GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I must begin by congratulating the rapporteur, Philip Charles Bradbourn, on the effort he has put into producing this report throughout its negotiation. The projects affected, classified as priorities, which will be declared to be of Community interest, will enjoy the very significant advantage of easier access to the available Community resources. In our case, we are glad that the modification of project No 16 in Annex III has been included, the Sines-Badajoz railway line, changing its dimension and adding certain links by road and rail which will also provide greater permeability for the Pyrenees and which are going to resolve the bottlenecks which usually arise in this area. But it must be made clear that this permeability of the Pyrenees – and this is our opinion and our demand – must extend all the way to Algeciras itself. We are also pleased with the support for the so-called ‘motorways of the sea’, since attaching the same importance to these transnational maritime routes as to motorways or railway is going to facilitate connections with countries isolated by natural barriers. The benefit will undoubtedly extend also to countries with island or peripheral regions. In line with this thinking, nevertheless, we cannot understand why, in certain passages, specific reference to the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal) is being removed in connections with the North Sea and the Irish Sea. We will vote in accordance with these considerations.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have all read the Commission position. There are currently two options and I do not know whether, for once in this House, common sense might prevail. (Mixed reactions) Calm down! It is very amusing. Every time Parliament takes a position, we ask the Commission to give it serious consideration. When the Commission takes a position, I ask that we give serious consideration to what the Commission has written, because we always ask this of the Council and the Commission. That is why. It is simple. (Applause) The Commission has written in black and white that what we voted on was the request for referral back to committee. (The President asks the speaker to come to the point of order for which he requested the floor) This is not a point of order, Mr President, it is a request for referral back to committee pursuant to Article 144. As I was about to say, therefore, let it not be said in future that we did not have all the facts. The Council, which finds it difficult to come to any agreement, will choose the very argument of the Commission to say no to a single Statute, because some countries do not want a single Statute for Members. That is why I am requesting a referral back to committee, for the article on immunity to be amended, so that we might have a chance of achieving a single Statute. All those who wish to present this text to the Council, which can only say yes or no, since the procedure is for Council assent, must take responsibility before European public opinion for not wanting a European Statute! (Mixed reactions and applause) I would therefore request a referral back to committee to re-examine the matter.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, it is clearly true that there have been developments this weekend but it is too soon to tell what they will amount to. There is considerable doubt as to whether these developments will result in the restoration of full constitutional government in Fiji, so this issue still remains highly important and of topical interest. The Indo-Fijians, the Indian population of Fiji, are in considerable danger. There has been lawlessness, damage to property, and cases of assault and rape without any intervention by the security forces in recent weeks. I have had representations to the effect that people are looking to the European Union for some kind of effective action, possibly – and this could be debated in the context of the resolution – some kind of sanctions under the Lomé Convention. I do not want to debate the content now but I do want to ask that this be maintained on the agenda, because after what has happened over the weekend, there is still a risk of considerable discrimination against one ethnic group in Fiji. There is no confidence that the constitution will be applied properly and will be observed. I do not agree that what has happened reduces the topical importance of the issue. (Parliament rejected the request) President. – I now come to another request from the Group of the , this time to remove the following item, “Tibet”.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I should like to thank Mr Rod and congratulate him on his excellent work on this matter and stress that, broadly speaking, I agree with the ideas he puts forward in his explanatory statement and with the conclusions he proposed and which we approved in the Committee on Development and Cooperation. I shall, therefore, limit myself to a few brief observations. I wish to say, first of all, that, to my mind, the greatest success of this new Convention lies in the very fact that its moment has actually arrived, given the long and difficult obstacles that we have had to overcome. These difficulties and obstacles began with the recommendation to end our partnerships with the ACP countries and culminated in the untimely and rather inconvenient problem of migration, already in the final stage of negotiations. The final outcome of these negotiations, in addition to the establishment of a new Convention for a period of twenty years, is therefore, to my mind, to be considered one of the more positive aspects. There are also other, more substantial reasons for the Convention, however. For example, a greater call for the participation of civil society, especially if this is given a broad meaning and if it is not at variance with the cooperation and support deserved by the central administrations of the ACP States, which suffer, as a rule, from considerable structural weakness. This also applies to the regionalisation that has been planned, if this is undertaken carefully, if it is not imposed and if it does not represent an undesirable fragmentation of the ACP countries. It should be pointed out, however, that there are also aspects of this new Convention that make us rather apprehensive. Firstly, the systematic call for the imposition of unilateral conditions and objectives which, apart from having the potential to destroy a partnership that we want to be of equals, could also undermine the choices made by the ACP countries themselves on their own development policies. Secondly, the rapid move towards enshrining the liberalising rationale of the WTO which, as we know, has been particularly damaging to the least-developed countries. These are aspects which we cannot sweep under the carpet and which, like the clear change of direction towards the East of the European Union – I would remind you that none of the ACP countries is yet on the list of the ten countries that benefit most from European cooperation – may compromise a partnership that we would like to be beneficial, mutually advantageous and capable of ending the cycle of underdevelopment and the enormous poverty that affects those countries.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I should like to thank Mrs Gröner for her splendid work and for the personal, almost passionate commitment she has shown in preparing the present report. I should also like to thank the Council and the Commission for contributing to our at long last achieving a good result. The Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party is very happy to support those initiatives which give young people in Europe opportunities to acquire knowledge, skills and qualifications which will help form the basis of their future development. The strength of the programme is, of course, that, by means of cross-national exchanges, it encourages young people to contribute actively to further European integration. It will also lead to understanding of the cultural and linguistic diversity within the European Union. I also think that the programme will ensure that the fundamental values upon which the European Union is founded will continue to be propagated. Through increased communication between young people in Europe, the programme will indirectly help combat xenophobia and increase respect for human rights. Finally, the Community’s action programme for youth also gives consideration to the forthcoming enlargement of the Union, something which we in the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party believe to be of crucial importance to all EU programmes. I would recommend that we support this programme.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, it is a real pity that the Commission completely ignored Parliament's position on the 1997 Green Paper which stated: 'No need for Community legislation on organisational structure and market access for port services'. That was our position then and I hope it is going to be our position tomorrow, but so far the Commissioner has failed to explain why she has ignored that. Secondly, so far the Commission has ignored the question of why there has been no regulatory impact assessment on this proposal. Whether you are for it or against it, it is extraordinary that such a proposal as this is not subject to the assessment that President Prodi assured the House would apply to all new Commission proposals. Why is Mr Prodi not honouring commitments given to this House? Thirdly and finally, why is this proposal so over-prescriptive? Why is it going to burden a successful industry with more red tape, with no justification whatsoever? Why does it seek to regulate in minute detail every aspect of a port's operation? Why, for example, does it call for cargo handling to be provided by at least two service providers for each type of cargo? How can that make any sense when you are trying to organise the arrangements at ports? Bearing all that in mind and unwelcome as the proposal is, it is even more extraordinary that it does not address the issue of state aids or transparency of accounts. The whole package is unbalanced and unworkable. I hope the House rejects it tomorrow.

Political group: PSE
I am not really convinced by your answer for the simple reason that you yourself are aware of the counter-arguments which you have mentioned and yet, on 18 July, in the French daily newspaper, Libération, you put your signature to an opinion column, along with seven other Ministers of the French Government saying, “We must at European and international level find the means to implement a tax on financial transactions as soon as possible.” So what has happened since then? Was it the report by the Minister for the Economy and for Finance, the administration of the Treasury, which so effectively expressed the usual arguments of those opposed to the Tobin tax which thwarted the political will demonstrated in the stance adopted in your newspaper article? Who is going to win the day, Bercy – as we refer to the Minister of the Economy in France – or the determination you expressed back then? Surely the time has come to stop passing the buck? At national level, we are told to refer to Europe. Now, at European level, we are told to refer to the G7 or the OECD. Surely the time has come, specifically, to submit a proposal to the Council and the Commission so that we can issue a coordinated position from the various countries of Europe which will support the position of the other G7 members, such as Canada, for instance, which is ready to implement a Tobin tax as long as we ourselves are moving in this direction?

Political group: PSE
The Lisbon decisions do not constitute a coherent strategy but form two different strategies which have barely been patched together into one and the same decision guidance document. The one strategy is about strengthening Europe’s industries of the future by promoting cutting-edge technologies and boosting the power of research-based innovation in European industry. The second strategy is about producing full employment, social integration and lifelong education for all. It was a laudable attempt to bring about a social compromise, but it has not been implemented in actual policy, and it is now ever clearer that certain governments and political parties in the Member States wish to enter upon a new course. The Bullmann report is aimed at retaining a policy of synthesis and compromise. The amendments adopted here today mean, however, that Parliament now concurs with those governments which are proposing a clear change of course. In spite of the fact that we acknowledge the rapporteur’s efforts to defend important social objectives and that we have supported many of his proposals, we believe that the report as a whole has acquired a clear right-wing bias and indicates a path of development that will create major problems for ordinary people around Europe. We are also concerned that, in preparing for the Barcelona Summit, the Commission, the Council and Parliament have done so little to take account of the candidate countries’ needs and interests. We have therefore voted against the report in its altered form.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the foreign policy of the European Union can only be successful if it satisfies three main criteria: clarity, credibility and transparency. Mr Patten, we will continue to push for this, even though you believe that we should at last put an end to the game of ping pong. As far as I am concerned, it has started and can only finish if a constructive solution is found. Otherwise this will lead to further competition between the institutions. I believe the speech you gave in Paris was significant in this respect. It is true that there should at last be open discussion on how to pursue a truly coherent foreign policy. The European Parliament will play an important part in this. You said yourself that it will only be possible to achieve credibility – your second point – if the European Union employs all its capabilities, i.e. all three pillars, and particularly the first with its financial and economic means, in preventive conflict management, and if the EU promotes stability overseas by making proper use of its economic instruments and using its political means to achieve real cooperation. After all, we know that we must take a considerably broader view of the issue of protection. Protection of the environment, the individual and human rights cannot be secured through one pillar alone. In the same way, preventive conflict management is not just about the deployment of a police force; it involves all three pillars. As far as the last point, that of transparency, is concerned, my group has made it quite clear today that we do not accept, nor will we accept, that access to these documents should be restricted. Transparency is Parliament’s watchword, and we will continue to demand it from the Council and the Commission alike. We will revisit this theme at a later stage.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, a word of congratulation to Mrs Gebhardt on her excellent work and also to Mr von Boettcher, who was the shadow rapporteur. We are aware of the enormous proportions that organised and cross-border crime has reached, requiring swift, common and concerted action particularly in the fight against terrorism, drug trafficking, child pornography, the trafficking of people, forgery of the euro, computer crime and money laundering. On the subject of Eurojust, I have four things to say: first, we should be pleased to be making progress in this matter. When the European Parliament gave its opinion on the provisional unit in November last year, we made a clear recommendation that the creation of this unit should not be a pretext for undesirably delaying the setting-up of Eurojust. Secondly, we are taking one more step towards the creation of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. The Tampere decisions are moving ahead, making their way. Step by step, we are constructing a citizens’ Europe, with the Commission scoreboard, respecting the role of Parliament and with an initiative shared between the Commission and the Member States. Commissioner António Vitorino knows full well, however, that we have found more to our taste in his initiative than we have at times in the Member States’ initiative, as regards its coherence and comprehensive view. Thirdly, we are honouring the values of our civilisation, the principles of the rule of law: in Commissioner Vitorino’s fortunate expression, Eurojust is the judicial counterpart of Europol. Eurojust is to operate with appreciable independent status. Its annual report is to be placed not only before the Council but also before the Commission and Parliament. Fourthly and lastly, data protection. Parliament has already drawn attention to this issue: Eurojust will have to cooperate with Europol, with the European judicial network, with OLAF and with the Schengen information system, in addition to benefiting from crime information supplied by the Member States. It is particularly important to find a solution that is balanced between guaranteeing and safeguarding citizens’ rights and freedoms, on the one hand, and the instruments needed to fight crime on the other. It is also always worth emphasising, when talking about the Community institutions, that we must make every effort to avoid any duplication of tasks or conflict of competencies.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, can I first of all say that I am rather surprised that this debate is entitled air attacks against Iraq. It should more properly be entitled “How can Saddam Hussein be controlled more effectively?” What a tragedy for the people of Iraq to have a ruler such as Saddam Hussein, a brutal dictator who has exploited the wealth of the country for his own ends and ambitions and oppressed his own people. Saddam is not just a threat to his own people but to a wider area, including our friends and allies in the Middle East, and potentially our own citizens. Estimates vary about the success of Iraqi efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems but few analysts doubt Saddam’s determination to acquire such a capability and many expect him to achieve some success within the next four years. There is then a real and current threat over which some degree of international control is exercised, really by two means: the economic sanctions and the maintenance by Britain and America on behalf of the international community of the no-fly zone covering about a third of the territory of Iraq. The sanctions are controversial in that Saddam has been able to persuade some significant elements of international opinion that it is sanctions that are the cause of the distress of the Iraqi people rather than his own actions. Sanctions will be suspended when Saddam complies with certain conditions, primarily in relation to the monitoring of his weapons of mass destruction capacity. Nevertheless, it is right that the sanctions regime should be reviewed and that they should be focused more precisely. The main purpose of the no-fly zone is twofold: to prevent Saddam using his helicopter gunships and other aircraft against the Kurds in the north and the Shia marsh Arabs in the south, and to carry out reconnaissance, bearing in mind that there are no UN inspection teams operating in Iraq at the moment. Ground targets are only engaged if there is a threat to coalition aircraft. There is no bombing campaign against Iraq. There is an element in this House which seeks to distort all these facts. We heard this during the hearing on Iraq the other day in the Foreign Affairs Committee, and there is a subtext of anti-Americanism. But I am rather reassured by the overall tone of this morning’s debate. We need to close ranks to ensure that whatever new regime is put in place for sanctions is not breached by those seeking commercial or political advantage. If EU Member States really have aspirations to play a greater role in security policy, then let them contribute to enforcement of the no-fly zone, and ensure that whatever sanctions regime is imposed is rigorously enforced.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, first of all let me congratulate my friend, the rapporteur Professor Trakatellis, on his excellent work. Remarkably he actually succeeded at conciliation in increasing the funding allowed beyond the initial proposals of the Commission to EUR 380 million over five years, which contrasts with the initial Council proposal of only EUR 280 million. EU action in public health is still in the minds of some controversial, as not only is there a risk of duplication with the World Health Organisation's European activities, but also potentially a conflict with the fact that delivery and funding of health provision is exclusively the competence of the Member States. If EU initiatives highlight best practice or stimulate demand for expensive treatments or disease prevention measures, then this may cause budgetary problems for Member States. Nevertheless, the focus on lifestyle changes as health determinants, with a focus particularly on information dissemination on smoking, excess alcohol consumption, nutrition and exercise, go a long way to reducing this risk. The hypocrisy of the EU, which still subsidises the tobacco growers to the tune of about EUR 1 billion per year, needs urgent reform. Some claim that the amounts involved at EU level, compared to national health expenditures, are so tiny that it is arguable whether we can achieve anything meaningful at EU level. Nevertheless, in spite of what I have said, I engaged constructively at the first reading, along with a number of my colleagues in the Conservative Party, in highlighting the issue of mental health as a priority need and the need to set up formal structures which will coordinate the disparate funded activities and bring together the whole programme at the centre with direction and leadership. The need to develop consensus statements on best practice is important and it is vital to engage the candidate countries who are often so far behind in this area. Lastly, a rapid reaction system to respond to impending health threats, as we have seen with the dioxin scandal in Belgium or the BSE crisis, is highly appropriate. It is the sort of thing which will bring the EU closer to the peoples of Europe who probably care much more about health policy than almost anything else on the political agenda.

Political group: PPE-DE