GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I voted in favour of this report and I wanted to take this opportunity to say what a pity it is that the European Parliament and the European institutions are not as popular as they might be with the electorate and the people of the European Union because we are not in a position to respond appropriately and quickly to problems which arise and which we are aware of. We have already seen this once this week with the transport of animals and now we are seeing it again with cross-border payments. Over the years the public have become angry and have been forced to suffer losses, and now we are in the situation that we are lagging behind; hopefully this initiative of Mrs Peijs will now at least be implemented quickly. As early as the time of the introduction of the euro I brought this issue to the attention of the Commissioner responsible, Mr Monti, and I asked the Commission to take action on it as quickly as possible. As we can see it has taken years, and that is a shame because so much damage has been done. I believe – to stress this once more – that we need to listen more closely to what members of the public have to say, pay more attention to their problems and then take appropriate action. I should also like to add that I had indicated that I wished to make an explanation of vote on the Flemming report. Obviously this will no longer be necessary.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, the reason why the Commission submitted its proposal is to stop players being treated like a commodity, which can be bought by clubs because they are good players and, more to the point, because they can be sold on to other clubs for a great deal more money. I welcome this proposal with open arms. Needless to say, this will cause problems, certainly in the short term, for smaller clubs in smaller footballing nations, such as the Netherlands. But holding on to the current system would not solve the problem either. A more structural solution would be if the media millions were better distributed. I therefore hope with all my heart that the large clubs will realise that ultimately, without the small clubs, their future will be bleak too. I would like to say the following on the transfer system. I back the Commission proposal but I do hope that it will make provision for recovering training expenses for players between the ages of 18 and 24, as, for example, is being proposed at the moment by FIFA, the international football association, and FIFPRO, the organisation for players. I very much hope that UEFA, the European football union, will go along with this request and will stop being the last, self-appointed defender of a system which has created such absurd situations in the first place.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I am greatly surprised that the Conference of Presidents could have authorised the Van Lanker report, which deals with topics for which the European Union has no competency. Healthcare services, abortion and education are the sole responsibility of Member States and candidate countries, to be decided in line with their constitutional and legal requirements. Regarding the Irish position, Constitutional article 40.3.3 'acknowledges the right to life of the unborn with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother'. Under this constitutional article, abortion is illegal in Ireland. The 'morning after pill', which, according to the manufacturer, is an abortifacient, is also illegal under Irish statutory law; the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861, Sections 58 [amp] 59. Article 42.1 of the Irish Constitution states: 'The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical, and social education of their children' (42.1). (Abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I note that there is still a great need for discussion and we will indeed continue with it in the next parliamentary term. Let me begin by expressing my best wishes and thanks to the rapporteur. He really had his hands full with one of the most difficult and important reports in this parliamentary term, and he has done an outstanding job of it. Some important comments have already been made. I would like to emphasise once again that it is a good thing that we have now formulated a uniform methodology. In this way, we can in future get rid of the mosaic of different toll systems with markedly varying charges. It is also extremely important for us that it has been possible to apply the full cost principle and to include infrastructure older than 15 years. There is, of course, another point that is close to my heart. The purpose of the Directive is not only to generate financial resources for the infrastructure, important though that indeed is. The purpose of the Directive is also to contribute to the control and management of transport, above all through levying appropriate charges. We will do this on the one hand through the differentiation of the toll and on the other through the possibility of cross-finance. In the differentiation of the toll, we will be able for the first time to allow for external costs such as ground contamination, blockage and noise costs. This represents a first step towards the comprehensive internalisation of the environmental costs, a result not to be underestimated. My group also endorses Amendment No 55, which deals with a further differentiation in these areas. As regards the increase of the toll for the purpose of cross-finance, the rapporteur has indeed proposed an excellent compromise. It is right that we have expanded the definition of the sensitive areas – something about which I absolutely do not agree with Mr Jarzembowski – so that the conurbations are also included in them, because that is where the most serious noise and emission problems occur. We have certainly not come up with the best solution, and it would be a pity if we now only get as far as the first reading. I look forward to the further discussion in the next parliamentary term and to future debates on the subject.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I wish to appeal to the Heads of Government and Foreign Ministers who are congregating in Brussels: that appeal is that they take seriously their responsibility in respect of enlargement. It is not possible to make everything dependent on everything else, nor is it possible to force through an agricultural reform with enlargement in the offing. Time must be found for that later on. It is not possible to be willing to pay more for enlargement and, at one and the same time, to compel others to pay less. I think it must be clear that the costs of enlargement, within the bounds of reasonable perspectives, should rather be planned to be below the level of Agenda 2000 as set out in Berlin. We should be looking seriously at proper finance for agriculture, making it possible for there to be stable conditions for farmers by 2006, but we should also be clear in our own minds that not everything has a final solution. There will be no pre-enlargement agricultural reform without postponing enlargement for ever and a day, and nor can we prejudice future, post-2006, Budget frameworks. It is with this in mind that I can say that we in the Austrian People's Party, and I as a representative of it, take the line of 100% support for enlargement. I know that your team in Brussels is empowered to act properly in the interests of the European Community and of Austria. We hope, of course, that there will be sensitivity for our concerns about transit and support for border regions, but we are all aware that enlargement is a great chance – a chance that must be made use of. This must be guaranteed in a policy and a procedure that means that the candidates for accession are not forced into a ‘do or die’ situation, about which we have heard so much. So I ask you this: how do you intend to go about finding a method whereby, on the one hand, the Brussels Conference is prevented from degenerating into a secretive conclave and, on the other, there is enough space left for negotiations with the candidates for enlargement? (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the people of Venezuela took the country into their own hands and elected Mr Chavez as president. Apparently, this was not to the liking of the United States, the local plutocracy or the European Union, which is maintaining an indulgent silence. They even went as far as organising a coup d’état in order to oust President Chavez and his government, but they failed thanks to the decisive intervention of the people of Venezuela themselves. A new attack is unfolding at this time. The opposition has made a huge effort to collect signatures, but I wonder where it submitted the petition, which was a failure in that most of the signatures proved to be forged. And now the opposition is crying that it has been discriminated against. The time when the imperialists imposed dictatorships everywhere has passed. The people of Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, of the whole of Latin America are stepping up their fight for democracy and social change. To all these peoples we express our solidarity and undivided support.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I just wanted to bring to your attention the arrest in Greece a week ago of twelve British subjects and two Dutch subjects. Among the British subjects were two of my constituents, Paul and Lesley Coppin from Mildenhall in Suffolk. They have been arrested by the Greek authorities on charges of espionage. These people are plane spotters, aviation enthusiasts, on holiday in Greece. It does seem to me rather extraordinary that they are still being held in custody in a fellow Member State, and I wonder if there is something that you can do to bring this matter to the attention of the Greek authorities in order they be released as soon as possible.

Political group: PPE-DE
The text that we have discussed and voted upon calls on the Member States to foster the mobility of people undertaking a course of study, a period of training, voluntary work or work as a teacher or trainer in another Member State, whether under a Community programme or not. The European Parliament naturally welcomed this type of proposal. Parliament believed, however, that some amendments were necessary in order to improve the quality of the text, and, above all, to extend the scope of the proposal to include researchers, something I consider to be extremely important. Some amendments along these lines were tabled and adopted at first reading. Unfortunately, however, the European Commission rejected those relating to researchers for legal reasons. As rapporteur for the Sixth Research and Development Framework Programme, I can naturally only deplore this move. I hope that the conference on the mobility of researchers and scientists, which is due to be held under the Belgian Presidency, will enable us to make progress in this area. The creation of a European area of research involves collaboration by researchers and scientists from all corners of the globe so that advances can be made in research, which is in the interests of all citizens. That is why it is crucial to combat the various obstacles to their mobility. Since this can only be done within the framework of this proposal, another solution will have to be found. I am committed to working towards this. Furthermore, like the rapporteur, I would like to pay tribute to the hard work of the French Presidency on reaching the most ambitious common position possible which could command general assent. The amendments that have been adopted, therefore, cover some essential aspects of mobility and seek to improve or eliminate administrative, financial or social difficulties. With regard to the practical measures that Member States will be taking, linguistic and cultural initiatives are proposed, for example, in order to prepare those who will be travelling abroad for their new lifestyle, improved access to information on mobility and practical difficulties that may be encountered and financial aid in the form of grants, benefits or loans. Nationals of candidate countries and third countries, who are legally resident in the EU, will also be able to benefit from the provisions of the recommendation. I am pleased that the report has stressed that all types of qualifications gained in other Member States need to be recognised. All too often, Member States have a negative attitude to this and create unacceptable problems in an area in which individuals should enjoy free movement, thus preventing people who travel from making the most of their experience. Mr Evans also drew attention to the fact that, since Parliament’s first reading, the Council agreed an Action Plan on Mobility – a ‘toolbox’ of 40 measures, which complements the recommendation. Some amendments were then tabled at second reading to take account of this development. I sincerely hope that these measures will soon become reality.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, the statement which the Commissioner made a moment ago is one that is not likely to attract a great deal of criticism. It contained general statements. My only criticism is that it is a timeless speech. Had the Commissioner for development and cooperation given this speech fifteen, or ten, years ago, the content would have been identical. My main point of criticism is: what are the specific improvements which the Commission proposes? Firstly, and this has been said before, the Commission should, in my view, focus on Africa. Agricultural production on the African continent lags behind the growth in population. What should the Commission do? In my view, the Commission should, in the first instance, ensure, via the delegations and the Member States, that those countries adopt a sound price policy for agricultural products. Farmers, wherever they may be in the world, are prepared to produce adequately if the circumstances permit this, provided that the prices are sound. It is always necessary to strike a balance between the interests of the people in the towns and the people in the country, but it is a sure thing that if the prices for agricultural products are not sound, farmers will stop producing and the population will become increasingly dependent on imports and food aid. Both often have fatal consequences for the local food production. I believe food aid is distributed far too easily by the Americans, among others. Europe might have the opportunity of having a heart-to-heart talk with them in the framework of the World Trade Organisation. In addition, Europe must, in my view, also be cautious when it provides food aid. As far as the prices on the world market are concerned, we cannot influence these, but we can enter into a dialogue with the governments in the countries in question to adopt a clear price policy, thus ensuring that imports from the world market do not adversely affect local food production. I should like to make two other points. We often think that we can solve this problem by throwing money at it and that if we gave some money to the public information services, it may be possible to solve this problem. I do not think so. If we gave money for five years, the problem would recur in five years' time. In my view, the dialogue should also be extended to include the way in which the public information services, together with the veterinary services, can become more financially independent. How can they be funded to a large extent by the local population itself? I am mainly thinking of the veterinary services, for cattle, in particular, plays an important role in Africa's food production. Vast areas that cannot be used for food production at the moment can then improve in future thanks to veterinary facilities. The Commission must play a central role in this dialogue about self-sufficiency and financial independence, and this is a far better solution than giving money alone.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Mrs Hautala, Commissioner, I am very pleased to see that so many members have referred to the amendments relating to the position of parents – particularly young parents. Motherhood, pregnancy and fatherhood must not prevent progress in working life. I find Amendment No 25 to be particularly welcome and well-justified. Reference has already been made here to the fact that childbearing tends to be postponed in periods of economic prosperity, and this is particularly worrying as far as young women are concerned. I also think that Amendment No 42 is good, i.e. referring to this problem of equal pay, which in my opinion is still the worst problem in Europe in terms of gender equality. It is completely intolerable that even today in many sectors, even in the public sector, the average earnings of women are lower than those of men with equivalent education and experience. Our society and our economy cannot afford not to exploit to the full the skills of its entire population. Our society must offer all its members equal and unlimited opportunities for self-development along their chosen path. Old-fashioned and artificial structures must not be allowed to impede an individual’s professional, educational or career development or personal growth, irrespective of their gender. Sexual harassment is a repugnant phenomenon. I would like to emphasis that the natural human dignity and integrity of the individual are inviolable basic values, particularly to us conservatives. Sexual harassment, this subject on which silence has reigned for so long, must be efficiently tackled. However, there is cause to take action at European Union level only where we are unable to create sufficient legislation at national level. On this issue I am of the opinion that healthy social structures and efficient national legislation are the best means of preventing sexual harassment. European Union legislation must also comply with the general legal requirements for legislation. A text worded clearly, accurately and in detail is one of these. When bringing their own case in court people must be able to base their demands on a clear legal text. In this respect I support Ms Lulling’s opinion that this report is not sufficiently legally precise throughout. Furthermore, I would like to say that I absolutely oppose Amendment No 40, which refers to collective action being adopted in this sector. While I am not of the opinion that this would be a bad thing in this sector in particular, I do object in general to the collective action mechanism being brought into the European legal system.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, in the phrase which reads ‘Where consent to the transfer is required from the person concerned’, the words ‘under the national law of the requesting or requested Member State’ should be added after ‘Where’. (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) ***

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we have already noted that there is no report from the Commission, but I intend to discuss three matters in the light of the objectives which the Council presented in its 1997 opinion. The first is concerned with conflict resolution. For many years, I have tried, through the Council and the Commission, to find out why none of the institutions is actively participating in, and working for, conflict resolution in the Western Sahara, which is occupied by Morocco. The UN has a peace plan. We ought to seize this opportunity and bring the last colonial episode in Africa to an end. I also want to take up the subject of migration. I am anxious about the new stipulations in the partnership agreement with the ACP countries, which might make it easier to expel immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees on flimsier grounds. I really also want to see the EU pioneer patents on living organisms. We now know that at least one person in the world dies of hunger every four seconds. Three quarters of those who die are children under five years of age. This is not because of a lack of food, but because of what we have talked a lot about today, namely increasing poverty. Food safety and the guarantee of biological diversity must take precedence over commercial interests. I believe that patents on living organisms are designed only to control the global food supply, specifically for commercial purposes and for no other reason. I also want to see something about women in the report I hope the Commission will produce. Women appear to be completely absent from all areas, especially development policy when, of course, we are not in reality absent at all.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to explain the vote in favour of the Newton Dunn report by highlighting that, with its provisions, it fits into the fight against illegal immigration and the numerous criminal acts committed by many illegal immigrants, whether purposefully or not, to the detriment of all the citizens in the European Union, particularly the elderly. I would nevertheless like to draw your attention to the fact that it would be a good idea for all the expenditure, all the personnel and all the means used in the past to supervise the borders within the European Union – for example, between Italy and France, France and Germany etc., that is, between the European States which now have a common border – to be relocated to the external borders of the European Union in order to combat this phenomenon of crime and illegal immigration more effectively. ***

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I too have a request, to thank the city of Strasbourg and the French government for making this building available to us. For, in spite of the teething troubles, which are perfectly natural, it is a wonderful building and a worthy setting for the European Parliament here in Strasbourg. I would also like to thank you, Madam President, for taking the initiative in helping to cope with these teething troubles. I would like to mention one problem, one I hope is not mine alone. This is the limited number of exits from, and entrances into, this Chamber. You are familiar with the behaviour of the Members of Parliament. Generally, we all leave the chamber together or all enter it together before votes. We keep getting queues of people in the aisles. This is related to the fact that two access points are simply too few for the large number of Members of Parliament. I do not know whether it is technically possible to additionally open one of these privileged access points for the Members of Parliament. There is also a problem in that both the main exits lead to the foyer, which is extremely narrow. The bridges are there. The cameras are waiting there. We Members of Parliament are also, by nature, very undisciplined and chat in the aisle, or stand right in front of the exits and talk to each other. We could certainly also improve our discipline. But I think we should have thought of something to make better use of the broad foyers located at the sides of this Chamber. If we should come out there, we ought also to have the opportunity to sit down together somewhere other than in this enormous telephone kiosk. I think serious precautions should be taken in the interests of safety, for what if an alarm were to go off? (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I welcome the Baltas report as a cautious step towards Croatian membership of the EU, and I must say that we had got even further on this matter, since, with the Brok report, this House clearly argued for candidate status and for Croatia’s accession in the next wave. I would like to say that we should continue down this route. Although, through no fault of its own, Croatia is in a different league from the Member States that will be joining us on 1 May, it is, in many respects, as ready for accession as some of them are, and I believe that we should give immense support to Croatia so that it is present in the next wave of enlargement.

Political group: PPE-DE