GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Ladies and gentlemen, the French initiative that we are discussing today once again demonstrates the importance of clarifying all the measures on free movement which present the problem of opening up borders. All the statistics show that migratory flows have not diminished and that they will even increase over the coming years. Therefore, the problem of free movement of third-country nationals within the Schengen area will again rear its head and become even more acute. Yet, the citizens of Europe expect a clear and consistent overall policy on migration. The amendment of Article 18 of the Schengen Agreement is the key element of the French initiative. A holder of a long-stay visa should not enjoy fewer rights than a person who holds a short-stay visa. The issue is to facilitate the free movement of migrants who return home regularly, whatever visa they hold. We should be aware that, currently, third-country nationals may only transit through the territory of another Member State in order to reach the country which issued their long-stay visa. From then on, they can no longer move around within the Schengen area until they have obtained a residence permit. This is where the difficulty lies. In terms of the principle of free movement, third-country nationals with a long-stay visa are in the most unfavourable position, even though they might have had to wait several months or even years to obtain the visa. Furthermore, the text of the French initiative omits the problem of family reunion, a problem which arises in particular when citizens of the Union marry third-country nationals. Why not therefore treat those who hold a long-stay visa as already resident so that they can enjoy the same right to freedom of movement? As Mr Deprez also highlighted, the legal basis of the proposal could have been envisaged in a different way so that it covered all aspects mentioned in these arrangements. To sum up, it seems right to reject an imprecise and incomplete initiative relating to a matter as sensitive as Community immigration policy. In order to respect and fully guarantee Community legislative power, we must urgently adopt legislation on rights to freedom of movement, immigration and asylum. The only way to prevent a Fortress Europe being built is to make our repressive visa policy considerably more flexible. The current system does nothing to reduce the migratory flow, on the contrary, it encourages networks of smugglers of illegal immigrants to thrive.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I wish to pay tribute to the clarity of the proposals contained in Mr Watson’s report on the granting of refugee status. I feel that he has succeeded in reconciling various points of view. I personally see this report as complementing both the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Geneva Convention. As the Commission wanted, I believe that we finally have a good basis for discussion. We all know that there was a very wide disparity between the various Member States’ approaches to accepting refugees. We also know that the steps involved were complex and difficult. This report enables us to go somewhat further. And it also enhances the aid and support that we can give to refugees. I am also satisfied that our committee has taken into account the new forms that persecution can take. A few decades ago we were welcoming Chilean and Soviet refugees fleeing from dictatorships and persecution at the hands of their own governments. Nowadays there are certainly forms of repression, which force us to change our mindset and to take into account practices such as the sexual and genital mutilation of women, and new forms of persecution associated with terrorist groups and fundamentalists, and I believe that we have certainly taken that into consideration. I would even go further and say that it is time that we considered asylum on health grounds bearing in mind that a disaster like AIDS is ravaging a continent, and similarly we should consider accepting child soldiers when they are at the mercy of arms dealers. I believe that it is also important for this report to be adequate in terms of the fight against discrimination. I shall conclude by saying that in recent weeks, in view of the terrifying attacks committed on the United States last week, the fear of attacks against Afghan civilians has become a real one. At present, there are 600 people in the camp at Sangatte who are firmly committed to opposing terrorism. They are asking to be accepted here. I think that if we were able to accept them, this would not only be a way of breaking the perceived link between terrorism and Islam, but that these people would also be solid allies in the fight against terrorism. Mr Watson, let me take the liberty of suggesting that we could ascribe that phrase from Camus to you, when he said that his revolt was also the revolt of others. Thank you for your report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I have concerned myself very closely with this question and have taken part in many discussions both in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. This House unanimously believes that we need to work very quickly on the Commission's document, on the basis of the Rocard report, so that we can continue the political debate and take concrete measures. Postponing the vote would mean postponing the task we entrust to the Commission. Given what we all want to achieve, I think that is a bad idea and I therefore ask you to proceed to the vote now.

Political group: PPE-DE
The Egyptian government must take measures to improve the situation of the 8–10 million Coptic Christians in Egypt, who are discriminated against in legislation and in professional and social life, as well as in the practice of their religion. The Coptic Christians are currently treated as second-class citizens in the state policy on public appointments. There is no absolute religious freedom in Egypt, as legislation restricts the ability of Christians to repair churches or build new ones. It is also vital that the Christian minority perceive the judiciary as impartial.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should just like to say two things: firstly, we all need to draw on the things that have been said; and secondly, that we realise when we are playing into the hands of those of whom we are so critical, by making noise while others are talking.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, when things go wrong in a certain region, the world has come to expect ever more from Europe, and rightly so. We have the means, the organisational set-up and intention to help in emergency situations, and from that point of view, Africa can expect precious little from America under Bush. That is why I welcome the Commission proposal to set up a rapid reaction mechanism alongside the military unit and to supplement ECHO. This new mechanism will certainly meet a need, so much so that demand could soon exceed supply. In my opinion, the resources available for this year are an insult to the serious commitment of the RRM. Even if the amount is doubled or trebled in later years, it remains a joke compared to the many initiatives which can qualify for RRM action. It is about fast decision-making, acting and funding. The impressive list of operations from the otherwise excellent Newton Dunn report comes, therefore, as a bit of a surprise. It contains many important tasks of a not entirely pressing nature, such as providing education, monitoring elections or clearing mines. Could the Commissioner clarify what, according to him, the scope of application will need to be, also in the light of limited financial resources? The RRM initiative, a first pillar construction under the remit of the Commission, appeals to me. It is of utmost importance for our Parliament to be totally involved. Will we be informed about proposed action in good time? We often hear about issues of competence and rivalry between Mr Patten and Mr Solana; a distribution of tasks between the governments and the Commission in terms of military and civil affairs is very much an option on paper, but could well lead to major problems in reality. Can the Commissioner give us any reassurance in this respect? European politics, military and civilian action must be coordinated effectively. This is another expectation which the world has of us, and rightly so.

Political group: ELDR
We wholeheartedly support items 46-53 of the report, which are all designed to underline the high costs of the European Parliament’s travelling circus as it moves between Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg. As the rapporteur points out, Parliament’s moving between Brussels and Strasbourg entails additional costs for taxpayers amounting to approximately EUR 169 million per year. What is more, moving makes Parliament’s work considerably less efficient. The solution is for Parliament’s activities to be concentrated in one place of work. If this is to be possible, the Member States need to listen to reason and amend the Treaty so that Parliament itself is able to determine where it sits. The European Convention can make an important contribution by giving impetus to the debate on Parliament’s seat so that change really can come about.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, may I introduce a further thought? The water framework directive will bring radical changes to Europe’s water industry. But the directive is also an opportunity for a thorough rethink of our various national water industries and water legislation and for opening up new fields of business for national suppliers and undertakings. Water offers industry tremendous opportunities to create more value added for all by opening up the markets. Increased efficiency through new forms of cooperation between private industry and municipal suppliers in the planning, construction and operation of plants is the first essential step in that direction. A second step must then be to increase value added through exports. Know-how in particular, where some Member States already have a number of strong undertakings, offers the opportunity of increasing exports by paying more attention to canvassing foreign markets – but obviously exporting only to an ecologically acceptable extent. Everyone would gain from that. Municipalities and consumers would save on costs. Producers would find new markets. I believe everyone would gain from exporting water in the same way as other countries export their gold in the form of oil; we in Austria, for example, have white liquid gold in the form of water.

Political group: PPE-DE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. – Madam President, I thank the rapporteur. I too am pleased to see that certain amendments that were put forward by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs - but not accepted by the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs - have been tabled by a variety of the political groups in the House. The majority position of my committee is that we need to simplify and clarify the procedures. We have heard from a number of reputable companies about the length of time it could take to get work permits for their employees, which pushed some towards using tourist visas to get their employees into the country in order to fulfil contract obligations, and others to lose business. We heard from small- and medium-sized enterprises without departments devoted to human resources as to how complex it can be to find the individual that you want and deal with the paperwork, and how long it can take before that person actually starts work. We heard from individuals about what a frustrating and ridiculous process it can be when an application is halted for a minor technical reason and nobody has the responsibility to inform the person concerned of what that reason is. We also heard about the issues of having to return to one's country of origin, at great expense and inconvenience, in order to apply for a new work permit attached to a new job. That was from an employee at UNICE, the employers' federation. Hence we support the amendments about tightening up timetables and response times on work permits, about the requirement to inform the applicant of problems in an application and about moving away from the employer having to demonstrate the need, yet again, for a third-country national to fill a job if one becomes vacant within 12 months – although, from some of the horror stories we have heard about the length of time it can take to get permits, perhaps we should extend that even further. We have tried to strip away some of the duplication between what the employer has to do and what the state has to do in trying to treat a worker as a responsible adult. We supported the ECOSOC proposal to look at the idea of a job-seeker's permit, which could be of great assistance to small- and medium-sized enterprises.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. I agree wholeheartedly with the motion tabled by the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture. He has outlined the matter quite clearly. I, for my part as rapporteur, should like expressly to thank the Commission for its willingness to negotiate. As you know, we still have no co-decision in agriculture, hence the two informal meetings, both of which lasted over an hour. We reached a consensus on a great many points and the Commission too was willing to compromise. Unfortunately, we have no written documents on which we can really vote and pass resolutions, which is why I support the motion to reject urgency for the time being.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, a speaker in this House yesterday expressed the view that economic globalisation is not an incontrovertible necessity but the evil outworking of a few multinationals. Whilst I found this observation quite persuasive, it is, of course, dangerous and misleading because nothing which we are currently doing in Europe in terms of the economy or the environment can be seen in isolation from potential global developments. And it goes without saying that this also applies to the awarding of an environmental label in the European Union. Take the failed WTO negotiations in Seattle, which have opened our eyes as to the difficulty Europe faces in making itself heard by third countries when it comes to its progressive social and environmental standards. If we re-commit today to awarding a European environmental label, we must also consider that this will send a clear signal to third countries that it will be present on our products in developing countries and, of course, that others can and will follow suit. The environmental label must and will signal to third countries a whole range of important environmental concepts: that adverse effects on the environment can be reduced in the manufacture of certain product groups; that common goals for environmentally friendly consumption should be promoted; and that the relevant international standards must be observed. Economic globalisation has already made it possible for developing countries to share in the prosperity of rich countries and will continue to do so in the future. However, one thing must be made clear from the outset, and the common position before us does just that: the same rules must apply for all states. If the production plants in a country are required to meet the criteria for the environmental label, then this applies to all the production plants where the product in question is manufactured. If we can achieve this, then we will have globalised an important environmental principle.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on a point of order. This morning there were two procedural motions, one by my colleague Mr Hudghton and one by myself. Both were motions in which we asked for a roll-call vote and thought it important to have one. So far, the printed record of the roll-call votes gives us the roll-call only on the first but not, as yet, on the second vote on admissibility. Members will recall that was definitely a roll-call vote and the vote was taken using the machines. Can we be assured that the roll-call report will be available before tomorrow morning?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, it is very difficult to find new things to say at the end of this kind of debate. Allow me therefore to say something slightly provocative, which I relish doing: when I listen attentively and hear confirmed what I have known to be the case for thirty years, i.e. that smoking is dangerous – we all know that is the case and have done for thirty years – then I ask myself why we do not actually ban the production of cigarettes. It would be very much the logical thing to do and perhaps the Commission could give some thought to the matter. But I would not wish to overdo being provocative and will become a little more serious. I have this to say to the Commission: if we are serious, not just about creating transparency and informing people, but above all, about trying to make a harmful product as tolerable as possible – assuming we can – then surely one of the first things we need to do is to clarify the issue of additives. I ask myself, and would like to know from the Commission, why there is still no harmonisation, no approximation of permitted additives? Why does the European Union not have a list of permitted additives, or a regulation specifying permitted amounts? What is stopping us from drawing up a positive list and labelling accordingly? We should put our money where our mouth is. That is not what is happening here. There is another point I would like to add: why are we not being consistent in our approach and harmonising taxation, if we are convinced that cigarettes are harmful? Why are you doing nothing in this respect? I, for one, would support you if you did. Why are we not going to harmonise taxation, preferably at a high level? I urge all the honourable members who have spoken today to support this. Harmonisation of taxation at a high level within the European Union. If we know that smoking is dangerous then we cannot have a situation where tobacco is being used and consumed in one Member State at a high rate of taxation, and at a very low rate in another Member State. Do something about this please, Mr Byrne, and put your money where your mouth is in this respect as well. In my next point I would like to raise the issue of subsidies. Even if this point does not belong here, I know that we must raise it nonetheless, Mr Byrne. If you are serious about protecting people’s health, then when it comes to the budget, I would like to see you fight to have subsidies spent on something other than tobacco cultivation!

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I wish to congratulate Mrs Karamanou on a very good and comprehensive report. One of its main themes is the need for an integrated strategy. If we are to tackle the very serious imbalance of representation of men and women, not only in the political sphere but also in decision-making at all levels in society, this is essential. We should remember that just last year the Finnish presidency looked at nine sectors in the Member States, including national, regional and local parliaments, the civil service and the supreme courts. Wherever it looked it found women were under-represented. The problems have been recognised for a long time, but progress on solving them has been slow. We repeat ourselves constantly in these reports, calling for better statistics and training, awareness campaigns to encourage more women into politics in the same way as they have already very often become key players in their own communities and local groups, and for measures to make it easier for men and to women to balance work and family life. We have to keep on saying these things because they are needed. But, in addition, we need positive action, such as quotas, to make a real difference. This report does not dictate what should be done in individual Member States, but calls upon the governments to look at their own situation and take action to improve the balance of women and men, using legislative means, if necessary, as some have already done. Where these measures have been used, they have been successful, not only in getting more women elected to Parliament but also in raising awareness, providing good role models for other women – girls in particular – and improving debate and decision-making all around. So the Group of the will support all the conclusions of the report because it will contribute towards achieving equality and real democracy.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, we must see the current crisis resulting from foot-and-mouth disease as an opportunity to consider the European Union’s vetinary policy. First of all, it is hard to understand why the Union is finding it so difficult to react to this disease and to adopt a strategy to combat it. Starting with the Veterinary Committee, which only belatedly authorised vaccination, then the Council of Agriculture Ministers, which seemed more concerned with external trade issues than with controlling the situation, and finally, the Stockholm European Council, which danced around the crisis, like a ‘cat on a hot tin roof’, insisting on referring all the costs to the financial framework defined in Berlin. Secondly, the problems faced by some countries today in mobilising resources to deal with sick animals are clear for all to see. The European Union itself has never advocated a genuine common veterinary policy and in my own county we have seen a degree of laxness creeping into health policy, with unbelievable delays in payments to health protection agencies cofinanced by the European Union. Lastly, I wish to emphasise the urgency of adopting a decision on the strategy that we should follow. We know that it is not easy and that both vaccination and non-vaccination have their pros and cons. What is happening, though, is that the assessment carried out ten years ago which led to opting for non-vaccination must now be reconsidered in the light of the many aspects of European farming that have changed since then, starting with its integration into the global economy, which has increased the risks of contamination exponentially. Selective preventive vaccination or vaccination within a cordon sanitaire, on a regional basis, should be seen as alternatives that the Member States can authorise, according to the number of cases they discover. Otherwise, we shall run the risk of losing control of a potential future outbreak of an even greater crisis, or of irreversibly damaging irreplaceable genetic heritage, as has happened, in some countries, with certain native breeds.

Political group: PPE-DE