GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, unfortunately, I, once again, have to request the floor to inform you and the House of another tragedy at sea. Last week, the fishing vessel Hansa, flying a German flag and with a Spanish and Portuguese crew, sank in the North Atlantic, off the coast of Scotland. Six of the 16 crew lost their lives. European fishermen have, once again, paid their tribute to the sea. Madam President, I would like you and the rest of the House to be aware that the Committee on Fisheries approved a report on this issue last week which, I hope, will be presented to Parliament during the next part-session. This is our contribution to this cruel profession, which is increasingly beset by greater insecurity. Madam President, I would like to ask you, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, to contact the families of the victims in order to express this Parliament’s condolences and solidarity, and I would like to point out that they all come from Galicia. I would also like you, Madam President, if you can, to contact the British sea rescue services, whose members, risking their own lives, saved many others.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, we can now make an evaluation of the implementation of these measures. I think two of these are extremely relevant. The first, and perhaps the most important – to which various Members have already referred – is the excessive rigidity with regard to the payment conditions for aid of EUR 12 000 to crew members. As we know, in order for these people to receive the money, the vessels on which they worked must have been scrapped or integrated into joint ventures. And yet the Commissioner said that the Commission shared the view that if the vessels have not been scrapped or integrated into joint ventures it is because they are fishing elsewhere and the crew members are therefore employed. This is an erroneous assumption, however, because although in some cases shipowners do actually manage to send their vessels to fish in other fishing grounds, they are only able to make a partial profit, or to provide a partial alternative to what they had previously in the Moroccan fishing grounds. In other cases, the shipowners themselves are waiting for an alternative for the future. Whereas they are waiting or whereas they have partial alternatives, the crew members or fishermen of the vessels that previously fished in Morocco are now unemployed and inactive. This is why this situation must be reviewed as a matter of urgency and why crew members, who are entirely blameless in the matter, should not be sacrificed. The second element of rigidity concerns the fact that, at the time the agreement with Morocco lapsed, some shipowners were building vessels to fish in that country’s waters. As the agreement lapsed, these shipowners had to convert these vessels and refit them for other fishing grounds. This refit of the vessels entailed increased costs, which were borne by the shipowners. I think it would be fair, under the current regulation or under any other, for Community co-financing to be provided to cover this rise in shipowners’ costs. I shall finish by saying, as other Members have done, that these matters must be resolved. They will not cost any more money; what is needed in order to resolve these problems is for flexibility to be shown.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, one thing for sure is that the excessive profits reaped by multinationals, especially American multinationals, from manufacturing and selling arms far exceed the profits to be made from drug trafficking or crude oil. Tensions, armed conflict and mutual genocide are being provoked and fomented in order to promote the production and consumption of all sorts of arms and munitions, thereby increasing sales and boosting profits. And governments have no objection; in fact they are doing their utmost here, given that, as we all know, they cream off huge sums of money from manufacturers supplying arms. Whatever Mr Titley's intentions as rapporteur, in today's general climate of militarisation and warmongering, with a new structure to NATO, with the militarisation of the European Union and, more importantly, with the shameless exploitation of the terrorist attack in the United States, codes like this, even if they do not pull the wool over the people's eyes, are no more than a hypocritical wish list. We believe that strict controls are needed and that the manufacture of all types of equipment – and not just exports as the report suggests – should be denied, if not banned. In the final analysis, however, this is a matter for the popular front, for the global and national peace movement which, as we have seen recently, is burgeoning – and thank God it is.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The appeal to national authorities to cooperate more closely in the fight against so-called white-collar crime is certainly to be welcomed. If, however, you want to give examples of this white-collar crime, and mention money laundering, market abuse and financing of terrorist groups, you should be careful not to add tax evasion to the list. We all agree that tax evasion should be stopped. Everyone should fulfil their duty to pay taxes. But this is no reason to confuse tax evasion with tax fraud. There is a clear distinction between the two. That is why I tabled an amendment in this regard in committee, but unfortunately it was not adopted. The same amendment was tabled in the plenary on behalf of the Group. This amendment also deletes the reference to the practice of blacklisting countries if they do not yet adhere to the various international standards in the field of fighting white-collar crime. The 'naming and shaming' method appears at first sight to be very attractive if the sole objective is to fight against this form of crime, but it actually reinforces the law of the most powerful in international relations. You would think twice before putting the USA on a list of this kind. (Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the draft resolution we are now discussing requires, precisely as before, that the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference should have a broad agenda involving radical reforms of the institutions. The forthcoming enlargement of the Union is used as an argument for this. I am convinced that this is an error of judgement. A federal and centralist EU which intervenes more and more in the government of the Member States is in actual fact less well placed for enlargement. A flexible EU which concentrates on fewer but important areas and which respects national differences and national democracy has a better chance of embracing a significantly greater number of countries. Paragraph D of the draft resolution requires a more coordinated and more open economic policy at EU level. It is not, however, possible to talk about this without at the same time talking about monetary union. This text says nothing about the major democratic and political problems involving monetary union and the European Central Bank. This is untenable. If there is a desire to make the EU more democratic, the whole construction of EMU must be reconsidered. The Central Bank must be placed under political control so that the direction to be taken by monetary policy may be governed by political objectives such as high employment and prosperity. Public control of the Central Bank must be improved if this is to become possible. The rigid and unsuccessful monetarism of the Stability Pact must be re-examined and discarded so that we might have a uniform policy which has prosperity as its primary objective. Article 56 of the Treaty, prohibiting currency speculation or any interference in the free movement of capital, must be removed so that damaging currency speculation may be checked by means of political control. In the majority of EU countries, there are now governments dominated by social democrats. It is remarkable that, now they have the opportunity to do so, none of them is demanding any change in the direction taken by monetary union. It also, of course, damages credibility when it is stated that monetary union could constitute a counterbalance to globalised capital. The resolution requires the European Parliament to have increased influence over the Intergovernmental Conference. It is, however, important to emphasise that the Intergovernmental Conference is and will remain a conference of the Member States. It is the Member States’ parliaments, or people voting in referenda, who are to direct the development of the Treaty. It is therefore out of the question that the European Parliament should be given any formal influence over the negotiation process or over ratification.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I congratulate Mr Pittella on the report he has produced. This makes a contribution to the complex debate on the Structural Funds. I would nevertheless like to draw attention to two points on which the rapporteur’s approach differs from mine, and which led me to table two draft amendments for which I request the support of this House. The amendments are: - Amendment to paragraph 23 of the motion for a resolution: I would like to reiterate the great importance of mentioning the principle of legitimate expectation, in relation to the eligibility of advances granted by Member States to final beneficiaries and their inclusion in reimbursement claims received before 31 December 2002. The principles of solidarity, flexibility and effectiveness complement rather than compete with each other. - Amendment to paragraph 35(b) of the motion for a resolution: in accordance with the principle of simplification, and on the basis of one of the aims of improving the utilisation of the funds, I propose that provisions be made for an opportunity to analyse whether combining the funds and centralising the way they are managed would help to improve their efficiency. This will all depend on the course events actually take, which will allow us to decide at a later date whether such an analysis is appropriate.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, once again we have reason to discuss EU asylum policy; unfortunately it is under the banner of security. In fact, what we have to do today is examine two Commission documents which, due to their nature, scope and objectives, should not be considered together, unless we want to cause confusion. This joint consideration of two equally important and sensitive dossiers gives the impression that asylum seekers are potential terrorists. The Commission, however, clearly states in its report that it is unlikely that terrorists would ask to exercise the right to asylum. This is a true paradox. The Member States are in fact trying to escape their international commitments by invoking exclusion clauses where a loose interpretation of these clauses would free them from their commitments, even though these commitments are fundamental with regard to human rights. Given all the difficulties posed by the subject of asylum, and despite all our differences, we must not forget that we are dealing with victims, not with criminals. Only an integrated approach and restrictive application of exclusion clauses can guarantee compliance with the Member States’ international obligations with regard to asylum. Return, expulsion and extradition policies must provide every possible guarantee of respect for human rights, in particular when these people face the death penalty in their country of origin, as well as the social and domestic situation of each country. Do we have the right to send people to countries where civil war is raging, or where there is a daily risk of death in addition to economic and social misery, such as in Algeria or other countries? Non-expulsion is, however, required by the European Union in our association agreements. Extradition implicitly jeopardises the right of every individual to seek asylum when their life is threatened. A European solution must also be found with regard to asylum seekers deprived of the right of asylum, who find themselves without any rights and further swell the ranks of illegal immigrants exploited by unscrupulous employers for their own gain, while these people live in inhumane conditions within our European democracies. These men and women have waited such a long time to receive a response from the authorities that they have often formed strong links with the country they are in, having children there, for example, and their links with their country of origin have often become weaker or non-existent. Expelling them would therefore uproot them once again. The only solution now would be to legalise their presence. I would simply like to make these few points in order to ensure universal respect for fundamental rights, but I support the rapporteur.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, from this year until the year 2006 around EUR 200 billion is available for the Structural Funds, but only 53⁄4 % is set aside for the Community initiatives, INTERREG, LEADER, URBAN and EQUAL. That is a reduction of 33⁄4 % compared with the previous CIs. No more than EUR 2.8 billion is provided for EQUAL, as Mrs Stenzel’s balanced report makes clear. This makes the large number of amendments and far too long a wish list of possible tasks all the more astonishing. How are priorities supposed to be set here? There is agreement on the principle that marginalisation, discrimination and inequalities on the labour market should be reduced. Transnational strategies are intended to make it possible for disadvantaged groups to have access to jobs. I have no sympathy for amendments once again backing the TAOs. Criticism of the previous Commission’s work was particularly severe, legitimately so, with regard to these Technical Assistance Offices. Our Committee on Employment and Social Affairs was, after all, in overall charge of analysing considerable shortcomings and failures to carry out checks in cases related to LEONARDO. The Commission cannot therefore be relieved of direct responsibility or the task of carrying out inspections under EQUAL either. It can only approve Member States’ proposals if they fulfil all the criteria: firstly, integration through sectoral and geographical development partnerships, whereby the employment policy guidelines need to be taken into account; secondly, the systematic involvement of the operators concerned – the local, regional and national authorities, training institutions, universities, NGOs, the two sides of industry and the private sector – with the aim of creating a durable partnership, and thirdly, methods and models of indisputably innovative character. The Commission must therefore be the guarantor of the strategic framework for promoting ability to work and quality of work, of the assessment of results and of the effective communication of best practices. Only then will it be possible for the desired multiplier effect to be achieved.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is to ‘railway speak’ that we owe numerous figures of speech. For example ‘the train has departed’ is what we say when we arrive late. Unfortunately the same can be said of our train. The package of three proposals for directives concerning the railway infrastructures, to which we will give our assent tomorrow, is long overdue. The ultimate outcome of the lengthy negotiations within the Conciliation Committee, has in fact come ten years too late. The statistics bear this out, I am sorry to say. There has been a massive decline in the amount of freight transported by rail over the last few years, and there is every reason to believe that it will be very difficult to reverse the trend in the foreseeable future. If we call to mind that we accomplished the single market for freight in 1970, and the internal market in 1992/1993, then since this is now the year 2001, we are clearly going to reach our destination late, added to which, our train is travelling on a go-slow stretch. Setting a deadline of 2003 for the opening-up of the trans-European rail freight network certainly sounds reasonably committed, as does a deadline of 2008 for national freight traffic, but this is surely sending out the wrong signals. When you consider that the question of committing eastern freight traffic to the rail has not even been properly addressed then clearly this is yet another area which will set us back. There are other, better signals too, a green light as it were. We must not overlook what has been achieved in the way of positive results. Thus, for example, the creation of independent regulatory authorities does at least give the go-ahead for more competition, and we can only hope that the necessary reforms do not get stuck on the sidings. The exemption provisions for certain Member States are, after a great deal of to-ing and fro-ing – and not including the small country of Luxembourg – only really for the benefit of the truly peripheral Member States, and at least the project for improving the railways and freight transport is up and running. Interoperability is the next item on the agenda, and we are currently setting the points for more intermodality. At some stage it will be all systems go for Europe’s rail passengers, and not just on Europe’s roads. We must not lose hope and with that in mind I would like to say a big thank you to both rapporteurs and to the Commissioner, whose combined efforts have already been mentioned today and for which they have rightly been commended.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we are now in the middle of the greatest ever enlargement of the European Union. In a year or so, Bulgaria and Romania will join, and membership negotiations are being entered into with Turkey and Croatia. This has given rise to increased interest in the EU in the world around us. We can expect new applications for membership and new requests for close cooperation in the future. I think we should be proud of this interest in participating in European cooperation. It also means that we can support, and make demands upon, surrounding countries so that they respect human freedoms and rights, comply with the principles of the state governed by law and observe basic economic principles of free trade. I personally do not understand the talk of European borders now needing to be defined. The EU must, in the future, be open to new members from our part of the world, irrespective of whether or not they follow old school maps’ demarcation of the European continent. With modern technology and telecommunications, the Bosphorus, Gibraltar and the Caucasus are becoming evermore imaginary frontiers, while, in other parts of the world, freedom, human rights and democracy – and, naturally, their opposite, oppression – are becoming evermore real for us all. Moldova is a small and poor country in the EU’s future border area. I believe that a proposed stabilisation pact comprising Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova would not be a successful solution. Moldova belongs historically and culturally to South-Eastern Europe. It is my hope that the Commission will try to establish a form of cooperation with Moldova that takes account of this and opens the way to future Moldovan membership of the EU once Romania and Bulgaria have joined.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I want to express my concern that this clear defence by Mr Knörr Borràs of human rights apparently does not prevent his government from cooperating in Parliament with a political group which not only does not condemn, but collaborates with and encourages, violence against people and property.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I have asked to speak as I wanted to draw the Commission’s attention to a problem of legal basis in this report. The part of the amendment that we have just adopted provides for Member State exemptions in the processing of personal information. This second part, however, is intended to give an example of this exemption: data retention, or the blanket storage of personal data. We are dealing with a first pillar directive – the liberalisation of telecommunications – are we not? This addition seems totally inappropriate and outside our legal basis. In fact, only yesterday, the European Commission itself said it opposed an amendment tabled by Mrs Cederschiöld on behalf of the Group to cut the cost of data retention, precisely because it is outside the legal basis of the directive. If that was outside the legal basis, then this part must be so too. I would urge the Commission and the House to consider this.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to add my congratulations to the rapporteur, who has worked very hard on this and produced an excellent report which has my firm support. I agree over the need to move to a risk-sensitive framework which rewards prudent lending and penalises imprudent lending. I also agree with the aspiration to implement the accord in as near parallel with the United States as possible, to prevent the banking sector in the European Union from suffering a competitive disadvantage. I am pleased that Mr Radwan's report recognises the importance of proper cost benefit analysis and of tailoring the framework to the needs of different sectors affected by the capital adequacy directive. That includes both small and large banks, investment firms and firms which have a mix of investment and credit business. In the future we may have to amend the directive to take into account the needs of commodities firms, if they are brought into the framework. I congratulate the Commission on its progress in dealing with the issue of small business lending. It is absolutely right that the framework should not penalise small business lending unnecessarily. Many small businesses have nothing to fear from a risk-sensitive framework because there are many small businesses which are very good risks and which therefore can expect to get cheaper finance as a result of Basel II. There are, however, some small start-up businesses which are high-risk and I agree with the Commissioner that they should continue to attract a high capital charge. On the whole, with regard to SMEs – particularly in the light of reforms to the definition of retail which embrace a lot of SME lending – we are working towards a framework which is a fair and balanced solution on the SME lending issue. I would like to see the framework take a light touch on operational risk. Operational risk is something that is not yet easily calibrated and we should be very cautious before we impose a large charge. We should be flexible in reflecting developments on how that charge is measured. It is also vital for the framework to recognise the important risk mitigation role played by collateral, both financial and physical. That is another very important part of the Radwan report which we, as MEPs, should recognise. We should also recognise the importance of insurance and indemnity insurance as a way of mitigating risk. This is particularly important in relation to investment firms. Finally, the framework should try to go with the grain of professional practice. It should encourage good practice and work with the best of industry practice, rather than perhaps impose a wholly different framework on top of good industry practice.

Political group: PPE-DE