GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I make this point of order now, whilst everybody is leaving. I hope that, as well as recording exactly what Mr McMillan-Scott said within his brief explanation of the BBC apology, that two Members – one of the British Labour delegation and one of the British Liberal delegation – who made similar allegations following the broadcast actually now write to Mr Kirkhope and apologise to him personally. *** EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE - Report McCormick (A5-0151/2000)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, one of the most pleasant forms of lifelong learning is membership of the European Parliament and, especially, participation in these Friday sittings at which, for once, you have the time to deal with the reports of colleagues from other specialist fields. I hope that a majority of this House will also learn and not go ahead and abolish these Friday sittings. But now to the subject in hand. Mrs Gutiérrez-Cortines has submitted an excellent report which is also very critical of the fact that our heads of state and government are constantly making grandiose announcements. The Feira Summit was just such an occasion – a pure media event, to use the buzz word. Very little of substance happened, however. Little is being provided for in terms of the budget and few resources are available, because it is all about appearances. We need to put an end to this kind of spin. I am therefore very grateful for the sound report which Mrs Gutiérrez-Cortines has submitted. One thing, of course, she has quite clearly emphasised is the importance of the subsidiarity principle. Nonetheless, resources must also be invested at European level. Above all, value must be attached to quality in this area, and quality means setting priorities. One of our priorities must be to extend precisely this idea of lifelong learning to people in the candidate States for, in Central and Eastern Europe, a totalitarian system has, for decades, robbed people of the opportunity to develop freely. It is a great failing of our strategy that we concentrate very heavily upon young people in these countries. It is obviously important to do that as well, but the bulk of people are elderly – elderly people who have to overcome decades of dictatorship but who are, today, able to make a fresh start. This too is something we need to support by making this area a priority. I should also like to say that, in my view, elderly people in particular, who nowadays still have twenty or thirty productive years in front of them after they retire, must be able to play an increased part in our society. As a part of this process, there must also be educational opportunities. I am sorry that, nowadays, the discussion is about increasingly closing the doors of universities to older people, charging fees and ensuring that older people can no longer take an active part in the life of universities. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I would firstly like to say that I regard the Commission's budgetary policy as a great achievement and to pay tribute to the competence with which it is implemented. However, I believe that Basel II will be one of the biggest problems in the future, in fact the greatest danger for small and medium-sized enterprises since the Second World War, if we do not do our homework properly. What do you think the impact of Basel II will be on the 40% of companies in Europe that do not have any equity capital, what will the impact be on tax revenue and what will the effect be on the candidate countries? My second point is that at present our budgetary policy involves us dealing with countries that have both budget deficits and also high unemployment. What programmes do you think would help to get these problems under control again?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would still like to raise a couple of points. Employment is an important issue. Unemployment is on the increase in the EU. It is in small and medium-sized enterprises in particular that jobs are created. Unfortunately, fear of distorting competition often hinders even rational action. For that reason, competition law should be interpreted more freely in the case of small and medium-sized enterprises. This would mean, for example, that the Structural Funds could be used more effectively to prevent unemployment. The Northern Dimension is a major premise in the political field. The Commission has mainly focused on two issues: environmental protection and nuclear safety. We would like to extend this list. The Northern Dimension offers immense potential in the area of energy policy. The natural gas deposits in the Arctic Ocean will be of vital importance to the EU in the future. We should just ensure that the links that are to be built should, as far as possible, pass through EU territory. The Northern Dimension also offers immense scope for cooperation in the field of cultural and research policy and higher education. The is strongly in favour of reforming the Commission’s administration and pruning bureaucracy. The importance of that was reflected in the debate on the Structural Funds. Administrative costs should be in reasonable proportion to the operating appropriations used.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, I do not know if there will be a spirit of Tampere. In any case, I am fairly sure that Tampere will be a significant step on the road to the establishment of a Citizens’ Europe, the Europe which we must henceforth fight for with determination. In this area of freedom, security and justice which we hope to create, all three elements are important, and Tampere acts on all three of them. What is more, Commissioner, in undertaking to draw up this “scoreboard”, you are henceforth assuming a considerable responsibility. There is a helm which is in your hands; we have great expectations of it. On the matter of fundamental rights, the establishment of a forum for Parliament to make its contribution to drawing up a charter is one element, but we shall be debating the basis of this for, as far as we are concerned, this charter must have a direct application, i.e. citizens must be able to appeal to the Court of Justice, and this charter must include the new rights for Europeans in the 21st century. On the subject of immigration, by integrating what might be called a co-development strategy, that is to say, by acknowledging that, in order to resolve the question of immigration, the underlying causes of the refugee phenomenon must be tackled in full, I believe that Tampere is a significant milestone. It is also a significant step in the recognition of the nationality rights of nationals of third countries. It is an important step. We also think that, in this fight, the contributions of the French, Germans and British on the subject of asylum rights and immigration will offer elements which must be taken into account to a greater extent in future. In the measures relating to justice, we attach especial importance to the mutual acceptance of verdicts in civil and criminal cases. This is an essential point, in our view, for this is underpinned by the reality of a Citizens’ Europe in which it will be possible for the rights of the family to also be extended to the rights of couples of different nationalities, and not just to be a cause of problems. We therefore invite you, Mr Lipponen, to integrate the second Brussels Convention at the earliest possible juncture, since this is a matter of urgency, and it is a legal entitlement which many families are waiting for. Next, and this will be no surprise to you, in this Parliament we attach great importance to the democratic nature of procedures. We therefore request that the legislative procedures envisaged by the Treaty of Amsterdam be applied properly. We also request that, as regards police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, these matters may be communitised in future. Finally, if there is a Tampere spirit, we request that heading 4 of the Amsterdam Treaty may be implemented ahead of schedule. We would see that as a pledge of the good faith of all the partners involved. IN THE CHAIR: MR WIEBENGAVice-President

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to focus on the Fava report and then make a brief point on this absolutely fascinating debate on the Irish Box. Commissioner, I would like to ask you to clarify a few points regarding Mr Fava’s report, if possible, since you have said that you essentially endorse the proposals it contains. Mr Fava’s report – which we will support tomorrow – states that the data on which your proposals are based is not up to date and is therefore not particularly reliable: the forecast of 12 000 jobs losses is underestimated and the retraining of the workforce envisaged is virtually impossible given the level of education of the people concerned. Mr Fava has pointed all this out today too, and yet you say that you are essentially in agreement. I fail to understand how you can support the report considering the proposals made. Then the Committee on Budgets points out that there is not enough money and that the constraints are such as to exclude additional funding. Well then, if you, with your imagination, could manage to dream something up, we would be truly delighted. I would propose, and I am anxious to hear your opinion, in view of these budgetary difficulties, giving some of the responsibility back to the Member States – we are going to call for this in another report – allowing them, for example, to apply the de minimis rule to fisheries too, a rule with which you are quite familiar since it is employed in agriculture as well. As far as the other issue under consideration is concerned, I confess I am a little disappointed by the debate. The excessively nationalistic overtones make me genuinely of the opinion that there is no longer any point in having a common fisheries policy. Whether we are talking about Portuguese, Irish or Spanish waters, clearly the scope for debate is reduced by such attitudes. During these periods of genuine difficulty – I am thinking of the serious issues affecting fishermen and their families – the only certain point of reference is the law. By respecting the law, we will be able to reconcile environmental sustainability with rights, the Treaties and the agreements. It is our only safeguard against shifting towards national policies and the only guarantee of our being able to pursue a common policy in this sector.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the paradox in the European Union when we discuss safety at sea is that the Member States call for measures following disasters and then fail to apply them. What usually happens is that industry is incriminated, the crew is incriminated, the states tend to shirk all responsibility and it is obvious that this is not true. If only things were that simple, because we would have resolved the problem. The problem with safety at sea is obviously not Mr Mangouras, the Greek master, who should have had better treatment from the Spanish authorities, as the Sterckx report rightly notes, nor is the problem purely and simply single-hull tankers. It is also the maintenance of ships, as demonstrated by the recent shipwreck of the double-hull cargo vessel, the Rocknes, off the coast of Norway, it is that we do not have ports of refuge, in violation of Community legislation, it is that we do not conduct proper port controls, again in violation of Community legislation. It is overall, if I may say so, that the Member States do not apply what is generally speaking the good Community legislation which we have in the European Union. The first thing, therefore, that we need to do is to apply Community legislation and then we also need to look at the measures proposed in the Sterckx report, select certain basic priorities and take additional measures, such as creating a European coastguard. I would also point out that, obviously, as shipping is an international problem, international measures are also required, which is why cooperation with the International Maritime Organisation is always required.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I believe that in these debates in preparation for the summits, it is important that we remain realistic and take account of two things: first, that the Presidency-in-Office – which in my opinion has been unjustly attacked because destruction is far easier than construction and criticism is far easier than contributing something positive – has neither a philosopher’s stone nor a magic potion to solve all the problems of the European Union to the satisfaction of this Parliament: the other 14 Member States are also involved and all have a contribution to make. Certainly, some of these criticisms reminded me of what Oscar Wilde used to say about bad literary critics: they never enjoy any success, despite having been to all the opening nights. Secondly, it is important to bear in mind that summits give rise to a number of expectations that are not always fulfilled. I therefore think it should be pointed out that what is most important about a summit – and this is what we are hoping for from Seville – is that it can generate enough political momentum for the project of European union to progress. In this respect, the lines of thought announced by President Prodi on behalf of the European Commission seem to me to be particularly suitable. Leaving aside the subject of the Barcelona mandate and the issue of accession – which will be the subject of a later debate this afternoon, and which will clearly show where the real difficulties of accession lie, as they are neither in the Presidency-in-Office nor in the Commission – I would like to express my satisfaction at the reference made by the President-in-Office of the Council to the fact that Seville will not interfere with the work of the Convention. I believe it would be desirable to discuss some of the matters relating to the reform of the Council in detail. Perhaps the representative of the Presidency-in-Office of the Council could talk to us about these different functions or mandates of the Foreign Affairs Council and the European Affairs Council and how they plan to proceed more effectively, without dedicating themselves to negotiating every last detail of previous debates, and giving political momentum to the subject on the table. Mr President, I would like to end by referring briefly to immigration, which is a very serious, urgent topic that is particularly relevant at a time when various Member States are adopting individual policies, some of which are contradictory. I therefore believe that we must clearly support the objectives expressed here by the Commission and by the Presidency-in-Office of the Council, emphasising two aspects: first, that this issue should not be used for the purposes of engaging in manipulative rhetoric, and secondly that we must find real solutions to real problems and try to strip this debate of ideological waffle. It is important that we strike a balance between the European Union’s tradition of welcome and hospitality – bearing in mind our values, as expressed in the fitting phrase “immigrants might not have papers, but they shall have dignity” – and its actual possibilities, which are not unlimited.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it has already been said. We are touching upon an important topic here, namely that of people’s dignity. As has been said, it is not just about trafficking in women, although that is the subject of the communication, but it extends to trafficking in people generally. Men, girls and boys, are also involved. It is a growing problem in the EU, too. Trafficking in women appears to be financially lucrative. Not only do women from Asian countries fall victim, but also more and more women from Central and Eastern European countries, including women from candidate countries. They are lured under false pretences – through job advertisements, for example – into becoming hairdressers or into working in bars or as dancers, or else they are enticed via the lonely hearts columns. Women are often easy prey, given the poor conditions they live under. Trafficking in women is increasingly linked with international criminal organisations. A great deal has been done, but still more needs to be done, especially when it comes to aligning different countries’ legislation for the purposes of tracing and prosecution and when it comes to providing information to the police and courts. This is why I welcome the European Commission’s initiative, as well as the specific proposals in the report, for example, with regard to the further harmonisation of legislation which may facilitate the tracing of victims and prosecution of offenders and make these activities more efficient; with regard to cooperation and coordination, especially during investigations, at police stations and in the courts; and also specifically with regard to the reception and protection of victims. I hope it will be possible to adopt the amendment on non-governmental organisations, tabled by our group and amended in consultation with the . Whenever new needs arise, emergency help is often provided by people or groups of people who feel compelled to do something about these on ideological grounds or out of religious conviction. These groups do not always get the recognition they deserve. The amendment states that NGOs can also include ideologically-based organisations. Finally, I would like to state that this is an important communication from the Commission. It is a sound communication and a sound report on which I would like to congratulate Mrs Sörensen. I hope that the Member States will adopt a dynamic approach in their future dealings with it.

Political group: PPE-DE
I voted against the Staes motion for a resolution concerning discharge from the European Parliament. This vote does not express any reservations on the management of the 2001 budget by the European Parliament. On the contrary, it expresses my opposition to the rapporteur’s attempts, supported by 13 members of his committee, to assume powers which fall under the competence of either the Member States (such as deciding the seat of the institutions), or bodies other than Parliament (property policy, and so on). Under the pretext of budgetary rigour, the MEPs were thus asked to vote on an ill-assorted series of proposals whose sole aim is to discredit fellow Members elected by the House to manage Parliament’s budget. This motion of implicit mistrust deserved to be rejected. - Blak report (A5-0079/2003)

Political group: PSE
Mr Deva's proposal is the best we can expect from a British Conservative. He believes in capitalism, but also has consideration for the way in which the difference in welfare between Europe and the developing world has developed over the centuries. He knows that our industry owed its rise to protectionism rather than to a laissez-faire attitude, and realises that the WTO Agreement on investment measures hinders the developing countries in their attempts to develop a local industry by promoting local products. His views on a reliable legal system, the fight against corruption, transfers of technology, health care, women's emancipation and land reforms, as expressed in his initiative proposal, receive my support. I also endorse the EU's tasks: a different contribution to the WTO, a reduction in export subsidies, no sale of unsafe food or of insecticides that are banned here, a ban on the trade in firearms, cancellation of debts and concrete measures against European companies and people involved in illegal trading in diamonds, oil and gold. On the other hand, I do not share the rapporteur's optimism about ethical investments by entrepreneurs and about the contribution of trade liberalisation to development, because the cheap acquisition of resources in the developing world remains an important ambition for many entrepreneurs.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Ladies and gentlemen, I wish first of all to express my satisfaction at the way in which Mrs Riis-Jørgensen’s report has been very fruitfully amended in committee, which will enable us to establish a defensive mechanism for our shipbuilding industry. We are all already aware of the difficulties that this sector has faced for years as a result of unfair competition from Korea. We are also aware that Korea continues to set prices below cost, that the Korean authorities provide their shipyards with subsidies, both direct and indirect, that bankrupt shipyards are kept operational, that South Korea’s production capacity increased by 170% between 1988 and 1997, whereas, during the same period, European production fell by 30%. And yet, during this time, European subsidies were ended. All attempts to resolve the matter amicably have been in vain and a case therefore had to be lodged with the WTO. I am pleased that this case has now been supplemented with a proposal for a defensive mechanism. The WTO procedure will probably last three years. It would be absurd to leave European shipbuilding unprotected for this time and the Commission has proposed a defence mechanism in the form of subsidies. I support this measure but I would add that Korean competition also affects oil tankers. One Korean company, with USD five billion’s worth of losses that have been absorbed by state banks, nevertheless won half of all industrial tonnage in 2000 – by dropping prices. At a time when the consequences of the 11 September attacks have led to a pause in orders for cruise ships, a sector which does not need subsidies, orders for oil tankers are much needed, which is why we must include this sector in the defensive mechanism. This is my contribution, ladies and gentlemen, to this very important debate on shipbuilding. I too wish to see Parliament give massive support to the Commission’s proposal.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, what should Biarritz do with the Charter? It should clarify what it means by proclamation. What is a proclamation? Perhaps it is a glass of champagne and a string quartet, perhaps it is the first building block of Europe's constitution, but all this should be clarified. Parliaments are not used to proclaiming things. Secondly, Biarritz should reconsider the question of the European Union signing up to the existing European Convention. Thirdly, it should consider future revision and a procedure for revising the clauses of the Charter in future. Finally, it should request the Commission to launch a widespread campaign to inform the public of this great project.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, we were in the future and you, Mr President, had become honorary President of the great Pensioner’s Party, which had 30% of the vote across Europe. You came up to me, as honorary President, linked arms with me and said: ‘Dear Mr Fatuzzo, you not only have to vote, and I advise you to vote, for Mrs de Sarnez’s report that provides for the Erasmus Mundus masters for cultural exchanges between young people, but you must also propose the foundation of the Fatuzzus Mundus senior masters – I repeat: Fatuzzus Mundus senior masters – so that there can be intercultural exchanges between pensioners, who would dearly love this’. Will this remain a dream?

Political group: PPE-DE