GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, in this draft legislative resolution, Parliament approves the ECB’s recommendation for a Council regulation concerning the continued calling in of foreign reserve assets. The following reasons are given: first, the Treaty makes provision for this. If it is not applied in the form of a regulation, this could be construed as a difference of opinion between the ECB and the Council. Secondly, the ECB should gain in financial independence. Thirdly, the foreign exchange intervention instrument will be made more credible and the capacity of the ECB to adjust to various scenarios will be fostered. Of course, there can be no objection to any structural improvement of the ECB’s financial situation. The only question is whether or not pouring more money into it will solve the problem once and for all. Before an answer can be given, the following questions at least must be considered: Firstly: does it make political and economic sense to apply the sort of restrictive monetary policy which the ECB applies and which is more restrictive than the FED? Secondly, does the increase in interest rates for top refinancing facilities and deposit facilities applied on 9.2.2000 not run counter to economic growth? Thirdly, are more decisive measures to reduce unemployment permanently not the most tried and tested means of guaranteeing price stability? Fourthly: in addition to a supply-orientated economic policy, should greater emphasis not be placed on a demand-orientated economic policy, i.e. strengthening the European internal market through reduced import tax rates in the Member States? Fifthly, is it so wrong to assume that the exchange rate set when the euro was introduced had more to do with political wishful thinking than economic reality? Sixthly: what specific grounds are there for assuming that the ECB will probably sustain a loss in 1999? Having answered these questions, our Group felt unable to vote for the proposal for a resolution. Not because the ECB has too few foreign reserve assets, but because it is wrongly organised structurally and will therefore complain endlessly of these liquidity problems.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, in order to prevent conflicts we must know what causes them, be it economic interests, social unrest, inequality, a dictatorship, repression, the struggle for power or access to natural resources. Conversely, however, the escalation of conflicts in the countries of the South is a barrier to their prospects for development and creates a vicious circle. That being the case, the prevention of conflicts cannot be divorced from a policy of sustainable development aimed at a better distribution of wealth and the institution of real democracy at a global level. I listen to and I approve of the debates, including those held in this Parliament, that advocate dialogue, the participation of civil society, access to education and health for all, the rational use of resources and regional cooperation. We have to attack the structural costs of the tensions in advance. What is the point, then, of these declarations accompanied by derisory and diminishing budgets when European states sell arms to the countries at war or support petroleum and mining industries in their over-exploitation of the riches of the South to the detriment of human rights and life itself. As long as the concern for development does not override financial interests and as long as European states see external conflicts as a way of enriching themselves, the prevention of conflicts will remain a pipe dream.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner Bolkestein, the situation of the stranded lorry drivers in Luxembourg shows us once again where there is a need for European regulation and monitoring. Scarcely ever before has it been made so clear to us what is actually going on in this particular labour market and what is happening to these lorry drivers. If ever you talk to European lorry drivers, you will hear how people in that sector work, some of them illegally, and what sort of wages they are paid for doing so; they drive to the point of exhaustion, and not all of them have social security insurance. That is the reality of one European labour market, and that is the problem facing us. Looked at from this angle, this work time regulation is long overdue – in the interests of our safety on the roads and of the safety of the workers, that is, the drivers themselves. I might add that, as has already been mentioned, this case is not only an issue for Luxembourg or about a few Austrian businessmen, we now know that we are dealing with a large number of Austrian businessmen. It is also a European phenomenon. For me as an out-and-out advocate of European enlargement, the core problem is the way we are doing the dirty on workers from the candidate countries; it is these workers who are bound today by collective contracts to work for derisory wages, and under conditions which are, in social terms, appalling. Such is the way this group of workers has entered into our European Union, and that is what we have to take a stand against. In any case, though, every cloud has a silver lining. In Austria, my country, a group of hauliers' representatives has already taken a stand and spoken out in favour of European regulations tending towards controls and measures that will influence even this ruinous competition. That is the situation we face. I would add, Commissioner, that you should be prompted by that to think more and better about control systems for workers in the European labour market.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, adopting the budget for the cultural sector is more difficult than usual this time. The Socrates II programme is presently the object of conciliation, and the recommendations for a second reading on the Youth for Europe action programme and the Culture 2000 programme will be discussed in the plenary sitting on Wednesday, which is tomorrow. Thus the final effort to have these multiannual programmes approved still remains to be made. The greatest differences of opinion between Parliament and the Council relate to the financing of the programmes, which is still open. At the same time, the Committee on Budgets has had to present the allocations for the implementation of the programmes next year. It has to be clearly pointed out that the figures presented by the Committee on Budgets do not constitute a stand on the result of conciliations. A schematic mathematical method is not suited to multiannual programmes. The financing of the programmes has caused worry to the members of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, and it might not be just a one-off problem. We have to alter parliamentary procedures with regard to the budgetary procedure for multiannual programmes that are the object of the codecision procedure. The opinion of the Committee on Budgets relates to the report on the first reading, but there is no official collaboration between the special committee and the Committee on Budgets in connection with the second reading and conciliation. That can easily lead to breaks in the flow of information and misunderstandings between the special committee and the Committee on Budgets. The worst that can happen, however, is that Parliament’s position on financing for the programmes remains unclear; that can be used against Parliament. As multiannual programmes must in any case adapt to the general Financial Perspective of the relevant budget heading as well as the budget as a whole, it is necessary, in my opinion, for Parliament to enhance the effectiveness of its internal coordination when discussing multiannual programmes and the budget. Communication between the special committee and the Committee on Budgets should not be broken at Parliament’s first reading, after which some time might pass until the matter is finally resolved. The Treaty of Amsterdam emphasises Parliament’s position as a responsible and effective decision-maker. That is why we need Parliament to have a common and sustainable view of the matter under discussion in budgetary negotiations and conciliations.

Political group: PSE
The report following up the Commission proposal contains various contradictions and negative aspects, specifically in its insistence on advocating temporary work as a response to the problem of unemployment, despite the proposals that we tabled to improve it. Unfortunately, not all of them were accepted. Nevertheless, I welcome the fact that the proposal I tabled designed to protect workers’ rights to a high-quality job with rights has been included. Equally positive is the report’s insistence on the mutual recognition of qualifications, and its call for greater attention to be paid to early school leaving, to lifelong learning and to encouraging the learning of foreign languages, amongst other things. Hence our abstention from the vote.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, firstly I would like to refer to the tragedy of today's dead-heat parliamentary election result in Turkish Northern Cyprus which is insufficient to oust Mr Denktash, who actively opposes the generous US-Annan plan to reunify the island in time to join the European Union next May. Can you appeal to Mr Denktash to reopen negotiations urgently and accept that the huge swing against him in the election indicates a desire by his impoverished people for a settlement on the island? Secondly, in Russian Daghestan we have once again seen the brutal action of Chechen guerrillas who beheaded the border guard commander and took hostages including local hospital workers. This is against the backdrop of a suicide bomber in Moscow last week killing six innocent civilians. I should like to ask you to send to the Speaker of the new Duma, which is being convened next week, this House's expression of condolences and outrage against such terrorist actions. Finally, on a different note, I congratulate Prime Minister Berlusconi on securing for historic and gastronomic Parma the seat of the Food Safety Agency. (Laughter)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Commission proposal is satisfactory because it clearly attempts to simplify matters by replacing the variable premium with a single premium, meaning that the sector will now know in advance the amount it is to receive and will no longer have to suffer from the uncertainty it has had to endure up until now. We naturally support the idea that the premium should guarantee an income that is acceptable to the producer and my personal opinion is that this income should be the same for producers of both heavy and light lambs, as approved in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. The market in sheep’s milk is not regulated in the same way as the market in cow’s milk and income from milk is balanced by a lower level of income from meat production, especially in Mediterranean countries where mixed farms that produce wool, milk and meat slaughter these animals at lower weights, once again, largely in accordance with eating habits. With regard to the supplementary premium that the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development proposed and approved, I have to say that the Commission should be very vigilant that this supplementary premium should in no case be used to reduce the linear premium, the headage premium or the premium for rural development. The Commission should understand that Parliament’s Committee wants to see an increase in the premium, comprised of three parts: a headage premium, a premium for rural development and a supplementary premium, in order to be able to help States implement the principle of flexibility. However, I would strongly urge that this introduction is not, at the end of the day, used to achieve a reduction in the headage premium or in the premium for rural development. Finally, I would like to say, and the Commissioner is well aware of this, that this sector makes an important contribution to land-use planning and to all the environmental services that we say we are going to defend in this new future common agricultural policy. However, I think that that truly guaranteeing an income in both this COM and this sector that could pay for the non-food services that this type of livestock farming provides throughout the Community would send an important political signal.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I too would like to thank the rapporteurs for their successful reports. In them, attention has been focused on factors that are essential for increased safety at sea. There is, however, still much to be done to improve safety at sea. It is important to tighten up regulations regarding the control of harbours and ports even further, and enhance its effectiveness. We also have to improve the way we approve classification societies and monitor their work, and expanded inspections must be carried out, in particular on high-risk vessels. I would also like to point out that it is not enough that the Union alone should find solutions to increase safety at sea. For example, questions of responsibility must be dealt with on a global basis. That also goes for the matter of double-hull design requirements. Rules applied regionally are not enough here either: we need global IMO agreements. For example, for Finland it is vitally important that Russia is included in these agreements. We must ensure that vessels that are no longer seaworthy and pose a risk actually are scrapped and are not brought back into service flying someone else’s flag.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I want to begin by thanking the rapporteurs, Mr Sousa Pinto and Mr Turco, for their excellent reports. The fight against drug abuse and the drug trade is important. This report has been produced to complement the current regulation concerning the Monitoring Centre. Moreover, it is intended that the candidate countries should be involved in the work. Let me comment on that first of all. It is, in fact, important that the candidate countries be involved. I myself come from Sweden. In recent years, we have developed cooperation with the Baltic countries and with Poland in order to end the drugs trade and prevent drug abuse. The drug trade is not confined by national borders. We must therefore have cross-border cooperation to prevent the trade from developing. The same applies to cooperation with Norway. Norway participates in the internal market and is to become a member of Schengen. Norway has much the same problems as Sweden when it comes to drugs crossing the border. It is therefore important that we cooperate and gather information from these neighbouring countries, as well as study how they conduct their policies. The rapporteur also deals with how the Centre operates at present. I think he draws an important distinction, for the Centre should not be dabbling in politics. Instead, it is we who should be engaged in politics here in political assemblies, as well as in the Member States – in fact, mainly in the Member States, when it comes to drugs policy. However, the Centre should create a basis for political decisions. In this regard, there are at present deficiencies when it comes to collecting statistics. We must obtain relevant and reliable information which can be compared. What is more, the Centre can carry out analyses and assess the objectives which we in the political assemblies establish, so that we might revise policy accordingly. The Centre must become significantly better in this area than it is at present. Analyses must be carried out of the policies which are applied – different types of policy are pursued in, for example, the Netherlands and Sweden. I think it is important for us to analyse what these differences, in the guise of policy, in fact look like when it comes to problems such as drug abuse by young people.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, once again we face a tragic crisis, and I shall add two points to my fellow Members’ questions. Firstly, in answer to Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, you stated that everything connected to fraud was actually within the jurisdiction of the Member States. While that may be true, the Commission must still ensure that there are sufficient staff resources to monitor this work. In that respect, what progress has been made by your directorate and the Health and Consumer Protection Directorate? However dedicated they are, do you have enough staff resources at the current time to adequately monitor all the urgent assignments they receive, this being the last problem in line following BSE and so many others? That is my first question. My second question is this: I feel you were rather quick to dismiss the fact that local abattoirs are not a solution to this type of problem, for small local abattoirs today are not what they were fifty years ago. Therefore, is the fact that they are local not a solution to the unfolding crises? This has been seen clearly in Great Britain, particularly with the problem of the long-distance transportation of animals, which apparently engenders and spreads the epidemic.

Political group: Verts-ALE
How do you stay in power for 34 years in Africa? Opposition parties are banned or it is made impossible for them to function. Opponents who have or threaten to acquire support are put behind bars. The press is completely manipulated and anyone openly criticising the president winds up in a cell if he is lucky and six feet under if he is less fortunate. Mass demonstrations are mercilessly broken up. The political class consists entirely of slavish servants of the president as a result of a system of rewards and punishments. A ludicrous cult of personality is designed to give the Head of State a quasi-divine status. The French President, Mr Chirac, has to be hoodwinked to such an extent that he condemns Amnesty International instead of the human rights violations in Togo. The murdering of opponents of the regime goes unpunished. This is still unfortunately the familiar pattern in many African countries and we do not really know how to deal with it. Crude misuse of power hampers development and perpetuates poverty. The European Union quite rightly suspended aid as long ago as 1993, but the situation has not improved. On the contrary, the opposition leader and human rights campaigner, Mr Agboyibo, was thrown into jail for six months, for allegedly insulting the Prime Minister. In order to add force to his arguments his Excellency maintains a private army of 1 000 troops. Togo is asking for financial support to hold parliamentary elections in October. The question is whether or not we would then contribute to the organisation of a democratic farce, designed solely to give those in power a semblance of legitimacy. President Eyadema has announced that he will keep to the constitution and step down in 2003, but why should we believe someone who has lied for 34 years in order to stay in power?

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I am sorry that I keep on having to repeat myself on the subject of Wednesdays, but the same deplorable state of affairs still exists. As I see it, question time has again been deferred and shortened. Every time I protest, I am told that this is exceptional. The exception is now slowly becoming the norm because, by foolishly abolishing the Friday sittings, we have overloaded the Wednesday ones. I would therefore ask you to ensure that, independently of the Friday issue – which we cannot now resolve –Wednesdays come fully into their own again. In other words, a full one and a half hours should be set aside for question time, for the right to ask questions is a fundamental right of every parliamentarian. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I entirely agree with Mrs Schroedter and Mr Wiersma and shall list a number of points by way of summarising how we view the closure of the OSCE office in Minsk. First of all, the closure is not an act of strength on the part of Belarus. The event is, rather, an expression of weakness. Secondly, Belarus is actually signalling, albeit in a desperate way, that it is seeking contact with the EU. Thirdly, Belarus is seeking a bargaining counter, or something to play off against the European Union. Fourthly, Belarus is trying in this way to give prominence to its basic need also to join the European Union in addressing the border issues and the refugee situation within Belarus. On the basis of this analysis, we can openly enter into talks with Belarus, taking of course as our starting point our vigorous and fundamental criticism of the unacceptable incident at the OSCE office in Minsk. I would appeal to the Commission and to Commissioner Liikanen, whom I would call upon to approach Commissioner Patten, to step up all their contacts with Belarus. What has happened in Minsk in connection with the OSCE office is a sign that Belarus is ultimately appealing for some form of contact. They are doing so in an unacceptable way. We cannot, however, allow neighbours of an enlarged European Union to behave as they have in this case. It is also important for the European Union to state clearly that, within the framework of the union between Belarus and Russia, President Putin of Russia has a major and special responsibility for putting pressure on Belarus to act in an internationally credible way.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in seeking solutions to the EU’s institutional reforms and the problems that have resulted from the failure of the Intergovernmental Conference, we must keep our minds on the internal market and maintaining and improving the competitiveness of our economy. The implementation of internal market legislation at national level is an absolute precondition for achieving the Lisbon objectives. An increase in the implementation deficit will cause EU markets to splinter and erode the benefits of the internal market. An accusing finger cannot just be pointed at the inertia of the Member States in the implementation of the Lisbon objectives. The work of the Competitiveness Council has to be made more effective and it must return to a fundamental question: what impact will each drafted law have on the EU’s competitiveness? It is also time for some spring-cleaning in the Commission. At present the Commissioners are very torn on their directives. The drafting of the chemicals package was a good example of this. EU competitiveness will not improve with laws like these. On the contrary, it will become seriously endangered. Next autumn a Competitiveness Council Commissioners’ portfolio is to be established in the Commission. Its task will specifically be to finalise the Lisbon objectives and coordinate and harmonise the work of the Commissioners for Industry, the Environment and Employment. Competitiveness and a healthy Europe are not a Utopian dream. New magic remedies are not required. The medication exists: it was discovered in the spring of 2000 in Lisbon. Countries just have to do what they said they would.

Political group: PPE-DE