GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Many thanks to the Commissioner for his reply. I would like to say to you, Commissioner, that the fact that the Commission tells us that it is still worried about this situation is frankly not enough. It also seems to me to be insufficient that the Commission, in its contacts with Mrs Albright, should say that she has to comply with the commitments which were agreed within the framework of the Transatlantic Summit. This is clearly not enough. I do not know if you believe that, after twenty months of non-compliance, the Clinton administration will persuade Congress to ratify and amend Title 4 of the law. Therefore the question – and I understand and am grateful for your good will, Commissioner – is as follows: is the Commission prepared, in view of the harassment and pressures which European companies are suffering, to do more than express its consternation and concern, and to take some type of measure – and your predecessor, Mr Brittan, committed himself to this before this Parliament: I am well aware of this because I asked the question at the time – in the event that this non-compliance should continue to be absolutely evident and blatant? In a pre-election year, the Senate of the United States is not going to amend the law: is the Commission really prepared to denounce this non-compliance to the authorities of the World Trade Organisation?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, solely in my capacity as rapporteur, I would like to thank the Vice-President, Mr Imbeni. We worked together very well. There are differences of opinion as to whether the result is very good or very bad, but I am grateful to the Vice-President. Together we tried to bring out what was best for Parliament. (Parliament rejected the joint text) *** Report (A5-0396/2003) by Mrs Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou, on behalf of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Community action programme to promote organisations active at European level in the field of equality between men and women [COM(2003) 279 C5-0261/2003 2003/0109(COD)] (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0390/2003) by Mr Swoboda, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, on the proposal for a Council regulation on amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1080/2000 of 22 May 2000 on support for the United Nations Interim Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and the Office of the High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina (OHR) [COM(2003) 389 C5-0325/2003 2003/0143(CNS)] Before the vote

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I also want to thank the Commissioner for the brilliant work she has done on this matter. I wish to comment on two things. The first concerns waste. Considering how Sweden, with its model project in Oskarhamn, has shown how highly radioactive nuclear waste can be got rid of, I would recommend those who are in doubt to go over there and see how it is done. You take a bus, travel five kilometres into the mountain, and you can see what they are doing. It is public and easily accessible. The method appears to be clearly delineated. It is well accepted, and the sites designated for possible final storage are well accepted in the municipalities, where more than 70% of citizens have agreed to have them. I consider the problem of waste to have been solved in technical terms. If anyone wants to carry on a smear campaign against nuclear waste, they are welcome to do so. We are all entitled to our opinions. I am pleased about the option of being allowed to export nuclear waste. In Denmark, we have 230 kilos from our experimental reactor and elsewhere which, under the current rules, we apparently have to store ourselves at an additional cost of approximately, or more than, EUR 100 million. If we are not permitted to place it with the very many tons that exist in other countries, we shall acquire an additional expense to no purpose. We are therefore pleased about being able to export waste to countries that will accept it, that fulfil the EU’s safety requirements and in which we are certain that inspection and such like guarantees that the waste is being constantly monitored.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I naturally feel that Mr Dhaene’s appeal to some socially aware colleagues in the Group of the European People’s Party was addressed to me personally, as I am one of them. I would like to deal with just one point, namely that of compulsory licensing. As the directive now says, it is being left up to the Member States to decide whether or not to issue a licence. So they can choose for themselves. In other words, the Member States and the port authorities are free to decide whether to operate an obligatory system of this kind or not. At the same time, however, we are creating – and I do not understand this, Commissioner – an additional competition-distorting element in this directive itself. What will happen is that one port will comply with the compulsory licensing rules and may impose strict conditions in terms of workers’ qualifications, social conditions, safety, the economic development of the port and so on, and another port will not do so, which will ultimately distort mutual competition between the ports. It is therefore being left up to the Member States to decide whether or not to do this. My amendment, and an amendment that was also tabled by other people, concerning the introduction of compulsory licensing was declared inadmissible in the parliamentary committee on the basis of Rule 80 of the Rules of Procedure. I have now been told that the President of this Parliament may now declare these amendments admissible after all on account of a number of new elements, which Mr Bouwman has referred to. If this is the case then I will vote in favour. I support compulsory licensing because I am in favour of the same competitive conditions existing in all ports.

Political group: PPE-DE
The UK delegation of the will be voting against this report as it proposes an extension of EU interference into areas not currently covered by EU competence.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Jackson's question illustrates the fact that the best laws in the world are no use whatsoever unless they are applied correctly and, more importantly, properly controlled. For example, the Member States have not transposed the habitats directive into national legislation. The same applies to a great deal of other legislation. And this is legislation which we need for the future. The Commission is responsible for transposition and for checking what sort of on-site controls have been carried out. In doing so it, in turn, must rely on information supplied to it by the Member States. I get the impression that monitoring is no easy task and if the Commission is to perform this task it needs information and data and reports to be sent in. The complaint was often voiced in the past that the Commission did not have enough staff and resources to evaluate the data sent in for control purposes. I should therefore like to ask the Commission if it now has sufficient resources. Mind you, Parliament cannot talk, because we are constantly calling for reports. I know that the Commission is very busy receiving and processing reports and that this sometimes ties up Commission capacities and resources unnecessarily. In other words, we all have to think where we can make improvements. I think the Commission should react more quickly, both towards the Member States and in instituting the necessary proceedings before the ECJ and setting fines. At the same time, I call on the Member States to honour their obligations to transpose and control legislation and report to the Commission properly. I am the person responsible in our group for the water framework directive and the rapporteur for the groundwater action programme, which is still pending, and the nitrates directive is therefore a matter of particular concern to me. On Tuesday, i.e. tomorrow, we shall be voting on the Goodwill report, to which I have proposed a number of amendments. I should like to ask the House to accept these proposed amendments, because what we are trying to do here is to give the Member States more responsibility. I should therefore be grateful for your support. Finally, I should like to mention one more point, namely the candidate countries. We require candidate countries to adopt European legislation. But when the Member States themselves fail to abide by it and the European Commission is unable to take decisive action, then everything starts to go pear-shaped. For this reason alone and, most importantly, in order to protect human health and the environment, all those responsible need to radically rethink the matter post-haste and these reports make that clear.

Political group: PPE-DE
In order to ensure lasting peace and international security, it is necessary and clearly feasible to move from a security programme determined by military considerations to a system of civil security that targets the economic, social, ecological, ethnic and cultural causes of conflicts, and to adopt a preventive approach to neutralise and deal with the causes of predictable and acute situations of conflict in Europe and throughout the world. This is not, however, the approach that the European Union has adopted in its current security policy. Instead, it has maintained a position of taking a very close lead from the United States of America which, in turn, is using the threat of terrorism and the efforts to fight it to develop a unilateral policy and to strengthen its position in the world. Examples of this are the recent statements by President Bush on the ‘axis of evil’, which appear to herald new military operations in other parts of the world. As stated in the motion for a resolution tabled by the Confederal Group of the , but which was not, unfortunately, voted for, it is now time to radically change the status quo, specifically by disbanding NATO and the WEU, by insisting on the development and the strengthening of the OSCE and by providing ourselves with the appropriate material and financial resources. These are clearly ideas that the majority of the European Parliament does not support. Hence our vote against the motion for a resolution tabled by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the exercise that we are currently carrying out to revise a 1993 directive on the organisation of working time is worthwhile. It should not, however, have diverged either needlessly or too far from the objective pursued, that is to say the possible amendment of the directive in order to guarantee a better level of health and safety protection for workers. The opinion of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities is, unfortunately, another typical example of that very process, since it made a brilliant job of missing the point of the report. I had tabled a series of amendments aimed at removing from the text of this opinion the obvious falsehoods, according to which working hours are apparently being extended all over the place in the European Union and long working hours being imposed in our Member States, with negative effects on our health, well-being and appetite for life. The opinion then concludes by heaping criticism on the would-be culture of long working hours for high level professionals and others, managers in particular. These generalisations and falsehoods do not serve our objective, designed to promote a better level of health and safety protection for workers. For some here, a massive reduction in working time is the universal remedy for all problems. That being said, I agree that the Lisbon Agenda, which sets the goal of a 60% employment rate for women by 2010, will not be respected without prior progress in reconciling professional life and family responsibilities. I also agree that couples need to be better at dividing domestic tasks and educational responsibilities and, on this subject, there should be a response on the part of men, because women are still forced to take on, to a disproportionate degree, the double burden of professional work, on the one hand, and of family responsibilities on the other. I regret that my attempts to qualify the statements of some Members and to re-establish the truth did not find favour with the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities and, above all, I regret that the rapporteur repeated certain falsehoods, in particular that which would have us believe that working hours continue to be extended in the European Union when, in the majority of Member States, the opposite is true. My group has tabled a host of amendments designed to re-establish truth and reason on this sensitive issue and aimed, in particular, at those populists who would have our European citizens believe that they can always work a lot less to earn a lot more than their colleagues in other parts of the world.

Political group: PPE-DE
In July 2003 the European Commission suspended the activities of the managers of the statistical office Eurostat as frauds which had been brought to light some time ago were still continuing. At that point I immediately demanded transparent action. Investigations by bodies dependent on the Commission are pointless as they have to keep their findings secret. Fraud, embezzlement and nepotism will only be prevented in the future if public opinion is properly informed and able to form a view. This could be done by a parliamentary inquiry. At the end of September 2003 a secret report was submitted to members of the Committee on Budgetary Control, and still the European Commission acts as if it bore no responsibility in the matter. The person first appointed to handle the matter, Commissioner Solbes, is now a Minister in the new Spanish Government. All efforts are being made to prevent discussion of a motion of censure against the European Commission signed by me and others. Malicious delay in placing this issue on the agenda means that this motion cannot be put to a vote this week. After 1 May the number of signatories will fall to below 10% as a result of enlargement of this Parliament. The chairman of the Green Group has called on his members to sink this initiative by withdrawing their signatures. The problems of 1999 persist, but the Prodi Commission is now ignoring them. - Report: Boogerd-Quaak (A5-0230/2004)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the Group sets great store by the debate on the EU’s role in the field of conflict prevention, and we greatly appreciate the efforts the European Commission has made in this connection, and also, of course, the excellent report by Mr Lagendijk. This is an important topic, and it is certainly not only a Dutch pastime, even if we perhaps give this impression a little bit with the list of speakers, the first four of which accidentally, very accidentally, happen to hail from that country. The European Union is the perfect organisation to play a greater role in preventing conflicts, resolving these or in the subsequent reconstruction. The Community is the manifestation of a broad security concept based on economic and political cooperation and on shared values. This successful model is about to be exported to Central and Eastern Europe, Cyprus, and Malta, of course. Activities are under way in the Balkans with the same intention, and the EU is now facing the task of finding itself a useful role in the reconstruction in Afghanistan. In my view, all these actions fall under the umbrella of conflict prevention. Despite this, one can still claim that there is already a culture of conflict prevention within the European Union. There is sometimes still envy with regard to NATO or the military scope of the United States, as if the European Union would need to emulate this position. The military instrument is only one of a whole set of instruments which can be deployed to secure safety. It is used as a last resort. The aim of conflict prevention is to prevent violence or recurrence thereof by intervening in good time, mainly by using civil instruments. If conflict prevention is to become an effective instrument of EU security policy, it must form an integral part of our thoughts and actions. This will force the European Union, more often than is now the case, to anticipate and trace hotbeds of conflict in good time. It also forces the European Union to develop new instruments, such as rapid reaction facilities, and to considerably improve the three pillars. It is easy to think of an example where an effective operation requires instruments from all three pillars. At the moment, this is still often a bureaucratic and institutional nightmare to contend with. The European Union acquires its strength from the multitude of instruments either available or yet to be developed, including, in a few years’ time, the military instrument. In order to deploy these effectively for the short or longer term, a kind of conflict prevention centre is needed. What is happening where and what are we going to do about it? But ultimately it is also about political will. The European Union is active in many, more or less, unstable areas and regions where the level of conflict is mounting, and the European Union should visibly emphasise its conflict prevention policy, more than is now the case, and report on it regularly. Its ambition should be to play an equally visible role as NATO but then in the field of conflict prevention and the deployment of civil instruments. I believe that most EU citizens would be very proud of such a role.

Political group: PSE
I wish particularly to explain why I voted against the ban on export of tobacco products above a certain tar/nicotine level from the EU and supported amendments that sought to lift that ban. Above all, I am concerned by the very real risk to jobs of over 1 000 people employed at the BAT factory in Southampton. There are over 5 000 jobs also at risk related to that factory. For instance, hundreds of printers in Portsmouth who produce cigarette packaging. Over 95% of the output of the Southampton plant is exported. I fear either the company will relocate, or the markets they serve will be met by other suppliers outside the EU. So this move will not lead to healthier cigarettes being smoked – but simply to export jobs from Europe. This is a sad day for the workers in Southampton who must now hope the British government might try to block the move. I fear they will hope in vain. I believe smokers should be given full information but then be free to make their own choice. Additionally, insisting on imposing our standards outside Europe is an example of post-colonial imperialism. So I voted for freedom – jobs.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I apologise to you and to colleagues if by rising I test their patience, but since you have indulged some others, I should like to express a very brief view. I fully respect your personal choice. On the matter of the vote, you have given the correct interpretation. I entirely regret this result, but one must live as a democrat with due process. On behalf of the Liberal Democrat Group, I would like to the European Commission. It is clear that, in the form presented, the mergers and acquisitions (takeovers) directive, has now fallen. It is such a fundamental and important issue that I hope we do not abandon the attempt because of this difficulty. We must learn from the difficulty and I invite the Commission at the earliest date to redouble its efforts to submit a new proposal, so that we can drive the Lisbon reform forward. We cannot give a signal from this house that we are not concerned with fundamental economic dynamics in the European Union. The Council and the Commission can help us in that regard. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, this document provides for the establishment of the ‘.eu’ domain for use as the country code in URLs. Last night, it was as if I were watching a television programme on a huge television screen displaying these new ‘.eu’ codes together with the customary national country codes ‘.it’, ‘.de’, ‘.be’ and ‘.es’ and so on, and it came to me that it would be a good idea to suggest to the rapporteur, Mrs Flesch, next time she documents this proposal, that the codes attached to the current URLs of the countries making up the European Union should be replaced with the ‘.eu’ code, thus avoiding the national and European codes being in use concurrently. Just as we have a single currency, we could also have a single URL. Report Buitenweg/Costa Neves (A5-0057/2002)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to congratulate both rapporteurs on this excellent report. As we have heard, the current challenge for the European Union is to identify key factors for building a climate in which entrepreneurial business activities can succeed. People's attitudes towards involvement in entrepreneurship vary widely across the European Union, as we have heard from Commissioner Liikanen, although on average the European Union has no lack of business owners. In Lisbon, the European Union made a commitment to become more competitive and dynamic, but this commitment is still an abstract concept, and implementation is well behind schedule. While I fully support the Lisbon aims, we need a stronger commitment by the Member States. The entrepreneurship paper clearly has a central role to play in this. However, we need to be aware that Europe still underperforms compared to the US and Australia in terms of number of new businesses. Clearly, if the European Union is to achieve the Lisbon goals for employment and prosperity, the situation for entrepreneurs will need to be improved. One way of doing this is to tackle the main barriers. Many enterprises are facing obstacles such as cultural and social barriers, barriers posed by regulation – both from the European Union and national legislation, access to finance and education and training, and, of course, some of the negative media impact. My concern is that these barriers are currently damaging the potential contribution, both economic and social, of small firms within the European Union. But why is it that entrepreneurship is important? In my region, in the West Midlands, I have seen how SMEs offer us an opportunity to engage in issues of productivity and competition and, at the same time, they give us the tools to empower disadvantaged groups, reduce social exclusion and contribute to regeneration. But we cannot see this just as an end in itself. It has to be a means to an end, and it is important that entrepreneurship focuses. It enables emerging firms to be more efficient and more dynamic and continue to thrive. How are we to achieve this? Some steps have already been taken to remove some of the barriers faced by entrepreneurs. However, we need to give stronger direction to the Commission and Member States on many of the issues. My concern is that although the stigma of failure for entrepreneurs is widely recognised as a problem within Europe, this is not being effectively tackled. Entrepreneurship is first and foremost a mindset, and it is very difficult to legislate for a mindset. You cannot force peopled to become entrepreneurs, but we can legislate and create the right framework. We heard from Mr Langen about the EU citizen being more risk-averse than his American counterpart. We need to look at other communities within the EU to make sure that we learn the lessons. A couple of months ago, I chaired a conference for the Commission for involvement of ethnic minority entrepreneurs. That is a very good way for us to learn why certain communities are more entrepreneurial than the Europeans.

Political group: PSE