GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I do not agree with those speakers who said that the Commission as our negotiator did us wrong so far as the European Union was concerned. On the contrary, I would support those who have said that not only did they have a coherent delegation to lead but that the practical arrangements for us – the largest Parliamentary delegation which had ever attended international trade talks – were to our mutual benefit. It looks as though we will have to wait for the new millennium now for a Millennium Round. Was it a victory, a disaster or an unexpected welcome break in Seattle? People are right to say that the procedure should have been better. We need better decision making. We need quicker dispute settlement procedures. However, it was the substance which was the problem: an overload of a traditional trade agenda with non-trade issues. Globalisation has led to a number of issues which touch the sovereignty of Nation States being put on a trade agenda. President Clinton's call for the enforcement of trade labour standards for developing countries and elsewhere in the world was the death knell of these talks. But linking these two together – procedure and substance – I welcome the Commissioner's support for a parliamentary body of some kind. This will not only help the democratic accountability of the WTO, help to provide an on-going interface with non-governmental organisations, but also help the gradual evolution of the non-trade concerns on the agenda. These are, after all, concerns of elected representatives. In this respect, it is an unexpected welcome break. But let us have no illusions. The US Administration is not going to change its position before the election. Nevertheless, when we were in Seattle we had excellent talks with US legislators. I ask the Commission to help us develop our contacts on discussion of specific issues such as agriculture in the intervening period so we can assist this intermediate solution. I believe they are willing to have dialogue with us on a number of specific issues. Maybe dialogue between transatlantic legislators can help in this area.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of my group I should firstly like to thank all the rapporteurs involved in the railway package. They have done some excellent work. Development of the railways, however, was far too late in getting started. Now such areas as the promotion of competition in both freight and passenger transport services, increased interoperability and improvements in safety are huge challenges which really do require swift action to be taken. The competitiveness of the railways has seriously decreased. There has been a shift to transportation along congested roads as well as by air, because the railways have not been able to improve their services quickly enough. This railway package will enable us to promote the competitiveness of the European railways, and improved competitiveness will mean that companies and the public will have the chance to utilise a more environment-friendly form of transport. At the same time congestion can be relieved and short flights replaced by railway transport services, which will result in a better balance between transport operators. Development of the railways will also clear the way for increased use of intermodal transport, as at the same time attention will be paid to improved interoperability of the ports and railways. As shadow rapporteur, I have followed Mr Savary’s drafting of the report closely. Mr Savary has also done good work. A properly established Railway Agency would boost development of the railways and monitor and promote innovation and good practice. Our group believes, however, that the same principle should be followed regarding the composition of the Agency’s administrative board as that which applies to the Maritime Safety Agency. We have tabled an amendment on this for which we hope there is support.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what I found absent from the Commissioner's speech this morning was something quite essential, by which I mean the need for us to re-establish a clear order of precedence, according to which this self-evidently has to be about safety and consumer protection, but also about transparency. I see the subject of transparency as having had far too small a part to play in this morning's debate as a whole. Commissioner, I would like to urge you in quite specific terms to make a real effort to enact a directive on consumer information analogous to the directive on the freedom of access to information on the environment. If, for example, there are problems, there should be real disclosure enabling all to see which businesses are causing them. We must also use this to introduce incentives to get entrepreneurs to really plan for safety. We need all these things. Parliament's resolution contains many lines of approach for the introduction of precisely this consumer information directive. It is not enough simply to call for greater freedom of choice or more information; on that I agree with all those who have already criticised that idea. This is not about mounting a lot of campaigns in support of the genetic engineering industry, but what matters is that a directive on consumer information should be produced, laying down in very clear terms not only the consumer's right to information, but also the enterprises' duty to disclose breaches when they occur. I would then like to urge you, as a matter of urgency, to enact the Toys Directive a good deal sooner. I cannot restrain myself from making a final comment in view of the warning issued by the gentleman from the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs about the provisions on the giving of credit. It goes without saying that I am in favour of minimum harmonisation, and at a high level, but for as long as there are scandals such as that in Germany with the Berliner Bank, with, outrageously, members of the CDU accepting illegal donations, there will, I believe, be a real need for credit institutions to have rules applicable to them. Let nobody try to tell me that that is obvious!

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, most Member States already have laws on temporary work or collective agreements, but they vary substantially in quality. The German legislation formerly in force was certainly not as simple as has been claimed here, and the public, whether they were employers or employed, did not accept it. Let me list just some of the peculiarities in the German restrictions: the ban on 'synchronisation', limitation to twelve months, a ban on fixed-term employment, and a ban in the construction industry. This is why I think that the German Government and parliament have taken a very courageous and significant step by already incorporating the European directive currently being debated into the qualitative improvements for Germany. It was unacceptable for workers in Germany to be earning up to 40% less than the permanent staff. No wonder the industry as a whole has such an appalling image. This is precisely what we are trying to change. What is interesting, however, is that temporary work is most readily accepted by society, and is also increasing to the greatest extent in those Member States where the principle of equality applies, namely in France and the Netherlands. Of course, the employers want social acceptance as well. The main reason for using temporary agency workers – as our Foundation in Dublin found out – is not the cost savings incurred, but the option of flexible deployment during seasonal bottlenecks, as a response to personnel fluctuations, and in some cases in the extension of probationary periods. This is exactly what the European directive facilitates, with Mrs van den Burg's amendments. The necessary flexibility is further safeguarded through wage negotiations. Let us adopt this directive tomorrow and send out a clear signal that there really is such a thing as a social Europe!

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I do not believe what has just happened to be reasonable; I do not believe it to be reasonable that speakers should have the opportunity to express, in front of all the Members of this House, an opinion contrary to that of Commissioner Patten on the referral to the Court of Justice, when we have spent months discussing it here. We did not have the opportunity that Commissioner Patten had yesterday, of speaking in front of a larger audience; we had our opportunity in the in-depth work carried out in the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs and in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. There is a favourable opinion from the previous plenum about referral to the Court of Justice; there is a favourable opinion from the Committee on Legal Affairs; we should have referred the matter to the Court by now. Let us stop this, please. It is not acceptable. And let us move on at last to the vote, because this will ensure that there is no further opportunity to change what until today has been the majority position in this House. We accept it, but do it now, please. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would repeat what I said before: there is nothing incompatible about, on the one hand, our having voted as we did this morning in relation to the preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice and, on the other, having to give our opinion on the legislative proposal and the resolution. I will repeat: it is the resolution that calls for the agreement to be suspended. We therefore have this legitimate right in this House and the political groups would be deprived of it if we were prevented from voting on the proposal and the resolution. I would therefore insist once again, Mr President, that this report must not be referred back to committee, but that it should be voted on as planned, for the reasons I have just given, which I believe to be conclusive. (Parliament decided to refer the report back to committee) *** Report (A5-0229/2004) by Mrs Angelilli, on behalf of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a Council regulation laying down the requirement for the competent authorities of the Member States to stamp systematically the travel documents of third-country nationals when they cross the external borders of the Member States and amending the convention implementing the Schengen agreement and the common manual to this end (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0248/2004) by Mr Ceyhun, on behalf of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a Council regulation on the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction – (recast) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0200/2004) by Mr Bayona de Perogordo, on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control, on the discharge for 2002 – general budget of the European Communities (Commission) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0183/2004) by Mr Sjöstedt, on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control, on the discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the budget of the sixth, seventh and eighth European Development Funds for the 2002 financial year (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0228/2004) by Mrs Stauner, on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control, concerning discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the 2002 financial year: 1. Section II, Council 2. Section IV, Court of Justice 3. Section V, Court of Auditors 4. Section VI, Economic and Social Committee 5. Section VII, Committee of the Regions 6. Section VIII, Ombudsman (In successive votes Parliament adopted the resolutions) *** Report (A5-0218/2004) by Mr van Hulten, on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control, concerning discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the 2002 financial year – Section I – European Parliament Before the vote:

Political group: PPE-DE
The failure of the Brussels Summit with regard to the outcome of the IGC was positive. It is lamentable, however, that Parliament has not learnt its lesson and continues to uphold the so-called ‘European constitution’ through this resolution sponsored by the right, the Social-Democrats and the . The fact is that this time the contradictions surrounding the division of power among the ‘large’ countries were more obvious in the IGC, leading to the collapse of the attempted agreement to impose an antidemocratic, neo-liberal and militarist project, in a context in which inter-imperialist rivalries, particularly with the USA, are not unknown. In the meantime, as it is still too early to judge how and when the process will be resumed, the blackmail around the forthcoming financial perspective is gaining strength, with six countries demanding an unacceptable annual ceiling of 1% of the Community GNI. For our part, we shall continue with the much-needed disclosure of the real objectives and dangers involved in the unacceptable ‘European constitution’, which has serious consequences for workers and for Portugal. We shall continue our fight for a Europe of cooperation among sovereign, equal states, which has as its objective the improvement of living standards for workers and populations, and peace and solidarity with all peoples of the world – a path that effectively serves the interests of Portugal.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, I feel the rapporteur deserves to be congratulated on the report. I believe he has incorporated very positive elements into it and endeavoured to steer a course avoiding both exaggeration and indifference. In order not to look the other way, I shall focus on one of the matters covered in the report – that of flax – and put some figures to the House. For instance, according to the figures, in my country, Spain, flax was grown on 3 376 hectares during the 1994-95 season. However, by the 1998-99 season it was already being cultivated on 100 000 hectares. The initial subsidy in 1994-95 amounted to P 411 million, whereas by 1998-99 it had risen to ESP 10 000 million. After the Spanish authorities reported the fraud, the area used for the cultivation of flax decreased as if by magic. Those 100 000 hectares were reduced to less than 1000. As a result, the subsidy fell to below P 100 million. Despite all this data, the head of the Ministry of Agriculture at the time maintained it was all part of an opposition campaign. True, she recently changed her mind and stated that had not been the case, but that essentially the opposition was to blame. I should like to focus on the type of liability the House might invoke. In the first place, there is penal liability as it applies to individual owners of processing plants. They were privy to special information – I am not referring to information about the regulations, which was in the public domain, but information on how they could be got round. These persons had at their disposal the capital required to set up the companies. Most importantly, they were sitting pretty, holding high office in the Ministry of Agriculture. It is therefore appropriate to invoke strictly penal liability for them and for the producers who also played the game. Parliament and the relevant institutions should do precisely that. There is another type of liability: specific political liability. This means establishing whether any of the players directly involved in the fraud had been appointed to public political office by an institution in Spain. It has to be said that such was indeed the case. One of the highest-ranking officials within the Ministry of Agriculture, the Chair of the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund, was closely connected with flax processing companies. Lastly, there is also administrative liability. If this does apply, we should call the Commission and national and local authorities to account. We should not, however, create confusion and adopt the course advocated by Mr Bösch, insisting that liabilities be itemised in detail.

Political group: PSE
The European Summit has ended in complete failure; no Constitutional Treaty has been established. This has not come as a total surprise, nor is it a total disaster because for the time being, Europe can continue to function in the same ramshackle way as it has done so far. Unfortunately, though, it does illustrate once again that this way of decision-making, involving Heads of Government who have to reach consensus behind closed doors, does not work. It is also regrettable that these days, governments have to prove their worth at home by the extent to which they manage to prevent the rest of Europe from doing something. To my group, what remains paramount is that the Constitutional Treaty must culminate in one voting Commissioner per Member State, and in the election of the President of the European Commission by the European Parliament. This is what we defend in The Hague and in Strasbourg. The EU becomes more efficient to the extent that it becomes more democratic, and, in achieving this, it is crucial that there should be codecision across the board for the European Parliament and that the role of national parliaments should be greatly reinforced.

Political group: ELDR
Early this afternoon the President felt she needed to cut short and postpone the opportunity for Members to raise this matter. She felt she had to prioritise the debate on the future of Europe. But the future of Europe will be nothing if our people do not support us. This case is a perfect example of the impact on individuals of the quality or otherwise of European integration. Parliament had a chance to show its relevance to people and missed it in prime time. Our motion now clashes with the Presidential debate where most of our colleagues are. I find it difficult to believe that after nearly three weeks it has been impossible to clarify, let alone hear, the charges against the 12 Britons. I am also puzzled about the role the Greek air force has reportedly had in reviewing the charges as opposed to an independent prosecutor. The defendants have not had an opportunity to challenge the evidence in open court and now the higher tribunal to which the case has been referred is to be held in secret. Mr Souladakis said earlier that the Greek criminal justice authorities had respected all relevant rights. I am surprised that the European Convention on Human Rights is so weak. We might need a Europe-wide review with a view to reinforcing those standards and we certainly need that in parallel with the European arrest warrant. I call on the Greek authorities to clarify the charges, release the defendants on bail and hold a trial in open court by Friday of this week.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I have questions to ask on three points: do you not think that the huge crises which we have seen in Macedonia are, in the final analysis, a consequence of our failure to coordinate our policies in Kosovo? Should we not put them down to the fact that we were not really able to do our job there, that we failed to disarm the UCK, that the fragmentation of responsibilities between numerous international organisations and within the European Union itself is a fact of life and that the crisis has again taken hold because we failed in our duty? I have a second question. Mr President-in-Office. I know it is not your sole responsibility as a result of this summit, but how, in your view, will future European Councils operate once the number of seats rises and there are 27 participants, if the European Council is to discuss every detail? The European Council was founded so that the Heads of State or Government could discuss fundamental questions. Now there are sometimes 30, 40 or 50 items on the agenda. Do you not think that the heads of government are trying – and more’s the pity – to assume responsibility for every detail, undermining the authority of their own work and the work of the European Council in the process? The third point that I wish to address concerns the Council itself. I think that, if we want to implement a reform process, the Council of Ministers must become more transparent, more efficient and more open. Everything gets passed to the European Council because of the inefficiency and inability to take decisions of the weakest institution which we have in the European Union, namely the Council of Ministers. That is not your personal responsibility; it is a structural question which we urgently need to address. I think that, for this reason, now that we are heading for a Union of 27 members, the question of legislating in public needs to be raised. This applies to the Council, when it acts as legislator, and should demonstrate that we have an interaction in political debate in Europe. Responsibilities must be clearly outlined and we must make clear that we need decision-making mechanisms here which bring about results. We cannot offload everything on to the Heads of State or Government, on to you, only to find that we are unable to reach a solution. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Mrs Figueiredo, the draftsperson of the opinion, has clearly communicated to the Committee on Budgets and to this House the concerns of the Committee on Fisheries in relation to this draft budget for 2003. You will be aware that the whole of the CFP represents for European Union budgetary expenditure less than the smallest of the agricultural common organisations of the market; the Union budget intended for fisheries is smaller than that for cotton, for example. I would like to remind the House of the commitment made by the Council and Parliament to provide the EUR 27 million corresponding to this financial year for the restructuring of the fleet that fished in Morocco. The people concerned, who are fishermen and shipowners, hope that this commitment will be met, regardless of the form of budgetary or accounting engineering adopted. Although there are no resources to increase the lines for social dialogue and coastal fishing as we would have liked, the Commission should take account of Parliament’s desire for these two issues to receive more support.

Political group: PSE