GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, I should like to welcome the Commission's proposal warmly, on behalf of my Group and the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. We have been following the development of this very closely. As the Commissioner was kind enough to say, the Commission has taken notice of a number of reports we have made. I was the rapporteur for the last round, and we are currently working on a new single market report. So we will have a chance to go into detail, and I agree with the Commissioner that it would be highly desirable to start the debate in this Parliament. I hope that my committee will be able to do that so we can start consulting a wide range of interests in this extremely comprehensive proposal. It is also absolutely essential to start the progress of this through the Council. The political points I want to make to the Commissioner tonight, and on which I would like his comments, concern the Council more than anything else. I am pleased to see that we have one representative on the Council benches. It is disappointing that there are not more. As the Commissioner said in his statement, the crucial factor in getting this to work will be the willingness of the Council to accept the basic principles of the internal market: a 'country of origin' principle for supplying cross-border services, the mutual recognition of conditions of establishment and sensible behaviour as regards grasping some of these issues. I do not need to remind the Commissioner – although he may wish to refer to it – that the Council's record to date in dealing with these issues has, frankly, been deplorable. The sales promotion mutual recognition directive – which is an integral part of this – has been with the Council for 15 months. Under the Commissioner's proposal we face the position where we will be able freely to establish marketing agencies in other countries, but they will not have a common set of principles. I would like to hear the Commissioner's views about how he is going to work with us to get the Council to accept a serious timetable for dealing with these issues and how it is going to perform its part of the packages on the table. Colleagues, if we do not have the support of the Council we will get nowhere. This is the crunch time for the internal market. Unless the Council comes to terms with this proposal, then it is not serious about Lisbon and not serious about the internal market. Frankly, the Council's acceptance of this directive is the biggest challenge that the whole Lisbon proposal faces. The Council must get on with it.

Political group: PPE-DE
We wish to take this opportunity to explain our reasons for voting against Amendment No 58 to Annex II, item 4 and Amendment No 59 to Annex II, item 34. We do not believe that the issue of the position of assistants should be addressed within the framework of the report on Staff Regulations of officials and other servants of the European Community. Instead, we believe that the issue should be debated within the framework of an assistants’ statute or in the discussions on the Members’ Statute. We think that improving and clarifying assistants’ conditions of employment is an important issue but do not believe that it should be discussed within this report. We are doubtful as to whether Amendment No 58 is relevant and safeguards assistants’ interests. We therefore believe that the issue should be analysed in more depth and debated separately on a subsequent occasion.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I did not actually want to make a statement, but, as a number of Members have spoken, I will do so after all. It must be absolutely plain to us in this House that we will not allow anyone – be they terrorists, anarchists or anyone else – to bring pressure to bear on us. We affirm that European integration is a labour of peace, of understanding and of reconciliation, from which nobody in Europe or anywhere in the world will succeed in diverting us. We should therefore consider how we can improve our security, but should also be utterly determined to press on with our labour of peace in uniting Europe. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Cashman for his report, which is enriched by the opinions of Mrs Maij-Weggen, Mrs Hautala, Mrs Malmström, Mrs Theato, Mrs Thors and Mr Andreasen. However, I think that he is referring to all the institutions except the Council, for the Council is a black hole in the European Union. The Council is the unknown on the far side of beyond. In my opinion, a step has been taken towards making it possible for citizens to avail themselves of their right to information and knowledge. In all probability, the advent of electronic data will eventually bring the citizen this possibility, providing information automatically without the citizens having to make an – albeit legitimate – request for it. Furthermore, I feel that, as the Committee on Petitions and the Ombudsman have requested, we also need to endeavour to outline clearly the institutional and bureaucratic stages in the process, defining the responsibilities which – rightly – still lie with the institutions, therefore without separating the different responsibilities within the organisation. I have mentioned responsibility precisely because the information has to protect the citizen from errors of public administration. If this were not so, we would merely be talking about a desire for knowledge, pure and simple. However, the citizen's right to defend himself against the public administration means that information must be provided. One last point: information cannot be made available, that is, the right to information, the right to protect the citizen from public maladministration cannot be provided if the procedures are not made simpler and more comprehensible, if the number and complexity of procedures is not reduced, because, although the citizens are familiar with the complex procedures, these procedures are the antithesis of transparency and deny the relationship between the citizen and the institution, which ought to serve as a channel for improving the quality of life of the citizen.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I believe that public transport is incredibly important for Europeans in both towns and sparsely populated areas. In this vote, I am therefore going to support the basic ideas behind the committee’s proposal, which I believe points in the direction of better public transport. However, I oppose many of the simplistic statements made about tendering. Our experience from Sweden shows that tendering can be very good. Account can be taken of the environment and of social considerations, safety regulations can be established and a good relationship can be enjoyed with the social partners. As a prerequisite, politicians must have responsibility for the tendering and establish these criteria openly. That is possible, as is shown by experience from Sweden. We should be able to get rid of many of the simplistic statements about tendering. As I say, I am prepared to support the basic idea that regions and administrative districts should have freedom of choice. I also believe that it will, in practice, emerge that tendering can be used because it saves money that can be used for other purposes within the framework of public expenditure. Finally, I want to say that I do not believe that the rule of reciprocity referred to in the committee’s report should operate at European level.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I endorse the remarks that have just been made. When you write to the Council perhaps you could also point out how hopelessly ineffective the Council's own sanctions have been in respect of Zimbabwe and how they need to be toughened up. I would like to say a word about the situation in Cyprus. For a long time many of us who have wanted reconciliation in Cyprus with due regard to the interests and concerns of both communities have called for some serious confidence-building measures on the part of the international community in relation to Turkish northern Cyprus. In particular, measures need to be taken to lift the wholly unfair international embargo on the north, which has been imposed for so long and which has been directly responsible for holding back economic development. I wish tentatively to welcome proposals which are anticipated from the Commission to provide a goodwill package of economic assistance, along with measures apparently to lift the embargo. I trust these measures are being made on a genuine basis and that they have been worked out in full concertation with the Turkish Cypriot authorities. Furthermore, I hope that the easing of travel restrictions by the Turkish Cypriot authorities between the two parts of Cyprus will be reciprocated by the Government of the Republic to enable the free movement of all people coming from the north.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the rapporteur asked us a moment ago to refrain from making any references to the legalisation or otherwise of drugs or to whether or not a policy of tolerance is to be adopted, because this is not what is at issue here. However, I am not so certain. To me, illegal drug trafficking is simply too broad a term. Mr Oostlander is opposed to the Dutch practice of tolerance, and that is fine. I am myself of the opinion that it is only a half-baked compromise. I would prefer to see soft drugs legalised, which are, after all, less harmful than the alcohol which flows abundantly in this establishment too. It is not only in the Netherlands that soft drugs are tolerated. For reasons of public health, this policy is also being replicated in other countries at local, regional and sometimes even national level. We may be making bold statements now, but matters will prove different in practice. Let us therefore confine our efforts to a policy which we can implement, which is also a European task according to the principle of subsidiarity and on which there is broad parliamentary and social consensus, namely a policy to tackle lucrative, organised, cross-border drug trafficking. Mr Oostlander is entitled to thrash out the rest at national level. After all, the elections are in the offing.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, we have to address this question of the ageing of our population from the point of view of having a society for all ages, as our motion indicates. There are real risks if we simply address this question from an economic point of view, regarding and valuing citizens simply for the contribution they can make to the economy or the workforce. Society, as this House knows, is a much wider concept than the economy, and that must be our starting-point. The question of income for older people depends on the extent to which we retain the European social model of a contribution from people who are in work to those who, at various points in their lives, either through illness or old age, will no longer be able to take part in the workforce. It is, therefore, essential to secure an efficient and effective taxation system and efficient and effective social insurance system. Most of all, we need to have a pensions reserve fund, so that there can be inter-generational solidarity between this generation and not just the next generation but also the generation after that. It is important that all Member States take this on board. I also want to draw attention to what I consider to be a mistaken view by Mrs Diamantopoulou, who seems to think that the solution to the ageing of our population is for us all to become more fertile: to have more babies. That is a cop-out. This simply will not happen – certainly not in the wealthier parts of Europe. We have to therefore grapple seriously with the whole issue of immigration. It is not enough to talk about the need to ensure that developing countries have sufficient resources to feed and to provide for their own people. Of course, we need to do that, but no matter how often or how well we do that, there will still be a need for people to move into the wealthier parts of Europe. I contend that we must stop this idea that we can build a fortress Europe and keep out these millions upon millions of people who want to come to Europe. They want to make a contribution to Europe, and we would all be the better for it, both economically and culturally.

Political group: PSE
The European Parliament resolution on the Middle East may ascribe some responsibility to the Israeli government, but it remains faithful to the general policy of sitting squarely on the fence, which is why the MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece abstained from the vote. The Communist Party of Greece condemns the blatant violation of international conventions, international law and bilateral agreements by the Israeli government and, more importantly, the aggressive, barbaric tactics of the Israeli forces occupying the West Bank and Gaza. The barbaric move in cutting off President Arafat's headquarters – and hence, to all intents and purposes, the Palestinian Authority – in Ramallah is intolerable and we call for an immediate end to it. We also condemn the increased and indiscriminate use of violence by the Israeli forces against the Palestinian people, as a result of which the Palestinians have suffered hundreds of deaths and thousands of casualties among the civilian population and constant bombardment of their infrastructure, including their homes and fields. We welcome the fight by the Palestinian people for a fair and peaceful solution in accordance with UN resolutions and we stand by them in their struggle to found their own independent state around the capital of East Jerusalem. We also welcome all the Israeli democrats who oppose their government's barbaric policy, who are fighting for a fair and viable solution and who often risk their life by refusing to be party to their government's illegal and inhumane action. More importantly, we stand by the Israeli soldiers who refuse to murder civilians. We consider that the ΕU's stand to date, despite its pronouncements to the contrary, has not helped to resolve the Palestinian question. On the contrary, by promoting the new order together with the USA and keeping to its tactic of sitting firmly on the fence between the murderers and the victims it is perpetuating the problem so that it can turn it to its advantage in accordance with its imperialist interests in the region and beyond. We call on the governments of the Member States, especially of the countries represented at the UN Security Council, and the ΕU to raise the issue of increased tension in the Middle East, the failure to apply the UN resolutions already passed and their violation by Israel at the UN and to call on Israel to help find a fair and viable solution to the problem and recognise the right of the Palestinian people to an independent state, which will make a decisive contribution towards stability and security in the region.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I too should like to thank the rapporteur for her brilliant report. In terms of equality policy, we have unfortunately begun far too late to focus upon money rather than upon mere words. When we do indeed focus upon money, we shall be able to attach some real figures to inequality. In this area, the EU’s Structural Funds are its handiest tools for redistributing resources, firstly between the regions and secondly between population groups. They must therefore be seen as key tools for achieving one of the Community's overarching goals: equality between men and women. As both Mrs Avilés Perea’s report and analyses by quite a few women’s organisations show, however, the gender dimension has not, as Commissioner Diamantopoulou pointed out, been anything like adequately incorporated. The fact that this has not happened is one issue. Another issue is that, when we address one of the major challenges for the EU – namely enlargement – we shall be faced with still greater challenges in the area of equality. We are now to have an array of new Member States with traditions and histories different from our own and, therefore, with views of the concept of equality different from that which we have in the existing Member States. The Communist regimes considered the oppression of women as something peculiar to capitalist societies, and sexual equality was therefore officially introduced. This meant that women were to go out to work and to take part in political life. In return, nurseries were set up, maternity leave was introduced and abortion was legalised in a number of countries. It worked in the sense that the proportion of women in the labour market was high in relation to what it was in the existing EU countries. The other side of the coin, however, was that, in many cases, women experienced their work as nothing more than a mere duty, and not as a right, and there was no question at all of equal wages and therefore, of course, no question of equality either. It can now be seen that, with the transition to a market economy, unemployment has hit women hard, and unemployment is something women will often associate with accession to the EU. The EU must therefore make an extra effort to convince women that the EU is something other than a crude market economy. It is in this area, moreover, that the Structural Funds have a central role to play, specifically through their representatives in the different countries knowing how to practise mainstreaming and how to involve women in projects, for otherwise there will be no projects beneficial to women, precisely because the latter are not in the first place well disposed towards the market economy and the EU and because they have the historical background I have already described. In this context, I hope that Commissioner Diamantopoulou will follow up on what she has already said along the lines of our being alert to this issue and that she will also intervene if it proves that there has been no proper mainstreaming. I am, moreover, completely convinced that all of us who are here this evening will happily help her.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for her comments and for her willingness, which she expressed several times before this House, to take into due consideration the environmental impact on an alpine area which is made particularly vulnerable by its altitude and its geographical location. We have proposed new solutions in draft form, which have also recently been put forward to the Commissioner. I consider that this proposal could be a pilot solution for the new projects and the concept of European Union transport as a whole. I hope that the willingness hitherto displayed by the Commissioner will be mirrored throughout the rest of the Commission and that her intentions will receive majority backing from the European Commission as well.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, my group shares the same opinion as most other groups, i.e. that this is a good report and that it is high time we had working time regulations which also apply to road transport. This has been a relatively long time coming. Last time we discussed additional groups – at that time it was a question of doctors and a number of other groups – there was a similar discussion, but drivers were not included. It is very good that this category is now being covered. Our group also believes that it is obviously necessary to put employees and drivers on an equal footing. We are fairly sure that if this is not done, less scrupulous haulage companies will organise themselves in such a way as to be able to exploit technically self-employed drivers who are in fact a kind of employee. We do not want this sort of cheating in the industry. Our group has tabled two amendments. We will support all of Mr Hughes’ proposals, but on one point we would like to proceed a little faster. We believe that the transposition period of three years is unnecessary. Firstly, the industry has known for a long time that changes would be introduced, so they have had time to adapt. Secondly, there is a point of view which has been under-emphasised, namely regard for other road-users. It can be said that the requirement for a transposition period is one way of taking the industry into account, but it certainly gives no regard to other road-users. Mr Hughes also admitted that the new regulations might lead to considerable problems, even with a transposition period. We therefore believe that it is as well to bite the bullet and implement the provisions without a transposition period. This is particularly important with regard to regulations on working time concerning night work and other activities which may represent a danger to road safety. We support the proposal as it stands, with Amendments 25 and 26 at the end, requiring the transposition period to be removed from the proposal.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, it is nothing short of a tragedy that the Commission proposal before us is not proposing an end to the long-distance transport of farm animals and a ban on live exports. Huge numbers of people oppose live exports; they are unnecessary, cruel and unjustifiable. My Amendment No 114 would enable Member States to ban them, and I urge colleagues to vote for it. This is not 'tilting at windmills', as Commissioner Byrne put it. It reflects public opinion, it respects much scientific opinion and it is the only humane and acceptable approach. That the EU can continue to allow animals to be transported across Europe for many hours – sometimes over 40 or 50 hours, sometimes up to 90 hours – is completely unacceptable, both from an animal welfare point of view and from the point of view of trying to prevent the spread of disease. It is therefore crucial that Parliament accepts our amendments, particularly Amendment No 123, for an overall, final maximum journey time of eight hours for slaughter and for fattening. Although it now seems that the United Kingdom Government is apparently – at the last minute – supporting the amendments for an overall eight-hour limit, I fear that this can only be a cynical PR stunt, since for the last six months it has been wrecking just such an outcome in the Council of Ministers. Not only that, but the United Kingdom Government has also completely failed to guarantee to protect our horses from being exported to the continent for slaughter. These are hugely important issues and we must make sure that our parliamentary response addresses them properly. (Applause) IN THE CHAIR: MR ONESTAVice-President

Political group: Verts-ALE