GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I would like to focus on one of the central ideas of the Belgian presidency, according to what has been said this morning. I believe we can all agree on the following consideration: the free movement of people, goods and capital which we enjoy in the European Union has also given rise to the free movement of criminals within our borders but, nevertheless, since there is no free movement of police or judicial decisions, we are running the risk of creating an area of impunity within Europe. Furthermore, we must recognise that the progress made since Tampere in the development of the third pillar has not responded to the ambitions drawn up there. In Laeken, within the planned assessment of the degree of compliance with the European Commission’s scoreboard for the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice, the Heads of Government are being offered an excellent opportunity to provide a political impulse for this process. I would therefore ask Mr Verhofstadt to decide to favour a political declaration of this nature, which would inject new dynamism into the process started at Tampere. This means creating more efficient instruments for combating terrorism, such as the European arrest order. The European Union, Mr President, is an area with harmonisable judicial systems in the field of judicial guarantees and respect for human rights, and we must therefore ‘communitise’ the fight against organised crime.

Political group: PPE-DE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. – Mr President, on behalf of the Legal Affairs Committee I would like to address the same report as Mr Ford has addressed. On the face of it this proposal would seem to be about taxation of non-EU businesses, but, of course, what it should be about is how we encourage and nurture Europe's e-economy, which is a very fragile flower. In this sense, I welcome the Commission's brave attempt to find a way to close the competitive gap that clearly exists between EU and non-EU e-business. But what we have to ask, and what our committee asked, was: is this the right way to do it? Our opinion was very clearly that it is not. I was always told that one of the first rules or principles of a legislator should be: do not make law you cannot enforce. This was our committee's major concern. It may not be enough to rely on the good will of enterprises outside our reach. The good guys will comply, the bad ones will still be bad, and consumers may well use them in their search for a good deal. What else could we be doing here? There is much talk about setting up business models for e-commerce regulation, but that is a wider issue and should be dealt with in a much more transparent way. There are underlying assumptions in this proposal about the place of taxation which could store up problems for the future in an international context. We may have something to learn from America, where they have, of course, imposed a moratorium on such e-tax. In short, the aim of this proposal is correct but the method is misconceived and if we really want to encourage Europe's e-economy, a right signal would be zero rate VAT for our own e-business rather than trying to impose our problems on others.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, I support the report presented by Mrs Breyer which is excellent in many respects. Firstly, I must stress the positive effect of her public health proposals. The Commission’s proposal, supported and furthered by this report, establishes the principle of ambient air quality assessment and management with regard to two major sources of pollution: benzene and carbon monoxide. These are both produced by road traffic. It has rightly been emphasised that benzene is a carcinogen which causes leukaemia and that carbon monoxide can lead to toxic lesions on the heart and brain, and even to death in high concentrations. We must not make people’s fears worse but we must ourselves realise and make others realise the dangers of not adopting realistic and necessarily stringent measures. These must allow as little derogation as possible so that we can assess, control and restrict to the minimum polluting emissions of these two noxious gases. This is even more vital as these gases are more dangerous for children, the elderly and anyone suffering from heart or respiratory problems. Secondly, the Breyer report is of great interest to the consumers which we all are. Although the initial aim was to ensure that the public has easy access to up-to-date information, the rapporteur has gone further by specifying not only the frequency with which information must be made available, but also the range of media to be used in distributing this information. This is not unimportant. The people of Europe are entitled to know about the quality of the environment in which they are living. They must be able to judge the measures taken by the competent national or local authorities to provide the scientists with quantified data so that the air which they breathe can be improved. These measures constitute a strong political signal about the political choices made on transport. I would therefore invite you all to support the rapporteur without hesitation. Her proposals are both ambitious and realistic and clearly show the Council how demanding the European Parliament can be on the environment, public health and consumer protection.

Political group: PSE
According to the rapporteur, the economic situation is catastrophic. Is it the rise in unemployment, collective redundancies and seasonal employment which so concerns the rapporteur? Is it the tragic situation of certain population groups? Is it the increasing poverty? Not at all! The disaster, as he sees it, is that company profits are falling. What does he propose to do to remedy the situation? Quite simply, to follow the same recipes which have led to the deterioration in working conditions throughout Europe and which, thus far, have served first and foremost to safeguard shareholders’ profits. Once again, out comes the everlasting list of proposals: link tax benefits to job creation, cut the tax burden and so forth. These are all measures which will benefit shareholders but never employment. The Member States are therefore called upon to further reduce workers’ and pensioners’ shares in social prosperity, raising the retirement age or limiting wage increases, which the report wishes to be productivity-linked – thus increasing exploitation. If it adopts the report, the European Parliament will be proving once again that it represents the interests of employers rather than the interests of the majority of society. It will have to do without our support. We voted against this report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I want to congratulate my colleague Mr Ceyhun for approaching a very difficult and sensitive issue. Referring to what Mr Kirkhope said, this is an issue of great importance and I could not agree with him more. I am sure he would agree with me that it is very sad that on an issue like this, which covers the pages of many of our newspapers, there is – to the best of my knowledge – no press here to cover it. We have also to recognise that this report is just one piece of a jigsaw. It is a very difficult jigsaw that we are trying to put together. We need a proper system of immigration and asylum that will cater for the needs of Europe in the modern world. I say to Mrs Frahm and Mr Cappato that this is what we are aiming for, and I do not believe the rhetoric you used just now is helpful in such a very difficult situation. On specific points, Mr Kirkhope referred to his anxieties about paragraphs 11 and 12, and I know the points that he is making there. But the reference is to legally recognised organisations, NGOs, with which all of us are familiar. We have to ask ourselves is someone or an organisation that is helping people in desperate circumstances escape persecution a criminal? Are they the organisations that we ought to be legislating against? I would say not. We know, and others have said, that people escaping from these situations are desperate people escaping conflict, war and circumstances like that. That is why we need these measures. We must do more. We must do more to help those developing countries and help the countries that are war-torn and with regimes that we do not like. But we cannot do that overnight. I do not believe we are helping those people who are trying to get out by doing nothing and leaving the situation as it is, so they have to clamber into the back of lorries and suffocate and endure torture and misery. We have to make certain that we have a proper asylum system that is not skewed by the overemphasis on illegal immigration. Our job in the new few months, as a Parliament, will be to report on the Commission's opinions in a way that reminds all Member States that their national interest must not override our global and humanitarian obligations.

Political group: PSE
The regulation under consideration aims to protect air passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights. The proposal we are debating, however, does not fully comply with that objective, and the amendments tabled weaken the Council common position, which was already, in some ways, a retrograde step in relation to the Commission’s proposal. We are aware of the transitory problems currently being experienced by air carriers, and for that reason we feel we must find a balanced solution. We do not feel, however, that those problems justify excluding passengers on package tours from the scope of the protection provided by this regulation, or reducing the protection offered them in the event of cancellation of flights, or removing the opportunity for passengers to exercise their right to reimbursement or re-routing in the event of long delay of flights. We realise that there are ‘extraordinary circumstances’ under which one may be led to conclude that air carriers are not always responsible for delayed or cancelled flights. Such ‘circumstances’, however, should be specifically limited to meteorological or safety problems, so as to prevent passengers’ interests being harmed for purely economic or commercial reasons.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, our rapporteurs, Göran Färm und Per Stenmarck, have already produced the broad outlines of our future Budget for 2003. Previous speakers have highlighted particular points and added new ones. I wish to do the same and highlight one small point, one that Mrs Buitenweg has already mentioned. My particular concern, as incidentally has been the case for some time now, is small and medium-sized enterprises and above all micro-enterprises. We cannot invent a new priority every financial year, so I am sticking to this one. That is why I will also repeat what many of you know, but it will not do any harm to remind you of it again: 99% of all companies in Europe have fewer than 50 employees. They employ more than half of all workers and are also responsible for around half of the European Union's entire turnover. On average each company employs five people. It is small and medium-sized enterprises that are very innovative and growth-driven. They therefore play a decisive role in the fight to increase jobs and reduce unemployment. That, for a social democrat, is what counts! We are already doing a certain amount at European level to increase the competitiveness of SMEs; let me remind you of the multiannual programme for enterprise and entrepreneurship. However, we want to do even more. The project 'SMEs in border regions' should be replaced by a project on 'SMEs and enlargement' and – a number of social democrats have in any case spoken strongly in favour of this – we want a project that helps SMEs to implement the concept of 'Corporate Social Responsibility – a business contribution to sustainable development'. So far these proposals have tended to be directed more at the large companies. This comes as no surprise: after all they were involved in drafting them. We do not consider this to be wrong, far from it, but now we want them to be extended to include guidelines for our small and medium-sized companies. We want a pilot project on SMEs and social responsibility.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, now the vote is over, I would like to come back to the issue of a quorum. I do not think you would need a head count unless you did a test with cards and got below what is required. It would save time if you tried that first. For example, today there were 226 in the first vote after the issue of the quorum was raised. If there had been a check with cards, maybe we could have avoided the problem of having a head count.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, firstly I too would like to wish Mrs Damião a speedy recovery and sincerely congratulate her for an excellent report. It will add to the encouragement which the biotechnology sector needs in order to realise its potential in my Scottish constituency and throughout Europe. The thrust of this report is fully in line with the Lisbon Summit objectives and continues the forward-looking attitude consistently demonstrated by Parliament. It should also serve to bolster the Commission's new-found courage as regards biotechnology and the life sciences. But how dreadful the contrast with the Council of Ministers who yet again this week demonstrated their abject failure to follow through on the goals they set at Lisbon. The grossly mistitled 'Competitiveness Council' could not reach consensus about the proper jurisdiction for Community patent disputes. What hope is there of achieving Europe's potential in this area when the Council is at least one year behind the deadline it set itself for agreement on this vital matter? Without a cost-efficient means of patenting intellectual property rights, what incentive is there for our scientists? This is only one example of the chronic foot-dragging we see endlessly in the Council and by individual Member States. Moratoria, legal uncertainty, backtracking and dithering over ethical guidelines, transposition delays, lack of support for those going about their legal business with field trials, elaborate red tape for labelling and traceability. Mrs Damião, thank you for giving us hope that there is real hope in Europe for biotechnology and the life sciences.

Political group: PPE-DE
Although many of the items here do actually move the agenda towards our vision of Europe, we simply cannot accept that there should be any enhancement of the role of the political institutions of the EU, especially the Commission, and development of what is termed ‘The Community method’. - Third UN Conference (B5-0246/2001)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as has already been said, we are in the final stages of the European year of People with Disabilities and I wish to add my voice to those of my fellow Members who have spoken in favour of a cross-cutting European directive to address this problem. I would like, however, to say that this European Year has already been an enormous success, because never has there been so much discussion about this issue in so many different places and never have we been so aware of everything that we need to do, at all levels of responsibility, wherever we happen to be in the European Union. The year has, therefore, been a great success. This is a first step towards the future, as has been said, and I therefore wish to conclude this debate on a note of much-needed optimism.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on a point of order. Like Mr Andrews, I, too, feel a great deal of concern at the way this matter of the travel office has been handled. I am not sure that the administration has actually raised it with the College of Quaestors, which would be the correct body to refer the matter to. It is really for them to look after Members' interests. As far as Mr MacCormick is concerned, I am glad to see Mr Corbett sitting here because it is the Committee on Constitutional Affairs that is now looking at this matter, after the Bureau decided to refer it to them. I think he has the matter well in hand.

Political group: PPE-DE
The vote which has just taken place in this Chamber is a historic one for it is the first time we have ever debated the internal political situation of one of our Member States with such anxiety. I believe there are circumstances when the question of principles and institutional regulations is obliterated. I urge the Council and the Council Presidency to continue to protect the fundamental values of the Union. I urge the Commission to be less cautious. In this resolution, Parliament is assuming its responsibilities. Having said that, in my opinion, the resolution adopted today is the absolute minimum, the very least we could do. Personally I argued in favour of a rather harder line, and I supported Amendments Nos 1, 4, 6, 7 and 8, as well as the oral amendment tabled by the Socialist Group. In fact I consider it essential for the Council to accept only purely technical relations with the representatives of an Austrian Government which includes members of the Austrian Freedom Party. Including Jörg Haider’s party in a coalition government makes the presence of the extreme right an everyday fact of life in Europe, and sets an extremely dangerous precedent which may generate a serious aftermath in other Union Member States or in candidate countries. The Austrian People’s Party must accept some historical responsibility for this. It is our fundamental values which are at stake here. As the democratically elected representatives of the European people, we have no choice. We must reject what is unacceptable, as our constituents demand. Because, when the spectre of barbarism resurfaces, failure to oppose is tantamount to capitulation.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, in common with the majority of European Union citizens, I believe that the use of live animals in cosmetic testing is an unnecessary and unacceptable practice and must be banned. Over 8,000 ingredients have already been cleared for use in cosmetics. How many more new products do we need? What is going to provide the incentive for commercial companies to develop alternative testing methods? The answer is, firstly, a marketing ban on new animal-tested cosmetics five years after adoption of the legislation, as the report that we adopted in the Environment Committee states. This is clearly not now against WTO rules. Secondly, a complete test ban, with a definite date by which it will come into force. I believe anything less than this to be insufficient and unsatisfactory and I know my constituents share that view. Banning cosmetic testing will not mean that consumers will be sold unsafe products, but will mean an end to a great deal of animal suffering.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, during a meeting last Saturday, I happened to hear a new colleague of an important minister describing, with the frankness of a newcomer, his first experience of a Council of Ministers. He said that it was a sort of Barnum Circus, where everyone talks but hardly anyone listens or actually seeks agreement. We support the rapporteur and the majority of his proposals, and so I would like to use the time available to me to send two messages from our group to the Council, in particular. The first is that, even if the Council were to approve Parliament’s proposals tomorrow morning, we would not be able to resolve the fundamental democratic imbalance and we would not be able to stop the intergovernmental drift. The only way to genuinely improve the democracy and efficiency of the Union is by strengthening the Commission and Parliament and removing the Council’s right of veto. The second message is a call to reflect on what Commissioner Barnier has said, namely that despite the positive elements and the endeavours of the Belgian Presidency, it would currently be impossible to reform the Council without a grass roots debate among its members on the very nature of the Council. I am sure that ideas vary among the Union’s Member States on the Council’s future, and I therefore call strongly upon the Presidency to assume responsibility for organising this debate on the future and to ensure that practical steps are taken which open up the way for rapid progress along the path outlined by Mr Poos, pending more comprehensive reforms.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, this is one of the few occasions when, from what the speakers have said in this Parliament, from all sides of the House, there is clearly the greatest convergence of views on the Cyprus issue and, of course, on the pre-accession process for Cyprus and Malta. This means that we are all aware of the political dimension of the Cyprus problem. At the same time, however, it means that both the Council and the Commission have a very strong mandate, so that the strength of opinion expressed by all the European parties, and all the peoples, can empower their political ability to address the problem. Helsinki was an historic event, an historic turning-point and an historic new reference point. If, for any reason, the balance achieved there should be considered by some to be a point of departure for new negotiations anywhere else, if some people destabilise this totality of facts and equilibrium by their attitude, they will be making a tragic mistake. Conditions are ripe. What is needed from the European Commission, the Council and everyone else, is a quiet determination, a quiet determination to continue the accession negotiations on both Cyprus and Malta without guile, granted that in the last analysis they are the most mature of all the countries seeking accession, so that this determination can act as a signal to anyone whose view may differ from the view we all agree about. To this end, the Brok report is a good instrument and it is really a bit distressing that, because this is a joint debate, it is politically overshadowed by the political position of the Council and the Commission and we cannot therefore say more about this good report. In any event, the outcome is in your hands. The outcome is in our hands to the extent that we are providing you with decisions, to the extent that we are providing you with options. Now, as regards the Brok report, Cyprus and Malta are the last of the Mediterranean islands, and, unless I am mistaken, the last islands anywhere in Europe which have not acceded to the European Union. This has a certain semiological value because the Mediterranean and its islands – and I too come from an island – are the area which most of those who come from northern Europe for their summer holidays get to see, as well as the people who live there. From that standpoint, Aphrodite’s island, as Cyprus is known, and the pirates’ island, as we islanders say of Malta with great affection, are two jewels which should be welcomed into the European Union without delay. They have healthy economies, high-level economic relations, and in the final analysis they constitute a testing ground for the European Union’s political will. In conclusion, since I do not think I need to say much, given the unanimity that exists here, I just want to make one brief remark to the President-in-Office. I think that there are some peculiarities in his position. I hope there has been an interpretation error, and that he will clarify the matter in his follow-up speech.

Political group: PSE