GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
The 'European Year of People with Disabilities' raises awareness of the concerns of over 40 million people in the EU with disabilities. Without being complacent, we have established some protection for EU citizens. It is also important that the EU leads the way in establishing fundamental rights for the approximately 660 million people world-wide who have some form of disability – almost 10% of the planet's population. Many people with disabilities face discrimination, maltreatment and institutional confinement. Europe should be sending a message beyond its borders that inhuman or degrading treatment of people with disabilities is utterly unacceptable. 10 years ago the UN adopted its Standard Rules for people with disabilities. This is not a legally-binding document. It is now clear that the rights of people with disabilities internationally should now be protected by a legally enforceable UN Convention. This must cover the right to quality of life, to access to employment, education and training, the right to inclusion, civil and political rights, to financial support, to healthcare, to culture and leisure and the right to equal treatment before the law. The EU must take the lead in the UN and must pursue these goals through EU development cooperation.

Political group: PSE
I have asked a question because I previously consulted a series of decisions taken by the Council of Ministers in 1997 on certain guidelines for fisheries agreements and, as far as I can see, they have not yet been complied with in the European Union. I do not wish to have an argument with the Commissioner, but I simply wish to know whether, following the guidelines laid down at the time, on the next renewal of the fisheries agreement with Greenland – where we all know that fishing quotas are not used or are under-used – the fleets which do not have access at the moment to this agreement, will be offered the possibility of using those quotas which are not used or which are under-used.

Political group: PPE-DE
On the whole, I support the derogations that are being put to the vote in favour of the so-called ‘outermost regions’. These derogations are justified on account of the endeavour to give those islands a starting position that is more comparable to the mainland, by compensating them for the inevitably higher costs of transport over long distances to the centre of the State of which they form part. That kind of derogation does not apply in this case. What is necessary to protect the Azores or Martinique is much less relevant in the case of Corsica, which is less remote. Cigarettes are produced on that island and the price is kept down for local consumers and tourists. The 32% tax is nearly half the rate applied in France, and also lower than the 57% minimum rate laid down for the EU as a whole. This derogation is a remnant from the regime of the Emperor Napoleon I – who hailed from that island – from 1811. Continuing this derogation until the end of 2009 is not in the interests of public health. I certainly do not begrudge the inhabitants of Corsica, who speak a language other than French, greater autonomy and even the right of secession, but I am not willing to buy their favour by keeping the price of an unhealthy stimulant artificially low.

Political group: GUE-NGL
We welcome more efficient administration of the Structural Funds. At the same time, we believe it would be risky to administer the resources in a single fund, as recommended in Mr Pittella’s report, because it could lead to smaller projects disappearing. Instead, priority should be given to a harmonisation of the rules concerning the use of the funds.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, thanks are due to the Commissioner for the competition report, but congratulations also go to both rapporteurs for presenting us with their analysis of the issue. The competition report is based solely on the accountability of the Commission. This means that our comments carry about as much weight in the Commission as Economic and Social Committee opinions, and no more; we must be clear about this. This is not to say, however, that the Commission, which has been given considerable competence here, wishes to restrict its rights in the field of competition. Allow me to make a number of critical comments about the further development of competition policy per se. Progressive globalisation, the fact that the European economy is characterised by mergers, and an ever tougher competition policy have consequences for the situation on the ground in that they bring changes for the labour market. This does not mean that I wish to bring this process to a halt; I want to put to you the view of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, which is that the employment guidelines are no longer sufficient on their own to compensate for the labour market problems arising from increased competitive pressure combined with today's weak growth. I know that we should not, indeed we must not, pin excessive blame for current problems on competition policy; I am clear about that. But what I wish to say is that the possible extension of competition rules to services of general interest would appear to me to be problematic. It is not for the Commission to define these on its own; it must be done by politicians in general. Competition policy is undoubtedly of value in itself, but must be reconciled with socially important areas of general interest, and this is even more important as the European Union prepares for enlargement. I hope that you will have sympathy for this view, Commissioner.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I share Mr MacCormick’s view. Mr Camre’s utterances, which are at issue here, are surely utterly unacceptable and intolerable, nor could they ever enjoy anyone’s political support. That, however, is not what this was about. This was simply about the question as to whether this is one of those instances – to be found in previous exemplary cases – in which we have, in the past, come to the decision that a Member’s freedom of speech is inseparable from his duties as an MEP, that is to say, from his mandate. Mr Camre came out with these utterances at his party conference in Denmark, and this is a quite classic case in which we must assume that he was acting in connection with his mandate as an MEP. I might add that Mr MacCormick’s report, as well as the opinion that our secretariat has been so kind as to draw up, clearly show that this is the decision we came to in the past. I believe that this House is also under a self-imposed obligation to continue to come to similar decisions, most especially when it is obvious that political activities are concerned. Apart from that, the different ways in which each Member State deals with these things will, in the long term, only be resolved if – as Mr Rothley has mentioned in his report – a single European immunity law is soon on the way. It is the Council that holds the key to this. Let the Council simply adopt our statute. The Council would also be making a great contribution to progress if it were to give some thought, perhaps in the course of the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference, as to whether it might be appropriate and possible, in line with our resolutions, to amend the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities as part of the new Treaty provisions.

Political group: PPE-DE
Thank you, Mr President, talking about the conflict in the Middle East means being faced with the substantial dilemma of striking a balance between Israel’s right to safe borders and a viable Palestinian state. We are further from this goal than ever before, or so it seems. Nobody feels safe anymore, either in Israel or in the Palestinian state. Nobody appears to be able to play an objective role in getting the peace process back on track. The extremists set the agenda, and the Americans seem to tolerate the tough stance adopted by Prime Minister Sharon. Whichever way one defines the position of President Arafat, it seems to me that, without him, chaos would descend on the Palestinian Regions. What can the European Union do? In my view, we should mainly keep the channels of communication open. I back those fellow MEPs who say that we must continue talks with both parties and exert pressure on Israel to accept the Palestinian Authority as the only significant interlocutor, and so find the way back to consultation. However, we must also continue to ask Mr Arafat to tackle the terrorists on his own home turf. The European Union should be prepared to postpone a certain form of cooperation with Israel in this context, but not to rule such postponement out in respect of the Palestinian Authority either, should it transpire that the fight against terrorism is not being taken seriously. This brings me to yet another point which I should like to put to Mr Solana. The conflict in the Middle East is also tied in with the relationship between the EU and the United States, and this issue is also important in the fight against terrorism. In addition, I should like to find out his reaction to the statements by President Bush who talks about the axis of evil and the three countries he refers to by this. What is the EU’s reaction to this? Is he driving a new wedge between the European Union and the United States? I would particularly like to know what implications these statements by President Bush have for the policy of the European Union, particularly with regard to Iran. I am interested to know how the Council assesses Iran, but also the other countries which are being accused by the Americans of state support for terrorism. In my opinion, this will be an important issue in the time to come, also in connection with the fresh debate on the military superiority of the United States and the military weakness of the European Union.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I was not present at the debate because I was attending the Conference of Presidents, but someone came to tell me that a member of my group, Mr Miranda, was literally the subject of verbal aggression on the part of another Member. I regard such methods as inadmissible. It was more than a personal accusation, and that is why, Mr President, I should like you to allow Mr Miranda to take the floor, and to ensure that his restatement is included in the minutes.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, it is hard to imagine any other report that would have so great an impact on the state of things in Europe and about which the decision-makers know so little. Europe is now moving into unfamiliar territory. Even theoretical research on the effects of emissions trading exists in name only. When two or three years ago we had the Commission proposal before us, it started to become clear how enormous the gaps were in the proposal upon which we had been building a European strategy for the economy, competition and the environment. There was no appraisal made of the impact of enlargement, no guidance given about how emission allowances could be accounted for in companies’ books, no information regarding value added tax, not even a strategy in case of serious market problems or speculative attacks, no precise data on emissions in Member States, let alone emissions in companies, and no proposal regarding rights of appeal. It is regrettable that we had such an incomplete proposal on such a major issue. Much has been done to put things right, but whether or not we succeeded remains to be seen. The ‘trendline cap’ problem in Trilog was solved with a formulation proposed by the Commission that allows Member States to approach the Kyoto targets along their own paths. In being allowed room to move, Member States are also being encouraged to embrace a transport policy that is more responsible in terms of the Kyoto Agreement. That of course is our real problem. Trilog’s solution for project-based mechanisms should also be supported. There is no sense in setting more stringent criteria than was agreed at Marrakech. We need, rather, to establish EU rules concerning how converting the emission allowance credits earned from project-based mechanisms into marketable emission allowances can take place without the climate change imperative being compromised. The emission allowance credits earned from the project-based mechanisms will also have an interesting impact on development cooperation. I believe Member States will become much more interested in development cooperation, because they will see the chance to earn emission allowance credits with projects. Combined heat and power production and process emissions posed a special problem in connection with emissions trading. If the causal chain associated with the nature of CHP is not taken into account, there will not be any reductions in emissions either. Now Trilog is discovering and acknowledging the special nature of CHP. Member States can take the potential for a reduction in process emissions into account, which in practice means that the best European steel factories can earn their full emission allowance quotas and they will not have to bear additional costs in a world steel market that has been fiercely competitive. That means the risk of carbon leaks will diminish and there really will be an increased chance of preventing climate change.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I have some technical changes to announce before the vote. Earlier this week I gave many well-deserved thanks to the Commission and Mrs Schreyer, my fellow rapporteur; my colleagues in the Committee on Budgets and our dear Chairman, Mr Wynn et al. However, as the Danish Finance Minister was not present at the time, let me repeat my sincere thanks to the very constructive and efficient Danish presidency and in particular the Finance Minister, Mr Pedersen. He has managed to unite all the Member States and find solutions with us to very difficult issues. He has paved the way for the very broadly accepted solutions that form the basis for this, hopefully, short and uncomplicated vote today. I thank the Danish presidency very much. (Applause) Let me also thank the extremely efficient and competent secretariat of the Committee on Budgets, who worked extremely well under extreme pressure, but also in a very nice and friendly atmosphere. Finally, I warmly thank the sittings services who have always handled complicated issues on voting lists etc. in a very correct and efficient manner. (Applause) Now I turn to the formalities. Before the vote on the budgetary amendments starts, I must make a statement about some technical adjustments, some of which need to be put to the vote. First, a purely technical adjustment: Amendment 1 on budget lines B1-406 and B1-4081 – Improving the processing and marketing of agricultural products – has been withdrawn, because it is covered by Letter of Amendment No 3 to the draft budget, which we have already voted on. A vote is necessary to confirm the following corrections. First, Amendment 25 on budget line B2-5120 – Farm accountancy data network (FADN) – the figures should be modified as follows: an addition of EUR 1 391 000 in commitments and of EUR 1 383 000 in payments, giving the final figures of EUR 11 337 000 in commitments and EUR 11 329 000 in payments. Secondly, Amendment 238 on budget line B2-517 on plant and animal genetic resources. This should be withdrawn because it has also been covered by Letter of Amendment No 3. Thirdly, Amendment 246 on budget line B3-3062 on Prince. The following five words should be deleted in the remark: '... of the national public sectors'. Lastly, in Amendment 168 on budget line A-200 – Rent and ground rent – the figures should be modified as follows: add EUR 3 409 073, giving a final amount of EUR 132 590 904. I suggest that we vote on these corrections en bloc before we start voting on the amendments. After the vote on Amendment 139, part 2:

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I find it slightly bizarre to talk about the precautionary principle in relation to weapons, which are after all designed to be bad for your health. The problem, of course, is that you only have to mention the word 'uranium' and there is an outbreak of what can only be described as mass hysteria. Of course, the illnesses and deaths must be investigated and I welcome the action taken by NATO member states to that end, but we have to make a judgment on the facts and the facts are very clear at the moment. There is no link between depleted uranium and the illnesses. If we look at the study of Gulf War veterans that was done in the United States and compare that with the study of the control group, there is no difference in the death rates, or illness rates, or the rates of cancer between the two groups. We must ensure that we are working on the basis of scientific fact and that is why it is not appropriate to call for a moratorium at the moment, when there is no scientific link between the two. There are a lot of other issues to do with the Balkan War which we should be investigating, like unexploded cluster bombs and the environmental damage which the Commission has outlined, but let us stick to the facts.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, there are times when we can feel particularly happy to belong to a particular institution and this is one of those times. The three institutions have worked well, in a way that the European citizens would want legitimately constituted institutions to work. They have done so both effectively and speedily, thanks to Commissioner Busquin and the Belgian Presidency, who, with difficulty, were finally able to reach an agreement on the financial package, which, as you will all remember, five years ago was the bone of contention that caused delay in the adoption of the Fifth Framework Programme. This will not happen again. Thanks also to the Spanish Presidency, which has been particularly sensitive to Parliament’s needs, and thanks, above all, to all the rapporteurs, Mr Caudron and the shadow rapporteurs, who have worked professionally and in Europe’s interests. This is, therefore, one of those times when one can feel truly happy and content at being a representative of this institution. The work is not finished. There undoubtedly remains a whole range of unknown factors – ethics, for example. We have total respect for all of those who feel differently to us. However, I would like to suggest that you will see for yourselves how, through the Council proposal for a common position and the Commission statement with regard to specific programmes, your concerns are being taken into consideration. Above all, we shall ensure that this issue allows for the adoption of a framework programme in which the European Scientific Community has placed its hopes.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, part of the answer to that last question would be that, if there was a legal method of entering the UK to claim asylum, a lot of the problems would be solved at Sangatte. In dealing with the Marinho report before us, however, my group has criticised the Dublin Convention for a very long time for a number of reasons, not least because to us it mixes immigration controls with the claiming of asylum, and the two things are not necessarily the same at all. We are well aware that people choose a particular Member State as their country of destination for a large number of reasons. It may be a country they have heard of. They might have family links there. There may already be a considerable community of people from their own region in the area. The country might have a reputation for dealing fairly with asylum seekers rather than treating them as potential criminals and keeping them restricted. It might offer work opportunities. It might be because of former colonial ties. There might be a language link. There are all sorts of reasons. There is extensive research showing that asylum seekers settle better, enjoy better mental health, acquire the language of the country of residence more quickly – especially the children – if a number of the above conditions apply. But we know that asylum seekers generally want to contribute to the societies that admit them and do not want to feel like unwanted jetsam condemned to live on charity and tolerance. Positive motivation, then, is extremely important to a successful asylum policy. For us, Dublin seemed to be based on the premise that the first 'safe' country was good enough. It was also based on the premise that the government then had a duty to deal with those asylum seekers and effectively keep them there. We know that there have been all sorts of problems, both administratively and in terms of human rights, as a result of the Dublin Convention. The new proposals at least recognise the importance of the family, even if the criteria for definition of 'family', does not go far enough; my group has tabled amendments because we do not believe that the nuclear family is the only viable model. However, the proposals are still based on the premise that a Member State is somehow answerable to all other Member States for their failures to control entry and borders. Not surprisingly, countries with extensive sea or land borders close to countries of origin will be the major points of entry and are thus expected to bear the major responsibility for asylum seekers, bailed out presumably by the refugee fund. My group does not agree with this approach which is why we have tabled amendments designed to de-link immigration controls from dealing with asylum applications. If we are really fulfilling the duty that Mrs Terrón i Cusí spoke of and we are creating a high-standard, effective and fair common asylum policy – which sometimes I doubt – then the positive factors determining the country where the application is lodged can only act in an additional positive way. If we are not creating that, then people should have the right to choose where they seek asylum.

Political group: Verts-ALE