GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I wholeheartedly support this report which endorses the Commission report on financial assistance to SMEs through the Growth and Employment Initiative. Since it is presently the case that most SMEs have some difficulty in breaking into the technology market, this financial assistance can often symbolise the make or break of a potentially very successful SME. It is all too often bemoaned that the EU has failed to foster a culture of innovation and enterprise: the European Investment Fund (EIF) is a vital way in which this imbalance can and should be redressed. The call for the close evaluation of projects is also welcome: in such a way there will be a vital element of accountability in the scheme. To bolster this, the call for the involvement for the European Parliament is also vital.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, representatives of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we welcome the Commission communication on the new financial perspective as an interesting debating exercise for the future. It will not be this Commission or this Parliament that take the final decisions, but here is the result and we must thank the entire College of Commissioners for having incorporated the various sensibilities. We consider this to be a good basis for negotiation. A financial perspective that is properly negotiated among the three institutions is a vital element for the rational development of the Union’s expenditure and for ensuring growth, competitiveness, employment, and economic and social cohesion within a framework of budgetary stability. That is the financial perspective on which this Parliament would like to vote. We would never vote in favour of a financial perspective based simply on accounting calculations or imposed unilaterally by one institution that had not negotiated with the others. This Parliament has already set out its position on three aspects of the financial perspective. The first of those was its duration, which in principle should coincide where possible with the duration of the mandates of the European Parliament and the Commission. Secondly, we have also stated our support for providing greater impetus for the political objectives laid down in Lisbon and Gothenburg. This development takes shape through the Union’s annual budgets and it is clear that without sufficient financial resources there can be no credible objectives. Indeed, look at the 2005 draft budget and you will see what budget restrictions are. Thirdly, we have on many occasions expressed our support for a financial perspective that is capable of fulfilling the objective of cohesion. Cohesion is and will continue to be the major inspiration behind the EU’s policies along with growth and stability. The 0.45% of gross national income for cohesion measures has been incorporated by this Parliament and forms part of our approach. If we cut corners with cohesion policy we will surely fail.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the tragic case of the courageous Russian journalist Andrey Babitsky illustrates once again the depth of the democratic crisis into which Russia has sunk. The entire Federation is allowing itself to be taken in by the war propaganda. A warlord has become President and he has even been described as a reformer in some western quarters. Journalists, on the other hand, who are simply going about their work in Russia, i.e. endeavouring to produce reports which are as objective as possible, are being treated like criminals. The Russian Government appears to have lost its fundamental understanding of what democracy is about and truth appears to have become a threat in its eyes. I can only reiterate my appeal to the Council and the Commission to stick to the rules. It is simply not possible for a country to have normal economic relations with the EU if it does not recognise democratic principles.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Mr Gomes for the Council and Mr Liikanen for the Commission this morning have both made very clear statements. As a UK Member of this Parliament I understand other Members’ concerns. This morning, and in recent days in particular, we have read and heard a lot of allegations. Even today we have heard talk of James Bond, of American espionage and we have had the rantings of the madman to my left a few moments ago. But today, and in the Citizens’ Rights Committee, we have had few real facts because of the secrecy. That is, after all, the nature of intelligence and military information work. If it was not secret and we all knew about it, it would not serve the purpose for which it would be intended and necessary. Members will therefore understand that it is the practice in the United Kingdom Government, like, I imagine, most or all other governments, not to comment on alleged interception whether the allegations are based on trivia or something perhaps more substantial. As Mr Liikanen has said, everything done in the United Kingdom is in line with a proper legal framework. Everything is subject to close parliamentary scrutiny in the House of Commons. We have very tight controls, both independent controls and control that emanates from the Secretary of State with the full consent of the United Kingdom Government. Finally and importantly, I want to reiterate that everything that has been conducted, or will be conducted, is in complete conformity with United Kingdom law, with United States law and, most importantly, is done with complete respect for, and in complete conformity with, the European Convention on Human Rights.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on seeing the Minutes, I am horrified to note that I have once again failed to sign the register of attendance, although I participated in a quite considerable number of roll-call votes. I would ask that my attendance be recorded in yesterday’s Minutes.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, my starting point is the EQUAL report and equality between men and women, although I must admit that it is sometimes hard to talk about this issue, which has a feeling of déjà vu about it when you are my age, in any case. Unfortunately, it is necessary to point out again that we do not have equality. A breakthrough in this regard may perhaps lead to changes in other areas, however. For me, equality certainly does not mean that both parties to a marriage work the whole time and hand the children over to a nanny, alias an immigrant who has not had the opportunity to obtain another job. If that is the case, we have not progressed one little bit since pagan times. No, equality means that we all participate in both working life and family life. Unfortunately, developments are not moving in that direction. On the contrary. I think, therefore, that paragraph 7 contains something very central, i.e. that EQUAL will be used as a testing ground for developing and promoting new ways of delivering employment policies. One can only hope that it succeeds. I should just like to say, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, that if I am not here when the Commission responds – not that I have asked any specific questions, but I should nonetheless hope that the Commission has been paying attention – then that is because the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities is meeting to discuss women in the decision-making process at the same time as the present debate is going on.

Political group: ELDR
I welcome the criticisms made in the report of the Commission’s draft, especially with regard to the temporary measures to define the provision of services and to the possibility of avoiding making social security contributions. In Portugal, the key element of the regulation and limitation of access to certain professions is Article 47 of Constitutional law. Restriction is only possible by means of National Assembly legislation. Access can only be restricted when other fundamental rights are at stake – life, health and the safety of persons and effects – whilst always respecting the criteria of proportionality, of need, and of ensuring that the measure is appropriate. The idea of consolidating all professional regulations in one single directive, taking account of the particular characteristics of each of these – doctors, veterinary surgeons, nurses, obstetricians, architects and dentists – is acceptable, since life, health and the safety of persons and effects are at stake. It is, however, unacceptable, and indeed incomprehensible, that the Directive does not include other healthcare professionals, who play a vital role in the health and safety of workers, such as health and safety officers at work, biologists, senior health technicians and diagnosis and therapy technicians. The draft Directive, by not setting out explicitly that in order to recognise professional qualifications training must be based ... (Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, the report before us has been commended by everyone as being useful and necessary. It concerns the use of ladders, scaffolding and ropes, working at heights, and, from time to time, alongside dangerous drops. The background to this report is, of course, the many accidents which have occurred in the past and the inadequacy of directives to date. This is why it is useful and necessary to have this report, although it has been a long time coming. However, all credit to Mr Skinner for finally managing to complete it. Despite this, it is a problem report in a way, not because it is causing something to be done, but because the sector we are dealing with is extremely diverse. It covers people working in the service sector, maintenance sector, painters, window cleaners, etc. Working at heights is not always for long periods of time but often for short spells. This means that the definitions we use should be specific rather than vague, and that the provisions we make should be enforceable, which is far from always being the case. I have already indicated that some descriptions are vague, including those describing “short duration” and “low level of risk”, for example, whilst the assessing of risks involving only a couple of people has been over-regulated. We have managed to discuss some of these instances within the committee and these sections have been deleted from the report, which has led to an improvement. I welcome the progress made and we should be able to continue in the same vein. Let us examine a number of aspects, such as scaffold bearing surfaces. Needless to say, they should be securely fixed but it is not always possible to brace them against movement, as long as they do not slip. Mobile scaffolds must be prevented from moving about, but this cannot always be legislated for sufficiently. You cannot have red lights everywhere. Portable ladders must be anchored down and be solid, but they must remain serviceable. This is why we have proposed requesting split voting for a number of amendments. In this way, everyone will have the opportunity to propose improvements on the vulnerable sections of the directive.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Following the shipwreck of the Prestige, concerns have been growing about maritime safety. I share these concerns because my country has a long coastline, which is highly dependent on maritime resources. For these reasons and because these problems also affect other countries in the European Union, the Jarzembowski report on port services warrants our full consideration. With regard to the regulations on pilotage, I think that it makes sense to remove these from the scope of this decision. Every Member State must be able, for reasons of public interest, to maintain the current system, taking account of specific local characteristics. This report is marked by the way in which it maintains a degree of balance between liberalising port services and demonstrates ongoing concern for social legislation on worker protection, maritime safety and environmental protection in sensitive regions. This balance has already been achieved in the liberalisation of air and rail transport. With regard to social and labour legislation, the rights of workers in EU ports must be safeguarded. I therefore support the opinion of the rapporteur advocating greater protection for these workers, not forgetting the need to maintain qualified personnel in ports and insisting on measures for the training of crew members.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the United States' decision to distance itself from the International Criminal Court and its announcement last Sunday in the Security Council that it will henceforth only participate in UN missions if its military personnel are granted immunity reinforces the impression that, in some areas, the United States has adopted a more critical stance towards the institutionalisation of international politics than has the European Union. After the war, it was the United States which played a key role in the creation of a world order through the establishment of international institutions. Indeed, at that time, international justice was the watchword. Today, it is the United States which – through its withdrawal from international treaties – is challenging the acceptance of internationally valid rights and duties. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to ask the Commissioner and the President-in-Office, and indeed all of us, why this is the case. There is a reason for it, and I have a document in front of me, dated August 2000, entitled 'The American Servicemembers' Protection Act of 2000: Implications for US cooperation with the ICC'. Indeed, I wonder why we are holding this debate today. We set up an early warning system several years ago, but it does not appear to function. It would seem that regular talks are taking place, but the analytical methods appear to vary, we do not seem to be listening, we do not seem to be assessing each other's problems in time, and nor do we appear to be genuinely listening to each other. What is the problem, then? I would ask you all, especially the Council Presidency but also the Commission, to ensure that the early warning system functions in time. I think that the proposal put forward by Mrs Maes is excellent. We should indeed point out at forthcoming meetings with the Americans that we need better systems and make sure that they actually work in practice. What I am afraid of is not a transatlantic divide, which we have been discussing, but a transatlantic clash, and I am dubious about the much-vaunted common values which we are always talking about. I would urge you, Mr President-in-Office and Commissioner Byrne, to take this point very seriously.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the work by the European Commission, the rapporteur, whom I thank, and our European Parliament, whose representatives have spoken this evening, are based on two central facts. One very positive fact: the human lifespan is increasing constantly while external signs of ageing are decreasing significantly. Another fact, which is of serious concern to economists and in particular to anyone with budgetary responsibilities: this increased lifespan goes hand in hand with health and care needs, the costs of which are also increasing and will increase considerably over the coming years. Unless we believe, therefore, that the single market and free competition will solve all the problems in this regard as well, we shall have to be prepared to make significant financial efforts in terms of contributions and taxes, which will of course have to be distributed fairly, in order to guarantee a high level of care for all. Some, quite wrongly, deny this. Others find it regrettable; I find it regrettable for them, because they will be old one day too. Lastly, others, myself included, think and say that we must grasp the nettle. It is the only way of preventing longer lives from being nothing more than delayed death and ensuring that this increase represents the continuation of a genuine life, not forgetting that experience is also a factor in progress. This requires quality care and services, adapted to every situation, which necessitates public research for new medicines and treatments, changes in mentality and different priorities for our society and, in particular, public budgets which meet our needs. Now, at the beginning of a new millennium, Mr President, we all know, and some, even some of us, regret, that we are far from having fulfilled all these conditions and criteria.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I should briefly like to take the opportunity to congratulate the Vice-President of this meeting at the end of the debate of her first report as Vice-President.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, in 2002 in Lisbon the European Council proposed the objective that within ten years the European Union should be the most dynamic and advanced economy in the world, generating employment, social protection and well-being for all the citizens. To this end, it was established that various economic reforms were necessary, as well as a strengthening of research and social cohesion, but nevertheless, in almost all the Member States we are seeing constant examples of relocation of companies whose owners, generally multinationals, are seeking greater profit margins by reducing the manufacturing costs of products, establishing their industries in countries with cheaper workforces and, sometimes, with fewer environmental controls. This creates unemployment in the Union and reduces our wealth and our capacity to achieve the Lisbon objectives. In the face of this unstoppable dynamic caused by globalisation, our reaction must not be to try to compete in order to bring our costs into line with those offered by less developed countries, on the basis of sacrifices on the part of our workforce or of our environmental requirements. Our approach must be to strengthen our human resources, education, training, technological development, research and knowledge. Only in that way will we continue to maintain our competitive advantage and promote and retain cutting-edge companies and sustain the high level of social well-being, protection and cohesion we enjoy. The Galileo project, which we are debating today, is a good example of our taking the correct path. Together with the European Space Agency, the EGNOS programme, and hopefully also ITER, it creates a launch pad so that Europe can be in the leading group in terms of the most important challenges humanity is going to face during this twenty-first century, that is to say, taking advantage of our atmosphere and outer space in a manner which is sustainable and respectful of nature. And since the Earth and the universe belong to all of us, we fully support the idea of Galileo being open to cooperation with third countries such as China, India, Brazil and others, as well as the negotiations with Russia and the United States on satellite navigation. And also that our Galileo transponders be used to assist the existing maritime rescue systems and cover the needs of transport, telecommunications, the environment, agriculture, fisheries and, above all, people. I would like to congratulate Mr Piétrasanta on his report as well as the Commission, Parliament and finally also the Council, for promoting the Galileo project.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, it is a fine tradition for the chairmen of the groups to sincerely thank the outgoing Presidents and so I, like the other group chairmen, have asked to take the floor. For the Group of the European People’s Party , it is in no way an obligatory exercise but rather a wholehearted and warm word of thanks, one that is sincerely meant. Mr President, Pat Cox, you are a person who combines vision and pragmatism and you are person who is full of political and personal fairness. You combine the best traditions of your country, the Republic of Ireland, with our European conviction. You will always be numbered among the great Presidents of the European Parliament and you were lucky that your Presidency fell in a successful time, at a time when the constitution was being debated and when ten new Member States joined the European Union. You mentioned the one task that remains unfinished: the Statute for Members. Immediately after a new Parliament is elected, it will be our duty, the duty of those who are re-elected, to put into effect your work to complete the Statute. Mr President, you can take pride in the dignity with which you held office and carried out your duties. We all have reason to sincerely thank you and I am also doing so at a personal level. I wish you all the very best for your personal future and for everything that you will do in your country. On behalf of our group, I sincerely wish you all the very best. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Commission has set itself the short-term task of defining what a European audiovisual work is. I am very interested by this definition, which naturally complements today's discussion. The effect of the “Television without Frontiers” Directive has been that a large percentage of national works are still broadcast in each country, without managing to have these works circulated between countries. The aim of defining European audiovisual works must therefore be to achieve the circulation of these works. In this context, we agree that the cultural diversity that is advocated today is not a simple addition of the respective identities of each Member State, but the exchange and circulation of these identities. However, the circulation of works, like the origin of their funding, will probably be insufficient to define the European audiovisual work. The issue of the work’s content concerns us all. What content can define a work, if it is not content founded on a pluralist approach to production? Partnerships are necessary for current and future audiovisual creation, but hegemonic strategies and monopolies are counter to creation itself. There is nothing more dangerous than the current concentrations of operators who have both the broadcasting capacity as well as archives of material. At a time of digital revolution and technological change, Mr Veltroni's excellent report clearly shows the economic and cultural need for a European audiovisual policy. I would like to end by emphasising the essential points of this report. What could protect diversity and pluralism better than a “universal service”? What would ensure free access to information, entertainment and knowledge? Public television is not a monopoly and should not be one. One of the goals of the public service, however, is the general interest, and for this reason it must be valued. Public television channels are developing autonomously in each Member State, pursuant to Protocol 32 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, but they are agreed on taking on similar tasks, such as information, innovation, room for exchange and integration etc. All that remains is to make their funding transparent, not so much to conform to rules on competition as to enable public service to really diversify its activities and enrich its services. To put it plainly, not to die off in the digital age, but to perpetuate the accomplishment of its goals which should, it seems to me, constitute guidelines for the Community audiovisual policy.

Political group: GUE-NGL