GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Kinnock, I am glad that you have been able to get back to your roots as transport commissioner by delivering your speech to us just in time. When you took up your new responsibility in 1999, you promised to create the most modern and most efficient administration in the world. Now you are trying to get us to buy the idea that, as your term of office in this Commission draws to a close, you have actually achieved this exalted objective, but, Commissioner, things in the garden are not quite as rosy as the glowing colours in which you have depicted them would suggest. There are many dark clouds overshadowing it, and a number of points that I would like to take up. The first is that it is, in my view, unacceptable that the Commission’s administration does not reflect what the budgetary authority wants. I am glad to see that Commissioner Vitorino has now arrived; we discussed this under the heading of information policy this morning. We have topped up the funds for this, leaving nothing in the reserves, but, at ground level, there is no administration and the decentralisation to which you referred does not work either. Agreements with the Member States are not concluded and there are no funds for things – like the outcome of the Convention – in which the Commission has no political interest. You have EUR 10 million at your disposal, and only EUR 1.5 million have been spent. It is not your job to decide for yourself how the Budget is to be administered, but to ensure that the administration actually carries out what the Council and Parliament have decided. You are failing to do so, and, as Commissioner for personnel, you share the responsibility for that. I could give you many other examples of this. Secondly, this is also about those areas in which the Commission itself bears financial responsibility. The excuse is always given that it is the dastardly Member States who administer 80% of the budget, but, where you yourself are responsible, you have to maintain order and, the members of the Committee on Budgetary Control have given you the clear message as regards the way you do that: that is your responsibility and you have to answer for it!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as a Euro-enthusiast and a Catalan I should be very disappointed by this draft Constitution. Despite the efforts of my fellow Member from Scotland, Mr Neil MacCormick, those of us Parliament terms regionalists did not succeed in having our demands accepted. Our demands were a model of moderation. We wanted to be able to participate at a European level as far as our legislative competencies permitted. We wanted the right to submit cases to European jurisdiction to defend the latter. We wanted equal language rights and we wanted internal enlargement to be an option. For the most part, the Convention kept to the philosophy of the Treaty of Westphalia and the concept of the nation state. As a Euro-enthusiast and a Catalan, I should be very disappointed, and yet I am not. I am not disappointed because my fellow countrymen from Salses to Guadamar, from Fraga to Maó, have already come to the logical conclusion. The State of Catalonia must be re-established if we are to be able to contribute fully to Europe. Ladies and gentlemen, I assure you that the process of enlargement will not stop at the Balkans. The day will soon come when my country, having regained its liberty and dignity, will be knocking on this door. You will not refuse us entry. As you well know, we have been Europeans ever since the days of Charlemagne.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I wish to point out one remarkable characteristic of the vote that is currently in progress. With effect from 1 April the European Union will be taking over from NATO responsibility for peacekeeping in Macedonia. This will be the first military operation to be conducted under European Union leadership. I would like to point out that the issue of democratic control is of even greater importance in this instance than in others; that the mandate of a parliament – specifically of this European Parliament – is required; and that this principle, whereby similar operations have to be subject to democratic control, has to be embodied in the future European Constitution.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is a villain who has committed atrocities against his own and the Kurdish people. There is no doubt that we can well do without leaders such as Saddam Hussein. It is worth remembering, however, who it was who helped promote him to high office. It was the same country which now wants to take the lead in bringing him down, namely the United States. Yesterday’s friends are tomorrow’s enemies. How long is this to continue? In the fight against terrorism, we have now become friends with the mullahs of Iran who still to this very day permit the stoning of women. We are friends with the House of Saud, where democracy is a completely unknown concept. These are today’s friends. Are they also tomorrow’s enemies, however? What would be the consequences of a possible attack on Iraq? I know that the American Congress has discussed this in detail, but where is the discussion in Parliament not only of our views and opinions concerning the United States and Saddam Hussein but also of the consequences for the whole region of a possible attack upon Iraq? It is already a very unstable area we are talking about. I think the European Parliament should be involved in getting such an inquiry under way. Moreover, I should like to ask whether there is agreement in the Council on the policy in relation to Iraq. I should like to know, for example, whether the Danish Presidency is sticking to its own traditional policy, to the effect that we do not say anything until we are asked, irrespective of the fact that the Danish Defence Minister is of the view that we should ideally attack Iraq right now. Is the Danish Presidency in favour of a common policy on this issue? Is there agreement about the policy, and does this include demands for a UN mandate and for clear evidence of Saddam Hussein’s possible involvement in the attack on the World Trade Centre or collaboration with al-Qa’ida?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, it is with great regret, not to say anguish, that I see the outcome of the vote on the motion today in this House. It is tragic to see that, like the Council, Parliament too has decided not to speak out. The deserted Chamber is, at this moment, the tragic symbol of our behaviour in this international crisis which is proving so terrible. This sign of impotence can only be a cause of pain to all those who have always hoped and continue to hope that Europe will be to the world a shining example of balance, progress, peace and guaranteeing respect for the rights of peoples and international law. Despite the fact that no resolution has been adopted, there were significant votes, the most important of which would appear to be that in which Parliament opted by a large majority for a common foreign and security policy with areas of enhanced cooperation. This is the only glimmer of hope in the despair which follows a vote which does us no credit.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission communication and Mr Whitehead's report on the Consumer Policy Strategy 2002-2006 are quite crucial documents. In the EU's Member States, people are relying on Parliament constantly upholding the protection of consumers, which they regard as a very important, indeed crucial, element in the EU's internal market. In our homelands, the standard of consumer protection is an important yardstick for measuring the effectiveness of our work. Various committees have delivered their opinions. The Committee on Budgets had the task of examining and evaluating the financial statement for this Consumer Policy Strategy. Whilst it adopted the Commission communication, it proposed to the lead committee a number of regulatory adjustments. The Committee also regrets the fact that no attempt had already been made to evaluate or qualify the effects that the measures proposed by the strategy as submitted would have on our finances or on the Budget. The Committee furthermore points out that, if the measures envisaged in the strategy are, on being incorporated into the proposal for a new legal framework, to extend beyond 2006, the finances will have to be confirmed, either by an agreement on a new Financial Perspective, or by annual Budget resolutions. I therefore hope that time can still be found to make the necessary adjustments or to allow the proposed amendments to influence practical implementation.

Political group: PPE-DE
There has been a dramatic increase in illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings in recent decades. We therefore need to find fresh ways of combating this type of crime. It is important to pay special attention to the situation of the victims of this type of crime. They must be afforded protection and help, especially if they are minors or from a similarly vulnerable group. These immigrants are exploited by gangmasters, and given their illegal status, it is very difficult for them to escape, since they are often afraid to contact the relevant authorities. I endorse this Directive, as I feel that it will make a welcome contribution towards both helping the victims and catching the criminals. Short-term residence permits are to be granted to victims of an action to facilitate illegal immigration or trafficking in human beings who cooperate with the competent authorities. Overall, the proposed amendments are aimed at improving the situation of the victims. The idea has been suggested of a reflection period, to enable them to consider whether or not to cooperate, which may be difficult in view of the difficulties they may have, not only in speaking about their situation, but ... (Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, my point of order is exactly the same as Mr Provan’s. I, like many Members in this Chamber, have looked at the official record at lunchtime today and it does say 273 for, and 272 against. If that is the official record – and that is the record that is published – then I would suggest that the result given by the President this morning is incorrect.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we very much welcome these two positive reports and congratulate the rapporteurs and fully support the vital importance of the MEDA programme. In this respect it is critically important that the funding should be properly applied. I would urge the House to support the two amendments tabled to the Piétrasanta report in the name of this group. As a member of Parliament's delegation to the Mashreq countries and Gulf States, I am concerned that the association agreements with these countries should be ratified as expeditiously as possible; the Jordanian agreement in particular is only slowly proceeding through the ratification process. Our amendment urges the Member State parliaments which have not yet ratified the agreement to hasten this process. Our other amendment refers to a degree of hypocrisy in our approach to developing a fully free-trade zone in the Mediterranean area. As Mr Valdivielso pointed out in his speech, the EU has a large trade surplus with this area. Yes, we call for a free-trade zone but when it comes to those products which these countries could most readily export into Europe – i.e. agricultural and food products – we maintain trade restrictions. Our friends in these countries understandably question our sincerity. I accept that free access to Europe for Mediterranean products poses problems for producers in our southern Member States, but surely this problem could be compensated at least to some extent in the CAP. So our second amendment calls for the acceleration of progress to free trade for all products including food and agriculture. I would appreciate the Commission's estimate as to the likely timing for achieving a full free-trade zone in the Mediterranean and how it intends to implement this. I would urge my colleagues to support these amendments along with the two excellent reports under consideration.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I can say that my group and I hold Mrs Figueiredo’s report in very high regard. Our common fisheries policy is only as strong as its weakest link. This means that monitoring is particularly important, because it is only by means of effective quota management that we shall be able to conduct a successful common fisheries policy in the future, too. For that reason, I have tabled a number of amendments, also on behalf of my group, which the Committee on Fisheries and the rapporteur have taken over; for this I thank them. Differences in the Member States’ monitoring methods must be eliminated. For that reason, we strongly advocate a Community office to monitor the enforcement of the CFP. That policy would also benefit from being firmly rooted in society and from confidence on the part of the sector itself. Consequently, we have campaigned for the possibility of setting up transnational producer organisations. Enabling cross-border coordination gives a system of sustainable fishing a broader basis. The efforts of fishermen are indispensable in this regard. On that point, I should also like to call once more for particular attention to the shrimp sector. For years, this sector had a system of sustainable fishing, which earned the praise of many. However, a national competition authority in the Netherlands intervened, and this was brought to an abrupt end. On behalf of my group, I should like to make an emphatic plea, including to the Commission, that Commissioner Fischler make a commitment to permitting these producer organisations. This is incorporated into an amendment which I have tabled, and the Committee on Fisheries has approved. Too much and too often, the efforts of other Commissioners seem to frustrate Commissioner Fischler in that regard. I am referring in particular to Commissioners Monti and Bolkestein, whose portfolios include competition policy. An excessively liberal approach on the part of one section of the Commission must not frustrate the social position of fishermen and the environmental situation in the North Sea. In that sense, too, I am very happy with this report. The Commission would do well to realise that the efforts of fisheries’ producer organisations, in particular – including across borders – will be indispensable to a genuinely rigorous approach to the fisheries issue in the future.

Political group: PPE-DE
We voted for both the Oomen-Ruijten report and the Myller report because both propose setting emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants. Although the proposals are limited, they do represent a slight improvement as compared with the present situation. We nevertheless regret that because of capitalist interests and national self-interest, which are two sides of the same coin, the proposed texts delay application until 2010. Whenever an attempt is made to control private interests, even by proposing measures in the public interest, it is always the latter that suffers in the process. Report Marinho (A5-0274/2001)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I voted against Amendment No 54 which would have allowed a derogation from our yield limits on cigarettes exported to third countries. All cigarettes are harmful. None do any good. Smoking is an addiction, indeed a slow suicide, as we have voted, and manufacturers have admitted and known for some time that it causes cancer and other diseases. I agree that third countries should set their own health rules but we should not approve of double standards. If we choose tight protection for our citizens we should not allow the exporting of more dangerous products which profit from the addiction of others. No man is an island. All human beings are involved with each other. I cannot condone profiting from the ill-health of third world citizens.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in spite of all the fine words which we have just heard, it seems clear to me that after the enormous effort that went into Tampere, the results are something of an anti-climax. The only resolution adopted was to adopt the resolution to adopt a resolution at a later date in order to resolve the problems we face. Yet the situation is urgent. While all the States in Tampere were pledging their commitment to human rights, the Belgian government was sending several dozen gypsies back to Slovakia by chartered plane, under military guard. In France, due to changes in the legislation, around 70,000 immigrants now find themselves without the proper documents, in an illegal situation. In Saint-Denis in the Parisian region, six of them started a hunger strike more than 30 days ago. The question remains, how can Member States be forced to respect the rights and the dignity of immigrants and asylum-seekers? In concrete terms, this means freedom of movement, voting rights, the right to live together as a family, abolition of the double penalty, regularisation of the situation of immigrants without proper documents, and an end to racist discrimination. The Tampere approach is, thus, a poor one. Rather than harmonising the repressive laws in this Europe which more and more resembles a fortress, let us establish real status and real rights for immigrants and asylum-seekers throughout the Community.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, in view of the short time available, I will address the most important point first. Mrs Klingvall has just stated that she intends to help to achieve agreement in three areas, in precisely the three areas where the European Parliament has said no, for we have voted against the reports by Mr Ceyhun, Mr Nassauer and Mr Kirkhope. It is quite worrying that the presidency does not respect the opinion of Parliament. I myself think that it is fairly clear after the debate today that responsibility for overall policy in this field should rest with the Commission. Alarming figures are presented regarding population trends – Europe is shrinking. Member States are estimated to lose 10 percent and candidate countries 20 percent. We will see a shortage of both highly qualified and less qualified labour, and both in the short and the long term. Our external borders are under great pressure. The fact that Europe must be opened up to immigration of labour is a conclusion which even the toughest opposition have adopted. However, we know nothing about how this will work – nothing about how the system will be designed, nothing about quota systems or green cards, whether these openings and solutions are only to apply to those who are highly educated or whether they will also cover those with few qualifications. Has the Council no practical solutions in this area? Will crime and harsh reality decide? We look forward to the proposals which the Commission will present in this field. The Commission appears to be the most suitable body to do this.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I welcome with satisfaction the proposals before us because I believe that not only will aviation safety in general be improved, but this will also strengthen cooperation procedures, as well as reinforcing preventive strategies. Importantly, this report will also offer an adequate degree of confidentiality for the people closely involved, who have the most intimate knowledge of how to run a safe aviation industry: I refer to aircraft crew, air traffic controllers and maintenance personnel. It is also important for us to stress best practice, particularly in the area of research and development. Here we welcome the setting up of the European Coordination Centre for Aviation Incident Reporting. That is why we support the rapporteur, who has been as careful as ever to ensure consistency between EU legislation and the international framework provided by the ICAO. This is also the reason why we cannot accept the excessive restrictions implied by some amendments adopted in committee, especially those that seek to hide the responsibilities of the operators. Companies will not become safer and more competitive if we hide these responsibilities. We believe that customers have the right to be fully informed. Similarly we cannot accept those amendments that deliberately try to weaken the position of people in the industry, whose duty it is to accurately point out incidents. To have a reliable system of occurrences reporting in civil aviation, we have to ensure confidentiality for the people who report them. The Commission's proposals are right, even if there may be a risk of legal implications. The only risk to safety we can see comes from an attempt to dilute the proposals in favour of the airline companies. I thank Mr Collins for his excellent report and hope that his common sense approach will be adopted by Parliament.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as a new Member of the European Parliament and as a permanent member of the Conciliation Committee for the first time, I have to say that I was satisfied with this procedure, which saw representatives of the main institutions of the European Union making every effort to achieve a happy medium, that is to say, between the possible and the feasible, bearing in mind existing conditions and possibilities, which are of course not the same for all Europe’s ports. Especially with regard to fees, the important thing is that agreement was reached that the ships would pay part of the cost of waste disposal regardless of whether they use the port facilities or not. This will prevent difficulties arising for many ports and ships. It is clear that this substantially reduces the incentive to discharge at sea. It also leaves each port the option of having its own charging policy. Let us not forget that the European ports in the Mediterranean face competition from the ports of North Africa, whereas the Baltic or North Sea ports do not face any competition. What is more, the possibility of amending the system to cover additional costs, should this prove necessary during its implementation, is guaranteed. The essential thing is that, by approving the joint text under debate, we will have a directive that will protect our seas and coastlines from pollution caused by ships, and we will also have enhanced the image of the European Union as a standard-bearer for environmental policy and as an example for the rest of the world to follow.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I was part of the observer mission that went to Zimbabwe, as was Mr Gahler and others here. I want to explode the myth that this is about land and land ownership: This is about politics. This is about the fact that Mugabe knows that if they had the same votes that were cast last year in the general election, he would lose a presidential election. He is driving the farmers and their farm workers off the land, out of the constituencies, so that they cannot register to vote. It is plainly about politics. It is not about colonial powers. It is about politics. Those farms are well run, they provide churches, schools and hospital treatment in those areas. The communities come together. 70% of Zimbabwe is about agriculture and the economy is being destroyed. We need smart sanctions to be taken on President Mugabe. He is not listening to placations. We have got to act and we have got to act now. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE