GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Haarder – our former colleague and now the President-in-Office – today we are once again debating terrorism and how to combat it. I think we all agree that terrorism has to be combated and we also all agree that this can only be done at international level, because terrorism has become an international issue. If we wish to combat terrorism at international level, however, we of course also need to take a critical look at ourselves. As the Budget rapporteur for the Internal Market Committee, on which we formerly sat together, Mr President-in-Office, it has come to my attention that we are faced with much petty squabbling. We want to fight terrorism and to do so we need a European police force, Europol, and a successful authority, such as Eurojust. I now note, however, that although we in the European Parliament have already made as much as EUR 2.8 million available for Eurojust, for example, this money cannot be spent because our European authorities are not able to operate effectively for national, petty reasons. If the national police forces are not prepared to cooperate with Europol and if the national ministries of justice are not prepared to support Eurojust, then we can carry on getting up on our soapboxes to say how important it is to fight terrorism, but we will never succeed in doing so because it is preventive action that is needed. To be able to take preventive action we also need functioning authorities, and we will only achieve this if the national countries, the 15 Member States of the European Union, finally make it possible for our authorities, such as Europol and Eurojust, to act. I should therefore like to ask you, Mr Haarder, and also Commissioner Vitorino, to convey this point repeatedly and clearly to the Member States in the Council; otherwise success will elude us.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, President-in-Office of the Council, the budget for 2004 is in many ways a complicated budget because enlargement will happen part way through the year. If we were so successful at putting the budget in place, it was of course due to the splendid cooperation between the institutions and, of course, to fantastic contributions from the rapporteurs, the coordinators and our chairman, Mr Wynn, who is truly adept at cooperation. Our success should be honoured and appreciated and not be greeted with attacks on Parliament’s budgetary authority. I wish especially to emphasise three things about this budget for 2004. First of all, we put enlargement in place. Secondly, we found the EUR 200 million for Iraq. It is now that the Iraqis are short of money. In the longer term, Iraq is of course a country rich in resources that can fund its reconstruction itself. Thirdly, I wish to mention a lesser, but nonetheless important, matter for the next few years. This budget placed special emphasis on the decentralised agencies, so we can sincerely welcome last week’s summit, where something was in fact decided. At long last, domiciles were established for a whole series of agencies following the failure to decide about this matter at numerous summits. About time, too. A steady stream of new agencies is now being set up, and the good thing about these decentralised units is that they guarantee expertise, concentration upon a particular area and the arms-length principle when it comes to administration. The problem, however, is that the many agencies may lead to unduly large expenditure on administration, both because we obtain small units that are expensive to administer and because we use the action appropriations for these agencies. It is therefore good that, with this budget, Parliament has emphasised that we wish to have control over the development of the agencies in the future, and that we wish to have transparency.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, in the past, this House has spoken out quite frequently and in no uncertain terms against the death penalty, be it in relation to Mr Öçalan or other individuals. The death penalty should be abolished, and that goes for Turkey too! This House has expressed its support for more human rights, for respect for the rights of minority groups, for improved relations between Turkey and Greece and for a resolution of the Cyprus question. None of that is on the agenda today. There is a predominant and overwhelming majority in this House. Two specific reports are on the agenda today concerning the promises and pledges we have made to Turkey and, in particular, concerning the fact that those who incline towards the West, those of European outlook in Turkey, are gaining in strength. I am therefore in favour of these reports being dealt with. However, this has no bearing on the heavy criticism we will continue to levy at Turkey and its human rights record!

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is extremely pleasing that in the penultimate week of the session of this parliamentary term we will be adopting such a fine, interesting and new European project, a project that I thought could be passed without either conflicts or objections on the part of the Council. This confidence must now be moderated somewhat, since I have heard, Madam Commissioner, that you do not agree with several of the amendments, including those proposed by me. Perhaps the administration could once again go through various points with me this evening, so that tomorrow we will in fact be able to adopt something going further than what we had initially had submitted to us. The Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, for whom I have produced this opinion, has not only taken the project seriously and welcomed it, but we have also integrated it in our work. We know that mobility and lifelong learning are today important components for professional success and that often up to now neither the economy nor policies have put in place the conditions for it. This is now going to change. For these reasons, we have made various proposals and additions, which we regard as important, for example the inclusion of third-state nationals – we regard this as a symbol of fairness – the inclusion of the social partners in order to make use of their know-how, the consideration to be given to social integration and, last but not least, more and better information for the public, providers of education and training and social partners, especially for small- and medium-sized enterprises. This is because the entire project will only be any use, will only be successful, if it is known about, if it is accepted by young people, by workers and also by industry and society. So it will be necessary also to conduct a campaign of explanation and information. Then, I think, we will be able to get this child onto the right track.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I shall not vote against the report, for the sole reason that some trade unions are hoping that it will be adopted, whatever my views may be on their policy. Even so, however, I shall not give my approval of the report. In fact, in order to counteract a limited increase in the rights of European works councils, the report calls upon us to approve competition rules and the confidentiality of information. The report also stresses that the role awaiting the councils is that of reducing the risk of conflict which may, the report claims, prove to be a factor in a company’s success, or rather, in an employer’s success. In France, it is very clear that the final decision on all issues that affect workers’ lives is made by employers. Works councils have been rendered powerless, such as when Moulinex, Aventis, Danone and many other companies made unacceptable redundancies, or they are tricked into approving the employer’s decisions, or even into nominating the victims of redundancies, as was the case at AOM-Air Liberté. Therefore, the only right which would, in truth, be a right for workers would be the right to employment, or a ban on redundancies, in other words, at least in companies that are making profits.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, our group welcomes the horizontal thrust of the EQUAL initiative so that, if you are a British Muslim physically disabled in some way you no longer have to chose which category of discrimination you belong to as a target group: you can use your expertise and experience to solve problems, rather than being defined as the problem. There is a lot of expertise within the relevant organisations which deserves to be shared. We also welcome the recognition of the need for evaluation and the dissemination of best practice for the tightening up of the transnational level. We are concerned, therefore, as others have said, at the number of amendments which seek to exclude even further some of society’s most excluded, by aiming for a very narrow definition of 'refugee'. My group will not be supporting those amendments. We are also concerned at the number of amendments which, in seeking to introduce greater flexibility, run the risk perhaps of obscuring responsibility for the management of the EQUAL initiative.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, my reading of this report differs from Mrs De Keyser's in that it is more positive. However, I would like to preface my remarks with a comment directed at you, Mr Gomolka. I believe we have to go a bit deeper still if we are to show cause and effect as they really are. When I was a scientific consultant at the Geneva Conference on Disarmament, I saw how, in 1985, the USA, the principal western European powers and the Soviet Union kept quiet when it was reported that the Iraqi army was using chemical weapons against Iran. Policies like that, of course, build up dictators and facilitate their access to weapons of mass destruction. The report is, of course, inconsistent. There are contradictions in it. I would, though, highlight three things about it. For a start, it criticises Saddam Hussein's irresponsible policy towards his own people and towards the international community in a way that cannot be misinterpreted. It draws up demands that are necessary. Secondly – and it is this that I read in a quite different light – it raises what for me is the crucial issue of how the conflict is to be resolved, by emphasising, and I quote: ‘the importance of achieving a multilateral political solution in the region, under the aegis of the UN, as the only means of guaranteeing stability and peace in the region’. There must be no war. In this region of all regions, it would have the most menacing consequences, which would extend to every aspect of our relations with the Islamic and Arab world. This report, thirdly, calls for the lifting of economic and trade sanctions, at any rate in all cases without military interest. They are counterproductive and have catastrophic effects on Iraq's civilian population, above all for children. Hence, Baroness Nicholson, our esteemed rapporteur, I would like to thank you for this report; even though it might sound strange coming from this side of the chamber, I did find it a report written in the truly fine tradition of liberality.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the action programme to counter poverty diseases which the European Union is setting up is vital, but it must be complete. The people in the South are still dying of HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, but our words speak louder than our actions. These people also suffer from dengue, trypanosomoses and other filariases, but I am sad to say that nothing is being done to combat these diseases. Above all I deplore the informal procedure which has prevailed until today’s debate. Having been subjected to strong pressure from the Commission and the Council to adopt this regulation at first reading, so as to allow the programme to come into force quickly, we have actually suffered real blackmail at the hands of these institutions, which are determined to weaken this report and to undermine our powers of codecision. We were surprised at their reluctance to accept a precise reference to the declaration on public health and intellectual property adopted at Doha, and the rights that it gives developing countries with regard to access to medicines. What happened to those European declarations emphasising health before profits? On many occasions, the European Parliament has reaffirmed that access to treatments at cost price is inseparable from prevention, from the strengthening of health systems and structures, particularly the public services, and from research and development. The Commission had seemed to be receptive to Parliament’s arguments as long as they were not binding. Faced with this legislative regulation, however, its attitude changed. Thus in Geneva last December, in the context of the negotiations at the TRIPS Council, the Member States and the Commission could hardly be said to have been inspired by the European Parliament’s resolutions on access to medicines. The European Union’s preferred solution for countries which, not having any production capacity of their own, have to import medicines under compulsory licence from other countries was totally unworkable for developing countries. By an ironic twist of fate, this bad agreement was rejected by the United States, which wanted to reduce its scope even further. The general budget for the programme has also been revised downwards: EUR 350 million for a five-year programme is very little when we consider what is at stake, and it is much less than the EUR 500 million originally requested. In conclusion, I would say that we should adopt this regulation as a matter of urgency, but not at the price of democracy. We Members of the European Parliament are here not to promote our own selfish interests, but to promote the interests of the citizens of the world.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the Directive on port services, in its current form, is difficult to assess. The European Commission’s aim was the liberalisation of port services, but little of that remains. A drawback of the proposal was the risk of social dumping arising. Parliament, and in particular the rapporteur, has been working actively towards eradicating the problems with the proposal. Such legislation as remains is evidently the maximum achievable, even though there is room for improvement. I asked myself, therefore, whether I should support this result or not. If I compare the result of the Directive with the status quo regarding the legislation on European ports, I conclude that it is better to adopt this proposal than reject it. In a nutshell: it does have its advantages, and the risk of social dumping is slight. In addition, the Member States are able to take effective measures to prevent problems, where that is still necessary, by means of legislation. In the Netherlands, a ports act is to be tabled, which will improve the situation for Dutch dockers. The main advantage for European ports is the existence of a legal framework that enables clarity and transparency in relations between port authorities and service providers. I also welcome the recognition of pilotage services as specialised services. I attach great importance to transparency in the financing of ports, which plays a necessary part in the creation of a level playing field with regard to state aid. I see this Directive as the beginnings of European legislation in this field, and envisage that, given productive dialogue between all the interested parties – port authorities, service providers and workers’ organisations – we can continue to work on improving the legislation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in order to avoid potential misunderstandings, I too want to emphasise that I am in favour of enlargement, by which I mean enlargement as soon as possible. The states that want to join us have undertaken a great endeavour, but the resolutions passed by the European Heads of State and of Government in Copenhagen have needlessly created a grave and extremely difficult situation. Their decision puts them in breach of all the Treaties currently in force and of budgetary law, Parliament's most important prerogative. The Council's actions could be read as a denunciation of the Interinstitutional Agreement in accordance with Article 26. With the serious issues within the European Union relating to enlargement having to be resolved and resolution of those relating to the Treaty of Nice still a long way off, that this should happen is the Council's crowning failure! It baffles me that such a thing is possible when the Council and the Commission have so much expertise at their disposal, unless the intention is to openly provoke Parliament. As we all want enlargement, we are faced with the problem of retrospective damage limitation. When I see, though, how the Council treats treaties and the European Parliament, I have the gravest concerns about what is coming next. Transparency, democratisation, integration and cooperation are empty words if you do the very opposite. At the moment, I do not trust them. As the resolution of this difficult problem will be the subject of ongoing negotiations between Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the Commission even after this decision is adopted, Parliament would be well advised to keep an open mind on all the options for dealing with the accession treaties in April. As I know from personal conversations with them, many Members of this House very much doubt – just as I do – whether, under such conditions, they should give them their approval.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I wish to begin by thanking the Commission for responding to this resolution on Nigeria and also Mr van den Berg both for his reports and for the enormous amount of work he did as chief observer while he was in Nigeria. His report is factual, fair and frank, and I find it disappointing that the Council report – perhaps for obvious reasons – was not as strong in its comments. In future I hope that the institutions will try and speak with one voice. As the Commissioner has just said, we have to be outspoken and condemn wrongdoings or there is no point in observing. The Nigerian elections were a classic example of how important election observation by the EU institutions is and how important it is to have observers out in the polling stations. The sight of observers not only ensures that misdemeanours are spotted, it also encourages voters that the outside world is taking an interest in making sure that rules are observed and democracy and freedom of choice are being given a chance. I have always believed that it is difficult to transpose a European-style election procedure onto some developing countries, as they do not have the capacity to properly prepare the paperwork. It is in this area that we in Europe could help by increasing our support to strengthen procedures. It is extremely disappointing that some regions showed such a blatant disregard for honesty and transparency, and these are well documented by the chief observer. Action should be taken by the appropriate bodies to rectify such anomalies, and we here should continue to monitor what happens. President Obasanjo has the potential to be one of the great leaders in the new Africa and should not be tarnished by the behaviour of some of his supporters. Nigeria is one of the largest and, potentially, richest countries in sub-Saharan Africa. With good governance, it can set an example not only for the region but also for the whole continent. However, to do that it must set aside the ethnic differences of the north and south, outlaw the extremes of Sharia law and work together towards economic prosperity. In the African Union and NEPAD Nigeria can take a leading role in building a regenerated Africa under the Cotonou Accord, so it is disappointing it did not set a better example at these elections. There were blatant and obvious misdemeanours, both before and during the elections, but we must look ahead to the future, correcting the mistakes of the past – by legislation where necessary – and we must encourage it to do so. The chief observer's report should point it in the right direction. I sincerely hope Nigeria will take note and take action.

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, I shall begin on a humorous note. I think your look suits you very well. I have, in fact, always called you the nuclear ayatollah, and I think that this evening’s photograph is likely to be almost perfect. I will limit myself to segregated decommissioning funds. These funds are the single biggest distortion in the liberalised EU electricity market. EDF, EON and RWE are buying up other companies with billions from these funds. Mrs de Palacio, when we discussed the Liberalisation Directive, we as a Parliament said that we should tackle this problem under the EU Treaty. You said: 'Don't worry, we will tackle it under the nuclear package under the Euratom Treaty, because that is a good way to do it'. I did not trust you at that time. Today we know that you fooled us. You knew one-and-a-half years ago, through your legal services, that it is not possible under Articles 31 and 32 to have segregated decommissioning funds. You waited for the legal services of Parliament and the Council to come out with it, but you knew it! I challenge you to publish the legal service advice on the nuclear package so that the whole world will know that you fooled us on this issue. Mr Chichester, as a fair and plain-speaking English MEP, you got directly to the point when you asked what added value the directive has. It is a public relations exercise for the European public. You understood very well what this is about.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, in this minute and a half I should like, first of all, to congratulate Mrs Schroedter. I know many have already done so, but she has indeed earned our praise for being particularly open and attentive to proposals from all sides, and I think it is this openness which has given her report the quality we see today. I share the regrets she expressed, namely that Parliament has become involved rather late in the day as regards these guidelines, since by now the procedure for negotiations with the states is so far advanced that I cannot see this report having any sort of immediate effect, which in my view is a pity. Consequently, I feel we must look to the future and establish guidelines for the mid-term review in 2003, and thus have an influence on the second phase of programming set to follow 2003. In brief, I would like to say that we are entering the period when we are called upon to manage the programming for 2000-2006, which must be no routine period for the good reason that we have two major challenges to face. The first is the harmonisation of national development policies and regional development policies. Subsidies are not enough to ensure development when infrastructure and public services are lacking. We must ask ourselves a fundamental question: how can we ensure that Union policy interfaces with the subsidiary national policies for regional development? The second challenge is that of enlargement which will, of course, have a considerable impact, both in budgetary and geographical terms. These are two areas of action which I invite the Commissioner to set up and in which I would ask him to involve us. Finally, in this time of natural disasters, I would just like to mention the issue of the use of Structural Funds. As you know, it is up to each State to redistribute part of the total appropriation. Europe should not be completely absent, as the states tend to want. Public opinion and the press nowadays accuse us of being unavailable to give a response, even though we are going to be funding a large proportion of the national operations. I think we should be capable of saying this loud and clear. I also think we should ensure, or ask Member States to ensure, that there is some publicity given to European aid whenever it is used to repair damage caused by natural disasters or accidents. IN THE CHAIR: MR. VIDAL-QUADRAS ROCAVice-President

Political group: PSE