GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Commissioner, as Chairman of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, I have to say that the report on cohesion is indeed an excellent basis for discussion and I trust that we shall be holding this discussion in the Committee on Regional Policy very soon and that it will be a very global discussion. Now, as a Member of the European Parliament, I have to say that it is clear from the report on cohesion that there has been a relative improvement in our efforts to achieve economic and social cohesion in the European Union and that, as you rightly said, we have had more success with the economic indicators than we have with the social indicators. Some countries, such as Ireland, have taken greater advantage of the opportunities given to them than have other countries. So the message which we should send out from the House today is that we need more efficient administration on all sides, especially on the part of the Member States and regions and, of course, we need incentives, such as the performance reserve, so that we can use European taxpayers' money more efficiently. Obviously, I agree that we need to start focusing on the poorest regions and countries of the European Union right now and again after 2006. But we must not forget one very important point: today's poorer countries are not going to get richer purely and simply because enlargement will artificially reduce the average per capita GDP in the European Union. That is something we must bear in mind if we are to avoid straying into misguided policies. I therefore think that we need to concentrate resources, we need to make better use of resources, we need to call for better administration both on the part of the Commission and of the Member States and regions; however, that must not cause us to forget one basic fact: that more people will want a slice of the cake after enlargement and as far as I am concerned, Commissioner, it is vital that we increase the size of the cake, that we increase the resources of the Structural Funds after 2006. I should like to hear your views on this.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, over the past few weeks, I have received various complaints from Spanish and Dutch meat transporters who apparently have been threatened by Breton farmers and attacked when delivering their products. Supermarkets too are being threatened if they want to buy meat from Spain and the Netherlands, and the French Government is refusing to take action. Although it is the insurers that compensate the direct damage, the damage incurred in the long term, because the meat is no longer bought for fear of threats from a few gangs of thuggish Breton farmers, is a thorn in my side. It is also in contravention of the internal market and the free movement of goods. I therefore ask you to urge the Commission and the French Government to put a stop to this as soon as possible, because if it is not, French wine and champagne may well similarly be rejected in other European countries. This would not benefit the internal market and would even spoil our Christmas to some extent.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, in spite of Mr Dupuis’ gloomy forecast, the UN Commission on Human Rights conference in Geneva is a new opportunity to make progress on ensuring that human rights are respected, promoted and safeguarded. We have known for quite a while now that suffering, poverty, human rights violations, persecution on the grounds of sex, sexual orientation, religion, culture or race are global phenomena. Millions of human beings have to suffer these affronts every single day. 11 September reminded us that the breakdown of security is also a global phenomenon. This latest conference in Geneva, the first since that fateful day, should not, therefore, cause us to lose sight of our aims. We have to continue working to defend citizens’ rights: the right to life, to democracy, to breathe clean air and to live in an environment in which economic and social rights are respected as an inseparable element of human rights. We must not forget that the balance between security and freedom is not only a demand that is coherent with our shared history, but that it is the only thing that can guarantee stability and, therefore, democracy. Europe must play a leading role in this conference. We have to be capable of defending a common position. Now, more than ever before, human rights must effectively be the backbone of EU policy. If we want to achieve this goal we need to have more political ambition and a single, forceful and radical voice against those who violate human rights. A voice that will be heard in Geneva and which makes us proud to be European. I know that this seems to be a Utopian vision, and appears difficult to achieve, and it is, but, as Guy Verhofstadt reminded us when he took office as President-in-Office of the Council under the Belgian Presidency: ‘he who does not believe in Utopia does not deserve to be called European’.

Political group: PSE
I want first of all on behalf of my group to thank the rapporteur for this report. It is an important report because harassment is a far too prevalent problem in the workplace. My group will be supporting the report as it stands in its entirety and will not be expecting or requesting any deletions of parts of paragraphs or phrases. It is a sad fact that the Dublin Foundation has found that over 15 million people have reported violence, sexual harassment or bullying in the workplace. It should not be allowed to continue because this kind of bullying and harassment can be fatal and has in many instances resulted in people either taking their own lives or, through misadventure in the workplace, in others taking their lives. It seems to me therefore that it is something which the Commission and the Parliament should address. Legislation is in place in Ireland, as part of the health and safety legislation, to ensure that large companies put in place codes of practice to deal with bullying. However, it is not clear yet to what extent companies have implemented this legislation. I came across a case recently where a young man starting in a job in a state company was bullied consistently by older men in the job, not by women, but by men, who simply did not want him in that job because they felt threatened by his presence. They did not succeed in forcing him out of that job but it was extraordinary that this should occur in this day and age. It is true that the trends emerging over the last ten years, as shown by the Dublin Foundation, have been on the rise. It is clear also that this is largely due to insecurity in the workplace and changes in the nature of work. Typical work is causing stresses and strains which are being reflected in this kind of activity, so I support the call by the rapporteur for a communication from the Commission by next year and a programme of action by the Commission by the end of next year. Could I say before I sit down on an entirely different matter, but one related to the work of the Commission, that I would appeal to the Commissioner to ask our colleagues in the Commission to take steps to relax the rules and regulations governing state aid for the aviation industry, otherwise we are going to have to deal with tens of thousands of workers right across Europe who could well be unemployed in the not too distant future.

Political group: PSE
We abstained from voting in the final vote on Mrs Lucas’ report. We share most of the points of view presented in this about the need for a more vigorous policy to combat the negative effects of aircraft upon the environment. We cannot, however, support paragraphs 20 and 23 of the text. These propose a direct right of taxation for the EU in this area, together with the standardisation of national legislation on country planning. We are firm opponents of these proposals.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the acidification of forests, fields and watercourses is the single biggest environmental problem in my own country. Almost all acid rain comes from the burning of fossil fuels used in energy production in other European countries. Acidification is therefore a problem ‘imported’ into our country. The natural environment in large parts of the north of the EU has little capacity to act as a buffer against pollution. That is why acid rain causes a lot of damage in Denmark, Sweden and Finland. Major efforts are made each year to reduce the damage by liming lakes and watercourses. Without being able to put my finger on the exact figures, I would venture to maintain that, over the years, Sweden has, in financial terms, invested more in liming in order to combat acidification than certain Member States have invested in reducing acidifying emissions. Certain areas are extremely vulnerable to acid rain, such as south-western Sweden, certain mountain areas in northern Sweden and, especially, southern Norway. I would address all you MEPs from different Member States. If we are to be able to save the valuable countryside in these areas, we need your help. We appeal to you to see the issue from a European perspective and to help us with the major problems caused by acidification. Moreover, reducing combustion emissions is an important health issue in quite a few EU countries. Many people in my own country with an interest in the environment are pinning their hopes on the European Union. The UN has proved to be poor at tackling environmental problems in Europe. I believe that taxation is an issue for the individual nations. The national parliaments must choose the best and most practicable ways of achieving the national emission ceilings that have now been proposed. I cannot therefore support the proposal for EU taxes to combat emissions. I also want to comment on the unemployment argument. Overall, a good environment and better health do not lead to unemployment. In the long run, efforts in favour of a sound environment and better health are a good investment, leading to reduced costs and a better economic position. The situation in Russia would have been much better today if there had been no need to inherit the ill health and the environmental catastrophe left behind when the Communist system collapsed. The Council’s common position is remarkable for its lack of ambition and for the fact that the Council does not want to set a date for when the measures are to come into effect. So we know how the directive is to be complied with. It will quite simply not be complied with at all. Parliament should therefore again be as ambitious in combating acidification as the Commission was in setting what have been called emission ceilings. With Parliament and the Commission shoulder to shoulder on this issue, the Council’s position is becoming rather embarrassing for the governments of the Member States. Finally, I want to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Myller, for her efforts to achieve results in this important area of environmental concern.

Political group: PPE-DE
I have voted for the De Rossa report on cooperatives and its implications for working people because it is an excellent contribution to the development of cooperatives in the European Union. My colleague, Mr De Rossa, has produced a report which will assist in the proliferation of the cooperative model which when experienced by working people is seen as having key advantages. In the UK cooperative sector, which is now growing and has gone through a process of modernisation, this report will be welcomed.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we now come to the vote on Amendment 24, the famous Nisticò compromise. There are some translation problems here. I would like to point out that the English version is the correct one.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, with this decision, Europe is responding to the concerns of its citizens about food safety, in its widest sense, prioritising the protection of health against disease, poisoning, swindles, scandals, and the new frontiers of science. However, in creating the Authority two precautions must be taken: first, bureaucratisation and centralising tendencies must be avoided; secondly, Europe has already been accused of wanting to wipe out typical and traditional products by applying rules on hygiene and health, processing and conservation, right up to the moment of consumption, which are unsuitable, rigid and excessive, valid for the sterile, standardised products of big business but not appropriate for quality products linked to a locality, like those of my own Aosta Valley and the rest of the Alps – cheese, sausages and so on. To suppose that it is possible, in the mountains, to imitate the big dairies and slaughterhouses of the lowlands increases mistrust of Europe. Let that be a warning to the Authority!

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I have been a keen supporter of the alternative and out-of-court settlement of disputes for years. Not only can this be a means of coping with the ever increasing pressure on regular, judicial bodies; more than anything, it offers citizens a low threshold for the swift and inexpensive settlement of complaints. In fact, over the past couple of years, when dealing with different consumer issues, such as remote sales, I have time and again stressed the need for alternative ways of settling disputes in order for the internal market to function well. Consequently, the alternative settlement of disputes has been included explicitly in a number of directives. The internal market has given consumers the opportunity to expand their horizons enormously, and they no longer rely on what is on offer within the national market. Certainly at a time when cross-border sales and purchases are increasingly being made via modern communications methods, the benefits of the European market are becoming apparent. But the consumer may also be dissatisfied at times. This applies at Member State, as well as international, level. In the case of cross-border purchases, the complaints procedure is much longer but, above all, also more laborious. Many consumers are so put off by the complex procedures – not helped by the fact that they are drafted in a foreign language – that they do not pursue their complaints. That is deplorable. In the light of this, I welcome the Commission’s proposal with open arms. I should also like to congratulate Mrs Wallis who has managed to pinpoint a few sore points in her report, with which I could not agree more. Allow me to mention a few more key words with regard to the information desks to be set up. These need to be simple procedures, a low threshold for the consumer who is looking for legal solutions and sound regulations governing the use of the consumer’s own language. As for the latter, the Commission should reconsider how it intends to implement its plans practically speaking. I should also like to know when the information desks will be set up in the different Member States. The Netherlands plans to launch these in 2001. In my opinion, the information desks should focus on the role of offering guidance to the consumer. In that respect, I do not see eye to eye with Mrs Wallis. The real legal advice must therefore be given by duly qualified people. I also believe that the information desk should not, and cannot, act in the role of advocate, for then it would be responsible for the advice given. In my view, the information desk should be a facility and an effective guide and must act as a conduit to channel disputes to the alternative settlement of disputes procedure, for example. In this connection, I believe that my amendment should be carefully re-read, also by the rapporteur. We run too many risks when we start issuing them with legal tasks. I speak from experience as Chairman of the Disputes Settlement Committees Foundation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, three years ago, the Tampere European Council gave the initial impetus to a common European asylum and immigration policy. The objective was to have common rules adopted that would make the EU into an area of freedom, security and justice. That was the point of departure. Three years after the Tampere meeting, we must now take a practical stand on an important step towards fulfilling that vision. Those of us in the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party are satisfied that our attitudes have been taken into account in the work of the committee. In our view, it is a coherent and well-balanced report that has been presented for debate here in the Chamber. It is important that we obtain common minimum standards for refugees. If the rules are to be effective, it is also important for all the Member States to have a common definition of what a refugee is. I am pleased that the report contains general rules for determining whether or not international protection is properly justified. Today, a number of the Member States have problems related to asylum and immigration policy. Each year, a large number of illegitimate asylum seekers enter the EU. They are a burden on the whole system and a drain upon those resources that could be used for the benefit of those who have real needs. Illegal immigration and people smuggling must be combated, but genuine refugees must be helped. It is this balance for which we must strive and which, in my opinion, the report makes possible. An important prerequisite of its being possible to put this proposal into practice is that we obtain a common definition of refugees with subsidiary protection status. It must be based upon relevant international conventions such as the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and the UN Convention Against Torture. I support making the concept of subsidiary protection status a part of the common refugee policy. Asylum policy is one thing, however, and integration something else. It is important for third country nationals to be given the opportunity of making headway with their lives in their new countries. That is something which quite a few EU countries know already. For example, Denmark and Sweden have set to work on active integration policies. The proposal has elements relating to common rights for third country nationals with legal residence in the EU, and these rights must form the basis of a sensible and necessary integration policy. Overall, the report takes a balanced view of the problems with which we are confronted, and I hope that it will be able to attract a broad majority in Parliament.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, action has to be taken in three directions. First and foremost, we must wage a relentless fight against doping. The financial and political commitment of all the countries of the European Union to the World Anti-Doping Agency is imperative, but it is not enough. The most important thing is that governments should arm themselves with proper structures to combat doping. France has marked out the path, and I should be interested to know how the President of the Council sees the interaction between the Agency and national initiatives. We must also combat the excesses of the transfer system, especially the trade in young professional sportsmen. Finally, we must strengthen the real driving forces of sport, namely the federations and sport at school. I support the efforts to secure recognition of the key role of sports federations and to protect them from the depredations of financial and media giants. Young people must be the main target in the rehabilitation of sport. I support the call made by Mr Mennea in his report for sport to be accorded a higher status in the school curriculum as well as his plea that the specific nature of sport be enshrined in the Treaties, otherwise we shall tend to see sport as little more than another domain of free economic competition. Is humanity regressing towards the decadence of ancient Rome? Is competitive sport once again becoming a gladiatorial conflict, waged now by robotic humans armed with the latest bio- and cybertechnology and funded by politico-financial interests? The time has come for politicians and sporting authorities to exercise their responsibility.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, we admire Mr Kinnock’s vision and sense of realism. For he is holding up visions of a well-oiled and effective administration and is, at the same time, drawing our attention to the difficulties which will arise and which can already be anticipated. Mr Prodi has pointed out that he would like to give up a few of his responsibilities. We will therefore need to focus on policy priorities first. I think it is more important to bring into focus what we want to achieve before we give up responsibilities, because I can imagine we could meet with a great deal of protest otherwise. Enlargement – that is enlargement of the Union – is one of the key challenges in this context. I would also like to point out that when it comes to keeping the peace, it will require a much greater effort to get a great many more people on board. We must resolutely switch from our present, rather bureaucratic approach which we are all familiar with – it pervades our development cooperation for example – to a cooperation for peace. Could Mr Kinnock say what timeframe he is expecting the Council and Parliament to come up with for these priorities?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, following the fairly technical introduction we have heard, we should not lose sight of what this is all about. It has repeatedly, and quite rightly, been said that Europe does not have a face. If you are a publicity-minded entrepreneurial type and want to acquire an e-mail address, it will be '.at' '.com', '.net' or '.org'. Europe is now acquiring a face, an address. It will be valuable in itself if we can bring this off and if the Commission finds the right approach. We will become '.EU'. The fact that we are so late in doing this has a lot to do with the fact that we have not in reality grown together to form a single entity as we pretend we have. It is to be hoped that Europe will gradually develop from being a single market to having its own identity, by means of policy. We know that a lot has gone awry. I regard it as progress that a certain element of labelling is associated with the '.EU' domain. I am relying on the Commission and everyone responsible to make sure that there is no sloppiness if we do get this top-level domain, with incidents like the ones described by the previous speakers occurring. Just remember the 'Amsterdam.nl' case. However, as part of the enlargement and re-regionalisation of Europe I would also like to see all regions having the opportunity to use appropriate sub-domains. On this point, I am not in agreement with the report before us. I also, however, welcome Amendment No 15, in which the rapporteur refers to the basic principle of transparency, which brings me to my oft-repeated demand that the European institutions should set an example by being completely transparent for the benefit of the public.

Political group: PSE