GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I too would like to thank and congratulate the rapporteur. It is a very timely and well-produced report on what, as has already been said, is a very complex and sensitive issue. Although it is complex it is an issue to which we have to take a practical approach. There have been times in our committee when we have been presented with initiatives from the Member States, where they want us to introduce penalties, but we find ourselves in a situation where we cannot respond as they would like. Bearing that situation in mind, when it comes to the IGC, the Council and Member States will appreciate the good sense of what is being proposed here. I was also struck by the idea presented to us – at the enlightening hearing with experts when Mr Koukiadis was preparing this report – that the Community should and must have the wherewithal to protect its own property in the widest sense. That is what we are talking about: property in its widest sense. But there is one point I would like to make and underline. If we are to give the Community power in this area of competence – and we should – then it should also be underpinned by the sort of balance achieved by the Community itself signing up to the European Convention on Human Rights. If we are to have some competence, albeit limited, in the criminal field, this must be balanced by measuring that legislation against something fundamental and basic that guarantees our citizens' human rights.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the President-in-Office of the Council has twice had to preside over an Ecofin Council, which twice in the space of four weeks committed a serious foul against the European Community project; the first instance was your letter to Mr Berlusconi in the aftermath of an Ecofin Council meeting, in which you heaped criticism upon the Convention’s proposals to the Intergovernmental Conference, and the second came last week. That cannot be allowed to go uncontradicted, and we cannot simply move on to the next item of business. Whether one looks at it from the point of view of democratic politics, of economic policy, monetary policy, in legal terms or from the European angle, the way you have gone about things is harmful, unacceptable and deserving of condemnation. Today, Commissioner Solbes told us that the Council has not kept to the spirit of the Treaty. On Monday, Mr Trichet, the President of the ECB, told the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs that the European Central Bank attaches great importance to the Stability and Growth Pact remaining unchanged whatever happens, for it has proved its worth in terms of economic and monetary policy. He called on the Council, the Commission, Parliament and the Member States to take their own responsibilities seriously. It is in particular Germany and France whom I urge to refrain from blaming the EU in general, and the Stability Pact in particular, for their domestic difficulties. Apportioning blame makes no proper contribution to achieving jointly-agreed objectives. The European Union is made up of all of us. Germany and France overstepped the mark in the way they interpreted the rules, and what was a Community matter they made merely intergovernmental. By a political decision, they set the rules aside, but the Community is not an alternative to politics. The finance ministers have impaired its credibility, shattered confidence and given rise to other problems. That is not acceptable. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
I would like to thank Commissioner Monti for his clarifying reply. This issue has aroused great interest in cultural circles and among representatives of the film industry in Sweden. As one man and one woman, people have reacted to the way this could possibly be interpreted with regard to linguistic and cultural diversity in small Member States. I would like to put a follow-up question to the Commissioner: bearing in mind the answer given, is there any guarantee that film production in countries with languages which are not widespread, i.e. film production in minor Member languages, will regularly be exempted from the 50 per cent rule so that, in principle, all film production in, for example, Swedish, Danish or Portuguese could be counted as not exceeding the 50 per cent rule?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this amendment quite simply concerns a mistake which has crept into the text of the resolution, paragraph 5. My amendment aims to rectify the text which was agreed when the common resolution was drafted. So it concerns a mistake which we are trying to rectify by means of this amendment.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the Commission has presented a felicitous initiative to our Parliament under the codecision procedure, an initiative that should lead to a decision establishing a Community action programme to promote organisations active at the European level in the field of equality between men and women. Having spent ten years at the head of such an organisation, namely the European Centre of the International Council of Women, which has affiliated organisations in the European Union, in the new Member States, in Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey, the EFTA countries and in other countries too, I am better placed to assess the real value of this programme, which is intended to help the numerous women’s organisations that are active at the European level in the domain of sexual equality. These organisations will be eligible to benefit from subsidisation from an appropriation that, according to the proposal, will amount to EUR 2.222 million. Our Committee on Budgets, for its part, has proposed an allocation of EUR 5.5 million covering the period from 2004 to 2008. This is not a huge amount, but women’s organisations, be they national or European, are used to living and operating on small budgets. The main reason why I welcome this initiative is that it puts an end to the monopoly on operating subsidies that has been enjoyed by the European Women’s Lobby ever since its creation. Having been one of the women activists who dreamed up and created that lobby in my capacity as president of CECIF, the organisation I referred to a moment ago, and since I am still president of a national organisation affiliated to the EWL, I must surely be immune to any accusations of seeking to undermine the EWL, whose work I greatly appreciate. The Commission has clearly understood that, in this as in all other domains, monopolies are unhealthy. Unfortunately, however, it did not take that principle to its logical conclusion, because the draft presented to us still reserves privileges for the EWL in the new framework. I do not wish to question the payment of an operating grant to the EWL, which is an established subsidy, but other organisations that are active at the European level in the struggle against all forms of discrimination, particularly discrimination on grounds of sex, should be able to benefit from financial support in the framework of the aforementioned appropriation in the form of operating subsidies designed to guarantee the continuity of their activities. Our rapporteur had judiciously amended the Commission’s proposal for a decision. Unfortunately, within the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, the dogmatism of the triumphed once again over equality of treatment and opportunity for all the relevant women’s organisations. This is regrettable. Since the draft programme was totally distorted, Mrs Kratsa and other members of my group voted against it. If our efforts to restore the balance between the EWL and the other women’s organisations should fail, I shall vote against the report again, while still helping to prepare the ground for the second reading.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to draw to the attention of Parliament’s administration the fact that the Members’ coffee bar has been occupied. There are fifteen people there in military uniform who have taken over one end of the coffee bar and are holding some kind of meeting there. I should like Parliament’s administration to take immediate steps to put an end to this occupation, so that Members can have the use of both ends of their coffee bar.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, with regard to the Minutes of yesterday's sitting, I would like to provide all the Members with some information relating to the introductory intervention of our Irish colleague yesterday morning. I would like to make it known to all the Members that the issues concerning the means of access, for people with reduced mobility, from the public car parks to all the buildings, is entirely effective. I tested it myself this morning, using all the paths provided and signposted by means of all the symbols normally used for this sort of information. I want to point this out so that we can stop the circulation of inaccurate facts. Everything is in order so that people with reduced mobility may have effective access to the buildings. I believe that what still needs to be resolved is the problem of the chamber itself.

Political group: PSE
I voted for the Villiers report on the own funds of banks, for it is imperative for Directive 89/299/EEC, which regulated the matter a good 11 years ago, to be updated and supplemented. I endorse the criteria of greater prudence adopted, but other aspects of the matter must also be taken into consideration, particularly the solvency ratio, which is a weighting factor according to the type of counter-party used to estimate the credit risk associated with a bank's assets. In Italy, this is currently fixed at 8% – 7% for banking groups – of the weighted risk assets, for both cash and off-balance-sheet items. What is totally unacceptable is for the supervisory authority – the Banca d'Italia – to have the power to establish a higher minimum requirement under certain conditions. You do not change the rules during the game but before it starts. I therefore agree that there should be a higher weighting coefficient – 10% for example – but it must be totally fixed in all cases and all circumstances. Therefore, Article 53 (d) of Legislative Decree No 385/93, which deals with precisely this point, must be revoked, as all the Members States' laws which provide for changes a posteriori must be revoked.

Political group: PPE-DE
Thank you, Commissioner, for that answer. Your colleague, Commissioner Vitorino, has also answered this question very comprehensively and skilfully in the past, arguing that the wild numbers predicted for Portugal when it joined the European Union were way off the mark. We are now witnessing the same phenomenon with predictions for movement of labour from the accession countries. My point is that I would not ask the Commission to give out information which it has no legal requirement to provide. I am glad of the cooperation between the Commission and Member States. But there is real confusion. The noble aim of enlargement has led to confusion among people on the ground – European citizens – who are now anxious about the extreme predictions of the numbers of people who will come. I do not agree with these extreme predictions, but the Commission has a role to play in giving out sensible information about what we can expect and what it will mean for free movement and, indeed, for benefits regimes – although this is a matter for Member States. That is not coming through collectively. On a more positive note, I would ask about movement the other way – people from existing Member States who, for example, would like to retire in Cyprus or work in Poland. We are getting enquiries about that positive element of movement. Will the Commission provide information?

Political group: PSE
Firstly, I would like to thank the environment colleagues in my group who approached this particular problem jointly with their transport team. This disaster is both a transport and environmental one and is not confined to one area. Here we are here again in this Parliament discussing yet another maritime disaster. I could reel off the list of disasters that have afflicted this industry in my 10 years in this Parliament but I only have three minutes. Surely it is now about time that not only the Member States but that toothless tiger that is known as the International Maritime Organisation, and last but not least, the oil companies and tanker owners take on their responsibilities by acting to stop these ecological and human tragedies repeating themselves year after year. How many more Erikas do we have to endure before the powers that be deliver to us a proper port state control that is effective throughout the whole of the European Union, not just certain areas of it? How much more pollution do we have to endure before the industry delivers us tankers with segregated tanks and double holds? How many more seabirds are to die before shipping companies end the practice of cleaning their tanks at sea which, as our resolution points out, causes far more pollution than any Erika-type disaster? While I recognise that some progress has been made in areas like port state control and minimal crewing standards, we are still faced with what our late colleague Ken Stewart used to call 'ships of shame sailing in and out of our European Union waters: rust buckets badly crewed'. We need the Member States to act quickly and decisively. We need our governments to put up the financial resources needed to give us effective control and we need them also to stop dragging their feet when it comes to maritime safety. The Erika cost no human lives but it may have ruined many human livelihoods. Just as the Sea Empress, just as the Braer did. It is absolutely certain that all three left us with an ecological disaster. My group's sympathy goes out to the people of Brittany who have seen their area despoiled by this disaster, just as my group's sympathy went out to the people of West Wales and to the Shetland Islands on previous occasions. Is it not about time that we stopped expressing sympathy and started issuing enforcement notices to get rid of these ships of shame in favour of safe seas or we will be back again, later on this year, discussing a new motion for a resolution when yet another flag-of-convenience tanker sadly goes down spewing its crude oil all over the sea. The time for resolutions has passed. What is now needed is action. Sadly, I fear, the Council will yet again fail to act and we will be back in the future discussing yet another maritime and ecological disaster. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, I was astounded when I heard the outcome of the General Affairs Council meeting last Monday. The message was really something like ‘business as usual’, too bad, we shall just carry on, give Ireland another chance. I would point out to Mrs Van Lancker that it was the majority of Socialists on the General Affairs Council that decided to go on with business as usual. You do not need to tell us that strengthening is extraordinarily important along with enlargement. We have always maintained that. I hope you will tell your Socialist friends that business as usual is not acceptable. However, I do believe that Gothenburg should be primarily an opportunity to reflect on what has happened and what the implications are from the point of view of involving our citizens more in Europe. We must make sure our Heads of Government do not come out with all kinds of conflicting views after the signature of the Nice Treaty and simply add to the public’s confusion. Let us just think about what we have in common and what we want to achieve together. Let Gothenburg also be the Summit at which, as you so rightly said, at last we shall be using a different method of operation, the convention. But let Gothenburg also be the Summit at which we are ready to think about how we can speed up the process and how the public can become more involved in what is happening in Europe. I think that is how we can benefit from the signal given by our Irish friends. Madam President-in-Office, you mentioned the Middle East road map. I sincerely hope that Europe is not going to go back to blueprints again. We need to use our diplomatic skills to help resolve the massive conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. In my view, that must be the main issue and also, in particular, let us make every possible effort to find a solution for Macedonia. Mr Poettering was quite right to draw attention to it. That is the litmus test for Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
We support the United Nations’ initiatives aiming to combat the illegal trade in weapons, including light weapons, which feed the traffic in arms and the profits of the major armaments industries. Significantly, however, I must highlight the fact – and the contradiction – that this debate took place in conjunction with the debate on a ‘Security Strategy for the European Union’, attended by Javier Solana, the High Representative for the CFSP, who had prepared a report for the Thessaloniki Council. Why? Because in his speech Mr Solana upheld a concept of security based on militarism and interventionism, arguing for the development of a strategy assuring an early, rapid and ‘robust’ intervention, when necessary, and the existence of more military resources in combination with diplomatic and civil instruments. This proposed ‘Security Strategy for the European Union’ seems to adapt the objectives of the CFSP and CESDP to the conclusions of the Washington and Prague NATO Summits in that it places the emphasis on the possibility of using military aggression. In other words, it is a consolidation of policies and instruments that are the negation of disarmament and détente in international relations and seek to guarantee worldwide military domination, through a hoped-for ‘partnership’ of the European Union with the United States. - Report Wijkman (A5-0196/2003)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we want to start by pointing out that clashes in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia are continuing even now, despite the fact that the rebels are supposed to have handed in their weapons and disbanded. As far as handing in weapons is concerned, the NATO 'emergency harvest' operation involving 4,500 men only recouped 3,300 weapons, i.e. not even one gun per NATO soldier, while NATO sources are quoting a figure of tens of thousands of weapons. Thousands of refugees are still unable to return home and the de facto division of the country continues. At the political level, the Slav Macedonian parties are under tremendous pressure to make constitutional changes, changes opposed by the majority of the people. The European Union representative, Mr Solana, is already in Skopje, together with the Commissioner for External Relations, Mr Patten, trying to speed up the process for the so-called 'political dimension' of the agreement. To put it simply, this means that they are exerting pressure to get the fine points of the amendments to the constitution, such as a general amnesty for the rebels, voted through and, more importantly, to avoid a referendum at all costs. The future of the country appears to the intermediaries to be too important a matter to be left in the hands of its citizens. The ΝΑΤΟ and European Union operation has not resolved any fundamental problems. The only thing that foreign intervention has done is to bring the rebels into contact with government officials. Apart from the NATO corps of 200 soldiers which is now stationed in the country, intolerable pressure is also being exerted by the so-called donor meeting. We again reiterate our fear that, unless various forms of foreign intervention stop, not only will the communities in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia be unable to ever reach an agreement, they will face a new Kosovo.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I would also like to compliment Mr Liikanen on the work that he has done on business impact assessment. I would like to press him a bit further, first of all, on the timing about when he expects this consistent methodology to be working throughout the directorates of the entire Commission. Secondly; does he feel that there is a need for some independent assessment? Might there be a danger that the impact assessments being done by the directorates-general themselves would perhaps be a little too favourable towards the proposals? Thirdly, would he agree with me that the logic followed through by my colleague Mr Titley, is that we really ought to be thinking in terms of having an independent regulatory assessment unit operating institutionally, which would provide a true external verification on impact assessment for all the European institutions?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the shameful truth is that our prosperous and free Europe is tolerating a lucrative trade – the trafficking in women – which involves torture, inhumane treatment and flagrant violations of fundamental rights. The victims have described savage beatings, rapes, abductions, death threats and, on occasions, murders. The real scandal is that we not only tolerate it in Europe, but we contribute to its expansion. Every time members of the public purchase the sexual services of a woman trapped in a trafficking ring, they are adding to the abhorrent wealth of these criminal organisations, which employ increasingly cruel methods. Unfortunately, the institutions’ search for solutions is progressing very slowly, and the problem is growing. In any event, we should recognise that the European Commission’s proposals are, on the whole, reasonable and hopefully useful. Nevertheless, and given the cross-border nature of this crime, we need to harmonise its classification in all the Member States, including cross-border aspects and universal jurisdiction. The receiving countries should grant the victims a temporary residence permit for the duration of legal proceedings, regardless of whether or not they wish to testify. Furthermore, the extremely harsh conditions in which the victims live more than justify the Member States granting them permanent residence permits for humanitarian reasons. Furthermore, persecution on the basis of gender and, specifically, the trafficking in women, should be considered appropriate grounds for the granting of refugee status. If we really want to help the victims, we must guarantee their safety as well as that of their families and compensate them through the seizure of the networks’ assets. These victims should also have free access to shelter, medical and psychological assistance, social services, help in finding work, etc. All of these considerations have been approved practically unanimously by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, but they will not be enough. Combating the trafficking in women and immigration policy must become a priority within the political agenda of the European Union and the Member States. Immigration policies which revolve around the consequences and which are not aimed at tackling the causes will do nothing more than exacerbate this terrible pattern of exploitation which is tantamount to slavery. Poverty, social inequality and armed conflict explain migratory flows. Until we find overall solutions to the question of development, the number of people searching for a better life will be unstoppable and migratory pressure uncontainable. So let us analyse, assess and implement genuine development and integration policies. At the end of the day, the fight against the trafficking in human beings, as well as being essential to the establishment of an area of freedom, security and justice, is an unavoidable ethical duty.

Political group: PSE