GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, your generosity is appreciated although as I am not an economist, nor a statistician, nor a liar I hope, I think I will be quite brief. What strikes me about me about the Commission's statement is that in a zone as large as the EMU, labour costs are generally considered as the main potential source of inflation. That is an overstatement of the situation. I accept, of course, that rises in prices and labour prices and labour costs can impact on inflation, but clearly in our Member State economies, where increasingly wage rates are negotiated through national agreements and are linked to productivity, and have all kinds of other factors built into any increases that employees get, the likelihood of labour costs being the driving force behind inflation to my mind is untrue. That is not to say that it is not a factor. What is a significant factor, however, is the operation of the market itself. I have personal experience of this in Ireland where prices on the housing market have simply exploded. Houses that were being sold five years ago for IEP 80 000 are now selling for IEP 250 000 Irish Pounds. This is extraordinary and wage rises had nothing whatsoever to do with it. It had to do with market demand, growth in the economy, etc. In fact probably, indirect taxation as part of government policy in relation to spending has a greater impact on inflation. Having said all that, this is a useful tool for the European Union to develop. It is important in order to manage the euro and the European monetary zone. It is inadequate in some respects because large areas of income are excluded. Professional fees for example are not included in this labour cost index and we all know the extent to which professional fees are virtually uncontrollable. These bodies set their own fees by and large, certainly in the Republic of Ireland. Also the issue of costs for education and training should be factored in, because obviously this is a cost, or should be a cost, in most cases to employers. So this is a useful tool and we should proceed with it. We need to review the position within a year or two to see how it is working to see what else might be factored in. And I would just ask the Commission to bear in mind that if it really believes that labour costs are the main potential factor for driving up inflation it will be making bad policy decisions.

Political group: PSE
While stressing the importance of respecting the provisions of the Stability Pact and stepping up the reforms adopted in Lisbon, the García-Margallo report remains deaf to the criticisms and strong disagreements that are being heard increasingly loudly from public opinion. It remains blind to the increase in unemployment, mass redundancies and sudden closures of companies. What crime have the employees of Metaleurope committed? What sort of ‘stability’ are we talking about when lives are shattered for the sake of being ‘consistent with monetary policy’? We always hear the same old thing: liberalisation of the markets requires sacrifices! Instead of this, I would have liked the EU to aim for a genuine pact for employment and growth, based on satisfying the needs of the people, increasing salaries, a real policy to create jobs and wealth. I can therefore only oppose the report’s approach of ‘not calling into question macro-economic stability’, which means that employers receive public funds and can shut companies down, without being accountable for it. I cannot support the invitation to ‘further liberalise services of general interest (...) namely postal services, telecommunications, gas and electricity, rail and air transport, and broadcasting’.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the Napolitano Report does indeed take us one important step towards greater clarity in this debate on the role of the parliaments in the EU, and thus also a step towards greater democracy in it. Our objective is, in my judgement, the creation of a parliamentary democracy in the European Union. Only then will these issues of legitimisation, transparency and monitoring be able to be satisfactorily resolved. ‘Parliamentarising’ the EU means reinforcing all elected assemblies in their relations with their executives at both national and European level. Intellectual and political clarity is needed for the debate on their respective roles. Some in this House have got all this a bit mixed up together. We need to separate the levels at which the national parliaments and the European Parliament will have their roles to play. The parliaments have a joint role in the introduction of a constitution, which is a primary role of parliaments rather than of governments. Because of this too, we are glad that we have the Convention, and can rejoice that over two-thirds of the Convention's members will be coming from the parliaments. For secondary legislation and for the enactment of laws, on the other hand, we have the institutions – the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. I also say that we do not need a third chamber, something that would bring no added value and would only make the decision-making arrangements as a whole more complicated. That popular trust is at all likely to be increased by such ideas is something I simply doubt. What is important is the strengthening of the national parliaments in their dealings with their national governments. Much can be done in this area and there is much still to do, so I believe we should come to an agreement and work together. I thank Mr Napolitano for bringing clarity with his report and also for achieving, in the hearings we have had here, greater understanding between the parliaments. Congratulations on this report, which I hope will be adopted by a large majority! (Applause)

Political group: PSE
The increasingly open and competitive economic environment in which the business world has to operate these days and the need to promote a form of economic growth capable of guaranteeing the employment and social well-being of the citizens, fully justifies the strategy and the agreements adopted by the European Council to provide that strategy with new impetus. These agreements should have been much more ambitious in terms of their proposed scope and the fields covered, in view of the accumulated delays in the implementation of the measures agreed in Lisbon. So I have voted in favour of the resolution, but I regret that it does not include a reference to the need to guarantee access to third-country markets on a reciprocal basis and with full respect for the rules governing international trade, an aspect which I believe to be essential. In terms of maintaining and improving employment, the measures will be of little use, however necessary they are, if our companies are not able to export as a result of the unfair competition in the field of external trade which the EU is obliged to control.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am very pleased that today we have managed to vote on the new rules for the organisation of the market in tobacco. The proposal that Parliament has made with partial decoupling is the right road because the decisions of the 2003 Luxembourg Council provided for partial decoupling for all market organisations. As Mr Maaten said, far more than 400 000 jobs are affected. I would like to make one more thing quite clear here. If anyone thinks that everyone would stop smoking if no more tobacco were grown in Europe, he is dreaming. Tobacco would then be imported and we would only damage the European economy, in other words, farmers and workers.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I could not agree more with Mrs Buitenweg. As I understand it, this item will be discussed tomorrow, and I should like to draw your attention to the fact that not only will a speaker for and a speaker against be allowed to take the floor, but the rapporteur will also be given the chance to speak. I have to say that I think it will be an extremely difficult job to convince a full House of people who have not followed the entire process to date, but I rely on the fact that the speaking time to which the rapporteur is entitled will be available to me tomorrow. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
In paragraph 4, the report calls upon the Convention ‘to provide a legal basis for sport in the future Treaty of the Union, recognising its cultural, educational and social functions and including a reference to equal access for women and men to participation in sports and related responsibilities’. I am able to concur with everything that is being said in this House about sport – but not that the EU should be given the right to legislate in respect of this area too. That is why I have voted against the report. A Swedish proverb says that ‘if you are too greedy, you easily lose the lot’. The EU neither can nor should take upon itself the right to legislate in respect of sport. That would be extending the EU’s jurisdiction too far, and without the EU having the ability to comply with this responsibility. The principles of subsidiarity and proportionality are unambiguous in indicating that centralised legislation at European level far away from the sports associations, clubs and practitioners would not add any value to sport but, on the contrary, afford it significant disadvantages.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, over and above all the constitutional issues, the present situation sees Europeans being asked the question: What is your capacity to act? Is the European Union perceived as being able to act in the context of efforts to deal with this international crisis, or is it not? To ask the question is to answer it in the negative, because the ones taking action are the Americans and, alongside them, partly the British and their allies, but not the European Union as such. Nor should the British allow themselves to be deceived. They too are only a small junior partner in the business and have nothing like the weight that Europeans could have if they acted together. Only as a community will Europeans acquire capacity to act – they will not do it bilaterally, trilaterally or multilaterally. So it was a gross error for the ruling Big Three to set off before Ghent. Far from demonstrating European capacity to act, that is a trip down a one-way street, showing considerable lack of awareness of how Europe works. Those who have acted in this way had better take good note of that. We need capacity to act as a Community. So we need the European Rapid Reaction Force. Without such an instrument, Europeans will not be taken seriously in the world. That is why it is ridiculous for us still to be arguing about how this instrument should be financed. In this respect, the Community must prove its strength. We also, however, need an instrument at home. We need the capacity to combat terrorism across national frontiers. Police work goes on in the Member States, but it must be clear to all that international terrorism can only be combated with any prospect of success by units that are in a position to operate without regard to national boundaries. Action as a Community is what Europe lacks, and it is on that that we must concentrate. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I welcome the outcome of the Laeken summit. On balance it is a very positive one. The decision to establish a European Convention paralleled by a forum for civil society is a historic one in its proportions. Never again will the future of Europe be decided behind closed doors, provided we do our work constructively in the Convention. I particularly welcome the possibility of a European constitution as a possible outcome. As has been said by Mr Verhofstadt, there should be no taboos in our debate and the idea of federalism and a constitution for Europe could guarantee the role of the citizens in small states better than any other form of governance. I endorse wholeheartedly the decision of the European summit to give its support to Yasser Arafat as the leader of the Palestinian people and I condemn without reservation the misuse of the Security Council veto in blocking the appointment of international observers to the Middle East conflict. These decisions, however, were tarnished by an unseemly squabble among some Member States about the location of European agencies which reflected the worst features of the old way of running Europe. I am also disappointed the Council did not give its explicit support for a legal framework for public services in the context of competition regulations, as the European Parliament urged. Finally, I also believe it was a serious mistake to back off from a decision to nominate a European Union peace-keeping force for Afghanistan under a UN mandate. This unfortunately now leaves this area to the dictates of the interests of the more powerful states on the world stage and fails to provide a political presence and role for European values. Could I finally say that we should ease up a little on the ageism in relation to the praesidium. I am more interested in the originality or old age of the ideas of these three individuals rather than their chronological age. I do think, however, that had we tried, we could have found an older woman who could have also made an important contribution to the praesidium.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I wish to congratulate the rapporteur for her great commitment in dealing with this report on a programme of Community action for combating social exclusion in which, as many have said, poverty can be an important factor. We are told that finding paid work is the best way of preventing social exclusion but I would agree with those who have said that we would have to take account of the fact that gainful employment alone is no guarantee of social participation. There are many elderly people who would agree with that, as would those who had worked for hours for low wages which do not provide a decent living – farm labourers, for example. It is a pity that poverty is proving such a controversial addition to the title of this programme, for the reason that it is not mentioned in the Treaties. It would be interesting to hear from the Council, at some point, whether they are proposing to rectify this omission at the Nice Summit. Combating poverty proves controversial because it raises the issue of social protection as a productive factor and the issue of redistribution – deeply unfashionable concepts with some Member States. It would be useful to use some of the increased sum which is requested in this report to fund comparative studies to demonstrate how such developments might be managed. I am sure that many of the NGOs and local and regional authorities – which Mrs Figueiredo proposes to include in the programme and its evaluation – would be happy to share their considerable expertise. If we are going to avoid social exclusion we have to ensure that our macroeconomic policies do not act in a way which increases social exclusion. It would be totally counterproductive to have policies which undermine local economic development, make employment less secure but more demanding and then have to mop up the casualties through programmes which try to combat poverty and social exclusion.

Political group: Verts-ALE
We voted against this report, not because we would reject any agreement between Europe and China on matters concerning maritime transport, but because this particular agreement bears the stamp of inequality, and of the imperialist relationship between Europe and the rest of the world. This is demonstrated by the main points of the agreement, which is heavily weighted in favour of the interests of European shipping companies and their shareholders, and the interests of businesses linked to them. The agreement does all this and yet it obviously seems so natural to the rapporteur that he does not even show any semblance of caring about the treatment meted out to those who work in the holds of merchant ships, those workers, often Asians, on the back of whose sufferings the ship owners, and especially the European ship owners, and the major groups for which they operate, are enabled to grow fat.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, it is vitally important that the European Parliament sends a very clear message that there is no case for military action in Iraq. Increasing numbers of people across the EU recognise that such a pre-emptive attack would be both illegal and immoral. Hundreds of thousands of people have gathered for anti-war demonstrations across the European Union. In the United Kingdom, over 160 000 people have signed a petition against war organised by a national newspaper, the Daily Mirror. They recognise that you cannot say you are upholding international law by breaking international law. They know that a war against Iraq would also be hugely counter-productive – far from fighting terrorism, it is a sure-fire way to fuel terrorism. There are alternatives and the EU has a key role to play in promoting them. If this conflict is really about getting rid of weapons of mass destruction, there are many other routes we can take. We need full implementation, for example, of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Five countries, including Britain, France and the United States, have been in material breach of this particular article of international law for over three decades. The chemical and biological conventions could also be strengthened. There are many other proposals. There are ambitious and controversial agendas, but the EU is uniquely able to propose radical new solutions and it has a duty to do so.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the statistics are sufficiently known. Some half a billion small arms and light weapons are in circulation worldwide, more than half of which are illegal. In 46 of the 49 major conflicts since 1990, weapons of this kind were used. These weapons are also largely responsible for the phenomenon of child soldiers. Small arms and light weapons are easy to come by, in some places for USD 15; they are easy to operate, easy to conceal and transport and, above all, are ever so deadly. According to an independent study in 2001, small arms claim the lives of more than 1 000 people, mainly innocent people, every day. Internationally, there are hardly any rules in the area of the production and spread of small arms and light weapons. The Ottawa Treaty on the use of anti-personnel mines forms an exception to this. Unfortunately, we have to establish that the largest producers of small arms and light weapons, namely the US, Russia and China, are also the most fervent opponents to international legislation in the style of Ottawa. In order to get a real grip on the proliferation of small arms, transparency is what is first and foremost required. The UN register for conventional weapons should be opened to this category of weapons. The rules on arms exports must be stepped up. The application of identifying marks during the production of new weapons must become compulsory, so that their origins can be traced more easily. I share Commissioner Patten's view that the 1998 European code of conduct should serve as a model for a worldwide, binding agreement on arms exports and transfers. During the UN Conference next July, the European Union should take the lead in the fight against the illegal trade in small arms and light weapons. Indeed, there is a risk that all efforts in the field of conflict prevention will be in vain if the root causes are not tackled.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, corrupt and ruthless dictators continue to exploit and impoverish many countries in Africa. Decades of international aid, especially EU aid, have been undone and destroyed. Consequently millions suffer from avoidable diseases or are maimed and shot. The EU must condemn these dictators and it must be ready to act promptly. In cases like Liberia, where ECOWAS and Nigeria have taken the initiative. I hope the EU will do more than just provide the EUR 15 million that it is has pledged. I am pleased, of course, that the EU is involved and I want to ensure that this Parliament is aware of the continuing problems in Africa, because it is European taxpayers who in the end become impatient if we are seen not to take appropriate action. I hope Commissioner Nielson will do his best and keep Parliament informed, because we need to show that Liberia can recover and can perhaps be a model for other African countries. We need to build it anew and ensure there is prosperity and peace.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr Byrne has left the airport – I assume that is Strasbourg airport – and is on his way here. Therefore under Rule 146, 32 Members can set the specific time and date when this debate should resume. I am therefore proposing that the debate should resume at 4.45 p.m. today, and I would ask 32 Members to support this. If they do, then that ends the matter until 4.45 p.m.

Political group: PSE
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, in your report, you described a make-believe Europe which, if it were real, we would want too. However, we can see that you are preparing for the adoption of a Constitution which will silence, weaken and condition Europe’s institutions. Moreover, you are increasingly bending Europe’s will to US and Soviet diktats. On this occasion, at least, we would like you to set aside personal ambition for once in favour of the collective interest. Give up the pleasure of, at all costs, signing your name at the bottom of the draft European Constitution which blocks the possibility of future amendment, gives the Commission a degrading role and provides for paralysing unanimous decision-making in the Council. We would also like you, at least for as long as you are President-in-Office of the European Council, to refrain from underselling Europe’s role in upholding human rights, even when they are attacked by the Americans at Guantánamo or the Russians in Chechnya, for the sake of a weekend at Camp David with President Bush or a trip to Sardinia with President Putin. Speak out on these issues if you have the courage, providing, of course, that you do not find you have a conflict of interests in those areas.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Laeken has opened the door to the development of a draft constitution on the basis of the Community method. The mandate is right for it, the procedure is suited to it, and whether something of the sort is achieved or not is up to the Convention itself. Nor can I join in the criticism levelled at the composition of the praesidium, believing as I do that the people at the top will no longer be in thrall to anyone, but will have only their own conceptions of the Europe of the future. This represents a great opportunity. We should not find fault with a person's age if that is a sign of an independence that can contribute much to the matter in hand. Apart from this, I think it extraordinarily important that the right technical conditions be achieved in this matter. It is of the essence that the secretariat is appointed by the Council, but with the possibility of consulting the Commission and Parliament. I believe it would be generous on the part of the Council to offer the Commission and Parliament truly balanced and equal representation on the secretariat in order to achieve the right working conditions on that basis. The technical aspects at the outset are sometimes decisive as regards the content resulting at the end. Of all enterprises, the European Council is surely the one most in need of reform, and it is making a start by concentrating on great matters such as the creation of the European Convention, in which it has been successful. If, though, it loses itself in detail through the General Affairs Council or Councils of Ministers not getting things straight, it makes itself look ridiculous. We again saw this, for example, over the issue of the agencies. So we can only recommend to future Presidencies of the Council that the precondition for success on the really big issues is that they should not deal with every triviality at a sitting of the European Council. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE