GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, thank you for that information we have received from the Commission. It was brief, as it presumably needs to be in this context. I should nonetheless like to address two more matters. First of all, it would be interesting to know more about the way in which the European Parliament and the national parliaments are to be able to arrive at a joint position. Mr Hughes has already addressed this matter, but it is important for it to be clarified. The point might be made that it is at present quite unclear how the European Parliament and the national parliaments are to participate in this process. The second matter I want to mention is the processes. I support the idea of these processes needing to be coordinated. Two processes are discussed, but I believe that three processes need to be talked about, namely the economic process, the employment process and the process of social inclusion. All three have their particular value and something special to contribute. It is therefore extremely important for these distinctive features to be retained when the processes are coordinated. Otherwise, there will be a decline in their overall value. I wonder therefore what thought has been given to the way in which, when the processes are coordinated, it might be possible to retain the special character of each particular one.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I would like to speak in favour of adopting a resolution in connection with the oral question to the Commission on the consequences of last December’s storms. The citizens would not understand it if we simply held a debate without then saying what proposed solutions and options the European Union can offer. I therefore ask that a resolution be taken in connection with the oral question.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, in order to explain the reasons for my declaration with reservations in favour of the Evans report, I would like, this time, to tell you about a conversation between Carlo and François. They are the same age, 50 years old, and they have been doing the same job for the same number of years. Carlo has invited François to dinner. ‘Why are you inviting me to dinner?’ asks François. And Carlo replies: ‘I am inviting you to dinner because, although I am still a young man – 50 years old – I have been given early retirement by my government. Tomorrow I am not going to work, I will become a pensioner, because my country, Italy, has a system of early retirement. However, I know that you will have to continue to work for another 10 years. That is why I am inviting you to dinner.’ I put it to you once again, Mr President: is this not also a State aid which should be included in the survey?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, all of us here in this room spend far more time than we would like on planes and at airports. These issues affect us all too often, either because we ourselves are affected by delays or cancellations, overbooking and the like or because we experience at second hand what happens to other passengers and that is not always pleasant. Often it is even very unpleasant. In this situation, the European legislator has to act in the interests of consumers, but also in the interests of the air transport sector as a whole. Much has already been said about the rules that we are examining here at first reading and on which we will vote tomorrow, about how best to tackle the problem of denied boarding, and about reasonable rules in the case of delays. Naturally, all these rules and regulations bring the industry little joy, particularly in the current difficult economic climate. But this is of course not only about the airlines; it is also and above all about the passengers. They in any case are repeatedly and increasingly frequently finding themselves to be the weaker party, and we need to protect and support them with European law. There is one other player that we should consider here; I refer to the airport operators. They have been experiencing many problems recently because of increased concerns about terrorism and security. They have resolved a number of them, but in some cases their activities have become extremely expensive. There is another problem that remains unresolved: how passengers are treated. Nowadays flying is a massive business; there is no doubt about it. This should not mean, however, that passengers are treated like herds of animals. Perhaps we could also address these aspects of flying in the foreseeable future and regulate them accordingly. Passengers will thank us for it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market is very pleased that the chapters on the internal market and the related chapters have already been negotiated successfully. In this respect, we can claim that the internal market already exists. However, we are still concerned about the shortcomings in the administrative and judicial systems in the future Member States. I would like to tell you something which I found out at the weekend in Prague, namely that the process of registering a foreign commercial company in the Czech trade register takes about a year – unless you are prepared to pay EUR 2000. In the internal market, no gap should open up between rights and duties as a result of the failure to enforce environmental, social and consumer standards. We need fair competition, also in the enlarged internal market. I should like to thank Mrs Sommer for her report. It provides a strong impetus towards fruitful cooperation and cohesion at the interface between East and West in the border regions. Giving priority to SMEs is something we strongly support, and we hope that this will be implemented in forthcoming calls for proposals.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to focus my remarks this evening on Mrs Cederschiöld’s report. That is why I am here, having shadowed it in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. I would like to commend Mrs Cederschiöld on the way that she has incorporated so many of the opinions of different committees into a very comprehensive report and also to congratulate the Commission on this initiative. I feel this is a very worthwhile and challenging document. One of the problems with the report is that it contains a huge amount of material and potential actions and priorities will therefore have to be set. So this evening I should just like to address what I believe is a crucial problem that needs to be looked at in the short term: the whole question of how we encourage the development of electronic commerce to use these tools, to address the sort of business issues that some colleagues are already trying to frustrate, in my view, by moving prematurely to the sort of rigid opt-in arrangement that they are talking about. The e-commerce market is at a very early stage and is still underdeveloped. We do not want to choke it off by some of the things that we are talking about. But we do need to address the security issues. A very important report produced by the British business association, the CBI, last week clearly showed that both businesses and consumers are discouraged from moving into the electronic commerce market place because of concerns about security. Businesses, particularly small and medium-sized businesses, are worried about the vulnerability of their enterprises to fraud and fraudulent transactions. I suggest to you that one of the things that we must work on is to ensure that small and medium sized enterprises get the benefits of this revolution. Consumers are worried about getting involved in transactions because they are worried about the security of their payments. Those are the critical issues we have to tackle. We have to combine that with a regime that allows SMEs to use e-commerce in a targeted and effective way. So I will combine my remarks on both reports by saying that I believe we are taking the right course with Mrs Cederschiöld and the right course with Mr Cappato.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, combating the catastrophic effects of climate change is the most important environmental policy challenge of our time. Indeed, I would go as far as to say that it may even be the single most important challenge overall, also beyond the parameters of environmental policy. There is thus a great deal at stake in Bonn. It is important, then, for the European Union to present a united front, and so I appeal to the Council and the Commission to include the parliamentary delegation in its activities and ensure that the head of our delegation, at least, is involved in coordination at EU level, as we are keen to support the Council and the Commission’s position. Naturally, this is only possible if we are genuinely informed in detail. The main problem, of course, is the USA’s position. This has already been pointed out several times. It is not enough merely to agree that the USA’s position is unacceptable. Since gentle persuasion and appeals have not achieved very much, we must now consider how we can exert even greater pressure. The European Union should make climate protection and the Kyoto Agreement its key priority in relations with the US. Many of our positions differ from those of the US Government or Congress, but climate protection is the major problem, and that should be made clear. This is why I was rather disappointed when, after Gothenburg, the message was: there is a difference of opinion, and that was it. The EU must make it quite clear that while we may have different opinions on other issues and still carry on with the agenda, this specific topic is a priority for the EU. Perhaps we should go as far as to make concessions in other areas in order to ensure that this priority is genuinely asserted in practice. If the Americans are then prepared to ratify Kyoto and engage in practical cooperation in Bonn, we too should be flexible. Instead of promoting the EU’s purist doctrine, e.g. on nuclear energy, we too should be prepared to compromise. However, a precondition is that the Americans actually commit themselves to ratifying Kyoto and pursuing the climate protection process in a positive way.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, the entry into force of the internal market and the lifting of border controls have led to the abolition of VAT declarations along with the statistics which used to be kept by customs offices. Intrastat, the statistical collection system on the transport of goods, is met with little appreciation by industry, as the latter is weighed down by the red-tape involved. Indeed, not only does industry need to provide data on the products in question, it is also required to provide information which does not fall within the remit of the companies directly involved in the transaction but within that of the transport companies which they use. The basic regulation stipulates that providers of statistical information shall make use of the combined nomenclature, which comprises more than 10 500 entries, in order to classify goods. This combined nomenclature is a tariff and statistics nomenclature which is used for the trade between Member States and that with third countries. Within the framework of the SLIM Initiative, the simplification of Intrastat has been set up as a trial project. The SLIM Intrastat working party has proposed to simplify this nomenclature and better tailor it to the real needs of the user without adversely affecting the link with the nomenclature for the transport of goods with third countries, or the connection with other statistical nomenclatures. In fact, this proposal was carried by representatives of professional organisations and by companies alike because they themselves have contributed to the effect of the recommendations. Indeed, the simplification must first and foremost benefit small and medium-sized companies. The number of codes is restricted and, as such, the classification and codification of goods by companies is simplified without them needing to take any special measures. This proposal, along with all other measures to simplify the system, can only benefit industry. The European Community could take the initiative here and propose at international level that the set-up of the harmonised system be reviewed and better tailored to the needs of international trade in the 21st century. Finally, I would like to inform you that a tripartite consultation, held over the course of three meetings by the European Parliament delegation, finally led to a compromise during the meeting of the Conciliation Committee. The report was adopted unanimously without amendments within the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. I would, accordingly, be indebted to the MEPs if they were to cast a unanimous vote on this tomorrow.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, in West Timor, or rather the Indonesian part of the island of Timor, at least three United Nations officials from the UNHCR were violently beaten and killed yesterday. The European Parliament must denounce this barbarous and despicable act, which according to some eyewitness reports took place with the complicity or connivance of the Indonesian military authorities. Secondly, this act occurred on the same day that the majority of Heads of State and Government were meeting in New York at the Millennium Summit organised by the United Nations itself, which demonstrates the weakness of this organisation and of the instruments at its disposal to protect men and women far from their own countries who were simply endeavouring to defend human rights and the rights of refugees. Mr President, I would like you to convey a message of solidarity to the United Nations. I would also like you to inform the Indonesian authorities of the outrage felt by the Members of the European Parliament and to stress our wish that people whose sole objective is to defend peace, human rights and the dignity of the Timorese people, be they in Indonesia or in Timor Lorosae, should be respected. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, when I arrived in Brussels this morning, I found I had received a letter from the World Nature Fund, saying that I should soon receive the results of the blood tests I took a few months ago, designed to ascertain which chemicals we have in our blood. I assume that many of us took this blood test. This test will probably show that, in common with everyone else, I have a majority of quite foreign chemicals in my blood, and some of them will probably also be such persistent organic pollutants as we are debating today. The fact is that we know relatively little about what this means for our health and fitness, but we know enough to be concerned. We have been presented with a series of alarming reports to the effect that different chemicals produce diseases and that they can, for example, affect our ability to have children. With that as part of the background, this proposal is very welcome, and not only the proposal but, above all, the compromise. The fact is that this compromise that has been negotiated is a significant improvement upon the proposal presented by the Commission. I should, above all, like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Frahm for her work. I should also like to draw attention to a number of points I see as crucial improvements. The first is the legal basis. I think that the Commission’s tendency to treat environmental issues more and more as issues concerning the internal market is very unfortunate. From an ecological point of view, it is quite irresponsible to proceed in this way. It also reduces the Member States’ opportunities to introduce more progressive legislation. The EU is in that way preventing countries that wish and are able to take the lead from doing so, and that is unacceptable. We hope that, when it presents proposals like this one, concerning the environment, the Commission will be influenced by these considerations and stick to the legal basis for achieving environmental objectives. I also think that the core of the proposal – the clear ban on production, use and marketing – is very important. It is particularly good that the ban on hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), including lindane, is included in the proposal. This reminds us that the EU’s chemicals policy does not in practice work. We know that it is a very small portion of the chemicals on the market that really have been tested and whose effects are really known to us. A small part of chemicals policy is covered by this proposal, and we now need efficient, uniform chemicals legislation within the framework of the REACH system for the registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals. It is a proposal that is now being attacked quite vigorously, but we need to find out what these chemicals entail, even when, as is the case with many chemicals, they exist in relatively modest quantities. If too many of these chemicals are exempted, we shall be without an effective chemicals policy. I think this work shows that it is only right to take proper decisions when it comes to issues concerning chemicals, and it indicates the way ahead prior to the discussion of REACH. I wish again to thank the rapporteur.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, we have just decided to retain the hooliganism motion on the agenda for the debate on topical and urgent subjects. I should like to make a particular request to the translation service and indeed those who are speaking to the motion: one of the football teams with which some hooliganism was associated was the team representing England. The Member State which has responsibility for that question is the United Kingdom. But it is very important in this matter to draw a distinction between Britain – as the state which has overall responsibility – and one of its parts, namely England. This is all the more important given the known intention of the Scottish Football Association to apply to host the next European Cup but one.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, Parliament has long been concerned about the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Great Lakes Region in Africa in general. Fortunately, armed conflict in the region has ended. It is now time to launch the process of reconstruction. The future of the Democratic Republic of Congo and peace in that country depend on establishing democracy and sustainable development. As regards establishing democracy, we trust the Pretoria Agreement will prove an effective measure and will be implemented in sensible stages. The Pretoria Agreement is truly an all-encompassing and inclusive agreement. An all-embracing system of democracy can only be established if all associations and political groupings are included in the process. This is especially important in the Great Lakes Region where a breakdown in social order was the root cause of the wars that laid waste to the region. I welcome the meeting of the General Affairs Council held in Brussels yesterday and also the Commission’s decision to send a significant amount of humanitarian aid to the worst affected areas. A number of major problems are still outstanding, however. They must be resolved to assure the future of the region. Such problems can only be tackled through sound political institutions, once implementation of the agreement is under way. The major problem I have in mind is that of a system of justice. Impunity is incompatible with democracy and there can be no peace without a system of justice. In this connection, I would like to table an amendment to indent 4 tomorrow. I would like to replace the phrase referring to other places, when these acts have been committed with one referring to other places, including the acts committed. The other element crucial to the future of the Democratic Republic of Congo is sustainable development. The countries and the companies of the European Union have a key role to play in this process. Companies can play their part by adopting an ethical code of conduct demonstrating commitment to sustainable development. Countries can be involved by establishing measures to limit the importation of goods of dubious origin. The Group of the will relentlessly pursue its campaign demanding transparency and ethical standards from multinational companies in the developing world. In this regard, we attach great importance to compliance with rules on child labour, the ILO labour standards, the sustainable exploitation of resources and the OECD’s guidelines on multinational companies. The United Nations report adopts a clear stance on the illegal exploitation of natural resources in the Democratic Republic of Congo. We hope Member States, the Commission and Parliament will all insist on implementation of the report’s recommendations.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I note that the last seven speakers in this debate come from the Group of the European People’s Party, so we have seven people anxious to talk while everybody else has dried up. It is an indication of the concern of this particular group for the problem we are discussing. I want to thank Mr Parish for his contribution, the thorough research and the very extensive report he has produced. I was just thinking of my youth when I was a member of the Young Farmers of Ireland; I started my political career in that organisation. I remember a plan was produced which was based on two simple things: intensive advice and a little bit of financial incentive. It was based on the geographic unit of organisation, which was most popular in Ireland, it was a church community called the parish. It was the parish plan. So I started off my political life with the parish plan in my hand and today I have another Parish plan. It is much more comprehensive and, indeed, I have to confess that I do not see as many simple answers to the questions raised in this one as in my Young Farmers' organisation in Ireland 40 years ago. Something that comes to mind is that we ought not to get carried away with emotion or lead people down the wrong path on this whole subject. The 1926 census in Ireland found that more than half of the entire population of the country was engaged in agriculture and yet the country did not produce surpluses and there were people short of food. There are still people harking back to the days when, as an Irish poet said: 'every rood of ground maintained its man'. However, we should not imagine that this was an ideal world in which to live. Over the years, as the number of farms was reduced and farmers became more efficient, food obviously became more available to the poor who could buy it at a lower cost. The reduced farm numbers have produced a lot of well-being in Europe. We should not forget that. Since Ireland joined the European Union – I only mention Ireland because I am very familiar with what happened obviously, but you can draw lessons for other areas – our many small farms were reduced gradually in number. If it were not for the common agricultural policy, that would have been very painful. It was a good thing that the number of farms was reduced and that we had the common agricultural policy to ease that. We must be concerned about the human problems that arise out of the squeeze-out of excessive labour, but at the same time, we should remember that the cost of food has been reduced. Emphasis, in the future, must be put on quality, while in my time limitless quantities were needed. Today we need more quality and we need to consider the environment. All these are things Mr Parish has underlined. But we should not offer the prospect of young, energetic people in greater numbers producing the quantity of food that Europe needs today because they will not eat it.

Political group: PPE-DE