GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I am sure that the rapporteur, Mr Rocard, means well, but to me he resembles a man tiptoeing along a tightrope. On the one hand, when he says 'solidarity', he means it as a Socialist, but he does not want to take responsibility for protecting the social state and the health and welfare systems which are currently being attacked both by objective events and specific policies. On the other hand, he does not want to go too far the other way; he wants to apply a Realpolitik, but without quite signing up to the American model. I think that we need to be extremely careful. We really are on a tightrope and I think that decisions on supplementary insurance which will apply to all the Member States need to be taken cautiously and with a great deal of circumspection. If supplementary insurance becomes the general rule, we shall simply end up increasing workers' contributions; but if we have selective supplementary insurance, we shall also have discrimination and that is something we wish to avoid. In this sense, I think that, basically, we should await the Commission study on current systems as well as a Commission study on the American system and the schemes in operation in other countries because then we shall have a clearer picture of all this.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, in Parliament earlier today there was some discussion about the future shape and direction of the European Union post-Nice. There is much about these plans and ambitions to which some of us might object, but one of the strengths of the European Union at its simplest is its role as a pole of attraction for countries that have not had the benefits of democracy, the rule of law and economic prosperity. The prospect of European Union affiliation or membership is a great incentive for countries that have lived under communism for many generations to put their political and economic house in order and to resolve long-standing problems with neighbouring states. In the course of this present decade Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and Romania will become European Union Member States. They border Ukraine, a country of enormous geopolitical significance, whose very existence is a major factor in the security and stability of Europe, but where recent developments are cause for concern. It is in all our interests that Ukraine should be helped in its consolidation as an independent, democratic country anchored in the west but with an open, vibrant and friendly relationship with Russia to its east. In this regard we should not forget that, in addition to its association with the European Union, Ukraine also has a strong partnership with NATO, which has contributed to the sense of security of Ukraine, as well as much-needed military reform. Mr Väyrynen should be congratulated on an excellent report, even if it is somewhat longer than he had originally intended. It is so important now for the European Union to improve the focus and implementation of its strategy. Let me touch very briefly on one very specific aspect: the issue of anti-personnel landmines. Ukraine signed the Ottawa Convention on the prohibition of the use and stockpiling of anti-personnel mines in 1999. It has yet to ratify its accession. Meanwhile, it has the fifth largest stockpile of APL in the world, with an estimated 10 million weapons. The Ottawa Convention places an obligation to destroy stocks of APL. We should expect Ukraine to take action. I hope the Commission and Council will place emphasis on this aspect in their dealings with Ukraine.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like, very briefly and concisely, to make three observations on the planned revision of the common fisheries policy. My first point concerns access to waters and to internal resources. Maintaining the traditional activities of every fishing community should be one of the European Union’s main concerns. I therefore feel that it is crucial to at least preserve exclusive access to so-called “territorial waters”, particularly given that activities involving small-scale fishing have a considerable effect on the coastal resources of every Member State. My second point relates to the principle of relative stability and the full use of fishing rights obtained outside Community waters. The principle of relative stability is a fundamental pillar of the common fisheries policy. However, the application of this principle to fishing quotas obtained by the European Union through financial compensation, either in agreements with third countries or in waters governed by regional fishing organisations, may lead to perverse situations. For example, the Community is not taking full advantage of the quotas that it obtained with such difficulty in the waters of some third countries, even though there are Member States keen to use them. Therefore, although the so-called agreements “with southern countries” lay down that once Member States have made use of their respective fishing rights, the unused part should be made available to all interested Member States, this mechanism is not implemented under the so-called agreements “with northern countries”. The European Union is not making full use of the fishing quotas for the open sea that it has obtained through regional fishing organisations, even though there are Member States that are keen to take over the quantities that are not caught by the “highest bidders”, as they are called. They are thus exposing themselves to the risk that their share will be reduced once a review of quotas allocated to the parties involved takes place. My third point relates to the role of the European Union on the international stage. Since the Union as a whole is a world-class fishing power and one of the largest markets for fish produce, it must claim and adopt a role that matches its importance in international organisations and specifically in regional fishing organisations. I am very grateful for the Commissioner’s speech and I urge him to use the power of all 15 Member States in negotiations with Morocco and not simply to argue the case for Portugal and Spain.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would first and foremost like to express a word of thanks to the rapporteur who has indeed compiled her report with great care. This care is more than needed if we want to establish 'Enterprise Europe’ by 2005 and if we want to make the European Union into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-driven economy in the world. The amendment to the report in the Committee, partly tabled at my proposal, emphasised that the multiannual programme must be used as an instrument to promote economic growth, full employment and social cohesion. I would like to stress that this is an important focus, which must be brought more to the fore in the information and information campaigns, because it cannot be emphasised enough that entrepreneurship and an entrepreneurial climate are both of key significance, and that this is the reason why particular attention must be paid to the education and training of young people, as well as to providing permanent training to staff of SMEs. Today, I would particularly like to make a case for systematically eliminating as many as possible, if not all, barriers which stand in the way of establishing the internal market, and for optimising the competitiveness of SMEs, allowing them to develop in a dynamic and sustained manner. In addition, I have always been an advocate of underpinning these goals with efficient and pragmatic policy. I am delighted with Mr Caudron’s final remark which amounts to investing less in ideology, but more in efficient and pragmatic policy, which means that red tape should be kept to an absolute minimum. In our Union, this should in the first instance translate into simplification of customs formalities, because the fiscal, social, administrative and regulatory disparities between the Member States in terms of costs constitute a substantial barrier to equal access to the internal market. Finally, I would also urge you to take into consideration the enlargement of the European Union which is upon us. The effective implementation of the acquis is necessary to ensure that enlargement becomes a win-win situation for the Member States and candidate countries alike.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I am speaking in a debate on human rights – although you would have found that difficult to believe if you had been listening closely to the compassionate words of Mr Hannan. It is a human rights issue that we are discussing here. It is not an easy one and nobody should suggest it is. It has not just become urgent because of the economic effect on business or on the freight industry, for which I have great sympathy. It is a very serious and distressing situation which does nobody any great credit. It has concerned, as others have said, large numbers of people and governments – both in France, the UK and other countries – and local authorities. It is one that my committee in Parliament has also discussed on more than one occasion. People could go back and search for different reasons why there are numbers of people there. I reject the very simplistic and inhumane proposals from Mr Hannan. It is a situation that has worsened over recent years and the problem is much more extensive than he implied. But just as Parliament must protect business and the freight industry, so Europe – but not exclusively the United Kingdom or France – has a duty to care for and protect those seeking refuge. These are desperate people. Some have fled in fear of their lives, and we should be able to offer them sanctuary and give them every opportunity to put their claim for asylum. This is what the Dublin Convention, which we sought to review earlier this week in the Marinho report, is all about. We need a Dublin Convention that enables asylum-seekers to feel safe and secure, to put their claim for asylum in the first EU country which they reach. Earlier in the week the other side of the House tabled amendments suggesting that they should be informed of their rights in any language, not necessarily a language that they understand. That is not the way, and it explains why sometimes people move to another country. It is not a question of who supports which amendment and who does not. I personally have no problem with Amendment No 2, which I was questioned about earlier. We have to get the system working for the sake of all of the people who are moving around Europe. We have to make it safe and working for the industries. We need to work towards a common European asylum system. Without that, Europe will not function and we will be coming back to these issues over and over again. We need to have a common European asylum system throughout the Member States that is understood and that works. I and my colleagues on this side of House and some others will be working consistently for that in the months ahead.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we must not be under any illusion that the falsification of quality control data at Sellafield was not a most serious matter. I suspect that the small number of Members of this House who have kept in touch with the plant, both the management and the workers' representatives there over a good number of years, felt the issue more keenly than most. It exposed a poor safety culture and an inadequate secondary control procedure in the manufacture of MOX fuel. However, we should note that the response of BNFL to the nuclear inspectorate report has already resulted in very significant management changes. These have been welcomed both by the inspectorate and by the minister responsible. I hope that in that regard they will not be accused of having gone native on this particular issue. I would suggest that one of the roles of Parliament should be to monitor the ongoing management changes that are taking place. We should also note that the chief inspector and the Commission made very clear to the industry committee that there were no safety implications at any of the Sellafield installations. Nuclear safeguards were not an issue, nor were there safety issues in relation to transport of nuclear materials. I am glad that the Commissioner has reinforced that view this evening. The fuel can be safely used for the purposes for which it was manufactured. But to say all this must not lead us to be complacent. We seek to apply standards to the applicant countries in eastern Europe and, I would suggest, beyond the applicant countries in eastern Europe. European Union standards applicable to all nuclear installations are still something that most of us want to see. We know that the Western European Nuclear Regulators Association is seeking harmonisation. I would hope that the Commissioner, as other colleagues have asked, will reconsider her position and actually support and encourage WENRA in this objective. I am absolutely convinced, on the basis of my own experience in a number of countries that this is the way to reassure public opinion. It is the reassurance of public opinion that must be our main objective as a Parliament.

Political group: PSE
I agree with the rapporteur when she states that, although allocating money towards improved control is an essential part of the common fisheries policy, it is but one side of the coin, the other being the active involvement of fishermen in the management of fisheries. Without the support of fishermen, huge allocations of money towards improved monitoring will not put an end to serious infringements of the CFP. This Commission proposal aims at extending (by two years) and amending the system of Community financial support for establishing control structures (which expired in 2003), until a decision is made on the joint inspection structure, which the Commission expects to be operational in 2006. This proposal, however, intends to restrict access to funding just to the new Member States and, even then, with a contribution rate of only 35%. Since an increase in the Community contribution for fisheries control heavy equipment is one way to help to strengthen control capacity at sea, we agree with the rapporteur’s Amendments Nos 8 and 12, which aim at extending the measure to all Member States and increasing the contribution rate to 50%. It should not be forgotten that Portugal has the most extensive EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) of all European Union countries and has a large number of vessels to monitor.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I too have voted in favour of the Stenmarck report, despite the fact that next year, a large proportion of the costs will once again be spent on buildings in Luxembourg, Brussels and Strasbourg. If the awful developments in the Netherlands over the past few weeks have taught us anything, it is that there is an enormous chasm between the citizens and their elected representatives. This does not only apply to the Netherlands, but also to France, for example. The European Parliament’s travelling circus is one of the symbols of waste and power politics to which citizens are opposed. Let us indeed persuade the Convention to call for an end to this mad situation. The European Parliament can organise its work more cheaply and more effectively by meeting in one place. This would send a strong message to the European citizens that we are taking their concerns seriously. This building could become a European university. I suggest we call it the Fatuzzo University.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as we draw near to the close of the debate it is not easy to introduce another new aspect. Since there is broad agreement here that we welcome this process and we are taking for granted that ten new states will soon be sending their representatives here officially, I should, however, like to raise one aspect again, that is the necessity of canvassing in all future 25 countries for this also to find acceptance with public opinion, with the citizens. I think that is a great task that lies ahead of us and cannot only begin when the accession process is almost completed and the treaties signed. I come from a region that in 1990 entered this European Union overnight, as it were. I know that many citizens experienced the necessary restructuring process as a personal defeat, a downgrading that marked them out as losers. I think we need to make clear to people in the candidate countries, too, that membership of the European Union also results in resources and means being made available to cushion the citizens and help them through the difficult process. That will be a big task for us because after all we need majorities in the population. If we in this Parliament are agreed, that is to be welcomed, but we must take the citizens with us in this process, which will certainly not be as easy as it sounds. Let us work together to make it possible. As a member of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, I should like to see the advisory committees more fairly and intensively involved in the next concrete discussions of the outcome of negotiations. I know that is a great political achievement, a great political report, but the individual specialist committees must surely have something important to say about the process.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the reply by the President-in-Office puts me in mind of the reply by Pontius Pilate. How exactly do things stand? During the occupation, the German Government forced the Greek Government to give it a loan, which today, with interest and inflation, totals some USD 25 billion. This loan was signed and sealed and represents an obligation. The point at issue, to get to the crux of the matter, is a transaction between two Member States of the European Union and the Council of Europe cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that Germany is clearly using its power to refuse to honour its commitments. It collects every last cent of the loans which it grants. The other issue is the tremendous damage caused by Germany’s occupying forces in Greece. This comes to some USD 40 billion. Other countries have been paid. Greece has not. Why? Of course, the Greek Governments bear some responsibility, but at some point all this needs to be analysed. Germany has acknowledged its obligation from time to time. However, it has failed to honour it on various pretexts. Now there are no longer any excuses and it is duty-bound to pay and the Council cannot wash its hands. I consider the reply by the President-in-Office to be unacceptable.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mrs Gebhardt began by saying that Europe is an area in which people feel secure. Indeed, security was the raison d'être for what has become the European Union today. The pioneers sought to make a peaceful Europe and they, of course, succeeded. Nowadays, we are at peace and people expect to be safe, but too often the European Union is accused of meddling in things that are not important and too much of what the European Parliament appears to do is irrelevant to ordinary peoples' lives. Sometimes we discover a real area that needs legislation and yet we are powerless to act. As Mrs Banotti and Mr Cashman have pointed out, this is an area that needs legislation and where, I believe, European action would be positively welcomed. The cases of access we have heard about; in which parents are denied access to their children, are desperately distressing. They make the misery of separation even worse. Being separated by time and space, by hundreds of kilometres and expensive flights, is painful and distressing for parents and children. President, Commissioner, over the years Parliament, the Council and the Commission have all worked to secure a common market for goods and capital, fair trade and free trade for those with money. Now we need to make certain that we have, a fair market and a free trade for people so that families and children can work and move around with rules that are fair, rules that work and European institutions that enforce them. Mr Cashman said that the European Union is fifteen countries. He is right, but with the addition of ten or twelve more countries in the pipeline, I shudder to think of the possibilities in this area if we do not act and do not succeed in getting legislation that works – legislation that will make the European Union safe and secure for all its citizens, children and parents alike.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I want to highlight Paragraph 26 of Mr Olsson’s report on agriculture and enlargement. It is a question of taking the initiative and holding talks with the candidate countries about what a reform of the EU’s agricultural policy is to look like. Having myself worked on the food safety package for nearly three years now, I have reflected upon the incredible degree to which the reform will affect each and every one of the candidate countries. It is important that they should be involved now and that they should be able to contribute to shaping the European Union and the policy they will in actual fact have to live with. I am sure they all realise that the form of the policy that is to replace Agenda 2000 is more important to them than which cash subsidies they receive in the course of the year or two prior to the changeover.

Political group: ELDR