GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the conclusions of the Tampere Summit seem to me to be a basically positive sign for the citizens of the European Union because they address issues that affect all of us, but also, above all, because they open the door to the development of certain policies which the citizens themselves demand. I would like to see Tampere as a starting point, as a door which is opening and which will show us the path which we must travel along during the coming months, since there are some things which I still wonder about and I hope that they will be resolved during this process. With regard to fighting crime and the creation of an area of justice, I believe that we have moved forward and that this is positive. But I would like to concentrate principally on the question of immigration. I believe that it has also been positive to confront the need for a common asylum policy, but we need the funding to sustain it. We also need to confront the reality of immigration. I hope that, in the coming days, we will receive more information about what the Council intends and how the measures adopted at Tampere will be implemented. The action plans approved seem to me to be very interesting. This “interpillar” policy opens up possibilities which may lead us to a good result, but it also raises many questions as to by who and how these action plans will be developed and whether the Council will ever give us any information concerning the results of the one which has been implemented, that is to say the action plan concerning Iraq. The fight against illegal immigration also interests me. But I believe that, in order to combat illegal immigration, we must ensure that it is more worthwhile to approach a European Union consulate than a band of traffickers. If we want to put an end to the ignominy of deaths on our borders, as Mr Hernández Mollar said, we must offer a genuine common immigration policy, which we did not see at Tampere, offer new initiatives, and allow those people who live in the Union to do so with equal rights.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I want to begin with six words which in Danish all begin with an “m”, as in men. The six words are: muren [der faldt i Berlin] (the Wall which came down in Berlin), markedet (the market), mainstreaming (mainstreaming), magt (power), mæslinger (measles) and menneskerettigheder (human rights). These words are used in the following question: did the fact that the Wall came down, that the market took over and that we, as a result, seriously accepted the word mainstreaming in Beijing, mean that men stepped – if not a little into the background – then at least a bit to the side, so surrendering a little power and being willing to take care of the children when they have the measles? Does it also therefore mean that human rights are respected so that women, like everyone else, are not discriminated against and exposed to violence? The answer is no. I would call attention to this situation because women such as ourselves in the rich countries of the world, that is to say also in the EU, should always remember that those who make the decisions and so who also decide the fate of our sisters in the developing countries, in Kosovo, in the Balkans etc., continue to be men and that there is therefore a risk of the results of our work and of the programmes as a whole not representing women’s wishes and needs in a balanced way. We still need a discussion about equality and change in the EU but, above all, there must be active efforts in respect of the developing countries and in connection with aid to Kosovo, the Balkans etc. to ensure that women are part of the process and are also involved in development and reconstruction. The stability pact, which has a shortage of women in its leadership and in which women generally are not involved, shows that there is still a lot to be done. There is a great need for the men and women in the European Parliament to support their fellow Members of the European Parliament, together with the NGOs, in their endeavours to become involved at all levels of the societies concerned. I would end by thanking both the Commissioner, for a speech which demonstrated her commitment, and the President-in-Office of the Council.

Political group: ELDR
Ladies and gentlemen, those of us who believe in the European Union and in the existence of a common European maritime and terrestrial territory can neither accept nor approve the type of discrimination and favouritism that appear in this Fisheries agreement with Greenland. We cannot understand why the fleets of Germany, France, the United Kingdom and Denmark should be given favourable treatment, particularly since they cannot even reach the level of catches allowed under the previous protocol and since they have not taken advantage of the opportunity to create joint, mutually beneficial companies. We cannot accept the discrimination against the fleets of other Member States such as the Spanish and Portuguese fleets – and within the Spanish fleet, the Galician fleet – that want to fish in Greenland’s waters and which are in a position to make business agreements with local agents, as allowed under the agreement. What we want, and it should not be necessary to have to say this once again, is sustainable development and the preservation of fish stocks. Lastly, we also want the European Union to maintain a real presence in Community waters as it does in the markets.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, basically, my views have been covered in the initial position taken by Mr Kaufmann and my other fellow Members on behalf of our group. I should just like to say briefly that the Nice Summit was held against a background of total indifference on the part of the citizens of Europe, despite the fact that it has serious repercussions for them, and total indifference on the part of the governments towards the citizens of Europe. This is clear from both the content and the fate of the Charter of Human Rights. Yet again we witnessed the crudest form of bartering, in contrast to the grand declarations being made by the German chancellor, the French Prime Minister and so on. The point is, where was this attitude, where were Mr Schröder's and Mr Fischler's dreams when negotiations were taking place in Nice? Having said which, here we are, post Nice, and I think that the European Parliament can help take us in a new direction; one step could be making up the huge democratic deficit and taking part in constitutional procedures and another could be moving towards certain policies to benefit the citizens of Europe.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The Van Hulten Report is a vital contribution to the work on EU reform and the work being undertaken by Commissioner Kinnock. An efficient and dynamic Commission is a pre-requisite for an enlarged European Union. Protection of the EU's financial interests is an integral part of the reform agenda. The European Parliamentary Labour Party, whilst agreeing that there is a need to improve the protection of the EU's financial interests, believes that the three stage approach towards a European Public Prosecutor contained in the report is not the way to proceed, and far more detailed discussions will be needed to find a means to tackle fraud which is effective in all Member States. The EPLP only supports the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor as mentioned in Paragraph 38 to enable information to be provided to facilitate the prosecution, by national courts, of those who defraud the taxpayer. The EPLP also believes that the setting-up of a Committee on Standards in Public Life would benefit all the institutions of the European Union, including the European Parliament. (The sitting was suspended at 1.20 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.) IN THE CHAIR: MR PODESTÀVice-President

Political group: PSE
In Seoul we saw the blatant contrast between the official summit of the Heads of State and Government and the citizens’ and popular movements in which I took part. The first is aimed at speeding up the neo-liberal reforms, against which the second were protesting. The unions and the social movements reject the dictatorship of the “chaebol”, the large, traditional industrial conglomerates, but that does not mean they want this to be replaced by the dictatorship of the IMF or the WTO. Nor, indeed, by a new – economic – colonisation of their country, at a time when everyone is wondering which western firms will be buying out the South Korean industries that are in trouble. The alternative forum also encouraged interparliamentary contacts, punctuated by a meeting at the South Korean National Assembly on 18 October. What it found is beyond dispute: the elected assemblies have been kept out of the ASEM process, even though businessmen were systematically involved. It is urgently necessary to breathe new life into the interparliamentary dialogue (ASEP) between Europe in the west and Asia in the east. The preparation of ASEM IV must be used as an opportunity to set out our requirements for democracy, on the one hand, by ensuring that the elected assembles and civil society are kept informed and able to intervene – which involves, in particular, the establishment of a social forum – and, on the other hand, by adhering fully to social, environmental and human rights.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, as the rapporteur, Mrs McCarthy, has already pointed out, we can certainly consider URBAN a success for the European Parliament with regard to the debate held last year on the reform of the regulations. As we have heard, the objective of URBAN is the promotion of innovative strategies to promote economic and social regeneration in urban areas, bearing in mind that 80% of the population of Europe lives in cities. Creating a functioning urban environment in terms of social policy requires a policy of long-term job creation, action to combat poverty, measures to assist low-income groups and old people, facilities for children, racial and ethnic integration, better opportunities for participation, a targeted public health policy including measures to prevent drug abuse and concerted crime prevention measures. The Communication from the Commission takes account of the need to adopt approaches combining a range of economic, social, and infrastructural measures. However, we must remember that, in addition to URBAN, a number of other Community instruments are also available in the social sector: innovative actions under Article 6 of the ESF regulation, pilot projects, particularly the new preparatory action for local commitment to employment that has just been introduced by the European Parliament under the 2000 budget and the EQUAL and INTERREG initiatives and mainstream ESF activities. As the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs stressed in its opinion, the Commission must therefore recognise the need to exploit synergies in this context while avoiding duplication of multiple funding. While, on the one hand, we believe that steering committees should ensure that the various projects are coherent and complementary, we would on the other hand urge the Commission to reinforce exchanges of information and coordination between the departments involved. Not only is this coordination essential but, as we stated in our opinion, exchanges and the dissemination of expertise and good practice must also be essential.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the pensions issue, which is what we are discussing today, is a very sensitive one. As a young Member of this Parliament I am of course thinking of young people, whose pensions are currently the least secure. We also need to safeguard freedom of movement in Europe and to ensure that those individuals, particularly young people, who are mobile within Europe do not suffer any disadvantage compared with those who remain in their own country all their lives. So as not to lose sight of the fact that we want secure pensions, what we also need to do is to liberalise the financial market in Europe and to create a framework so as to make the single market, as well as the German and the European financial market, competitive in the face of global competition. The PPE Group has not taken the easy way out. We are still having intense discussions on this, focussing in particular on the second pillar, in the course of which we have learnt that the first pillar, state pensions, is no longer viable and we must strengthen the second pillar. Two arguments are in order here. If we are to strengthen the second pillar then it must be made equivalent to the first and built up accordingly, that is, it must take account of the biometric risks. Or one could argue that it is necessary to admit new products so as to enable this sector to develop in an effective manner and yield the necessary return, thereby securing pensions for the future. My personal preference is to make people fully aware of the biometric risks and to put this issue right at the heart of the Commission’s agenda over the next six months. When it comes to the three biometric risks in question, I have a particular preference for longevity, which is an unshakeable fact in my view. But we should not establish a system today. The world keeps spinning, as do the financial markets, and we should also be open to new influences. We must accommodate subsidiarity within the competition of systems, but also within the competition of taxation law. I hope that the Commission will do justice to this task.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, today’s sitting has been dominated by talks about the Budget 2000. The fisheries agreement with Morocco has also been on the agenda this morning in this context, when we talked about external action expenditure. The majority of this Parliament was then of the opinion that this agreement would feature as one of its new priorities and that it belonged on the list comprising the reconstruction of Kosovo, East Timor and Turkey. Whatever the opinion may be concerning the fisheries agreement with regard to the impact on the local population or the European fishing fleet, there will be very few people who will be prepared to put the humanitarian disasters of Kosovo, East Timor and the earthquake in Turkey on a par with this fishing deal. Also, from a budgetary point of view, I find it completely irresponsible to agree on an amount whilst negotiations have not even reached the halfway stage. In fact, we do not know if an agreement will be reached. We do not know what the situation will be like then and we cannot gauge the financial implications. But the funds are already available. I would have thought it was acceptable to place an amount in reserve. Then, at least Parliament would be able to vote again on the allocation of these funds after having read the content of this agreement more carefully. Because how will this pan out? Is the integrity of Parliament’s decision not seriously prejudiced if we have the funds available at this stage? What happens now if you do not like the agreement? Or would any agreement be acceptable a priori? You will get another chance during the second reading of the budget in December. It is therefore important that you grant more importance to the opinion of the Committee on Fisheries and not to consider it as a little added extra to a fait accompli. What input will Parliament have? There is no guarantee whatsoever that the agreement will be submitted to the European Parliament for approval. The agreement with Mauritius was subject to a simple, consultative procedure. Parliament objected to this and took the matter to the Court. The Court ruled that it was unnecessary for Parliament to approve agreements. As a result, we now have a situation where it is completely unclear what agreements have to be submitted to Parliament for approval and what agreements only require comments. In this light, the agreement with Morocco might well bypass the European Parliament in terms of content on account of the consultative procedure and in financial terms on account of the blank cheque we provided this morning. Parliament’s power should not only be fought for by government leaders at intergovernmental conferences but must also be asserted by ourselves in our daily work.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I wish, on behalf of my group and also in consultation with all the shadow rapporteurs and with the coordinators of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, to ask that my two reports on the rules on participation in the Framework Programme and the Euratom Programme and on dissemination of their results should be adjourned to the July part-session. Yesterday evening we succeeded, after intensive work, in reaching an agreement with the Council. It was not possible to have this agreement formally voted on in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, and so I now ask for consideration of both reports to be adjourned. (Parliament adopted the agenda as amended)(1)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, as a parliamentarian I feel myself to be represented by the President of this House above all others, and so it is to you that I wish to address a very specific query relating to what was said by Mr Barón Crespo. The Italian Prime Minister's statement has been criticised by many, including – which may be surprising – by Mr Haider, who found it too xenophobic. Madam President, you have always strongly advocated dialogue with Islam, and have also taken definite steps in the direction of such dialogue. Your policy stands in contradiction to what Mr Berlusconi has said. In view of the fact that you have had very forthright things to say in other situations – which I did not always find easy to defend back home, but I defended you because I have always valued your clear language – I think it important that you should find equally clear and unambiguous words in this connection. It is this that I ask of you. Perhaps these words have passed me by; perhaps I have not heard them or not read them. I would ask you to make this Parliament's position in respect of these remarks quite clear. This is a Parliament that has always promoted dialogue and has always engaged in it. Our whole existence as a Parliament is bound up with the dialogue between religions and between cultures, and I believe that you, as President of this Parliament, should say so clearly and unambiguously on this occasion. (Applause from the Group)

Political group: PSE
My group has voted against the opinion on the Community patent because the proposals have been rejected on three fundamental counts. We need an affordable and uniform European patent system for the European market. The discussion surrounding the language regime has illustrated the fact that, unfortunately, political sentiments have carried more weight than practical arguments. Translation costs push up the price of the patent disproportionately, so that it will become too costly for European industry, the ultimate users. That is why my group is in favour of a limited language regime and cannot endorse the ‘Alicante’ regime of five languages (Amendments Nos 31 and 32). In addition, a uniform application of the regulation is of major significance. That is why my group has proposed that disputes surrounding the Community patent should fall within the central jurisdiction of the Community Intellectual Property Court, with the possibility of appeal to the Court of Justice (Amendments Nos 26 and 29). Finally, together with my fellow liberal MEPs, I prefer to create our own Community patent system instead of adopting the Munich Convention. A Community patent system would fall automatically within the structures of the EU. This means democratic control by the European Parliament and the authority of the Court of Justice in the last resort (Amendments Nos 23 and 24).

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, we have now heard many answers concerning how the television directive is applied, but also questions, and I think we must and should make some changes. We must unreservedly guarantee basic principles such as the requirement that the cultural diversity of the media be protected in order to maintain freedom of expression, diversity of opinion and pluralism, creativity and the right to free access to information. Public broadcasters must perform their educational function, by which I mean that the quota for the transmission of European programmes and works by independent producers could be increased. This is an aspiration with which I wish to associate myself. There must, however, be clear, workable and manageable definitions of what is meant by European works and independent producers. I see the requirement that levels of media concentration be monitored as being the most important. We have examples of media power and political power being concentrated in one pair of hands. I believe this cannot be conducive to democracy, and so this is a vitally important area of concern. We will no doubt have to work towards a directive founded on our demands in the 20 November resolution, and, if all these things come together, I hope that we will be able to do all that media diversity in the European Union requires of us.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on a point of order. In his speech Mr Deva drew attention to the fact that in this House we are not very good at interrogating. This was very obvious last night during Council Question Time. The session actually finished early and yet Council questions have, it seems to me, become nothing other than an exercise in patronising evasion. The impossibility of having more than one supplementary for a Member adds to this. There is no sense of interrogation of the Council at all. I should like to suggest that the Bureau at some time look into the question of whether a Member who limits a first supplementary to under half a minute is allowed a second question.

Political group: Verts-ALE