GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
This motion concerns the Court of Auditors’ report on the application of the Socrates and Youth programmes (1995-1999). The Court of Auditors highlights design weaknesses (Socrates is excessively complex, resulting in different interpretations and problems between the Technical Assistance Office and the national agencies) and shortcomings in implementation (delays, management shortcomings, suspicions of fraud, seven cases referred to OLAF) and evaluation. Evaluation reports were delayed and there were so many irregularities that the Court of Auditors found it hard to come to a judgment as to whether or not the programmes’ objectives had been realised, while the mid-term report on the Youth programme was produced by a company owned by a former director of the TAO. The motion contains worthwhile comments and proposals. It calls on the Commission to act on the Court of Auditors’ recommendations, including its recommendation to replace the TAOs by Community public-law agencies. It also calls for any ‘framework’ contracts with external bodies to be phased out and for monitoring and evaluation to be awarded to public bodies. There also appears to be some doubt as to the efficacy of the programmes themselves. These positive comments, however, are simply ways of improving programmes which, as we have stressed time and again, have been designed for purposes which bear no relation to their lofty titles. These programmes aggressively impose the Euro-unifying education model in the field of education and youth and are designed to familiarise young people with so-called European ideals. Having taken all these factors into account, the MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece abstained from voting.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I too wish to welcome the return of the Community fishing vessels to Mozambican waters. As a Portuguese citizen, I make this statement without any colonialist nostalgia or any harking back to those times, but I feel that the fact that Community boats are returning to Mozambican waters is also a sign of the democratic maturity that Mozambique has achieved and the normalisation of diplomatic relations that have been established between that country and the European Union. In fact, as has already been said, this agreement brings mutual advantages and really represents the culmination of a process of drafting fisheries agreements with third countries that the Commission and Parliament have been working on for some time now. This agreement was concluded as the result both of discussions and of a wealth of experience, which should in future be applied to cases similar to that of Mozambique. In this regard, the President of the Commission has called this a model agreement, and I share this view. This could provide a model for future agreements with third countries, poor countries, underdeveloped countries for whom the type of scheme and system contained in this agreement provides the best way of protecting their interests, of supporting their fisheries in a manner that is ecologically, scientifically and economically advantageous. I must therefore congratulate the Commission on having achieved such positive results in its diplomatic relations with Mozambique, and the Chairman of the Committee on Fisheries on the excellent report he has produced.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I too congratulate Mrs Avilés Perea on her excellent work and on having initiated tonight's debate on the report. However, two points must certainly be stressed, which have emerged both from the debate which took place in committee and from a series of majority votes which have contributed to creating or fostering the presence of certain positions within the report which I feel are questionable. I will therefore divide the report into two parts: a first part, which I totally endorse, in which the rapporteur extremely courageously raises a major question of legality, managing to pre-empt to some extent in this report the need, which is present in all the European States, to tackle the issue of migration as a whole once and for all, in the knowledge now that the countries of the Union cannot have differing individual policies in such a problematic, sensitive field, and defining the rights and responsibilities of both the immigrants and the host countries. At the same time, within this policy, the role of the most vulnerable groups – women and children – must certainly be analysed extremely carefully. From this point of view, this aspect of the report is very useful, particularly in that it includes certain guidelines and decisions already expressed by the Tampere Council. However, I would express my concern essentially on two points. I, too, find it difficult to endorse either the creation of another observatory – for, in my opinion, observatories lead to rigidity and problems – or the use of the term 'European,' or even 'Euro-Mediterranean citizenship', which has absolutely no legal status and would cause confusion.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I add my congratulations to Mrs Vlasto for her report, which was adopted unanimously in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. It deals with the issue of the Lisbon European Council which had the objective of making the European Union the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world and link that to the Feira Council which endorsed a European charter for small enterprises. Clearly, as Mrs Vlasto said, small enterprises are one of the keys to success in the European economies. I should like to make three points. Firstly, the report details the very low levels of investment in research and development – 1.19% of GDP inside the European Union. This is particularly acute in industrial sectors dominated by SMEs. I would like us to look at the idea, at a European level, of research institutes paid for by a levy on the relevant industries, which the Japanese have used so successfully in getting innovation in research and development in such industrial sectors. Secondly, we need to look at the issue of better regulation to simplify and streamline our regulations. I have no problem with imposing burdens on business to improve, for example, the environment, but we need value for money. One of the recent studies in the United Kingdom suggested that the end of vehicle life directive, for example, cost GBP 400 million a year and benefits the environment only to the tune of GBP 100 million a year. If that is correct, that is something that should not have been adopted into law in the European Union. So we need to be aware of the impact of our legislation on business and jobs. Therefore we support the Chichester amendment in principle and will be voting in favour of it. Thirdly, we must look more widely at whether SMEs that serve local markets only should have the same burdens imposed on them as large companies exporting around the European Union and outside. In many cases local knowledge can suffice to protect consumers. Regulations are needed when the goods and services from anonymous companies are remote from the consumer both geographically and in terms of local knowledge.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, my point also concerns the Irish referendum. It has been eloquently made by more experienced Members than myself and so, in the interests of not detaining the House, I shall withdraw it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I wanted to take the floor in order to expand on your comments at the beginning of the sitting, and to point out that the latest fatal victim of ETA’s barbarity, the Basque policeman Iñaki Totorika, belonged to the Basque Nationalist Party, the majority political force in the Basque Country. As you can see, terrorism is indiscriminate and also strikes at democratic nationalists. As well as expressing my condolences and solidarity with the family and friends of the late Iñaki, I would like, once again, to express, in this parliamentary forum of the European Union, our complete condemnation of this latest attack and of all the murders and violent acts which the terrorist organisation ETA has being carrying out with a view to imposing its ideas through terror. ETA claims to defend working people and to support a process of sovereignty and peace for the Basque people, and I would ask ETA whether murdering local councillors, cooks, workers and Basque policemen, kidnapping, extorting and assaulting people constitutes their peace plan. How can anyone believe in a plan that does not respect human rights, and that does not even respect the right to life? The Basque Country, which I come from, wants peace above all, and that peace can only be achieved through mutual democratic respect. Therefore, on the journey towards finding this much longed for peace, ETA’s actions and any other type of violence have no place, are unwanted and neither help nor protect anyone, and the best thing would be for them to disappear once and for all and forever, so that we can move on to a phase of free political debate and free democratic decision making by all Basque citizens without exception so that we can decide on the best political future for our people.

Political group: Verts-ALE
It is heartening to see the Commission undertake to use the Solidarity Fund to help in the case of forest fires. We are still, however, sending contradictory messages. We in the European institutions contradict ourselves when we declare, as Mr Barnier did yesterday, that our priority is prevention, and then, conversely, reduce Forest Focus allocations or delay too long in pushing ahead with vital prevention initiatives such as the European Civil Protection Agency. We heard yesterday that 95% of forest fires are caused by negligence and the actions of speculators. Is it not also negligent of European governments not to consider the consequences of climate change in terms of desertification and loss of biodiversity in our countries? All these contradictions make it intolerable that there were surplus credits for the period 1992-2002 which were not spent on preventing fires. Further, it is even more intolerable that the Commission is seeking to push ahead with its plans for Forest Focus. Over the last two years, we have lost a regulation specifically geared towards fighting fires; we have lost EUR 5 million, for which no one can account, in the rural development fund; and we may lose even more budget allocations. These funds will prove vital if the loss of hectare after hectare of forest is not to continue.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I would very much like to add to what has been said. You win some, you lose some – that is normal. But we need proper preparation in matters as serious as this. Mr Barón Crespo, the right time for calm discussion of this would have been at the Conference of Presidents last Thursday, when you were absent – which is not an accusation, these things happen to us all. It would be a good thing if this House were to have a joint ballot on such important issues. I ask you to arrange things in the future so that we discuss such matters in the Conference of Presidents in the first instance. (Applause from the Group)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, like other Members here today, I have been lobbied extensively about this directive and I have been impressed by the degree of support – or at least the support in principle – for it. Environmentalists regard it as a holy grail, the means by which the polluter pays principle can be put into concrete form. Industry representatives have told me that they too agree with the principle and the insurance industry has said that it can make it work, so long as it is introduced gradually and they have time to cost it properly. So why does this House, and my group too, find itself so very divided over an issue about which everyone seems to agree? It seems that the principle is fine so long as it is never turned into practice. In this instance I regard myself as a pragmatist, I want to ensure that the legislation is workable and does not impose crippling burdens on industry or on agricultural producers. That is one reason why I oppose the introduction of joint and several liability. If there is a danger to the environment, then someone has to pay and when the polluters can be clearly identified, then they should be first in line. All organisations should, above all, be very conscious of the need to take measures to prevent damage in the first place. I believe the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has not done this House justice. It has taken positions which are not only minimalist but actually retrograde, and which weaken the Commission's proposals. This House must make changes. I do not agree with altering the legal base. We should extend the definition of environmental damage to safeguard special habitats and species. We should take the chance to put pressure on Member States that have failed to ratify the international marine conventions. We should give citizens the right to go to court directly to prevent environmental damage or to seek redress. None of this is very radical. We have all expressed concern about the damage done to our environment by human activity. This measure is one way in which we can start to do something practical to protect it and to put all our fine words into real effect. (Applause from the left)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President. I am speaking as a member of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, and I would like to attempt to pick up on what Commissioner Lamy said earlier. He said that he is responsible for defensive measures whereas Mrs Reding is responsible for proactive measures. I seem to remember, however, that your mandate for Seattle in 1999 included the promotion as well as the preservation of cultural diversity. In terms of the promotion of cultural diversity, which is the more difficult task, although I thank you for your efforts at preservation, I am astonished that, ultimately, only audiovisual services have been retained. What is being done to preserve cultural, leisure and sports services? That is my first question. My second question is to Commissioner Reding. Since your neighbour, Commissioner Lamy, has made you responsible for the proactive measures, how is that being addressed in the Treaty? We are worried, concerned about the future Treaty and what it holds for culture. The commitment to promote cultural diversity is an obligation, you both say, in the Treaty. Nevertheless, we would prefer it to be a more binding obligation, as you, of all people, are aware. We would like Article 151(4) to be respected and given due importance once again in the future Treaty. We will now move on to another cause for concern on the proactive side of things which may also fall within Mr Lamy’s remit – the international instrument. You were both, like myself, at the professional meeting on the instrument for cultural diversity in France a month or so ago. I know that the issue interests you and I thank you for supporting this project. However, I am extremely disappointed to see that the majority of the Members have abandoned the question of the international instrument in the motions tabled today, even though it has the support of 50 or so countries and has been proposed by President Chirac and others to Unesco. The feasibility study has been carried out by a Franco-Canadian group. The matter is very important and a great deal of work has already been done. I am surprised at the lack of interest displayed by my fellow Members.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the worst thing about Mr Bangemann's imprudent career move is the threat that it poses to the Commission that he served. The Commission was already in serious trouble and its problems were bound to have been compounded by the Bangemann decision. In my view, the Commission has a final chance to prove itself the clean, efficient and effective executive that the European Union needs and that its citizens deserve. Should the Prodi Commission fail, then I fear that the European Council will execute a coup d'état and deprive the Commission of its right of initiative and its important role as the promoter of European Union. So to start the process of the Commission's recuperation, may we insist that the outgoing Members of the Santer Commission apply voluntarily the Prodi Code of Conduct.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, as it is the second time in one month that there have been leaks, and they are always to do with questions associated with Spanish Members, I would ask you to inform the House as soon as possible of the result of the investigation that you promised to carry out at my request. I also address this to President Prodi, who promised to investigate it within the Commission. I think it is absolutely scandalous that this should happen again.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the resolution proposed by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs sets 1 May as the date for a positive conclusion to the work of the IGC. I want to explain the reasons why: immediately afterwards the electoral campaign will begin and, before it begins, the Constitution must have been finalised, first and foremost so as to get the electors to go out and vote – otherwise they will be deluded and will not vote – and therefore submit it to their judgment, which is our democratic duty, our basic law. For the sake of clarity may I add, taking up the points made by Mr Duff and Mrs Frassoni, that for us the draft Constitution is the only thing on the table. The eighty-two points referred to by the former Italian President-in-Office of the Council, or the 45 amendments now being referred to, have been examined closely by us: they contain many points which are confusing and ambiguous and take many steps backwards. There is no consensus on them – at least not in the European Parliament – and I ask you, Mr President, to give that serious consideration. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as a member of the Convention on the future of Europe, I participated in the development of the Constitutional Treaty. May I therefore take this opportunity to express the hope that the new Constitutional Treaty will be adopted this year and that the procedures for endorsing the Constitutional Treaty in the Member States will take place within a reasonable time span. As a member of the Convention I particularly wanted the Charter of human rights and freedoms to become an integral part of the Constitutional Treaty. This is not only important for the sake of the Charter itself and its meaning in the European Union but because it has a special symbolic meaning for those of us who come from the former States. It is also important for the Eurosceptics, who can see that the range of human rights and freedoms is generally more extensive than it is in our constitutions. I do think, however, that the Slovenian constitution is particularly good. At the same time this is a clear sign that we have joined a community of democratic States which respect and safeguard human rights and freedoms. I see Europe as a flourishing community, in which peace, prosperity and the security of people and property are not merely political slogans but a reality. We must do everything to ensure that terrorism and crime do not grow but are fundamentally reduced. We do not need large, new bureaucratic organisations at the level of the European Union, but we do need increased cooperation between police forces in the Member States. As far as possible we need to establish a uniform policy in the fight against terrorism and crime and to increase the effectiveness of our security services through joint action. It is also important that we cooperate in controlling the external borders of the European Union effectively and that balanced assistance is given to those States that bear the greatest burden in this respect. Slovenia is a peaceful and safe country where people can walk the streets of our cities safely even during the hours of darkness. It is well-known that in many places in Europe it is not safe to do so. I therefore express the expectation that in addition to taking care of economic, scientific and general social development, the European Union will pay particular attention to the security of its citizens and the protection of their property.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like it noted as a matter of urgency that the case of Dr. Ganzert, an attorney from Wels, has been dismissed. He is at present being held without good cause by the authorities in Nicaragua and has for three weeks been endeavouring to get permission to leave the country. I wish, though, to thank you, Madam President, for writing to the authorities in Nicaragua and asking for him to be given an exit visa.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to point out that the British Conservative delegation in the European Parliament voted against the Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado report because of a number of aspects it contains with which we do not agree. I will not take up the time of the House by going through the details. We would have voted for it if it had in any way impinged upon the right of the Gibraltar inhabitants to participate in the next European Parliament elections. The minutes statement that is attached to this report from the UK Government makes it clear that it is the UK Government's sole responsibility to ensure that the legislation is put in place for Gibraltarians to vote in those elections. I would like to take this brief opportunity to urge the UK Government to live up to that minutes statement and put that legislation in place so that Gibraltarians are able to participate in the electoral process electing representatives who will have an influence over laws which apply in Gibraltar.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, on Minute 21 I ask you to note what I regard as a clear breach of procedure in respect of my Question No 66 last night. This concerns the labelling on European Union manufactured Nestlé tins of breast milk substitute in an inappropriate language and with confusing lettering and colouring, in clear breach of EU Directive 92/52 on infant formulae. This was first reported on 5 October last year and was still on sale in Islamabad, Pakistan yesterday, when I checked. I know you cannot comment on the substance of the issue but the Commission's answer fails to take responsibility for the implementation of the directive as it has failed to supply the annual reports required, as it has failed to act on one previous complaint received – see my Question No 2283/99. I ask you to write to the Commission, asking them to uphold their responsibilities on behalf of this European Parliament and on behalf of the mothers of 82 children in every thousand who die in Pakistan in infancy and for whom the use of inappropriate feed mixed with unsafe water is a danger to life.

Political group: PSE