GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, I should like to touch upon quite a small part of the budget, namely that relating to the decentralised agencies, as they are called. Two agencies have the problem of being physically situated in countries where the rate of inflation is higher than the EU average, and this erodes their budgets and, therefore, their ability to carry out their tasks. One of the agencies is that in Dublin, which is engaged in developing the social dialogue, partly in the candidate countries. The other agency is that in Turin which develops vocational training in the Balkans and within the framework of the MEDA and TACIS programmes. The Commission’s budgeting does not take account of this problem of inflation, and I believe that more new agencies are at present being established in order to ensure there is the necessary administrative expertise. The agencies differ greatly from one another in the ways in which they are set up and in the tasks they have, and I therefore hope that, in the future, we can obtain a budget reading that better takes account of the agencies’ different structures and different needs.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would like, as a matter of priority, to thank Parliament for lending its support to aid for Mongolia. I hope this will lead to a much more proactive approach on the part of the Commission, as I have not seen a sign of this yet. It is unacceptable for the Commission only to take a lukewarm interest in a country which probably has no mineral resources, which, in terms of human rights, is doing a relatively good job in the region, which is small and very much agriculture-based. It may not occupy centre stage but is very needy despite this. This Parliament has noticed this and offered its support, and I urge the Commission to take this message extremely seriously and to grant this aid.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Council’s legislative proposal on the adoption by Greece of the single currency on 1 January 2001 is a positive proposal which responds to the objectives of the European Union to strengthen social and economic cohesion through Economic and Monetary Union. The New Democracy team within the European People’s Party has always vigorously supported the policies needed so that Greece, which was outside the first round of Member States, could honour the obligations needed in order to join the euro zone. The truth is that Greece now meets the convergence criteria, with the exception of the public debt criterion. However, this also applied in the case of Italy and Belgium and Greece should not suffer adverse discrimination in the present case. In fact, economic development and convergence policies started in Greece at the beginning of the 1990s, as both the Commissioner and the representative of the European Central Bank stressed during the meeting of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, and they concern various governments and various political powers. However, they are due mainly to the efforts of the Greek people as a whole. Policies in Greece need to focus today on further structural changes, while maintaining an anti-inflationary line, with the aim of achieving a real social market economy in conditions of healthy competition, so that Greece can keep comfortably to the Dublin Stability and Development Pact. EMU will be a real success once it succeeds in uniting all the Member States, far more Member States such as Sweden, where convergence is proceeding exceptionally well. I hope that soon the verdict of the Swedish people will take the completion of the euro zone one step further. For the time being, we call on the European Parliament to vote in favour of Greece’s accession to the euro zone and we assure you that, as far as we, the main opposition are concerned, we shall use our policies to support the efforts being made to apply the rules of the Stability Pact and to honour joint European obligations within the framework of a unified country without borders. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I must speak against taking this oral amendment into account. Everyone knows that Cyprus has a complicated history and that mistakes have been made on both sides. However, this report is not about history – it is a report on the progress made by Cyprus towards accession and, in my view, this amendment has no place in this report. (The President took note that more than 12 Members rose to oppose taking the oral amendment into account) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0262/2001) by Mrs Stenzel, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, on Malta’s application for membership of the European Union and the state of negotiations [COM(2000)708 – C5-0608/2000 – 1999/2029(COS)] (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0249/2001) by Mr Collins, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, on the Commission communication to the European Parliament and the Council on the protection of air passengers in the European Union [COM(2000) 365 – C5-0635/2000 – 2000/2299(COS)] (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0264/2001) by Mr Gerhard Schmid, on behalf of the Temporary Committee on the ECHELON Interception System, on the existence of a global system for the interception of private and commercial communications (ECHELON interception system) (2001/2098(INI))

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today, you are called upon to give your opinion on the various draft reports on the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy. I will not talk about the substance but, as Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I cannot ignore the comments, not to say the criticisms, some of you will be tempted to make as regards the procedure chosen for the adoption of these various reports. Unfortunately, we were pressed for time and I am the first to regret this. The goal of the Council presidency was to have Parliament’s opinion by the end of June. The time we were allotted was very short. However, we have chosen to respond to this request so that it cannot be said that the principle of consulting the European Parliament merely causes delays in the discussions underway. In fact, at a time when the debate on the development of the European institutions is considering precisely the competence of our House, any delay in the consultation procedure could have been interpreted as a sign that Members were incapable of dealing with an issue head-on and giving their opinion within the allotted timeframes. That is why, in the Committee on Agriculture, we adopted a procedure that made it possible to respect both the timetable set for us by the Council presidency, which is keen to move this issue forward, and the right of expression and of amendment of the members of the Committee on Agriculture. We achieved this as a result of the remarkable work of the committee staff, and also the coordinators. I felt it was necessary, Mr President, to explain why we adopted a working method dictated by the urgency of the situation and increased the pace of the work, whilst respecting our fellow Members’ right of expression. As far as I am concerned, it is the result of a compromise achieved through the desire of the members of the Committee on Agriculture to preserve the key provisions on the management of agricultural markets laid down by the common agricultural policy, whilst allowing us to move towards a form of agriculture that gives greater consideration to the general interest. Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you must now take the right decisions to guarantee a decent income and a future for our farming families.

Political group: PPE-DE
I shall be very brief. My question is about whether the Irish case would have been more serious if it had concerned a country within EMU and within the common currency, but with greater economic clout. Do you think that the case of Ireland is less serious because it is a country of less economic importance?

Political group: PPE-DE
I would like to thank the Minister and the Commissioner for their speeches and for committing themselves before the European Parliament on the crucial matter we are discussing today. The presence of women in decision-making bodies, in particular, is a question of democracy. All citizens, both men and women, should be able to see, to feel that they are genuinely represented by those they have elected and those who rule. If we consider the fact that more than half the population is made up of women but that that there are many more men than women present in these decision-making bodies, it is clear that we are still far from true democracy. However, it is also a question of political agendas. In addition to making up the majority of the population, women are also the most dynamic element in society: it is women who have made the greatest contribution to the creation of new enterprises in Europe in recent years; a greater percentage of young women obtain irregular work contracts than men, and in many of our regions, they are the main feature of the innovation, training, performance and flexibility development model. Out of a sample of women who work in and around Milan, where I live, 90% said that they do not have enough time to do all they need to in a day. Women work an average of 60 hours a week, which is 20 hours longer than men. The price paid by women for following their desire to be protagonists in all spheres is that they never have enough time. If this is true, and it is, any appropriate policy which aims to find positive solutions to these problems must start from this point. Laws, programmes and interventions must be implemented which are well-constructed, coordinated and audacious, in order to encourage the formation of new cultural, economic, social, institutional and political ruling classes whose modernity is characterised by the involvement of women. Much has been achieved on many issues in Europe, but we are still far from resolving the question of equal representation. I agree with the Commissioner that it is time for the European political sphere – the entire European political sphere – to represent women and men on an equal footing, and for decisive action to be taken in this matter.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I thank the Commissioner for his statement and the facts that he confirmed. It may be advantageous at this moment just to say what has actually been proposed by the UK government and also what they are proposing, bearing in mind the crisis in Britain and indeed throughout the whole of the European Union with regard to the road haulage industry. It must be said at the outset that this is not just a specific British problem. The proposal was put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a pre-budget statement made six months before the full budget statement made in the spring of 2001. It contained a number of proposals, not just specifically this one on the vignette, which will effect the haulage industry. I can assure my Irish colleagues that the vignette proposal is being made in full cognisance of the euro-vignette directive and is likely to be along similar lines to those already in place, as Commissioner Vitorino explained, in many of the present Member States of the European Union. It is worth pointing out that at the moment lorries from the United Kingdom are faced with vignette or toll charges on roads in other EU Member States but so far such levies have not been charged within the United Kingdom. I am sure that the United Kingdom government will be responding to the Commission's request in discussions with the Commission as well as the haulage industry to explore ways in which the vignette scheme can operate within the present euro-vignette directive. The details of our scheme have yet to be put in place. I understand Mr McCartin's concerns, but it seems to me that a lot of what is being said about the UK system is based not on fact but on rumour and things that are being said in the industry rather than things that have been proposed by the UK government. I know that the UK government want to consult with hauliers and I also know that the UK government recognises the specific position of Ireland and I am sure that it will be talking to its counterparts in Dublin as well as in Belfast. What we need to get clear today is that the UK is proposing what it is doing in full recognition that it must consult the European Union and in full recognition that there is EU legislation in place that it must abide by. It also recognises that if it charges the euro-vignette system then it will also have to charge similar amounts to its own UK hauliers. It recognises that whatever scheme it brings in must be non-discriminatory. In conclusion, we are being premature in the European Parliament in holding this debate, but I welcome the fact and the statement from Commissioner Vitorino which clearly indicates that the UK government has the right to introduce a euro-vignette system provided it keeps within the rules and regulations already in place. I believe that is what the UK government wishes.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, after the reform of the CAP we now have to deal with Cancun. It is quite clear that in this context it has to be said that our European trade objectives do not demonstrate our will to reduce the gaps in development between North and South, between developed countries and the rest of the world. In this sense, in terms of agriculture, we of course need to agree to increase the special and differential treatment for LDCs that are already included in the Marrakesh Treaty. We also need to confirm the results of Doha with regard to the substantial reduction of our export refunds, and at the same time, to ensure that this measure is extended to all forms of export subsidies because we are aware that it is not only the Union that is involved. At the same time, it is clear that the Union should condemn the recent American farm bill, which protects American producers against the ups and downs of the market, and which therefore threatens to generate an excess in supply and a fall in prices on international markets. As well as this, Commissioner, the Union must defend the right of each Member State of the WTO to set its production and food safety standards and to apply them to the products that come on to their markets. European producers have a right to this guarantee on imports, as well as international recognition of geographical indications in order to increase the value of their regions and traditional know-how. All in all, Commissioner, Cancun must benefit the developing world, but without being detrimental to the large majority of small and medium-scale European farmers.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Commission is in an unenviable position. Airlines are almost certainly breaking the law on data protection by giving the US authorities confidential information about their passengers. To take action would harm our airlines and may lead to disruption in travel to the US; not to act rides roughshod over individual privacy in the European Union. The Commission has sought to reach an agreement with the United States. The concerns about this agreement are widespread. They are shared by the Article 29 Committee, and quite possibly by the heads of state and government meeting last weekend, who amended the draft presidency conclusions on this issue. They are very much borne out from this House in this report. In the United States widespread criticism of methods adopted by the government in the fight against terrorism is evident, whether it is to do with the policy of detention without trial or the way in which the heavy hand of the state is being imposed in areas like this. The Commission's proposed deal on the transfer of data is a deal too far: more information is sought than is strictly necessary; that information can be held too long with no right for the individual to correct it; there is no right to compensation for people denied boarding of aircraft and no legal redress against abuse of personal data by the state. Liberal Democrats believe that it is possible to be tough on terrorism and true to the treaties we have signed on civil liberties. We bow to nobody in our determination to fight terrorism. We urge our Member States to act more effectively. We recognise the need to work with democracies across the Atlantic; but let us do so intelligently, with a response that is measured and proportionate, and not sacrifice our freedoms in our determination to fight those who threaten them.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I should like to express my concern that nobody in the French presidency can read any of the European languages apart from French. Also on this point, will the presidency confirm that under the Treaty it is the Fourteen – minus the country concerned – which would make a recommendation to suspend Austria from membership, should that be necessary? I am not arguing that it is necessary, but should it be necessary, could we not expect a view from the presidency over whether this particular case actually causes it some concern? Is it not right and proper that the same person should not be judge, jury and executioner and that the person making the accusation should not also be the minister of justice at the same time? Would one not criticise this kind of situation in, let us say, Zimbabwe or some other part of the world, if it arose there?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the proposal for the new bathing water directive that we are now discussing unfortunately has the same fundamental defect as the previous directive, namely a very vague definition of what is meant by bathing water. One consequence of this has so far been that the Commission has been able to come up with its own interpretation of the concept, ‘a large number of bathers’. It is thus unsatisfactory in terms of legal certainty for the new directive not to contain simple and clear information, either. It is also noteworthy that the directive does not take any account of the extremely varied conditions that apply in different Member States. In Sweden, we have, for example, 1932 miles of coast and 95 700 lakes with a surface area in excess of one hectare. Furthermore, we have the legal right of access to private land, which in principle means that everyone residing in our country has access to these bathing waters. Support for Amendment No 76 means yes to a simple, clear and, so too, legally certain definition. Nor should there be a negative effect upon Member States with basic conditions different from those in the countries of northern Europe. It should thus be possible to apply the directive throughout the EU.

Political group: PSE
For those people who might be confused by the word ‘forced’, it refers, of course, to prostitution and not to child labour. Before the vote on paragraph 16:

Political group: GUE-NGL
The Danish Social Democrats have today voted in favour of appointing nine new members of the Court of Auditors. All nine candidates are well qualified to become excellent members of the Court of Auditors. We would nonetheless remind the Member States that, in appointing candidates, they must take Article 247, Paragraph 2 of the Treaty seriously: ‘The Members of the Court of Auditors shall be chosen from among persons who belong or have belonged in their respective countries to external audit bodies or who are especially qualified for this office.’ The Court of Auditors plays a very important role in relation to supervising the Community’s funds. It is therefore very important that there should be enduring respect for its Members.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, normally any corrigenda to the various language versions are announced before the vote commences. I understand that corrections are needed to the Spanish version. Is the Bureau aware of this or not? If it is, I would be grateful if they could be announced. According to my information, there is a point in the Spanish version which has not been brought into line with the basic English version.

Political group: PSE
Four small countries in Europe are multilingual. They are Belgium, Switzerland, Moldavia and Macedonia. In part of the country, a large majority of the inhabitants speak a language which is the same as, or related to, that in the neighbouring country. The same applies to another section of the population, but involves a completely different language. In many cases, the inhabitants dislike the fact that they are being cut off from their same-language neighbours and wonder why they are still part of a state which unites them with another area of which they can hardly understand the language, if at all. Anyone who wants to keep such countries united, must ensure that there are no second-class citizens, no winners or losers, nor subordinates. This can only be done if the people are governed and educated in the majority language of their part of the country. Since the Macedonian government has not yet come to this realisation, it is driving part of its inhabitants to despair. It does pride itself on the presence of Albanian ministers, but does not ensure collective equality as it is in place in Belgium and Switzerland. Granting financial aid now and promising the country EU membership could lull that government into thinking that it need not solve that problem, and that it can ignore the anger of a large section of the population. By granting this premature aid, we are inciting unintended state violence. – Cederschiöld report (A5-0120/2001)

Political group: GUE-NGL
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. – Mr President, the General Secretary of the American National Council of Churches has recently branded the denial of human rights at Guantanamo Bay as a sin against God. I do not take a religious perspective, but it is clear that it is not only Europeans who feel strongly that the situation at Guantanamo Bay offends against our sense of justice. One of the senior justices in the United Kingdom, Lord Steyn, branded the proposed military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay as a stain on US justice and the term 'kangaroo court' springs to mind. The British Court of Appeal has branded the detention of prisoners there as a legal black hole. The Bush administration has argued that the Geneva Conventions are obsolete when it comes to dealing with terrorists and has chosen to apply neither these conventional laws of war nor the criminal law in which human rights norms should apply, that is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the US Constitution. It has tried to straddle both by inventing a new, residual category of 'unlawful combatant' in the potentially unlimited war on terror, which is transformed from a metaphorical to a literal term. However, that status is unknown in international law. Sadly, the denial of the prisoners' right to access to normal civil courts and the protection of the US Constitution has been backed by the US courts on the grounds that Guantanamo Bay – even though the US is in actual control of the base – is not sovereign US territory. But it is welcome that the Supreme Court has now said it would decide on whether the US courts have jurisdiction. I would end by saying that I regret the absence of the Council in this debate since, as Commissioner Patten has pointed out, the Commission does not have jurisdiction, and the failure of the Council to adopt a common position and a strategy to implement the upholding of the rule of law in Guantanamo Bay is a sad omission.

Political group: ELDR