GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, when a child is born with just a father, we must not be surprised if it grows up with problems. Europe has many fathers and we have just missed the opportunity to give it a mother. I would like to talk about the assessment in Laeken on the subject of the application of justice and home affairs policies. I agree with the progress made on the principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions, both in the criminal field and in the civil field, though to a lesser extent. And I must congratulate you in this respect on the content and the form of the agreement on the European arrest warrant, which affects a large number of offences and which I see as greater justice rather than greater repression. I believe we should welcome this. However, with regard to immigration and asylum, I must say that the Council’s text adopts a tone of renunciation which worries me. The analysis of the situation is sincere of course, but I do not believe that it reaches the right conclusions. Mr President, we cannot allow fifteen different immigration policies in this borderless Europe for much longer. I think that we should draw other conclusions from this situation; the conclusion that these policies require greater impetus, that we should rid ourselves once and for all of the shackles of unanimity and that we should increase this Parliament’s participation in such sensitive issues. Mr President, I believe we have demonstrated that it is possible to work with our Parliament in this field and that we must put an end to the restrictions imposed in Amsterdam. I hope that the Convention takes note of this and puts it right. I would also like to end by congratulating the Presidency on the inclusion of diversity and the idea of federalism in the Treaty and on Mr Verhofstadt’s words to this House in this regard.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, in the short space of time available to me I must say that we consider the proposal for a Council decision that we are debating today to be positive overall, because at the time we were pleased with the signing and subsequent ratification of the agreement with Mexico, because we understand that it is an important – I might even say unheard-of – step in the relations of the European Union with a Latin American country. But this agreement, like everything else in life, can be improved. We understand of course that the agreement is a trading issue, but we feel there is a lack of concrete measures on the development of Mexico, our sister country. Similarly, nowhere in the functions of the Joint Committee (Article 44) did we find provision for a study of the repercussions of putting the association agreement into practice, something that we believe is frankly essential. We also regret that there is not even a mention of the environment in this agreement, not even –as my colleague Caroline Lucas has pointed out – a reference to the Protocol on Biosafety within the sections on intellectual property. Lastly, I must point out the profound inconsistency in the fact that, whereas in Mexico the agreement has been ratified by institutions elected by the people, in the European Union, which thinks of itself as a model of democracy, this agreement is not passed on directly for approval by this Parliament, which has been directly elected by the people of Europe, but it is simply consulted.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should first of all like to address the rapporteur and congratulate him on the outcome, but also on the excellent working relationship. You have found an innovative method, for which we are very grateful. Needless to say, that also applies to the shadow rapporteurs, Messrs McNally, Piétrasanta and Plooij-van Gorsel. We worked well together. I should also like to extend a word of thanks to my own fellow MEPs who have invested a huge amount of energy in this dossier. This is truly a joint outcome, and I therefore hope that the Commission, as well as the Council, is prepared to take this outcome seriously. Indeed, we have developed a structure by means of which, within the restricted margins available to us, everything has become clearer. More emphasis has been placed on bio-sciences; a better link has been established between research on the human genome and related diseases; far more attention has been devoted to a coherent package of industrial policy, information society, nanotechnoloy, as well as aviation and aerospace. Additionally, food safety has been accorded considerably more attention. Furthermore, unlike the Commission, we have given transport a much higher place in our list of priorities, alongside more attention for energy. Agriculture is also more involved. In my view, the package is looking better now all in all. The budget is also of major importance in my opinion. We have expressly adhered to our pledge to the Council that we would not increase the budget. We have slightly shifted the priorities. We would therefore make an urgent appeal to the Council to accept our budget now and not to start bargaining, for we will then have a war on our hands. Next, we should be emphatically aware that although the EU’s contribution to research in the Member States carried out by the national governments and industry is limited, it is still of fundamental importance. If, specifically, the EU can play a complementary role, the added value will be significant. Not for nothing did we include a fourth instrument to guarantee the smoothest possible transition between the Fifth and Sixth Framework Programme and to allow minor projects too to take place. More than 15% has been set aside for small- and medium-sized enterprises, and that too is one of our priorities. The decentralisation of the Sixth Framework Programme is important, but it is just as important not to weigh down the newly integrated projects, centres of excellence, with an enormous amount of red tape. That is why I believe our amendments are excellent. One final point: we have struggled greatly with the ethical principles. Indeed, on the one hand, it is important to create a framework within which research is to take place, but on the other hand, it is important, by means of further research, to create space for solutions to be found for existing illnesses with a genetic hereditary factor. Our greatest challenge was to strike that balance, and I hope that we have succeeded in this.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the question of the European Union’s borders is very interesting and has also been discussed by the European Convention. Yesterday the Commission adopted a strategy for a good neighbourly relations policy which also lists those countries covered by the policy. Is any significance to be attached to this strategic proposal by the Commission given that we are discussing the possible decision at the Thessaloniki Summit to open negotiations with the new candidate countries? In other words I am asking what the relation is between this strategy for a good neighbourly relations policy and the new, possibly to be called candidate, countries? Is the purpose of the neighbourly relations policy to specify which regions and states can never join the Union, or, in other words, is this in fact a matter of defining the Union’s borders?

Political group: PPE-DE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities. – Mr President, on behalf of the Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities, I welcome the communication on this strategy for health and safety at work. I would particularly like to congratulate Mr Hughes on his report. As he said, I have been very pleased with the way that our committees have worked together on this issue and, in particular, the cooperation with the rapporteur which has ensured that the points made by the Committee on Women's Rights have been fully taken on board. This is important because, while men are more often the victims of serious accidents at work, women tend to suffer for longer periods of time from work-related illnesses. Adult women receive less vocational training and education than their male colleagues. That is why it is so important that we have a gender breakdown of statistics on work-related ill health and accidents for full-time, part-time and temporary employment. The Commissioner agreed that gender must be mainstreamed throughout this strategy so that issues such as the effect of the double workload of paid employment and personal responsibilities and issues such as harassment in the workplace are properly addressed. If risk assessment and workplace design fail to take gender into account, women will continue to be prevented from entering certain professions and sectors. An evaluation of current health and safety law is needed so that we can identify problem areas to make future legislation more effective. For example, domestic workers and home workers, many of whom are women, must be protected, as well as women in agriculture and spouses in family-run small businesses. I totally support the rapporteur in his comments on the lack of resources in the Commission to deal with health and safety policy and, in particular, the need for a detailed and costed action plan and a very strict timetable for improving legislation in this very important area. I support the report.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I think that the VAT exemption should be lifted. I do not share the Commissioner’s views on liberalisation, but I am not convinced by Mr Goebbels’ arguments. I think that there is already an internal market for postal services, except for private use. Mail to private individuals, for example, only represents 10% of the turnover of the French postal service. The remainder is mired in competition, and there are inequalities in that competition. Contrary to what Mr Schmidt said, I think that the traditional public operators are particularly penalised by the inappropriate taxation system and by being unable to deduct VAT from their purchases. The reasons are not only purely financial; it is about being able to develop. I would also like to add that there is a tax on salaries to compensate for the so-called privilege of VAT exemption . It would be paradoxical to claim to want to defend public service companies while allowing them to be strangled. I think that the correct solution in these circumstances is to keep the Schmidt and Lulling amendments, which are a further step to the left, with obligatory reduced and super-reduced rates for services that are part of the universal service.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I too very much hope that Mr Goebbels is going to withdraw Amendment No 4. You want call-back, Mr Goebbels, I want call-back and so does Mr Bolkestein. The fact remains that it is not feasible to have a legal call-back within the terms of the Treaty. Therefore, it is up to us to find a political agreement and a form of words which will do until 2004 when we can review this whole issue. Indeed I believe the Commission is committed to such a review. It is vitally important that we come to this agreement. On Mr Schmidt's report, it is excellent to see the modernisation of the framework for UCITS by the inclusion of derivatives and OTC derivatives. Parliament is leading the way on this, and Mr Schmidt has played a particularly successful role in updating the directives in this way and very much led the way on the derivatives issue. I am sorry to see the capital requirements in the form that they are. I believe that UCITS managers should be subject to capital requirements, but I do not believe those contained in the directive are sufficiently risk-sensitive. I do not believe that they are consistent with the general framework that we hope to implement. I do not think that assessing capital according to risk under management actually reflects the risk undertaken. I am also concerned that this formulation of the directive will produce an uneven market opening, leaving the market closed in one Member State and open in the other 14. But I have been persuaded by the rapporteur and our esteemed shadow rapporteur not to table amendments on these defects because we are very keen to get these two directives on the statute book to modernise the framework for a unit trust and UCITS in the European Union. I commend the directive to the House.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr Poos and the Commission’s gargantuan endeavours could be likened to those of an eagle which is eager but unable to take flight towards the future heights of the new European ambitions. However, we must see this report as a positive contribution to the preparations for the future structure of the Union, a Union which must of necessity be an autonomous, independent political entity, secure in its cultural and social traditions, which can serve as an effective response to the confusion brought by a hegemony such as that we are currently witnessing. The Union must assume a new role. In a situation in which alliances are being disbanded and reformed on a global scale, Europe comes across as weak, appointing dubious triumvirates to represent it on the world stage when it needs to be united and firmly autonomous in presenting and maintaining a line of peace and social justice to eradicate the threat of terrorism. The reforms proposed by the Poos report are necessary and achievable, and we support them. These are small but important steps, worthy of due consideration by the Council and Parliament. They will also contribute greatly to resolving the democratic deficit, endowing the Council with a new institutional role and a closer relationship with Parliament. This fundamental political and external security action and its mandated representative can only be effective if decisions are taken in a context of joint responsibility between all the countries rather than with some of them being excluded. The Council has to understand this. We are not just complaining for the sake of it: this is a democratic requirement for the well-structured, transparent running of the Union and will benefit the Union as a whole.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, those of us from the United Kingdom extend all our sympathy to the constituents and fellow citizens of Georges Garot after the so far mercifully isolated outbreak in France. We also acknowledge the worries and concerns about which Mr Hyland and others have spoken of our neighbours in the Republic of Ireland. Would Commissioner Byrne confirm that the UK did its utmost to provide advance warning to its neighbours when this outbreak was first identified? Could he give any scientific opinion, as yet available to him, about the origins of the outbreak at Heddon on the Wall? Could he tell us if the movement restrictions throughout the European Union are now being widely obeyed and what penalties or sanctions are available in the case of rogue traders who are disobeying them? Would he agree that the spread of the disease has been predominantly through sheep, and therefore by animal contact, rather than wind-blown, and which offers us some hope that although the disease has not yet peaked, it can be contained? Finally, would he say that he agrees that the UK's policy of containment, slaughter and quarantine is still the best way of eliminating this disease, not just in Britain but wherever else it may spread in Europe?

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, you have not answered my question. The doubts over funding must be cleared up and you must tell us, please, whether all the funding intended for the fisheries agreement with Morocco, EUR 125 million per year, will now be invested in the people affected or whether, on the contrary, quantities will be diverted outside the scope of the fisheries agreement with Morocco. It has been a disaster, but that must not mean either a saving or a diversion of the funds which had been already approved. You reply in a theoretical and impersonal way. Please reply specifically to the question you are being asked. I asked you: what amount are you going to provide? In Andalusia, there is enormous concern about this issue. You are an expert in giving no answer, but the Commissioner in charge must reply honestly to our questions. It is very easy to avoid the question, but you are responsible and you must reply to what you are asked and not in a theoretical and impersonal way.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, first I want to give very warm thanks to my colleague Robert Atkins for drafting such an excellent report. He took great trouble not just to comment on the Commission’s proposals but also to outline them. I regard the broad line of separating the regulatory from the operational function as the right one. Indeed in paragraphs 4 and 5 we note again that our Parliament has now decided on two occasions that the regulatory function is to be transferred to the European Union. That brings me back to the last speaker. Of course we have to distinguish between possibly having several or many service providers in the operational field, but the regulatory function must remain with, or more to the point go to the European Union. Nor is that in any way a problem. Today we have 15 Member States in the European Union, and 12 more have applied to join. If we start to proceed according to the EEA system even at this point – defining the common rules and then asking the candidate states their opinion – we can integrate them. That is why I also think it is a good idea in the present situation for the European Commission to pool Member States’ interests in regard to the regulatory function in the framework of Eurocontrol. We do not need multilingualism, we need unanimity on the question of the regulatory function. I really would strongly urge the Commissioner to refer the proposals Parliament will be deciding on today back to the High Level Group and to continue ensuring that this working group produces very sound practical results. We have great respect for the vice-president, for she set up this group of military and civilian experts and the work is progressing well. There may still be some resistance in individual countries. We wish the vice-president much luck and success, so that come October we can submit an excellent programme.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I wish to begin by congratulating Mr de Roo on his excellent report and on the fact that he was able to reach a compromise with the shadow rapporteurs. I shall say, first of all, that, according to data from the European Environment Agency, in order to reduce carbon dioxide emissions we must focus on maritime transport. This focus on maritime transport in order to resolve the problem of climate change must not be developed, however, at the cost of acidification by sulphur dioxide emissions. I therefore consider it unacceptable that the efforts made on land to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions have not been matched at sea and I consequently welcome the Commission’s excellent initiative, although I feel it should be more ambitious. First of all, the upper limits for sulphur content should be lower, and so I fully support the figure of 0.5%; secondly, zones should be extended with the aim of reducing sulphur dioxide emissions into other zones to below the levels laid down in the MARPOL Convention – it is therefore crucial that the Commission fights within the MARPOL Convention to extend these emissions reductions to the Mediterranean, the Northeast Atlantic and the Black Sea; thirdly, I believe it is important that our action in the field of climate change to reduce the economic costs of complying with the Kyoto Protocol can also be applied to the problem of acidification. If we are going to achieve a EUR 1.3 billion reduction in the cost of complying with the Kyoto Protocol in Europe, we should also apply an identical system for sulphur dioxide emissions trading so that we can lower even further the cost of achieving these aims.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in countries such as India, China, Thailand and Argentina, the level of entrepreneurship displayed is truly remarkable. In the vast majority of EU Member States, on the other hand, the prevailing attitude is one of risk-averse pessimism as a result of poor economic data and many heralded but unimplemented reforms. Europe will be more capable of holding its own in global competition if there are far more business start-ups, for example. Mr Langen has presented a very sound analysis of the Commission’s Green Paper and proposed substantial improvements. Let us learn from best practices, for example from Ireland, which is among the world leaders, in terms of its business start-ups, thanks to lean bureaucracy, a simple taxation system, and active promotion of entrepreneurial spirit. Support must not only be given to new start-ups, however. Existing companies, crafts and family business also need to be promoted – an issue on which the report touched only marginally. We are in favour of an action plan for entrepreneurship, to be produced by the end of 2003, with feasible proposals, a binding timeframe, and the Charter for Small Enterprises as an integral element. Ask an expert, the President of SME Global, our fellow Member Mr Rübig! Let us be clear: enterprises need direct and uncomplicated access to funds, from the provision of risk capital to loans from the EIB and the EDF. When starting up, they need tax breaks, and when problems subsequently arise, they need relief from taxation and bureaucracy. They need the requisite transfer of innovation and technologies, and as our friend Mr Purvis has rightly pointed out, they need support from business angels. I know many of them. We also need support for European networking. Given the rising unemployment figures, we have no more time to lose. The political framework conditions must be in place so that enterprises can actually act in an enterprising manner again. If managers and workforce alike have clear prospects, they will be willing to be more flexible and mobile. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
I could list a number of NGOs and others who have, in fact, waited 6 000 days and are still waiting. For example there are landmine clearance NGOs and ‘Article 19’ – which the Commissioner will be aware of in the UK – who have had problems with lost documents, and with a whole litany of complete chaos. Is the Commissioner aware of the huge tensions which exist between the external DGs and the SCR now because of the confusion about tasks, because of the staffing difficulties that DG VIII has, for instance, because of their staff being moved to the SCR? There are underlying tensions which your answer does not address. The answer is somewhat complacent about a real crisis situation in the SCR. That is added to by the fact that the RELEX DGs are being reorganised. That causes even more chaos for the very essential work that we are engaged in with countries outside the European Union.

Political group: PSE