GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, first of all, I would like to say how delighted I am that this day has arrived. As Chairwoman of the Delegation for relations with the countries of South-East Europe, and on behalf of all those who have no opportunity to speak today, I would like to express my warm thanks to the two Commissioners. I think we should all be more than satisfied by Mr Patten's and Mr Verheugen's statements, including the factual information they have supplied. They have amply justified why Croatia can now be granted accession candidate status. My question is this, and it has already been asked several times: what opportunities do the Commission and, indeed, this Parliament have to persuade the Council that it should grant this candidate status swiftly so that negotiations can be opened soon? I endorse the points made by Mr Lagendijk. Can we do anything to prevent the failure so far to sign the Stability Pact from being viewed as an impediment to the opening of negotiations? This is an important issue, and we would very much appreciate a response from one of the Commissioners. Once again, my warmest thanks and my congratulations on today's momentous decision.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is good to speak about these energy issues and go into them in some detail, and good too that we should now include everyone in the same framework for safety standards. We must, however, keep a cool head. When legislation is being drafted everything must be based on scientific and technical facts, and not political passions. The International Atomic Energy Agency is an expert organisation whose level of competence is trusted globally, and it is important that its expert opinion is heard in these connections as well. I hope that the Commission will not now create another super-regulator to function alongside the IAEA in the monitoring of these matters, because the IAEA is very important worldwide. It is, however, important that standards of safety attained at Union level are so high that we can also demand the same from the applicant countries. I should nevertheless like to ask the Commission how it intends to take account of national regulators in preparing this package of directives. Energy issues are decided nationally – and that is the way it should be – and the role of national regulators will also be vitally important in the future.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, before the House today is a resolution on Burma, drafted with the support of all major political groups in this Parliament and therefore backed by representatives of all fifteen countries within the European Union. It is absolutely unequivocal in its demand: the immediate release of Aung San Suu Kyi. I hope this message is now being heard by the Burmese regime. Aung San Suu Kyi is a symbol of resistance to tyranny and personifies the hopes of the people of Burma for freedom. She has spent eight of the last thirteen years under some form of detention or restriction and on 30 May 2003 she was seized again and has been held virtually incommunicado, to all intents kidnapped by the regime in a military barracks in the Ye Mon district of Rangoon. Four days ago it was reported that she was on hunger strike and that she was in a serious condition. The International Committee of the Red Cross must be given immediate access to her in order to assist in the provision of emergency assistance. Given the policy of the ICRC not to reveal the detention conditions of those that it visits, Aung San Suu Kyi should also be seen by Italian Ambassador Miniero, on behalf of the European Union, or by Her Majesty's Ambassador to Burma, Vicky Bowman. These should be just the preliminaries to her release and to the release of scores of other National League for Democracy members and organisers, elected Members of Parliament, senior Party officials and students detained following the violent attack on opposition elements on 30 May 2003. Each member of the State Peace and Development Council that runs Burma must be held personally responsible for the health, safety and wellbeing of Aung San Suu Kyi. They must be put on notice that action will be taken against them. General Khin Nyunt, the newly-appointed Prime Minister, has talked about a roadmap to democracy. Let him show that he is serious, lift the barrier on that road, respond to our calls for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners and recognise the results of the 1990 elections which gave a landslide victory to the National League for Democracy. To encourage him, much more needs to be done to increase the pressure on his military dictatorship in Burma. Action should now be taken to strengthen the EU sanctions with moves to deny Burmese dictatorship the hard currency it uses to fund its repression. As we have seen in other countries such as Zimbabwe, quiet diplomacy does not work. Neighbouring ASEAN countries need to do more to bring about change in Burma. I call on the Council presidency and the Commission to take urgent action, to visit Aung San Suu Kyi, to bring about her immediate release and, in case the SPDC does not respond in a positive way, to draw up new measures that can quickly be taken against the Burmese regime.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President the reform of the common fisheries policy on 1 January 2003 will change this important economic sector for the better. Of that I am convinced. It was for that reason that the committee did not want to bring in any new Budget lines at the present time, with the exception of the flexibility reserve because of the Morocco disaster, which has been a heavy blow for the fisheries sector and raised many issues. We did, though, seek a few small changes. A: on food safety, especially with regard to genetic engineering, where there is an urgent need for scientific underpinning. B: on the monitoring of fishing activity. We need rigid controls and, perhaps, financial sanctions to deal with the black sheep. C: genuinely to include the sector in discussions and in the legislative measures in accordance with the bottom-up principle. Dialogue must be put on a formal basis. To sum up: We thank the Commissioners and in particular Mr Costa Neves for their constructive and wise collaboration. The Committee on Fisheries felt itself to be in good hands. We wish to maintain fisheries for our benefit and for the benefit of the generations that will come after us. I seem to have another minute to go, so I would like to touch on another subject. I refer to Mr Turchi and Mr Prodi's statements about Galileo this morning. I appeal to all of you not to block the road to further development. Mr Dover, the amendments proposed to Mr Turchi's report on TEN 1999, above all by our British colleagues, should be rejected. The justification for them is false, as the enterprises had, in a ‘Memorandum of understanding’, taken a positive line on their financial participation as early as the beginning of 2001, without the political will having been present at that time. Mr Dover, please think of the many jobs involved, as Mr Prodi has done.

Political group: PPE-DE
In order to minimise human suffering and enhance our own credibility, we need to introduce one more correction to the external relations budget. It remains extremely regrettable that we are still more than EUR 3 million short on the landmine issue. Funds for this cause have already been cut back worldwide. The European Union should not take part in this trend. Some 50 people, mainly women and children, are still affected every day. An enormous amount of money is still required, particularly for the aftercare of the victims and the relatives. Moreover, we as Parliament must also meet the commitments entered into in 2001. We are now incurring payment arrears while the EU has proven that it can make an effective contribution specifically in this field. This is why the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy has re-tabled my amendment. Our Parliament should recognise that the banning of landmines must also involve non-state players. Parliament is adopting a consistent stance by endorsing the amendment. A slight increase in the funds will result in a considerable reduction in the number of people suffering.

Political group: ELDR
This report is a welcome improvement on the existing situations of the different social security systems, particularly for border regions that experience a great deal of cross-frontier working, and the rapporteur has done a great job in this respect. With regard to Amendment No 20 about the definition of the household/the family, a majority of the Group has voted in favour of this amendment and despite this, has not requested a roll-call vote, as we think it would be very undesirable to risk the whole report being voted out. This would also be the reason for the rapporteur agreeing to reject Amendment No 20. I need to get something off my chest. This Parliament spends many session hours every month on fundamental human rights in countries outside of Europe. We get involved in virtually every incident of what is unacceptable according to European standards. However, when we discuss human rights within Europe, such as sexual orientation, we refuse to nail our colours to the mast. It is a disgrace, in my view, for Parliament to want to retain the option of placing citizens outside of the law on account of their sexual orientation. There are, of course, various arguments that can be used to support this view; you could, of course, say that this is a case of subsidiarity, or that it is more important to adopt the report than the principled choice in Amendment No 20. To do so nevertheless infringes another right, namely the right of every European to be able to work within the European Union. By rejecting Amendment No 20, the labour mobility of a number of citizens is curtailed quite severely, and this in a progressive Europe, no less. Fortunately, this selfsame Parliament has, probably unwittingly, recently adopted a similar amendment in the Santini report. As a Liberal, I hope that this approval will offer sufficient guarantees for all European citizens.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, our debate this evening proves once again that energy is not a commodity like any other. The fate of the Alstom Group’s 120 000 employees can no more be guaranteed by free competition than the future of energy and its independence – and thus Europe’s political independence – can be by simply enforcing the rules and principles of the free market. Even in the happy home of liberalisation – I am referring to the United States of America – they know this and they know how to act accordingly. This is why, unlike the vast majority, if not all, of my colleagues, I personally welcome the endeavours of the Commission to retrain its sights in this area. I am in favour of larger gas and oil reserves which, in the event of serious shortage, could prevent potential recourse to war in a world in which, as we know, the control of energy is often the primary cause of war. As regards management, I am also in favour of greater solidarity between States during shortages, under the auspices of the European Commission, in order to avoid political tensions or even conflicts between Member States where those that are best provided for are able to impose their choices on others. This is an area where, for me, legitimate respect for the powers of the Member States and the need for the European Commission to be given greater authority are not contradictory. We therefore need to follow you, Madam President, if only - as Mr Linkohr has just said - to avoid you or the Commission one day being criticised for having done nothing.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I want to wish the Italian Presidency every success. Taking place, as it is, at an extremely important time for the future of Europe, I want it to be harmonious and effective at one and the same time. I support what has already been voiced by a number of other speakers, namely the wish to allow a new constitutional treaty to see the light of day during this Presidency. Italy is a great European country. It is also a country of great Europeans, and I am sure that, faithful to this heritage, the President-in-Office of the Council, the President of the Commission and the Vice-President of the Convention will be very keen to agree upon essentials in order to give Europe a new face. This new Constitution that we shall adopt, I hope, by referendum will, as I see it, have one great virtue: that of finally existing. This fundamental text must, however, be a point of departure for a new Europe and not an end in itself. I also think that the next elections will be an opportunity for our fellow citizens to affirm their desire to go further in common European policies, whether it is a question of coordinating economic, budgetary, fiscal and social policies, of creating a Europe of defence and research or of defining a common foreign policy that can finally count for something in the world. That will be the next challenge for those who like this idea of a Europe that both unites and transcends us. The Italian Presidency will also have a great responsibility for making advances in the fields of education and culture. You will have to give further impetus to a Europe of knowledge, and I want us to be able to adopt the Erasmus Mundus programme as quickly as possible so that it might be put into effect no later than 2004. Finally, I would take the liberty of drawing your attention to the meeting of UNESCO’s General Assembly in October 2003, which should tackle the draft international convention on cultural diversity. It is more than desirable that the EU should adopt a clear and public position on this draft. In conclusion, I want to express the wish that this Italian Presidency might be informed by the spirit of the signatories of the Treaty of Rome.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, during the debate on common security and defence policy there was a roll call vote on Amendment No 36. However, yesterday's Minutes refers to the wrong paragraph and thus the vote does not reflect what actually took place in this Chamber. I have not had a chance to look in detail at this voting list, but that is one mistake I have spotted already. I should like to draw that to your attention.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Commission has repeatedly confirmed the need to establish a knowledge-based Europe geared towards the market of European citizens, a more competitive and dynamic knowledge-based Europe which also promotes quality training and education, particularly by guaranteeing the mutual recognition of professional qualifications and diplomas as a concrete and tangible proof of European citizenship. That requires that any obstacle to the free movement of citizens, to the mobility of workers and to the professions in the single European market be eliminated. To date, however, this is subject to major difficulties which, without going into too much detail, I want to list: the lack of any real spirit of cooperation, help and understanding; the complexity of existing national legislation; the reluctance of national authorities; the preference given to educational and training criteria instead of to examinations intended to ensure that education is really equivalent for the purpose of recognising diplomas; the lack of academic recognition of diplomas and other courses of study. Mr Zappalà’s well-balanced report, which I support, has dealt in a constructive and pragmatic way with the question of a European Union that is increasingly consensual and united wherein European citizens will play a primary role, particularly citizens with professional qualifications. There are, however, I repeat, certain outstanding matters and problems that must be resolved and, as the Committee for Petitions and I myself believe, over and above any statement of principle, effective action is required – as happened, for example, in the case of consultation – with a view to establishing effective measures to control and promote resources for the purpose of embracing the different Community provisions governing the legal systems of the Member States and maximising the potential of the Community system itself for the recognition of professional qualifications and academic diplomas, with a view to making that system more transparent, responsive and accessible to the persons concerned. In addition to this, greater attention must be paid to new information technologies in recognition of the need for permanent life-long learning. The Committee on Petitions has received a large number of petitions on the matter and this demonstrates the urgency with which this situation must be tackled in order to establish Europe effectively as an open place for culture, the professions and European citizens.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I believe three basic issues arise out of the 2004 budget guidelines. These are firstly, the potential level of expenditure, secondly, improved implementation, and thirdly, strategic options for expenditure. As regards the level of expenditure, the Union’s budget currently represents 1.02 % of gross Community income, and is at its lowest level. The present perspectives would allow an additional 5 000 billion. The same level of expenditure is planned for the 2004 budget. We are therefore operating in austerity mode, which should please the Council. Sound implementation is crucial for the 2004 budget. Payment take up has been well below that forecast during the last three years. The total surplus for those three years amounts to some 23 000 billion. Last year’s declaration on implementation profiles and the plan to do away with the abnormal RAL must therefore be followed through. Concerning priorities, I am sure Mr Mulder’s report is on the right lines. It takes account of two key issues, namely the concerns and expectations of the citizens on the one hand, and on the other, the conditions needed to allow the budgetary authority to reach a consensual decision. The 2004 budget is crucial and represents a new departure for the Union. There are a number of reasons why this is so. The citizens understand that their security, freedom and prosperity demand appropriate budgetary decisions and common instruments. External border controls, the fight against organised crime and terrorism demand increased capacity for Europol and Eurojust. Finally, the promotion of business activity is crucial to the success of an enlarged Union. Many issues are still outstanding. I refer for example to the potential financial implications of agricultural reform or of the adoption of the adjustment of the financial perspectives. I have to say that I am amazed the Council is not represented in the House today. Nonetheless, the Council must realise that there is only one way of dealing with the challenges before us, and that is by reaching agreement with Parliament.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the chairman of the Group of the European People’s Party expressed his sympathy with regard to my own group, because at the time we made heavy weather of the decision on Customs Union. I would like to return this sympathy on the grounds of the ease, with which the Group of the European People’s Party has undergone a complete U-turn in its position since the agreement on Customs Union. Mr President, I have listened attentively to what the President of the Council and also Commissioner Verheugen have said on the subject of the possible candidacy of Turkey in Helsinki. I would have welcomed it if it really had been an honourable position of the European Union with regard to Turkey. But I am afraid that we are re-establishing a policy which, for decades, has permitted us to hide behind the Greeks and say that the Greeks would never agree to it. Now, as the Greeks are showing that they would agree under certain circumstances, we must, in fact, come clean. We must really ask ourselves in all conscience if we want to have Turkey in the European Union or not. Nuances of wording, whether it concerns one candidate for one candidacy, as in this case, or whether we should establish a new category of candidates, who are indeed valid candidates but with whom no negotiations are held, will by no means be beneficial to our relationship with Turkey. My last remark concerns a matter in which nuances of wording once again play a role. We are always talking about the Kurdish question, but we never talk about the Kurdish people. This is a people of between 12 and 20 million individuals, who nowhere, either in Turkey or in other countries, can enjoy their freedoms, human rights and rights as citizens. We must support the cause of these people.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the original version of the Giorgos Katiforis report had the great merit of making strong recommendations, based on the precise observations of the Commission report on the economic situation in Europe, for a European Union strategy capable of giving continuity and stability to the sustainable development prospects emerging this year for all the countries of our continent. These recommendations concerned the need for effective coordination of the Union’s economic policies and the need to overcome the way that economic policy is managed separately from social policy, which has hitherto been a serious barrier to the definition of a coherent strategy for fighting unemployment and moving towards full employment. It is this absence of management of the European economy which is responsible, my dear Mr von Wogau, for the fall of the euro. The report also contained recommendations concerning the creation of a European research area and the promotion in all countries of the Union of converging measures on research, lifelong learning and employability which would overcome any sort of unfair competition between the States in the field of taxation. Lastly, the recommendations also incorporated an updated version of the proposals in President Delors’ White Paper on the promotion of a European project for the development of a common network of infrastructures and services. These recommendations, which, for the most part, are consistent with the guidelines in the Portuguese presidency’s work programme and which will therefore be discussed at the Lisbon Summit, have been rejected or distorted by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs of this Parliament, by a majority which only managed to achieve a fragile unity in its rejection of the idea of a European Union which is founded on the convergence of national policies and not just on the grouping together of markets. Mr President, this Parliament, which has shown itself to be highly Europeanist so many times, must, on this occasion, show that it can express a majority vote for a political union of Europe which is capable of dealing with market weak spots and failures.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mrs Sauquillo was right to question the inspection procedure with regard to the way in which the Union’s money is spent. The first inspection is carried out at the General Assembly which is held between September and December. I should like to ask the Commission how this is done at the moment. Does the European Commission fulfil a coordinating role at that Assembly? Has anybody been especially appointed to carry out this task, and is this inspection carried out effectively in concert with the 15 Member States at this General Assembly? I take a keen interest in this matter because I was Dutch representative working on this General Assembly in the 1970s. My second question relates to the United Nations’ refugee work. I know that resources have been cut considerably in this respect. The present High Commissioner for refugees has already paid a call on the Commissioner to see if matters could take a turn for the better. Does this new alliance with the United Nations also mean a financial improvement for the work of the UN’s refugee organisation? This would indeed be good news for the new High Commissioner.

Political group: PPE-DE