GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, my Group asked me to give an explanation on its behalf. Simply and briefly it is a point which concerns paragraph 2(b). As I said in the debate in the morning, we are very strongly in favour of reform of the Protocol concerning Privileges and Immunities. The existing rules relating to privileges and immunities are unsatisfactory. However, as we said in the debate leading up to the decision on 3 and 4 June, the text that was approved then is unduly extensive in the privileges and immunities it prescribes. So we voted against paragraph 2(b), not because we oppose reform but because it is too generous a model for reform.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, last week this debate was dominated by some unfortunate news for cohesion. In committee we saw the discharge of the 2000 budget, with an execution of 56% of objective 1, 4.5% of objective 2 and 0% of Community initiatives. We are not talking about the cohesion funds. The Commissioner, as he told us, wrote a letter to the Presidents of the various countries, reminding them of the ‘n+2’ rule, that is, that funds may disappear after two years of not being executed. That is by way of a precaution, amongst other things, and I think it is correct. The Commission proposed 0.14% of the budget to solve the problems of enlargement. In any event, I am very pleased with the report by Mr Musotto, in which he makes an enormously positive assessment of regional policy and cohesion policy. It is a successful policy which is going to ensure that soon there will be almost no Objective 1 regions amongst the Europe of the 15. The messages of Mr Musotto’s project are clear: procedures must be taken seriously. I am pleased that the Commissioner has maintained what Parliament proposed: that the programming period be brought forward two years to the next financial perspectives. He also sends a message relating to the quality of investments and participation, and the implementation of the partnership, which has not yet happened. But the star has been enlargement: enlargement itself, the effect of enlargement on the other regions that currently receive aid and the absence of a reply to the four questions, Commissioner. An apparent absence of a reply, since you can give us a satisfactory reply through good work, which is easy if done with common sense and if we believe in cohesion. Mr President, I will end by saying to the Commissioner that Parliament trusts that the Commission will obtain that response which we all need.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, firstly I would like to give my reaction to the rather naïve comments made by Mr Martinez about Kosovo. The money that we want to spend in Kosovo, Mr Martinez, will largely be spent on rebuilding the 80,000 homes that were destroyed there. Those homes, Mr Martinez, were destroyed not by NATO but by your friends there, that is to say, by certain Serbian paramilitary organisations. That is the truth of the matter and there is no other. I am indebted to the rapporteur and the Committee on Budgets for their support for Amendment No 69, which I submitted with the support of Mrs Van Lancker and Mr Beysen, as well as most of the Flemish and French-speaking Belgian Members. It provides for an appropriation of EUR 50 million to be taken up in the financial reserves for financing the activities to be undertaken by those producers or Member States wishing to set up an integrated quality control system for the whole food chain. That will make it possible for us to restore the consumer’s faith in his or her food. And so I will take the opportunity at this plenary sitting to say that it is my express wish that the Council should lend its support to this amendment. Secondly, I would like to affirm my support for paragraphs 13, 17 and 57 of the Bourlanges report. Paragraph 57 relates to the allocation of additional posts to OLAF and the Veterinary Office in Dublin. I endorse what Mrs Morgan, Mr Walter and Mr Mulder had to say about this. Paragraphs 13 and 17 concern the future of the TAOs, the Technical Assistance Offices. As Mr Bourlanges rightly says, the measures produced by the European Commission do not satisfy our demands. I regret that Mrs Siimes’ reaction to the proposals made by rapporteur Bourlanges was one of slight disenchantment. The Council maintains that the European Parliament is proposing very far-reaching reforms and that it will not be possible to accommodate these in Budget 2000. Mrs Siimes, the citizens of Europe expect us to exercise robust and financially-transparent administration and it is therefore absolutely essential that we see to it that the Technical Assistance Offices are gradually disbanded. I would refer you to what Mr Elles has just had to say on the matter. And so it is my hope that the overtures we have made to you do not fall on deaf ears.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, first of all I would like to compliment the Commission, and also our rapporteur, on the agreement reached. The agreement takes more account of the developing countries themselves, in this case Guinea and Mauritius, than was formerly the case. That is something in its favour and what it in fact means is that these agreements should actually fall to be considered under the codecision procedure with Parliament. Perhaps this will take place next year though, after the IGC. I am critical of a number of other points. I believe it is a sound agreement. Clearly this agreement is extremely important to the countries of the south; after all, the southern fisheries agreements are directly responsible for 13 000 jobs in Spain and Portugal, among others. The turnover is no mean feat either, amounting as it does to around EUR 485 million, in comparison with which, an agreement with Greenland, for example, pales into insignificance. This means that the sums set aside for this purpose will also mainly be spent in these countries. There is something to be said for this alone. Historically, these countries had their agreements, but it would be a positive move if the business community itself were to make more of a contribution to this kind of agreement. I mention this because a balance must be struck between developing countries and countries with a large fishing industry, but it is also necessary to strike a balance in the way funds are spent across the various fishing zones. That being the case, I would point out that certain countries in the north, of which my own country is one, have great difficulty with the cutbacks they are experiencing in the multiannual orientation programme. The honourable member from Great Britain has already described the problems the fishing sector is having to contend with there. This simply means that when it comes to the fisheries policy, we must look with a critical eye at this agreement in order to ascertain where the interests lie and how the money is being spent. It is quite clear that regional elements are going to play a more prominent role. Let there be no mistake, I think this agreement is indispensable to Spanish and South European fishermen – that is the first point – but I think it is also essential for a regional policy to allow for restructuring of the fishing industry in the northern coastal areas, to offer scope for sound agreements with northern countries, and for it to be properly tailored to specific regional needs.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we are quite properly concerned about the spread of small arms and light weapons, particularly the illegal traffick in, and uncontrolled circulation of, these weapons. I am not sure why Parliament has decided to bring forward an urgent resolution at this time, unless it wants to contribute something useful in the context of the current international crisis, the continuing threat posed by weapons held by terrorists or the consequences of the large accumulation of weapons in Taliban hands in Afghanistan. There is some passing reference to these matters in the motion for a resolution which contains many useful elements. For many years I have worked to overcome the problem of anti-personnel landmines but I have always sought to focus attention on the real culprits who use such weapons indiscriminately and irresponsibly. Usually these were armed rebel groups in developing countries with no concern for human life and they had been supplied by non-western countries. It is important, therefore, that when considering the matter of small arms we should take care not to become over-obsessed with our own authorities or industry: these are the easy targets. Instead, we should focus on terrorist groups and other criminal elements that are sitting on stockpiles of weapons or continuing to obtain them from various sources. It is scandalous, for example, that there has been toleration for so long of large stockpiles of weapons held by terrorist organisations such as the IRA in one EU Member State, in order that it may threaten or carry out attacks in another. In relation to Afghanistan it is to be hoped that a legitimate government with democratic aspirations will be established there very soon, anxious to engage positively in the real world and begin the development of a sustainable economy and a better life for all its people. There must also be efforts to remove weapons in Taliban hands and integrate ex-combatants back into some sort of mainstream society. I am not referring to terrorists there. Much has been achieved. Our focus for the future in relation to small arms should be on identifying and destroying stocks of weapons held by insurgents, terrorists and criminals and cutting off their sources of supply. This is the area on which we should be concentrating our efforts over the coming months and years.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am speaking in this debate in my capacity as Vice-President of Parliament, responsible for information and communication, and also as co-chairman of the interinstitutional group on information and communication. Mr Monti, you have told us that the Commission attaches great importance to information and communication policy. It may attach importance to it, but it is in absolutely no hurry, since this House has been waiting impatiently for a year and a half for the delivery of the great document on information and communication that Mr Prodi promised us. And, after a year and a half, we have been told that Parliament and the Commission will be producing this together. Frankly, Commissioner, in this area, the Commission compares very badly with a tortoise. You have said that information and communication are of great importance. Mr Prodi is no doubt aware of certain image problems he has as President of the Commission, which have repercussions for the whole College of Commissioners. I suppose that he is also aware of the trends in participation in European elections over the last decade, and I suppose that he is aware of the vicious campaign being waged against the European Union and its institutions by very powerful sections of the media in certain Member States. Mr Monti, when we were told that we had to produce this document together, we got on with the job and we already have a document prepared. We have produced it in three months. Can it be that this humble Parliament has more resources, more power, more intelligence or more possibilities than the Commission? I doubt it. With whom are we supposed to negotiate politically on this issue? You said your ‘colleagues responsible for the matter. Who are they? We do not know them. We would like to know who they are.

Political group: PPE-DE
At the start of the third millennium, women are still fighting for the right, on paper at least, to participate in the capitalist system, a right which socialism gave them at the beginning of the century. The Communist Party of Greece sees the problem of the lack of participation by women in the decision-making process not simply as a problem of democracy; it is a sign of social inequality and exploitation of the classes, which is why it mainly affects working class women. The apparent interest in democracy in the family expressed in the motion for a resolution is in fact an interest in reversing full employment (the motion frankly admits as much), and reducing and privatising welfare services. Moreover, so-called equal opportunities policies and various EU programmes have proven to be nothing more than the means to promote capitalist restructuring. They aim to divide the burden equally and to reduce social services to the family, thereby striking at the working classes and exacerbating the situation of women in practice and, as a result, they are responsible for excluding women from the mainstream. Women will only gain their rightful place both in the family and in political and economic life by joining the mass grass-roots movement fighting to reverse the policies responsible for their under-representation. Real participation by women cannot be achieved with quotas for their participation in institutions which fight against their interests and promote part-time work, the privatisation of health, welfare and education, longer working hours and a later retirement age. We disagree with the imposition of quotas on political parties because they are organisations which people join voluntarily and they alone have the right to decide on their structure and how they operate. To impose quotas on political parties is to interfere in their internal affairs and trample on the collective will of a political organisation. We shall not oppose administrative measures to improve the participation of women in the decision-making process, provided that they are accompanied by the corresponding grass-roots policy and can therefore effectively remove barriers to the participation of women. Administrative measures not accompanied by such a policy give rise to self-delusion and are misleading, which is why we cannot support isolated measures of an administrative nature, as proposed in the resolution. These were the reasons why the Communist Party of Greece abstained from the vote.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The President-in-Office may have misunderstood my question. One part of my question asks when the Council requested the Commission to present an amended regulation, not when we expect the Commission to respond.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, there are large parts of Mr Maaten's report with which I can agree entirely. There, are, though, a number of problems. Firstly, any consideration of Europe and Asia has to include Russia as well. All the issues touch on the interests of Russia as a great Eurasian power, as became clear only recently in the Korea issue. Both the North Korean president's journey to Siberia and the plans to build a rail link crossing North and South Korea are worthy of a great deal of attention. On the other hand, considering the problem more in the unclear light favoured by the USA, and failing to involve Russia and China to the extent they deserve, makes it difficult to achieve a peaceful and fair solution to the problems before us. Secondly, to have an Asia policy without due consideration of the Shanghai Group and its place in Eurasian political events is to ignore the realities of the situation. We must now decide on what the place of Central Asia, for example, is to be and what attitude we take towards the USA's Eurasian strategy, which envisages a new geostrategic situation in this area. The end of the Cold War saw the budding of hope for a peaceful world, and that hope is, unfortunately, waning fast. Thirdly, the States of the European Union have long disregarded or underestimated developments in Asia and are still persisting in deliberations that are one-sided and sometimes limited. The Commissioner observed that reality has overtaken the report's reference to India and Taiwan in the same breath. That I consider to be a political error that takes inadequate account of the realities. Realpolitik always has something to do with interests, and the EU does well to strike a balance between its own well-understood interests and those of its partners.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to commend the Commission on its serious and balanced work. Too often, when we broach the subject of immigration, passions, excesses and political ulterior motives prevent us from reflecting objectively and making progress. In dealing in depth with the issue of the right to live as a family, and in defining the precise conditions for its application, the text enables us to hold a real debate. Far from casting suspicion a priori, as is often the case, on those who wish to live with their spouses and children, the text recognises the legitimacy of such a right even if, in fact, this right must now apply equally to homosexual couples and to all other categories, as the honourable Member has just said, especially in the case of asylum seekers. The text also takes into account that nowadays there are several types of families in our society, especially certain forms of cohabitation, and that we cannot therefore discriminate against immigrants who live in the same way. In recognising this, the text helps to give real meaning to the term ‘integration’. Through harmonising legislation in Member States, this draft directive will provide protection and legal stability for immigrants and will above all prevent them from being subjected to national political fluctuations. I therefore hope that subsequent work by the Commission and Parliament will take its inspiration from this example. Perhaps we will then be able to talk further on the equality of rights and the often positive contribution made by immigration, in dealing with issues that are vital for integration and the fight against the unemployment, insecure employment, violence and discrimination, of which immigrants are often victim. Immigration is not a problem. Yet we must resolve to talk about the real problems such as the imbalances between the North and the South that often force men and women to flee from poverty. We must also recognise that the waves of immigrants towards the countries of the European Union have been more or less constant for a couple of decades. In other words, by implementing restrictive laws, Member States have not succeeded in reducing the overall number of entrants; they have simply reduced the number of legal immigrants while increasing the numbers of illegal immigrants by declaring them illegal. By underpinning these values, this draft directive will not only have positive consequences for immigrants and their families, but it will also be a symbol for refuge and integration. I sincerely hope that we will be able to follow the same line of conduct in subsequent work.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, aid which is conditional on the acquisition of goods or services originating in the donor country has repeatedly been condemned as an immoral and inefficient practice by recipient countries and the worst-affected NGOs on the one hand, and on the other by the majority of agencies involved in development issues. Among the latter are many intergovernmental organisations. In 1996, the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) published a strategy document entitled ‘Shaping the 21st Century: The Contribution of Development Cooperation’. This publication discredited the practice of imposing conditions on development assistance, showing it to be incompatible with the new guiding philosophy for initiatives in this field. Since then, that philosophy has gradually taken on a definite, solid form through a series of important declarations and resolutions, such as the DAC’s recommendation, approved in May 2001, demanding that aid to the least-developed countries should be untied. More importantly, the international community adopted the Monterrey Consensus at the International Conference on Financing for Development in March 2002, committing itself to supporting initiatives designed to phase out conditional aid. In its communication of November 2002, entitled ‘Untying: Enhancing the Effectiveness of Aid’, the Commission responds to just those promises made at Monterrey. It goes even further than the DAC’s resolution, since it extends the need to untie aid to all developing countries, not just to least-developed countries. It also extends the untying of aid to all aid sectors, including food aid. All these recommendations are still gaining ground, under pressure from lobbying by the general public and by NGOs. They have not, however, made a great impression on a large number of countries, which are continuing to grant tied aid, either openly or covertly. This is unfortunately also true of various EU Member States. The result is a significant discrepancy between the policy advocated by Parliament and implemented by the Commission on the one hand, and the policy put into practice by some Member States, such as Spain under José María Aznar, on the other. It comes as no surprise that the report presented by Mr Fernández Martín, a Partido Popular deputy in my country, should list a series of initial misgivings about the progressive approach urged by the Commission, an approach favourable to the untying of development cooperation policy. In the rapporteur’s favour, however, it should be said that he showed understanding and flexibility by accepting the amendments tabled to his first proposal, which have yielded substantial improvements in his final text. That text includes a motion for a resolution approved by the Parliamentary Committee on Development and Cooperation. We will be reasonably happy to vote for it, since it favours the complete untying of development aid, both European Union aid and aid granted by each and every one of the Member States.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to join with previous speakers in congratulating the two co-rapporteurs on their excellent summary. I acknowledge that the method has proved successful and that real progress has been achieved in comparison to the current treaty. Nevertheless, I would like to examine critically the three innate deficiencies of the draft Constitution identified in the Gil-Robles and Tsatsos report as requiring closer scrutiny. The election of a President by his or her peers on the European Council marks an unexpected strengthening of the intergovernmental structure. The latter should actually be weakening as Europe moves forward. This sort of monarch-president, accountable to nobody, could considerably weaken the Commission and call into question the responsibilities of each institution. The Commission has appreciated the danger. In its communication, it lashes out with a damning statement: ‘Someone who is not accountable for his/her action to any parliamentary assembly cannot exert influence over the modus operandi of the Council, which is supposed to be transparent and democratic’. Mr Barnier, it is for you to act now. The second innate deficiency, highlighted by many, concerns the future Commission. It seems that no longer would all Commissioners enjoy the same status. It would be a complicated, confused system, and impossible to operate. It would undermine the collegiate system within the Commission. The third obvious deficiency is the failure of the Convention on the reform of the CFSP. On this matter, the conventioneers have patently failed to meet the expectations of the citizens. No doubt the conventioneers were under extreme pressure from those Member States wishing to deny Europe the right to follow an independent foreign policy. The totally unsatisfactory status quo remains. It is to be hoped that the IGC will dare to correct this obvious flaw in the new constitutional edifice. At the very least, it will be necessary to facilitate strengthened cooperation between those Member States who do not believe the United States of America is their overlord, with control over their bodies and souls. The lesson of Iraq must be learnt.

Political group: PSE