concerns about military intervention, as some fear democracy in Iraq and others giving the Kurds autonomy in the north. I welcome foreign minister de Palacio's support yesterday for the British and American position. I also hope that China and Russia will not veto any requests in the UN Security Council for further resolutions on this matter, should America so request. In the West, we should support our American allies' quest to complete the unfinished business of ridding the world of this extremely evil man.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, before beginning my speech I would also like to join in condemning the attack that cost the life of someone elected by the people, and of an activist and councillor of the Partido Popular in Catalonia in Spain. Having said this, I would like to talk very briefly about a delicate situation, because in this debate we can be carried away by our emotions and talk forever about the little respect that there is for human rights in Turkey. But it is also true that the hunger strike is taking place at a time when reforms are under way in the Turkish regime, and specifically in the area of prison policy. That said, however, I would also like to say that we should not trust the fine words and good intentions, that Turkey – as has been said here – is still giving no unequivocal signs of respect for human rights, that it has just pronounced an amnesty law that does not deserve that name, that it is still failing to respect the rights of the Kurds, that it violates international conventions, that it persecutes leftwing activists, that it tries people for the things that have been mentioned here. Therefore, what we are kindly asking the Commission here is that there should be strict monitoring of the conditions in that country which, of course, does not deserve to be considered to be respecting human rights.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Fisheries has unanimously approved the report for which I was rapporteur and that today is included in the Lannoye report. I requested the Hughes procedure, because the matter has a profound effect on both fisheries and development cooperation. I sincerely believe that we in the Committee on Fisheries have significantly improved the original draft of the Lannoye report. We have contributed to focusing and balancing the hitherto exclusive point of view of the Committee on Development and Cooperation and particularly the opinions of the Group of the , that were held on this matter. International fisheries agreements are not harmful to fishing, to the European Union, or to third countries, as is sometimes claimed. On the contrary, they are beneficial to all. We should try to ensure that this mutual benefit is enjoyed by all those concerned, and this cannot be achieved only by means of the CFP. The development cooperation policy should become more involved, with more economic, financial and technical measures, as requested by our report and as shown in the information given in the explanatory statement. International fisheries agreements are trade agreements as the Council of the European Union acknowledged, even though they are dedicating more and more of their own funds to cooperation, yet they are of fundamental importance to cover the deficit in the supply of fish in the European Union and for jobs in Europe’s Objective 1 regions that we must also treat as a priority. Employment and economic and social cohesion in Europe are fundamental political principles of our Union. Are we keen to preserve the resources of third countries? Of course. Is anyone more conservation-minded than the European Union? Would other foreign fishing powers, in Asia, for example, which would take our place if we left them to it, have more respect for these resources? Of course not. I think that the criticisms voiced in the Lannoye report on the agreements with Mauritania and Senegal are completely unfounded. I also disagree with the regional approach that is proposed, because international fisheries agreements apply to exclusive economic zones that are come under the sovereignty of third countries, and each State is sovereign and has different political and economic interests. Multilateral cooperation in international waters would be another matter altogether. I think, Mr President, that our Parliament has taken a positive step forwards. We would still ask the Commission to coordinate its cooperation and fishing competences. Parliament has set an example by coordinating our two committees and I think that this is right way to defend European interests, combining principles that we all advocate, such as the conservation of mankind’s natural resources and the eradication of poverty in the Third World, which requires development cooperation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on a point of order. If I have understood my colleague correctly, then it is enough to have a recommendation that the UK Government will lower the blood-alcohol level.

Political group: PPE-DE
Your answer was interesting. I should like to refer to a debate we had yesterday about nuclear safety in Eastern Europe. I wonder: do you consider that the Commission has a legal basis for what it has said in its progress reports about, among other things, making it a condition of membership of the European Union that the nuclear power station in Bulgaria and the Slovakian one with the difficult name beginning with a “B”, Bohunice, should be shut down? Do you consider that there is a legal basis for this?

Political group: ELDR