GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, successful corporate governance is bound up with a reduction in security in cross-border investments and an increase in the mobility of capital. For the Europe of the 25 members, this imposes the need for us to impart an overall identity to business through which its international influence will be exerted. This identity for Europe cannot be divorced from practices which are sensitive to social and environmental issues. That is why I particularly regret that my fellow members in the Group of the rejected my proposed amendment to the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, in which I submitted that all directives on company law should include an obligation to inform and consult with the workers' representatives whenever important decisions are to be taken which affect the continuing existence of companies and jobs. It is a pity that, whenever we try to join forces with the productive system and employment interests, there is a rallying against such proposals, as if they represented a mortal danger. Similarly, as far as protecting shareholders is concerned, I think that, without doubt, the protection of their rights should be strengthened. However, and I am pleased that the Commissioner admitted this, we must in all cases accept the distinction between large and small shareholders, especially with regard to the use of modern technology in the exercise of shareholders' voting rights, given that small shareholders are more exposed to risk. I am delighted that the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market accepted the amendment in question. Finally, for the same reasons, special care must be taken to address methods which result in shareholders' being cheated out of their votes, as happens with arrangements which allow for the informal organisation of systems for the representation of shareholders by large anonymous groups. To close, I should like to thank the rapporteur, whose basic positions I agree with.

Political group: PSE
Thank you, Commissioner. Unfortunately, we women come up against a glass ceiling within the EU’s institutions, too. I am grateful for, and pleased with, the action plan with practical objectives you have taken as your starting point, but a timetable also needs to be established. It is extremely gratifying that you should want to work to end discrimination but, since the Commission has now once again appointed a man to the post of Director-General – this time as the Development Directorate-General – I wonder if the Commission’s objectives were just so much rhetoric. The eight men on the selection board had to choose between a woman with wide political and administrative experience at a high level and solid experience abroad, and a man with no political background, less administrative experience and no experience abroad. I can only draw the conclusion that the male candidate was appointed on a quota basis. In Sweden, successful appeals are made to the Labour Market Court in cases involving considerably less flagrant discrimination than this one. Is the Commission prepared to tear up its decision and give this post to the most competent candidate, or must an appeal be made to the European Court of Justice in this case? Is the Commission prepared in future to have at least 50 per cent women on its selection boards and not 100 per cent men?

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I can be fairly brief, because I paid all my tributes at the first reading and no longer have so many problems with the other budgets. But I believe the Commission deserves a special word of thanks, particularly the Director-General, whom Mrs Haug did not mention. May I now rectify that oversight. I have fallen victim to the new software program, which grieves me greatly, since I am an engineer by profession. But I do depend, of course, on the assistance of our services. With regard to Amendments Nos 34, 38, 35, 36 and 78, the computer has jumbled up the figures. I therefore ask that technical adjustments be made here. It is a matter of restoring what we said at the first reading. This is not a fiddle. It is the computer that has cooked the books here. The Members of Parliament have been the soul of propriety, as ever. I therefore ask for your support and trust on this point. We shall make hand-written amendments, using 19th-century methods to overrule and outmanoeuvre the technology of the 21st century. That will set everything to rights. Report (A5-0380/2000) by Mrs Haug and Mr Ferber, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2001 as modified by the Council (all sections) (13830/2000 – C5-0600/2000 – 1999/2190(BUD)) and on Letter of Amendment No 2/2001 to the 2001 draft general budget (13833/2000 – C5-0653/2000)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the budgetary year of 2005 will essentially be characterised by two issues from an agricultural point of view: on the one hand, a European Union of 25 Member States from the beginning of the budget, as the Commissioner has quite rightly said, and, on the other, by the implementation of certain provisions adopted in the reform of the common agricultural policy and which will now enter into force, such as, for example, direct aid to milk producers, or aid for rice without the former penalties, and aid for dried fruits, the quality of durum wheat and energy crops. It has, therefore, become necessary for the Commission, in the preliminary draft budget, to anticipate some of the consequences of this enlargement, providing for sufficient funds, for example, for intervention measures for certain products, such as butter or beef, in the event that the new Member States cannot bring their prices into line quickly or, for example, veterinary funds to combat animal diseases, which could increase following the disappearance of the current borders. I would finally like to stress that the Committee on Agriculture, in its opinion in this report, has expressed its firm support for the introduction of a pilot project for the funding of Community insurance intended to alleviate the consequences of disasters caused by extreme climatic phenomena.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of my group I would first of all like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Ayuso González, for the important preparatory work she has done with regard to this vital issue. We are now taking the first step in the right direction, although the use of biofuels must be promoted far more vigorously from here on in. I think the targets should be binding, which is what Parliament insisted on at first reading. Parliament’s position also took account of the different circumstances that exist in the Member States by making it possible to have temporary derogations. I well understand the rapporteur’s willingness to show flexibility with regard to the mandatory nature of the targets in order for any real progress to be made in this important area. This time we shall not get any further ahead. The compromise amendments are satisfactory. Many factors speak in favour of increased use of biofuels. Firstly, by promoting their use we reduce the need for imported energy and hence the EU’s dependence on external energy production, and especially oil imports. Secondly, biofuels are a renewable energy source and therefore a much better option in terms of the environment than petroleum products. I also regard as very important the point of view that biofuels are a means of boosting employment. That means new opportunities for farms and also where agricultural competitiveness is facing huge difficulties in the more traditional areas.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, to be a rapporteur or not to be rapporteur? That is the question, if you will allow my immodesty. Rarely have there been so many supporters of a Colom report in the Council. I wonder where I am going wrong. The Berlin European Council was obsessed with budgetary cuts, and not only gave rise to a reduction in the funds for structural policies compared to levels reached in 1999, but also forgot that there were other Community policies. It appears that the Council deliberately daydreams about a European Union which will cost them nothing. After a struggle, in six weeks of Council-Parliament negotiations, we tidied up headings 3 and 5. But although we were negotiating while Kosovo was being bombed, the Council refused to adapt category 4 to something so obvious as the fact that, within a few months, the Union would be involved in its reconstruction, would have to provide humanitarian aid and would certainly have to compensate Romania and other countries, as well, for the losses suffered in trade on the Danube. I believe that this a problem of short-sightedness. Apparently, the Council cannot tell the difference between the financial perspectives, the multiannual framework for the budget and the budget itself. To my mind, the Council is like one of those people whom you cannot ask to post a letter, because they cannot tell the difference between a letterbox and a drain-hole. Exact figures are requested for something that can only be estimated approximately. I took part in the negotiations and the Council’s only coherent argument is that we should not prejudice the Union’s negotiating position in the Conference of Donors. For this there was a proposal and it seems that we have adopted it and this is the solid position we have taken. The figures are confused. The Commissioner spoke of EUR 500 million for 2000, on the same day that the President-in-Office of the Council spoke of EUR 12 billion for a period of seven years. This clearly has to be resolved. But we can wait, if necessary, for better figures, although we could make perfect use of the budgetary framework. I believe that there is a time for everything, but we could deal with this problem perfectly – and much better – by means of an amending budget I/2000. In that way we would also fulfil the wishes of the Council which aims for permanent budgeting.

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, the problem to which we have tried to draw your attention is the fact that, as you, yourself, have said, we do not yet have accurate estimates to tell us what the actual effect of the National Hydrological Plan will be on prices. Since we do not know what price will be set for water, we clearly do not know what effect the plan will have on prices either. I can therefore only ask you to pay particular attention to this factor, not least in that, according to the most recent news we have received, in addition to the increase in water supply under the National Hydrological Plan, there are plans for a series of desalination plants which will further increase – according to certain estimates of as much as 400 cubic hectometres per year – the water production capacity in this area of Spain. It would appear that, from the point of view of farming, the Commission has a particular responsibility to pay special attention to these factors, yet you, yourself, confirm that the Commission is not yet able to do that.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the UN Charter of Human Rights states that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Last year, 31 countries breached this crucially important article, which supports what is human and alive and promotes a civilised and humane society. Thirty-one countries believed they had the right to take the lives of their own citizens. According to Amnesty International, a total of 1 526 people were executed in these 31 countries, and 3 284 people were condemned to death in 67 countries. Slightly more than 80% of the executions took place in three countries: China, Iran and the United States. Commissioner, Minister, you know all this. China is the worst of them all. It is nonetheless deeply tragic to have to place the democratic United States on the same list as the two dictatorships. As a sincere friend of the United States, that pains me a great deal. How can a democratic and civilised country such as the United States continue to apply the death penalty? In the United States, the number of executions increased last year to 71, compared to 66 the year before. I do not in actual fact believe, Mr President, that many Americans are aware that the United States does not fulfil the requirements for becoming a member of the EU, and I am convinced that the United States should be influenced to change its attitude. That would make it so much more difficult for other countries in the League of Death. Might the American people be less open to the facts than us Europeans? Thousands of innocent people have been condemned to death and executed. Might the American people be less humane than ourselves? No, that is not true, but, in that case, more courageous leaders are needed who wish, and dare, to take up the debate in pursuit of justice and human dignity. Is it possible, Commissioner and Minister, to engage in bargaining when it comes to the total abolition of the death penalty? I doubt it. I believe that a very clear approach is required in this area. This popular revolt against the death penalty, the first step in which is a worldwide moratorium, must be supported wholeheartedly by the EU and the Italian Presidency. You must not hesitate in this area, gentlemen. The responsibility lies with yourselves, Minister and Commissioner. The death penalty must be abolished. It is not negotiable.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, as you know, I come from a small port, but nonetheless one with European credentials as regards the trans-European networks. I will quite happily note in our logbook that it is not about seeing things in black and white when liberalising and creating free and fair competition, simply in order to adhere to a principle. The unedifying dispute about duty free is still in my mind. This discussion about ports is also about jobs, attractive business propositions and public profile, and I want to take part in it, we need to define transparency rules for the calculation of costs and the use of public funds by ports, in order to establish fair competition within ports and between them. Only transparency about the flow of public funds and services will make it possible to compare the services offered by the various seaports and in that way demonstrate which works more efficiently. Comparability of services creates competition, and transparency is, in consequence, indispensable if we want to have long-term liberalisation of the market in port services. I will say in addition that, at this time, we should not yet liberalise the pilot services. Pilots have, as at present organised, long maintained a high standard of quality and safety on sea routes. These extraordinarily high standards would be needlessly jeopardised by liberalisation at any cost. Every market structure contains components for which quality rather than competition must come first. Of course, the pilots will one day have to adopt a new approach – one day. Even they will not be able to resist the opening-up of the market forever, but as far as safety at sea is concerned, there are at present more pressing matters such as, for, example, the introduction of a 'black box' for ships. Immediately forcing pilots to be subject to competition would, under certain circumstances, lead to a price war that could compromise the safety of shipping lanes in the long term. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I believe Mr Alavanos is getting NATO and Mr Milosevic mixed up. Mr Milosevic should be appearing before the war crimes tribunal and we should be awarding NATO the Sakharov prize. But I have a quite different question for the Council. How do matters stand in Kosovo with regard to the rebuilding of the administration, the judiciary and, most importantly of all, the police force? You mentioned before that we are on the brink of catastrophe there and nothing is being done. Rapid action is called for!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, first of all, I should like to congratulate both MEPs, Mr Gallagher and Mr Poignant, on the way in which they have set the tone for the new Green Paper, for it feels like this debate forms part of the groundwork for this paper, and we could say that we are using these reports for our own ends in an appropriate manner in order to adopt a position on this. If we consider the fisheries policy, then there is actually one aspect which needs to change on a number of levels, and with regard to that debate I should like to put forward a few initial points, which are also based on the situation in my region, so as to give you an indication of the expectations we have from the Green Paper. To begin with, there is the issue of control, especially quota control, within the EU. This will need to be regulated more effectively in future, for any policy hinges on control, and if we want to adopt a policy in a truly structured manner, sound control is vital. This is also the key point, and in due course, we will need to consider sanctions in this field in the event that countries do not have adequate systems for quota control. The second important point for the future policy is a restructuring programme which needs to be developed to replace the present multiannual orientation programme. European subsidies should benefit actual capacity reduction first and foremost, as well as environmental and quality investments with the following action points: a sea-day scheme in all EU countries – in my own country this scheme has worked excellently, which was also evident from the fisheries conference held in Brussels a couple of months ago. A second point is a premium scheme for the use of nets, which restricts additional catches. This is a truly technological improvement. The third point is the so-called set aside scheme for regions which are hit hard by the dwindling fish stocks. I am, for example, thinking of regions in Europe which heavily depend on cod stocks and the decline thereof. Europe should definitely invest in this. A fourth point, in my opinion, is the reorganisation of the fisheries policy which must be further developed. A fifth point is the actual investment in food safety, because the dioxin issue will soon be hitting the fisheries industry, and we must be able to deal with this adequately. A sixth point is that, in the light of the environmental problems in candidate countries upon EU enlargement, we will need to pay particular attention to the problems which occur there in the field of food safety.

Political group: PPE-DE
I voted in favour of this report. In principle, I am not in favour of the creation of an agency. Just lately, there has been a proliferation of these new agencies: a European Maritime Safety Agency, a European Aviation Safety Agency etc. A new Community bureaucracy is being created, and I deplore it. However, certain circumstances may lead us to consider whether we need to create a special authority, and this is the case here. The existence of this report is in fact the result of a sad admission – that the European Commission has shown itself to be incapable of reacting effectively to various food crises. In order to make up for the shortcomings of the Commission, therefore, to respond to consumers’ and farmers’ expectations and to restore their confidence, the setting up of a special authority for food safety may be an effective alternative. There are two essential principles that should guide the actions of the Food Authority: it is essential to give it a clear mission, and to make a distinction between what can be classified as scientific responsibility on the one hand, and what can be classified as political responsibility on the other. The authority must focus on identifying and assessing risks, coordinating its activities with those of the national agencies and supplying all the information that is needed. Under no circumstances can the Food Authority have the task of managing the rapid alert system. That is an instrument for the consumer’s use, and the decision on the measures to be taken belongs entirely and exclusively in the political sphere. Finally, on the question of where this authority should be situated, I voted in favour of Amendment No 188 in its entirety. France is one of the great founding countries of the Union. It should demonstrate to its partners its commitment to Europe by transposing the European directives into its national legislation as quickly as possible. So far, however, my country has remained one of the worst offenders in this respect. By voting as I have done, I simply wish to send a strong signal to political leaders in France, to tell them that this situation must be remedied. That is how France will enhance its prestige and its voice will carry greater weight during the forthcoming negotiations.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, you have given me a keynote to use. Of all those who have spoken so far, I live the furthest to the south, and if it was not for the Alps, I would have a clear view of the Mediterranean. So I claim the right to speak on behalf of the Members from the South and to assert that we too have an interest in the North's well being. I take it for granted that you, Mr President, agree with me! I would like to be brief and to touch on the following topics, the first of which is energy. What matters here is that the Baltic Ring should at last come into being, with an electricity interconnection right round the Baltic. That would be a great help to us and also to the Baltic States. The second point I want to make is that we must at all cost prevent any mishap involving oil or gas in the far north. It would take many years for nature to recover, far longer than would be the case in the south. That is something we must avoid come what may. My third point is the main one: disarmament. Quite a bit has already been said about the submarines that are rusting away in north-western Russia and the plans we have for dealing with them, for which I would like to give the Commission every credit. I do, though, want to suggest to the Commission that they should make a statement setting out what disarmament measures they and the Council are jointly considering, what has been decided on, and what is being done through our Budget, so that this House can have a debate on all these measures, which we are co-financing. The Commission deserves thanks for having organised a major disarmament conference in Brussels at the beginning of December, which I attended, and I am amazed at the vast number of initiatives that there are. It is only right, though, that this House should discuss them and make them known to a wider public. If I might return to the subject of energy, I would like to bring a paradox to your attention. Here in Western Europe, we are replacing coal and atomic power with gas, which we will, in future, be buying increasingly from Russia. The Russians are selling us more and more gas, because it earns them more money than if they use the gas at home – where, however, they are using coal and atomic power instead. Taking all these things together, then, no savings are being made either in atomic power or in CO2. I ask that we in this House should take seriously the question of whether our policy is the right one, and that this issue should be on the agenda for the dialogue with the Russians on energy. What is going on here is quite simply absurd, at any rate from an outsider's point of view. I just wanted to point that out.

Political group: PSE