GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I am voting against the report, since a political document that is silent about the conditions in European jails designed for deportees, about deaths at the borders, basically caused by European border controls, and about the structural racism of European immigration policy does not deserve to be endorsed. What is more, European migration policy pursues two objectives: it increases the isolation of Fortress Europe by shifting border controls further upstream, namely to countries of transit and origin; and it optimises the economic exploitation of what are, from a capitalist point of view, ‘usable’ labour forces. The report before us attacks, however, neither the reduction in the level of protection for refugees to the lowest common denominator nor the hypocrisy and double standards in the so-called ‘fight against illegal immigration’, aimed at militarising the borders at the same time as purloining cheap labour forces. It even still welcomes the introduction of common border controls. The deportation agreements that are being urged upon third countries by the EU are not up for debate. The report before us does not even begin to criticise this repressive and xenophobic behaviour. Instead, a large majority in Parliament applauds a toothless report representing the wretched political mainstream. I do not add my voice to this majority. - Resolution on illegal trade in light weapons

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, the rapporteur, Mr Garot, has dealt with the Commission’s proposal for pig industry funding realistically and in precise terms. The aim to balance production and marketing beforehand will be of benefit to the production chain and to everyone else as well. I would like to point out, however, that at this stage we should not be embarking on a regulated economy in the pig industry. I agree very strongly with my colleague, Mr Busk, when he says that eastward enlargement lies ahead of us and, in a situation such as this, where we will have to take a serious look at the whole agricultural policy a few years from now, it is not, in my opinion, worth embarking on a regulatory mechanism for just one sector. That would not be the wise thing to do at present. In this the south and the north are quite clearly opposed. In the south people are more in favour of co-financing. On the other hand, the pig industry in the north works on the principle that it should be very firmly undertaken on a voluntary basis, on which schemes may be created, schemes which – as Mrs Schierhuber said here just now – pig farmers could join in different parts of Europe. The Community could be providing funds in a mainly technical sense, financing technical matters in connection with start-up, and thus supporting actual start-up. The way I understand it is that voluntary funds in the future will help to ensure there is also balanced marketing in the pig industry.

Political group: ELDR
draftsman of opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. – Mr President, I would like to thank my colleagues on the Budget Committee and the Budget rapporteur in particular for the good cooperation we have had with them in this first reading. That is code for saying that the employment committee got pretty much what it was looking for in this first reading and I am grateful for that. Others have referred to the Structural Funds. We are broadly happy with the fact that the Budget Committee agreed with our recommendations, so I would like to look instead at a number of subcategories of lines. One that is important to the Employment Committee is that of Social Dialogue. There we have ended up with EUR 4.5 million more than the European Commission were looking for initially. That I think is more in line with the tasks that we are facing in that important area and it includes appropriations to involve representatives from accession countries in Central and Eastern Europe which we think is very important. We have less than we wanted on B3-4003. That is a cause of disappointment because it is an important area with the expected implementation of the European company statute and, we hope, progress on the general framework for information and consultation of expenditure. We are happy that what we were looking for in relation to NGOs has been agreed in the first reading. This, we think, is a very important area – the idea of developing civil dialogue. I am particularly pleased that funding will continue for the NGO platform which I think is an important part of developing civil dialogue. Employment, of course, is one of the most important issues from the point of view of the Employment Committee. And here, with budget lines B5-502 and B5-503, we have combined some EUR 24 million more than the Commission’s original proposals. We think that is an excellent outcome. We are looking to implementing the employment chapter from Amsterdam and making progress in relation to the macroeconomic dialogue agreed at Cologne. We are therefore grateful that we have the funding to move those important issues forward. Two slight problems in conclusion, President. One is that we still have no enduring legal base for NGOs. I hope the Commission and the Council will make progress on that, otherwise the civil dialogue will end at the end of next year. That would be catastrophic. The other difficulty relates to technical assistance and the funds that have been transferred into the reserve. I hope that the Commissioner for Social Affairs will act quickly to provide the information necessary to release 50% at second reading.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we are dealing here with three important reports of course. It is true that it is not legislation, but I look forward with interest to the legislation that will follow these reports. I do that with a great deal of confidence, because on this point too we have every confidence in this Commissioner. I am curious as to whether he can indicate how long it will be before we can expect the various proposals for this legislation. The challenge, of course, is to properly coordinate consumer policy and the completion of the internal market. Consumer policy must not be allowed to be an excuse for erecting trade barriers. I also think that the figures that the Commissioner gave just now on the benefits that we all gain from harmonisation speak volumes as far as that is concerned. Consumers benefit from free trade because they can buy cheaper and better products and of course we must achieve a high level of consumer protection. Confidence is the engine of economic growth. Consumers must have confidence in products or they will not buy them. Industry must have confidence in the internal market and consumers must have confidence in suppliers. We can kill two birds with one stone. We must work towards a situation where it no longer matters to consumers whether they buy their products in the Netherlands or Greece. That is not easy. Consumers often do not know what their rights are. Consumer organisations can help with this. Consumer magazines are widely read and contain useful tips. People have a lot of confidence in these organisations. So I think and I am glad that the Commissioner is also working for this that the Union must involve these organisations closely in the preparatory work for future policy. Besides, unfair trading practices damage confidence in the market. A dishonest car salesman can spoil the market for his competitors. Dishonest traders must therefore be tackled forcefully, which is why it is good that the choice has been made to adopt a European approach to tackling undesirable commercial practices. Of course we need to be clear about what constitutes undesirable trading practices. For me that is not only taking advantage of physical or mental vulnerability or the use of physical or moral pressure, obstructive behaviour must also be included. For example, making it difficult for consumers to change their service provider. Only when you can switch easily from one service provider to another, do you have optimum competition resulting in lower prices and better quality. Just think about changing your bank. They make it terribly difficult for you. You cannot take your account number with you and I think these are artificial barriers. Finally, Mr President, I think that the Commission should use Article 153 of the Treaty more often as the legal basis for consumer protection. We did not create this Article for nothing and it will benefit both the consumer and the internal market.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, let me begin by saying that Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell is an outstanding candidate for this post. It is quite obvious: she has great charisma, she has high-level and demonstrable expertise, and she has a wealth of experience in the field of monetary policy. She meets all the requirements to perform her new role in the service of our monetary system and the euro. What I particularly liked was that when she was responding to the questions from the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, she excelled with her brief, concise and persuasive answers. What is also important is that she supports the European Central Bank's basic policy direction, with price stability as the primary objective, and also the new shape of the European Central Bank's pillar structure. Mr Goebbels, let me tell you that even the new constitution – in its present Article 21 – states that the European Central Bank must guarantee price stability as its primary objective. Of course, it contributes to the achievement of the Union's other goals as well. In this respect, the European Central Bank has performed outstanding work to date. The euro is a stable currency at domestic level, while its value on the external markets is currently amazing almost the entire financial world. What is more, the euro is already making a significant contribution to stabilising the world currency markets. The Maastricht Treaty has also proved its worth inasmuch as re-election is not an option, which means that Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell will be appointed for eight years. What is particularly appealing is the fact that we will have a lady as the successor to the outgoing female member from Finland; this demonstrates that we are attempting to ensure that women are appointed on an equal basis to high-level positions. I am wholeheartedly committed to the central importance of the European Central Bank's objectives. In Germany, the largest Member State in the monetary union, it would be a great mistake if we tried to address our acute problems through the simple but extremely dangerous strategy of taking on further debt and raising taxes. Of course, I cannot rule out that the time may come when a further cut in interest rates, as part of the European Central Bank's policy on interest rates, may reduce the gap with rates in the United States and stimulate business investment and performance. Since the candidate – as Mr Goebbels has indirectly pointed out – also meets the main requirements laid down in the Treaty, namely recognised standing and professional experience in monetary and banking matters, I believe that we can support her appointment with a clear conscience. I would like to wish Mrs Tumpel-Gugerell every success, so that Europe can genuinely develop into what we need, namely the most dynamic economic area in the world, offering job opportunities for our young people. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, towards the end of last year the Parliament delegation to the Conciliation Committee agreed on the final content of the second pillar of the Aarhus Convention, the Directive on public participation in decision-making on the environment. I was in the role of rapporteur during the conciliation procedure. Of key importance in the acceptance of the outcome of conciliation was the undertaking by the Commission to put forward a proposal on the third pillar of the Aarhus Convention during the first quarter of 2003, which is to say by the end of March this year. In compliance with a decision taken by the Conciliation Committee, the Commission appended a declaration to the directive published in the Official Journal of the European Communities, in which it reconfirmed this undertaking. At present, that undertaking by the Commission remains unfulfilled. The Commission has still not adopted the proposal for a Directive on access to justice in environmental matters, even though the last quarter of the year is already upon us, which means the proposal is six months late. The failure of the Commission to live up to the undertaking it gave is greatly undermining Parliament’s confidence, and is indefensible and unacceptable. For this reason, I would ask you, Mr President, to draft a letter to the President of the Commission without delay, containing a reminder by Parliament of the undertaking given, and in which you reprimand the Commission for not having kept to this undertaking of theirs or not even having shown they were in any way ready to explain the delay to Parliament, and in which you call on the Commission to adopt the missing proposals to be appended to the Aarhus Convention and present them to Parliament during September.

Political group: PPE-DE
The first two sentences of the Laeken Declaration about the debilitating effects of the two World Wars confirm my belief that the European Union is a force for good in the world and Britain, like all other Member States, derives great benefit from the existence of the EU. The remains of my grandfather, like many others, lie somewhere in Flanders on the battlefield of the Somme. My father fought in Montgomery's army in Flanders for the liberation of Brussels. I am still in Flanders, the third generation of my humble family, fighting here for Britain's interests. Can there be any doubt as to which generation has got right the way to work out Europe's relations? The simple certainties of the 20th century are less clear in the complexities of the 21st century. As I read on in the Laeken Declaration I recall the saying we have in English that, like the curate's egg, it is good in parts. I particularly like the reference that we are a continent of liberty and, above all, of diversity. Unlike the United States of America, Europe is a voluntary association of sovereign independent states. We must never forget that. Of course we need European-level institutions but let us also recall the wise words of Jacques Santer: 'Europe must do less better'. There needs to be a clearer definition of subsidiarity on 'less'. Only go to European level for that which can only be done at European level. On 'better' I urge Commission and Council to look closely at the call of this Parliament for a uniform and compulsory code of good administrative behaviour. The response I received to a Parliamentary question last week from the Commission was dismissive of Parliament's call made in September for such a uniform and compulsory code. That is not the right attitude, nor is it the way to get the European public on side. The case for such a code has been set up by the Ombudsman, Jacob Söderman. I am pleased he will be an observer at the Convention but I would say to Commission and Council that you would do well to listen to him as well as to allow him to observe. As the final speaker from the floor this year, may I wish all the staff, all the Members and all the people of Europe a very merry Christmas and a happy New Year.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, recently, at the beginning of last month, we faced the unforeseen possibility of a heated exchange between India and Pakistan. Luckily, this exchange was avoided thanks to the sense of responsibility demonstrated by both sides. In other words, following the heated clash and the circumstances in which it took place, and rightly so, with the terrorists in Afghanistan, there was a risk of yet more unfortunate developments between two large countries with nuclear capabilities. However, this does not mean that the problem has been resolved. In this sense, the purpose of our debate here today is to remind both countries, both India and Pakistan, of their responsibilities towards their people and the neighbouring region. At the same time, however, we too need to assume our responsibility, as the European Union, to help find a peaceful solution to all the differences in the area, to respect for international law and human rights and to anything and everything relating to the Rule of Law and human rights. However, this endeavour should not lead us to overlook the fact that Pakistan does indeed have a serious human rights problem, serious problems with democratic issues and serious problems with religious minorities. These problems are not being raised here in order to accuse Pakistan or in a gesture of friendship towards India. On the contrary. They are being raised as urgent priorities which both countries need to address, for their own good, for the good of the area and for the sake of peace in the area. Both countries are responsible for the stability of the area. And both countries are responsible for future developments, so that these areas can stop being areas of poverty, misery and conflict. In this sense, I believe that today's resolution and unanimous support for it from all sides of the House will make both a symbolic and a substantial contribution.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, first of all I should like to thank our rapporteur, Mrs Torres Marques, not only for her work on this report, but also for her dedication to the tourism cause in this Parliament, which goes back some years now. I believe we are faced with a contradiction – a contradiction that emerges clearly as Mr Harbour speaks on behalf of Mr Bradbourn, speaking on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy in this field of tourism. I believe we need EU competence in the field of tourism, not only to enable tourism to develop in terms of staff and standards and give us a coherent and coordinated tourism policy, but also – and I thought the Conservative Group would have really taken this to their bosom – because the present scenario is holding back profit generation and the opportunities to make money in that sector. Tourism contributes 5% of the EU's GDP. It employs thousands of people in the Member States and yet we have no EU competence. We are faced at this moment with numerous – I do not know how many exactly – tourism policies reflecting national, regional and even local priorities that differ from each other. It appears that we have a tourism ship that is sailing the seas with nobody on the bridge to direct it or to control it. That is not the fault of the Commission or this Parliament. The fault lies squarely with the Member State governments. Even within national boundaries, tourism suffers from this effect of other interests – parochial interests. We really need to take the opportunity presented by Mrs Torres Marques to get to grips with this problem and to produce for the European Union a coherent tourism policy that will work and be of benefit to the people of Europe.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am indebted to my esteemed friend, Mrs van der Laan, for making it clear, the last time she adopted a position, that she and her friends intended to repeat the manoeuvre every Friday morning of a Strasbourg part-session. I am grateful to her for clarifying the purpose of this action and I agree with Mr Jacques Poos’ comments. I would also like to express my disappointment at the absence from the Chamber this morning of Members whom I believed to be as concerned as I am for the interests of the town of Strasbourg.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I want to deal briefly with a number of amendments about which concern has been raised. Amendment No 31 deals with products using traditional methods or sited in remote locations. All of us have some examples of this kind. I have seen this in the UK, with people trying to operate our beef assurance scheme. We should defend this amendment because it specifically states that such products should have no demonstrable adverse effect on food hygiene. Similarly the references to HACCP in Amendment No 9 are permissive and not mandatory, and the small business sector can live with that. I now turn to the Goodwill/Bernier Amendment No 18, as Mr Goodwill would expect me to, exempting hunters from these regulations. We accept this for the individual hunter consuming or passing on the game he has shot or caught. But there is a difference between the noble Nordic hunter scaling the utmost peak in pursuit of an individual elk, the picture that Mr Sjöstedt would commend to us, and the syndicates of flabby businessmen turning out on English landed estates, as they turn in a large quota of inexpertly shot birds and animals for the market. In these circumstances, I believe that, if such products go to a retail outlet or a restaurant, there is a difference. The great wit, Oscar Wilde, described the English hunting fraternity as the 'unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable'. I do not mind that but when the 'unspeakable' begin to peddle the 'eatable', they should be open to the hygiene rules, as set down in this regulation. I see no reason whatsoever why we should make an exemption where, what starts off as a little outlet doing no harm, a brace or two of birds here or there, ends up as another supply route. We should protect the hunter's right to hunt but we should not guarantee him an unprotected route into retail outlets.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the concern of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy stems from the legal disputes with the United States and Canada concerning the European Union’s obligations in the context of the WTO and the application of the precautionary principle, to which we attach great importance. On the basis of the opinion delivered by the Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures relating to Public Health, the SCVPH, we have called for moves to ban oestradiol 17β, a recognised carcinogen. In general, our amendments to the Commission’s proposals are designed to encourage the Commission to adopt a more dynamic approach by seeking and developing its own scientific information with a view to avoiding any impression that the EU is seeking only to gain time and intends to continue using the current lack of adequate scientific information to maintain its provisional measures in force indefinitely. It is therefore important that the provisional ban on the five other identified hormones, namely testosterone, progesterone, trenbolone acetate, zeranol and melengestrol acetate, should apply until the Community finds more complete scientific information from any source – particularly by means of a research programme of its own in this field – which could shed light on the gaps in the present state of knowledge on these substances and enable the EU to take a sufficiently well-founded decision to continue or lift the ban. As far as these substances too are concerned, we also want the Commission to accept the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee which was established by Article 1 of Decision 68/361/EEC and to make every effort to obtain further information in order to resolve this problem within a reasonable time. I must emphasise that these proposals are designed to promote a European agricultural system which is respectful of the environment, of animal welfare and of human health.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, last night I had a dream. I dreamt that three Members of the European Parliament were enjoying having dinner together. They were Mrs Maria Martens, Mrs Mercedes Echerer and Mrs Miet Smet. I suppose there is something in each of them that I admire. In this dream, Mrs Martens said: ‘God and DNA have laid down through the law of nature that there should be complete equality between men and women.’ Indeed, as you know, Mr President, equal numbers of men and women are born into the world: the world’s population is made up of 50% men and 50% women. This is a divine law and a law of nature. Therefore, what is stopping us adopting a law which makes it a statutory requirement for equal proportions of men and women to be elected, for equal proportions of men and women to be employed and for women to have exactly the same rights as men?

Political group: PPE-DE