GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, NEPAD and its implementation agency, the African Union, offer, as all of us would agree, no quick fix for the problems of Africa. Fulfilling the promises will not be easy and Africa and, indeed, outsiders such as ourselves, will have to be in this for the long haul. As the report points out, NEPAD was initially and consistently intellectually scarred by inadequate consultation, particularly at grassroots level – it was leader-led. We hope that we will ensure that, as far as the African Union in its future work is concerned, there will be far more consultation at grassroots level with civil society. Perhaps the result of this, as far as NEPAD is concerned, for instance in relation to our last debate, is the modest reference in NEPAD to any kind of social sector issue. There is hardly any mention of HIV/AIDS at all, and this has to be a very glaring and serious contradiction in NEPAD's proposals for action. As the Commissioner said, we now move on to working with the African Union, which will now be given the task of working through the policies and implementing them. How will the Commission support efforts to build the kind of coherence that will be necessary now between NEPAD and the AU's strategy? Is it of concern for instance that the peer group review mechanism is somehow now being increasingly institutionalised and separated off as a kind of separate secretariat? Should this not be of some concern to us? The Commissioner talked quite rightly about the importance of the peace facility. Does the Commission intend to offer commensurate funds for the other work – the self-led development work – of the AU on democracy, human rights and good governance? Will we be offering similar support for that work, which has to go hand in hand with the work that will need to take place on conflict resolution and peace-building? As the report says, it is important that the AU is the legitimate political and mandated institution at this stage. Peace and governance cannot be dealt with through declarations such as NEPAD. What we need now, as the last speaker said, is much better focus and action.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank the rapporteur, my colleague Mr Karas, for the time and the effort he has put into this report. As draftsperson of the opinion of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, I would primarily like to stress the importance of respect for the principle of equality between men and women – which is laid down in the Treaty – by institutions for occupational retirement provision, upheld, moreover, by the directives on equal treatment in public and professional social security systems. I am pleased to underline the fact that my ad hoc amendment has been adopted and is included in the report. I also tabled an amendment specifying that the institutions for occupational retirement provision should take into account careers that have been atypical or interrupted owing to family responsibilities of both men and women by also providing solutions to guarantee the continuation of membership. This amendment was not retained in the text but, in my opinion, the institutions for occupational retirement provision clearly cannot escape from providing adequate solutions for these situations. We have had and we will have in the future more epic debates on the question of knowing whether supplementary pensions must include mandatory cover for biometric risks. I am in favour of a pragmatic approach – which was also advocated by Mr Karas – namely that institutions must offer cover for these risks as an option, in the form of, for example, disability pensions and provision for survivors. This will obviously incur a cost, which should not, however, be dependent on gender or an individual health check. One of the issues which must be resolved in order to establish a genuine single market in supplementary pensions and pension funds is that of providing a tax treatment to avoid the dual taxation of contributions and benefits, as well as the tax exile of pensioners who are trying to avoid paying taxes, but also the mass of bureaucracy involved in the exchange of information and the recovery of taxation between countries. The Commission only tackled this problem in a statement, and not in this directive. Caution is the watchword, do you not think, Mr Bolkenstein? I therefore believe that it is premature for Parliament to issue an opinion now in favour of a specific model – in this case, the TEE regime – as has been done in the report, albeit only in a recital, given the fact that direct taxes fall within the sovereign affairs of the Member States. Let us wait before issuing an opinion in favour of one particular model in this extremely sensitive area. Having said this, Mr President, I think that the lights are flickering from the shock of these thoughts... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, a lot has been said about the reconstruction of Kosovo. You know that this Parliament has gone to the utmost trouble to find a compromise strategy, and we shall stand by this compromise strategy and are prepared to make our contribution to it. I should like to touch upon two questions which do not directly concern reconstruction but which are of special importance for the future not only of Kosovo but also of the entire region. About 15 days ago, the UN’s special envoy, Mr Kouchner, introduced a new currency to Kosovo. I do understand the need for a stable currency, partly for the benefit of the work being done there. What I do not understand, however, is the penalisation of the dinar, the official currency of the state to which Kosovo still belongs. The second resolution contradicts the convictions of us all and also the agreement made between the UN, NATO and the KLA. The KLA is not being disarmed, at least not completely. Instead, there are still KLA units, only they now put on different uniforms and will still be armed. Have we, as the European Union, an opinion on these resolutions, Mr Vice-President of the Commission and, if so, what is it?

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, I thank you for responding so fully in relation to this problem of hake fishing, but if I have not misunderstood you, you have said that consideration is being given to an exception for vessels of less than 12 metres, amongst which are vessels catching lobster and langoustine. Now, the information I receive from fishermen confirms that these vessels, although small, fish with very long nets, and that, furthermore, catches of langoustine also include a great number of young hake, because the areas of distribution of langoustine and of young hake, which are the fishing areas in question, overlap very considerably. I would like to ask you whether, when considering these issues, you have examined the serious affects of langoustine fishing on young hake.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I strongly support this excellent report by Maurizio Turco which calls for the extension of Europol's mandate and the addition of other non-binding arrangements. If Europol's mandate is extended to cover serious forms of international crime, such as kidnapping, illegal immigrant smuggling and racism, this body will become an institution with real biting power and one which can be seen as working in the interests and for the safety of European citizens. Moreover, the Swedish proposal to allow the onward transmission by third countries of personal data received from Europol is particularly important. It is well known that crime in the twenty-first century is borderless, and as such the EU should not and cannot operate Europol in a vacuum. This is why it is essential that Europol works in conjunction with third party states since only then will its full effectiveness be realised. Kirkhope report (A-0369/2001)

Political group: PSE
We have voted in favour of Mr Cashman’s report on new clearer rules for citizens’ access to official documents in the EU’s institutions. The compromise that has now been adopted by the European Parliament is an important step along the way to increased openness and improved efficiency in the institutions. Moreover, the new rules are clearly better than the lawless situation in respect of public access to documents that currently prevails. At the same time, we nonetheless see a number of problems with the new rules on public access to documents. Sensitive documents that are classified as secret, for example with reference to general security, are exempted from the principle of public access and do not need to be logged. The author of a sensitive document is the person who decides whether the recipient may make it available to others. These rules are in total conflict with the Swedish principle of public access to official records that has characterised Swedish government for over 250 years. The Swedish Presidency has asserted that the special rules concerning sensitive documents will only cover documents concerning foreign and security policy. However, we see a great risk that sensitive documents may very well also come to include documents that concern other areas, such as the Schengen cooperation and the common policy on refugees. Moreover, we are concerned that the Swedish constitution, with its roots dating back to 1766, will come under threat as a result of unclear EU rules. The introduction to the Regulation states that the purpose is not to change existing legislation in the Member States. At the same time, the Commission forced through the deletion of a reference to national legislation right at the last minute. Nonetheless, we presume that the Commission will keep its promise and maintain the Member States’ right to take decisions independently concerning the provision of documents. Throughout the decision-making process, the Commission has worked against increased openness and access for its citizens in order instead to defend the classifying of documents. This suggests that the old-fashioned Commission is still characterised by bureaucracy and an unwillingness to change. Hopefully the new Regulation on citizens’ access to documents is an important step on the way towards even clearer rules capable of forming a basis for a modernised administration in which openness and access are a matter of course. The Regulation states that the rules will be reviewed in January 2004 at the latest. We are voting in favour of the report today in the conviction that this is just the first step towards a more open EU. The Group will be pushing the issue further.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, yesterday I had guests here in the European Parliament: together with my wife and my sister there was also my mother, Mrs Maria Fatuzzo, who watched the work of Parliament and then said, ‘You, my son, deliver too many explanations of vote. You should not deliver so many!’ (Applause) Therefore – mother will always be mother – today I shall only give six explanations of vote instead of fifteen. The first is on the Hughes report, which, amongst other things, mentions the name of Galileo Galilei, the name given to the satellite navigation system which, I hope, will be used to track articulated lorries and monitor to what extent they obey the rules on driving hours, rules which are quite rightly specified in Mr Hughes’s report.

Political group: PPE-DE
British Conservatives are abstaining on this resolution. We have consistently championed the cause of greater transparency, openness and accountability but this is a separate matter from calling for the precedence of the Community method in every area of European Union decision-making. - Lamassoure report (A5-0133/2002)

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, listening to you is a pleasure, but as I listened to you talk about Africa I recalled that, at present, that continent is the scene of tragedies on a vast scale. There are countries and states in Africa that have been completely dismembered. There are peoples fleeing from war. There are shattered countries. There are tragedies in Africa that defy description. Since we are speaking of trade with Africa, or the growth of trade relations with that continent, I would ask the Commissioner whether an attempt to bring peace to the countries of Africa might not be a fundamental prerequisite. Might there not be a political question to resolve before the trade question? My point is that without peace in Africa, without the stability of its countries, I do not see how one can talk of trade as calmly and with as much aplomb as the Commissioner.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as rapporteur, allow me to explain. We are talking, then, about three matters, Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, together with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, as discussed by the Committee on Budgets. We support the Commission’s request for urgent procedure. This is a matter of exceptional urgency, since many great needs have arisen, especially in Macedonia. We are also concerned with extending the aid to Bosnia, Herzegovina and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. We nevertheless need a little more time. To begin with, a proper discussion is needed in the Committee on Budgets. It is a question of transfers for this year and of budget issues for next year. We need a little time in which to obtain the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, and we need to have a discussion on the whole budget for the Balkans for 2002 in connection with the conciliation prior to the second reading of the budget next week. We therefore propose voting to apply urgent procedure but also for deciding at the same time to deal with these three matters during the November II part-session in Brussels. We should, then, be able to have a joint debate on the issues relating to the Balkans, at the same time as dealing with the Lagendijk report on the European Agency for Reconstruction. Our proposal is therefore in favour of urgent procedure but also of debating the matter during the November II part-session in Brussels. (Parliament agreed to urgent procedure) President. – That concludes the vote.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, at the end of December 2001, we voted on a report on strategy and organisation for energy development in the Korean peninsula, as a result of which we decided to participate in civil nuclear development in Korea. Here I would like to mention three points from this report which, given what we have learnt over the past few weeks, are quite interesting. One of the recitals of this report read: ‘whereas the European Union recognised KEDO as a major industrial project constituting a vital contribution to nuclear non-proliferation and peace and stability on the Korean peninsula and, following negotiations with the founder members, signed an agreement’. Nuclear non-proliferation has not been observed, as North Korea has even decided to develop nuclear energy for military purposes, as we have learnt. Furthermore, we have once again, in this highly intelligent report against which the voted – we said that it was impossible for Korea to maintain what it claimed to want to maintain. We said on page 9 of this report, in Article 16, that Parliament ‘stresses, however, that it will continue to push for an appropriate Inter-Institutional Agreement (IIA) and that it reserves the right to block transfer of funds to KEDO at any point in the future’. The last point I would like to highlight is this: ‘[we stress], in conclusion, that the DPRK will have to show evidence of good faith as the KEDO project progresses, in particular when the final IAEA verification is due’, etc. This means that we need to discuss this matter, that we must call this agreement into question, that we must stop funding the civil nuclear sector in North Korea and that, lastly, we must fund a non-nuclear energy production sector for North Korea. Consequently, we must enter into this debate to do what the Americans have done, namely to stop funding the Korean nuclear sector. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, since the attacks of 11 September, the Malaysian Government has stepped up its internal security measures, allegedly against suspected Islamic militants. It increasingly resorts to the use of the Internal Security Act, which allows it to detain people indefinitely without trial if, in the Government's view, they are suspected of threatening national security. Human rights groups have consistently criticised the abuse of this draconian legislation. The High Court of Malaysia has also called for the Parliament to review its use. This resolution quite correctly calls for the abolition of the Internal Security Act and any other laws that permit detention without trial. It is also clear that the Government is using the pretext of the crackdown on terrorism as a means of suppressing Government opponents and critics. The repeated use of the Internal Security Act has often been politically motivated and politically selective. It has been used to arrest and detain without trial various members of Malaysian civil society, including opposition leaders, academics, trade unionists and students, frequently without charging them and often denying them access to a lawyer. The resolution highlights the fact that some 40 political activists have been arrested since 2001 under the Act. The resolution rightly calls for either the release or charging of all political prisoners of conscience, including the six political prisoners specifically named in the resolution, who have been imprisoned for exercising the right to legitimate political organisation and dissent. We want to see them either released or for them to be formally charged and receive an immediate and fair trial. In conclusion, I would urge that all future political cooperation with Malaysia be conditional upon the Malaysian Government's abolition of the Internal Security Act and also the release of all political prisoners, so that all Malaysians may be assured that their basic human rights as enshrined in their constitution are respected.

Political group: PPE-DE
By means of this vote, we are now being asked to describe as acts of terrorism what, for us, are acts of solidarity and of justice. For example, ‘interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power, or other fundamental resource’. Such actions are generally those of salaried employees – of workers, not Bin Ladens – who, threatened by privatisation, organise themselves to defend their conditions of work, their jobs and, indeed, the tools with which they work. The basis of the proposal is to punish as an act of terrorism anything aimed at threatening ‘and seriously altering or destroying the political, economic, or social structures of a country’, that is to say any questioning of injustice and the established order such as the occupation by the homeless of empty housing or by the unemployed of job centres or of organisations managing unemployment insurance payments or, indeed, European demonstrations against organisations such as the IMF, WTO or the World Bank. Basically, a measure of this kind would tend to criminalise social activism by bringing fundamental rights into question. That is why I have not voted in favour of this report, which makes terrorists out of us.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I would like to speak against this proposal. We had initially heard that it was not possible to vote on the Valdivielso report because Commissioner Patten was not here. It now turns out that Commissioner Patten is here and it seems to me that any technical problem that there may have been, and I am aware of that possibility, could be resolved by the Parliament services within no more than 2 or 3 hours. I would therefore ask that the vote on the MEDA regulation be included in this part-session and if the services really need one more day to resolve the technical problems, that the vote be delayed for one day. However, it seems to me that the groups have debated this sufficiently, it has been on the table for too long now and I believe that there is no reason why it cannot be voted on during this part-session and in the presence, as we had asked so many times, of Commissioner Patten, whom I would like to thank for being here.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the resolutions of three political groups were withdrawn during the last part-session under obscure circumstances and today we are debating a joint motion for a resolution by five groups on the same subject. This is not the time to assess what has happened and what has changed and what we perhaps encouraged with our attitude. Turkey is a candidate country for membership of the European Union. However, there is evidence of doublespeak on several counts and the matter is very serious. I personally am in favour of Turkey's European prospects. However, we have noticed – even recently – that people who have played and who still play an important role in European developments, such as former chancellors Kohl and Schmidt, tend to be in favour of Turkey's European prospects when they are talking as politicians but, when speaking at private seminars and conferences, maintain that Turkey has no place in the European Union. This conflict of words paints us into a political corner. Perhaps, politically, it helps those who we say want an economic Europe; however, it does not help the political Europe which interests the European Parliament. So as long as certain parties behave in a way which gives the impression that the system which currently has the upper hand in Turkey could take hold in Europe, then we are again painted into a corner. Why? Because every time we look for arguments against Turkey's European prospects, we find them in Turkey's failure to adapt to European practices. And the prospect of adaptation must be an absolute effort as far as we are concerned. Ladies and gentlemen, we must be absolute and we must be fair: absolute as regards compliance with European criteria by Turkey, as regards its prospects, and fair as regards the way in which we control them. This policy serves us, it serves Turkey and it serves its people. If, for any reason, we are not absolute on matters of respect for human rights, democracy, freedom and, at the same time, compliance with international law, then we shall not be doing either ourselves or Turkey any favours. Situation in Algeria

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I too would like to thank the rapporteur. Mrs Theato’s report may help to restore confidence in European institutions. I believe that is something we are all desperately in need of, bearing in mind the results of the last European elections and of the level of turnout. Yet, every year we have the same problem. The Court of Auditors publishes its report, which criticises the Member States on account of various incidences of fraud. So far, however, the European institutions have not had sufficient means at their disposal to take vigorous action here, to ensure that implementation actually takes place and that matters are remedied. It is precisely this process that undermines confidence every year. I believe that Mrs Theato’s report and her proposal can help to reverse this very process and to make clear that the European institutions take steps to ensure that European money is employed in a targeted manner and that no fraud is perpetrated here. It is important that after the first step, which has already been taken, i.e. forming OLAF from UCLAF – an independent institution – we now take the second step and create a legal framework for OLAF, in order that OLAF too might operate within a secure legal framework. We will need the European Public Prosecutor’s Office for this, which will see to it that there are clear legal guarantees, also for suspects. Having said all that, I must say that unfortunately, my group will not be voting for your report as a united front. I hope that the debate will convince a few more people. Unfortunately, however, people still have too many misgivings to the effect that this will be the kind of European institution that undermines subsidiarity. But I will do what I can to see that Mrs Theato’s report receives more support.

Political group: Verts-ALE