GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
While I voted in favour of the Swoboda report on financial assistance for Turkey for the pre-accession strategy, I believe that the EU should be talking more toughly to the Turkish Government about its human rights abuses especially towards the Kurds. It should also monitor fair distribution of the money. In view of renewed military repression in the Kurdish south-east – with the probable aim of provoking the PKK – and recent arrests and disappearances of activists in HADEP (a legal political party) it seems Turkey is going backwards rather than forwards in respect of the Copenhagen criteria.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would like to make three points with regard to the Stockholm Summit. First of all, it is not justified, in my opinion, to hold this discussion here at Parliament’s instigation whilst there was no document from the Commission available at the time to back it up. If a summit on socio-economic problems is arranged in Stockholm and if this is done year after year, as was decided in Lisbon, then I expect each time – and I hope that the Swedish Presidency will take a decision in this respect – to see a framework document from the Commission which can be debated beforehand in Parliament. We have now done just that, but on our own initiative. Accordingly, the report that is before us is calling for an interinstitutional agreement to that effect. My second point concerns social protection. I would like to echo the view of a number of our fellow MEPs, namely that the topic of social protection is new. It has taken ten years finally to grant the topic political status. This has now been done. But this is, of course, a very apprehensive start. If we begin by prescribing indicators, then this is a good start, but it cannot, of course, be the final step. The final step should be a process similar to that which we have followed for employment. Indeed, we should end up drafting guidelines. I hope that Stockholm too will take matters one step further. My final point pertains to employment. It is true that the number of unemployed across Europe is still high, and I am always surprised when it is suggested that we should most definitely encourage the influx of immigrants. Some say that they should fill the jobs which require the highest qualifications, whilst others believe they should fill those functions which require the lowest qualifications. First and foremost, our own unemployed should be trained, and the lowest qualified functions should be reassessed in such a way as to ensure that our own people at least accept this work in the first place.

Political group: PPE-DE
We had nothing against the declared intention of this report to standardise disparate national legislation on the maximum legal length of passenger vehicles, quite the opposite. It must, however, be stressed that the proposed measures are not justified by passenger safety or the rational organisation of transport but by ‘commercial reasons’, i.e. profits for road haulage undertakings. Standardisation would therefore be implemented by establishing the European legal length in line with the maximum provided for in the specific legislation. The European institutions contribute alongside the national States to promoting road transport over rail transport, yet this preference is damaging in ecological terms and wasteful in social terms. A policy which worked towards the rational, efficient and safe organisation of transport ought to prioritise investment in the European public rail service rather than confining itself to standardising the conditions of competition between road transporters, that are principally concerned with maximising their private profits. We did not, consequently, vote in favour of this report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, unfortunately, as far as I am aware, our Rules make no provision for dealing with a Member who makes spurious allegations about colleagues, particularly in the context of an election campaign, which this clearly is. Having taken nine hours to get here, as you did, I have not had a chance to see the allegations either, but you can have no doubt that the College of Quaestors will give them the urgent attention they require, because I know they are causing immense distress to many colleagues. Also, in an election year, it perhaps adds to people's paranoia with regard to these matters.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to begin with a comment on the Rules of Procedure, and I assume that the time it takes will not be deducted from my speaking time. I think we should try something new in Parliament today. What I envisage doing is dividing my five minutes in such a way that I am allowed to talk for four minutes to introduce the debate and for one minute to conclude it, once the Commissioner has made her speech. I propose this in the light of two factors. First of all, I understand that the Conference of Presidents had an ‘away day’ last week, when they decided to have more lively debates here in the House. The second factor is Rule 121, paragraph 4 of the Rules of Procedure. I asked the Sittings Directorate, before I came here today, if what I propose was possible. I was told flatly it was not, but I want to ask permission to do what I propose, given that there is nothing in the Rules of Procedure to prevent such a procedure. I therefore assume that you will be sympathetic towards organising matters in this way today.

Political group: PSE
The extent to which there are, or are not, to be European parties must be a matter for the peoples of Europe and, in a democratic society, this is not something in which Parliament or a Commission should get involved. This is not, of course, about constructing European parties. It is about giving money to European parties, and that is quite a different matter. As I understand it, the problem is that there is now a grey area and that some are opting for corruption and other curious methods of obtaining money for their activities. In that case, however, we must demand that they clean up their acts. We must demand transparency, and we must demand that the existing European parties scrupulously observe rules and laws instead of cheating their way around them. Instead, a system is now being devised in which the parties themselves can put their fingers in the till. Fewer and fewer people are joining political parties. In Germany, the figure is 3%, which is certainly a very good reflection of the situation in my own country. No one joins European parties, and in that situation parties are opting to enrich themselves. It is an enormous problem we are creating. We are hugely deepening the gulf between ourselves and the people. It will be difficult to face the electorate at the next parliamentary election.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I should first like to pay tribute to Mr Lange for all the work he has done on what is an extremely technically complex proposal. He has certainly gained a reputation in committee for having an extremely good technical understanding of the subject matters involved. Even if I do not necessarily agree with all the conclusions he reaches, I pay tribute to all the work he has done and for his understanding of the issues. I opposed many of the amendments that Mr Lange first proposed to the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, but I am happy to say that since then he has put in an enormous amount of work to negotiate compromises with the Council, the vast majority of which I am happy to endorse. I always believe that the approach we should take on environmental emissions directives must be proportionate. We must ensure that the environmental benefits are always balanced against the cost. So often in the EU we impose enormous costs on business and industry for sometimes relatively marginal improvements in environmental performance. Many of the compromises that have been negotiated I am happy now to support. The text is much more closely aligned with US EPO-proposed tier 4 limits and dates. The document now states that the proposed package of limit values should be aligned, as far as possible, with developments in the United States so as to offer manufacturers a global market for their engine concepts. That is an approach I strongly support. The text now puts back the review date to 2007, which gives much more opportunity for practical experience with after-treatment technology to be achieved before stages IIIB and IV are confirmed. Having said that, I will not support Amendments Nos 71, 75, 82 and 89, concerning replacement engines, the classification of auxiliary engines and engines used to perform maintenance or construction work. Because specific rail technology has not yet, in my view, been satisfactorily developed to meet the requirements of stages 3 and 4, I believe it is not possible to establish if and when these requirements can be met. I am happy with the vast majority of the compromises that Mr Lange has so skilfully negotiated and wish to pay tribute to the work he has done in that respect.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, first I should like to thank the rapporteur. He has seen this difficult dossier, which involved an extremely difficult fight in the Council, through two institutions and the Conciliation Committee, and that is most important. Rapporteurs simply need to have the courage to stand their ground. He has demonstrated that courage and has been successful as a result. I join him in thanking the French Presidency of the Council, which endeavoured to find a compromise at the eleventh hour. I should like to thank the Vice-President and her officials for helping us to negotiate that compromise. So, in this respect, my warmest thanks to the Commission. I, too, shall endeavour to be brief on this lovely evening, hence just three points. First: we had to set ports, inland ports, sea ports and intermodal terminals in the right context within a text on trans-European networks, which is why we said they must be ports and inland ports which are connected to the hinterland, which form part of a network, and not individual ports, which may be very nice but which have no trans-European significance. I think that the classification which we have found together with the Council is a very good one. Secondly, we had to draw a dividing line between infrastructure and superstructure. To non-specialists that all sounds very complicated, but it is fundamental to the question of equality of competition between ports or to the question of inadmissible distortions of competition. First, it was important to clarify what we mean by infrastructure. So what must the state do and pay, without intervention on the part of the Community, without any notification requirements? A typical question might be: does dredging a harbour mouth have to be notified or not? This gave rise to a whole series of difficulties between the Member States and the Commission. But what was important was to clarify that superstructure is defined by reverting to infrastructure, in order to ensure that there is no competition-distorting aid. I think this was achieved very well. And a third point, if I may. Madam Vice-President, please bear in mind that this is the first time that Parliament has been able to codecide on priority projects in the codecision procedure. Because the wise Heads of State or Government said after Essen and Dublin that they would decide what priority projects are! What is Parliament here for? In this case, we have managed, with the rapporteur’s help, to ensure that the Council and Parliament decide jointly on priority projects and we should bear this in mind when it comes to the revision.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should just like to touch on a couple of points that Mr Evans raised. First of all, I acknowledge that there is difficulty in the Midlands with the Rover Group. I would not like to make political capital out of it. There are too many jobs at stake. Secondly, he also mentioned their by-election. I congratulate his party in securing a victory in this by-election. But, unlike him, I have been in Ayr for the last three weeks, on the doorstep. I can tell you that additionality was never raised once. I turn to the question at hand. I thank the Nationalists for having raised this. It is right that we have a proper discussion on the whole question of the Structural Funds. But I suspect there is a deeper plot here. What are they actually trying to achieve? I listened to Ms Evans. Basically, what I took from her contribution is that she wants to redefine the Structural Funds regulations. I would remind people in this Parliament that it was not so long ago that this Parliament passed, by the assent procedure, the rules and regulations governing the Structural Funds, including Article 11, which defines additionality. Is it therefore Parliament's role now to change that? We should not change that. The role of this Parliament is to ensure that the rules are complied with. That is what we should concentrate on. I know that Ms Evans, along with one of her colleagues, Dafydd Wigley and a member of the Scottish Nationalist Party, Mr Wilson, went to meet Commissioner Barnier. I should like to read out the statement made by Commissioner Barnier after that meeting: “I know that there has been a great deal of debate in Scotland and Wales recently about European regional funding. But I have the impression that this has sometimes confused two separate issues – additionality and cofinancing. I am not surprised that there is a certain amount of confusion among the Nationalists on this. Additionality, whether or not EU funds are providing additional impact, compared to what would otherwise have happened, can be used as one of the selection criteria by the local programme planners before they decide to approve aid to individual projects. The Commission, on the other hand, is obliged by the rules to make a global assessment of additionality for the UK as a whole, with the specific aim of ensuring that the European financial aid is additional to, and not a substitute for, national finance. We have always been satisfied in the past that the national requirements have been met”.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the fact that the report by Mr Mastorakis was accepted in our committee by 45 votes for and 1 vote against clearly proves, I think, the fact that almost the entire House assents to its content. For our part, we made it clear from the outset that we agree with the proposal by the European Commission to extend the remit of the Maritime Safety Agency. This needs to be done and I think that the shipwreck of the Prestige demonstrated that clearly. That is why we supported Mr Mastorakis's report from the outset. The stand which our party and the European Parliament in general took on the Sterckx report is also indicative in this direction. It was there that ideas which the European Commission is now proposing were first proposed. I am glad that here today, before this House, I am repeating on behalf of the Group of the our support for the report by Mr Mastorakis, who has made an effort to reach an agreement with the Council, so that we can finish with this issue quickly at first reading without delays. The rapporteur's efforts to reach an agreement were difficult in numerous cases, because points of convergence had to be found with certain Member States which had certain matters to put forward concerning the principle of subsidiarity. Finally, these problems were overcome and I should therefore like to congratulate the rapporteur on his report. Apart from all that, no longer as representative of the Group of the , but as a Greek MEP, I should like, given that he himself referred to this specific issue, to say that obviously I agree with him on the reference which he made to the Greek master and I hope that the Spanish authorities will do what they can so that he is dealt with fairly.

Political group: PPE-DE
Turkey’s application for membership of the European Union will probably be on the agenda of the next European Council meeting in Helsinki. There is a strong movement developing, particularly in France, for Turkey to be recognised as having candidate country status on an equal footing with the other applicant countries for enlargement. I should like to draw your attention to the risk of finding ourselves in the same situation as with the Customs Union. According to those promoting it, the Customs Union between the European Union and Turkey should favour democratic reforms, human rights and the rights of minorities. Against the opinion of our Group and many human rights associations such as “France Liberté”, which is chaired by Danielle Mitterrand, the Customs Union has been ratified and implemented. Today we are discussing dealing with it in greater depth. We have no choice but to note that human rights violations have continued. The problem of the Kurds has still not been resolved. The fact that Öçalan has been condemned to death has been confirmed. Leyla Zana is still in prison. The European Commission itself has been obliged to acknowledge that since the implementation of Customs Union, no significant progress has been made in Turkey in the field of human rights and democratic reform. Let us learn from the experience of the Customs Union. Encouraging Turkey’s “attachment to Europe”, as Jacques Chirac put it in Istanbul on 18 November, by recognising Turkey as a candidate country will be taken by the Turkish authorities as encouragement to continue the same policy. I do not propose to rule out Turkey’s application to join the European Union for good, but we must first require of Turkey firm and definitive commitments and check that they are observed: the recognition of the rights of the Kurdish people, the abolition of the death penalty and a new judgement for Öçalan, the release of Leyla Zana and of all political prisoners and the application of United Nations resolutions to resolve the Cyprus problem. The report by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy takes care to refer to the matter of human rights, but, after having amended the Commission proposal, it comes out in favour of continuing and increasing the Customs Union with Turkey. I cannot approve this step because it is time to send a clear signal to Turkey by blocking or suspending the implementation of the Customs Union.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I share some, if not all, of Mrs McKenna's reservations on the Pirker report. However, I voted in favour of this report on a common immigration policy, but with an extremely heavy heart. I did so because although the report as amended is, as we would say in English, all over the place – some points do not correspond with others and there are contradictions left, right and centre – there are a few (and I am sure Mrs McKenna will look at them) but significant positive aspects to the report. For example, it recognises the right of third-country nationals legally resident in the European Union to free movement in Europe. Equally, it gives the right to vote in local elections. However, there are negative aspects. I doubt whether all the people who voted for paragraph 35 could have read it, because it restricts the right of residence, accommodation and education. That is inherently racist and we should oppose it. However, to have rejected the report would have placed in jeopardy the positive points; hence my support, although with the reservations I have expressed clearly here.

Political group: PSE
Mr Solana, one of the European Union’s strangest idiosyncrasies is demonstrated by the fact that, after discussing the Middle East crisis with us, you are still here with us, immediately afterwards, discussing an issue which could not be more peculiar or further removed from your role of High Representative for Foreign Policy: the Council reforms. Moreover, I have to say, by way of introduction to this brief speech, that, in my opinion and the opinion of my group, your place is not on this side of the Chamber: it is on the other side. From this point of view, we feel that the basic shortcoming of your proposals lies in the fact that you still believe, or appear to believe, that the role of the Council, be it the European Council or the ordinary Council of Ministers, is that of government. In our view, this is not the case, for, in terms of both effectiveness and democracy, the Council’s role should be that of co-legislator. We therefore see quite considerable cause for concern in the direction the debates are taking on two issues in particular. The first is the rotating Presidency. You say that it is not effective, that it is not working properly and that the term of office should be extended. In that case, you must explain to me what sort of relationship will be created between this future Presidency, which will last for two or two and a half years, and the President of the Commission. I am sure there will be a problem of inconsistency and the potential for conflict. Therefore, let us leave the Presidency alone and rather endeavour to enhance the Council’s role of legislator, for that must be the basis of the forthcoming reforms. Moreover, the Council reforms can only be carried out as part of an exercise restoring the balance of powers of the different European Union institutions and strengthening the power of the European Parliament as co-legislator. Now, I would just like to make one brief observation since you have mentioned transparency. We would really be extremely pleased if the Council, as a sign of its commitment to transparency, were not to follow the opinion of its Legal Service, which has stipulated that the European Parliament is not to have access to common positions on external relations and accession negotiations. I feel that this is in total conflict with your statements on the issue of transparency. In this regard, we would like to know whether we can rely on you and the Council to remain independent of your highly esteemed Legal Service.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to congratulate Mrs Hyeronymi on the excellent work of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education and the Media, and I would also like to stress the extremely high level of agreement and synergy between the Committees, to the extent – and this is proof – that the main body of the report and those expressing the opinions of the different committees were all approved unanimously. From a structural point of view, greater investment was necessary in the audiovisual sector to create fresh job opportunities for young unemployed Europeans and to stem the European Union brain drain to third countries, particularly the United States of America, where greater investment leads not only to better working conditions but also greater job opportunities. The issues worked on: we considered it necessary to alter the eligibility arrangements applying to the programme by reducing the number of partners from three to two; we considered it necessary to ensure that the training programmes set out in the proposal include support measures geared to the need to develop innovative content for the production of audiovisual formats other than drama and documentaries; we considered that it was important to change the legal basis to ensure that the component relating to support for the development, distribution, and promotion of European audiovisual works can likewise be brought within the scope of codecision, thus enabling Parliament to wield greater influence on implementation of the programme and its aim of fostering European culture. Finally, considering development of investment in the European cinema industry to be extremely important, the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy calls upon the Member States to pursue a policy of making sums reinvested for the creation of new jobs tax-deductible, and stresses the importance of establishing a guarantee fund as one of the measures necessary for the development of the independent audiovisual industry which encourages new talent and develops a cultural content of European tradition.

Political group: PPE-DE