GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I first want to thank the Commissioner for his reply. When, as in this case, the issue is a complaint submitted to the Commission in 1996, i.e. five years ago, there is really only one acceptable course of action, namely for the Commission immediately to decide on its position. This has not been promised by the Commission, which is why I cannot say that I am satisfied with the reply. It is an issue of fundamental significance that excessive fees have been charged by a port which, it has been alleged, has a dominant position. I would like to emphasise that I have no view on whether this is right or wrong, but all parties are waiting for the Commission’s decision and all parties are very much dependent on the Commission’ decision. I think it is unreasonable for it to take over five years for the Commission to make a decision. I would therefore put the question to the Commission: When is a final decision likely to be forthcoming?

Political group: PPE-DE
As regards Mr Nisticò’s report on the regulation of the distribution of human blood, it can truly be said, Mr President, that this conciliation process was a fight to the last drop of blood. However, blood also indicates nobility, when it is blue, and we have to admit that the rapporteur, Mr Nisticò, is not lacking in nobility. It also indicates a sanguine nature, which Mr Nisticò, like all the people of Calabria, certainly has, so much so that he has achieved great success in this conciliation. It also means solidarity, for to give blood is to show solidarity. Therefore, with the greatest of pleasure, I voted for the report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, when speaking of the information society we should remember that a large-scale reform of communications market law has just been undertaken with new legislative norms being created for the telecommunications and other network business. The Member States are just now putting the package into effect. This debate cannot be allowed to distort the picture of telecommunications legislation, which would only cause uncertainty for investment in third generation mobile communications. We must help the troubled third generation mobile communications business, not restrain it. The GSM communications business, which has grown considerably in five years, is the cornerstone of our competitiveness and virtually the only thing driving the Lisbon strategy along. Following the disaster over the financial exploitation of third generation mobile communications we have to show we are jointly responsible. The mobile phone industry is a major employer representing the cutting edge of innovation. There has to be a new upswing in the sector; otherwise, the Japanese will leave us behind once and for all. I made a point of investigating the claim regarding an increase in brain cancers in Finland since the 1990s. Whilst the base station network has grown phenomenally, the figures for cancer in Finland have fallen radically. It is hard to sell dull facts to the public. In the EU we have prescribed exact limits for radiation which are lower than WHO standards. There is more radiation from microwave ovens than there is from base stations. The values for Spanish operators are as little as one two-hundredth of the safe limit values. However, it is easier to claim that mobile phones melt our brains. Public documents must be made available in electronic form. Basic information must be free of charge. An authority may make a charge to cover its costs, but it is unnecessary to ask for additional payment. The Member States must be responsible for seeing to it that the public institutions have sufficient resources available to them. Finally, I would like to express my sincerest thanks to the rapporteurs.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am very glad that there has been such strong support across the House for the powerful statement we have in this resolution condemning the military junta in Burma. But, at the same time, I am extremely sad that we must have yet another resolution on Burma because the situation there, far from getting better, is actually getting much worse. The need for this further resolution stems from a number of reasons. Among the most important is the fact that the SPDC has vowed to crush the National League for Democracy by the end of this year. The signs are that they are serious. Their attempt to evict the NLD from their current location looks like a systematic campaign to achieve that. The number of political prisoners appears to have risen from 1,500 to 3,000 very recently, many of whom are forced to carry out hard labour and are subject to cruel forms of torture. The forthcoming EU/ASEAN meeting in Laos in December offers us a crucial opportunity to demonstrate our condemnation of this regime in the strongest terms. We are calling for the Council and the Commission to postpone that meeting, to call it off, until the Burmese junta releases all political prisoners without conditions and allows freedom of movement for Aung San Suu Kyi and her party members and until the Burmese junta enters into a meaningful dialogue with the election-winning NLD and the ethnic minorities. Aung San Suu Kyi herself has said that the constructive engagement approach by ASEAN in relation to Rangoon is not working. The opportunity to call off and to postpone this meeting that is due next month in Laos offers us the opportunity to make the statement in the strongest terms, to send the strongest possible signal that we condemn this illegal regime.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to start by thanking the Members from all the Groups who voted for or, in any case, have taken part in the debate on this report, which seeks to guarantee secure pensions for all the citizens of Europe. We cannot, of course, work miracles, but the European Union can do something – and I believe it can do a lot – for citizens who have worked all their lives and have the right to have the value of their work recognised when they have grown older and need to receive something from society in return. It is right for their money to be employed well and for them to enjoy long, very long lives as pensioners.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too should like to thank my fellow Members for their reports and the Commission. I think that this form of cooperation has brought about a good compromise which may not, of course, be supported on all points by the whole House but which has demonstrated nonetheless that we are often able, through productive debate, to bring about a result which, on several counts, has real potential for development over and above the Commission's concept. The crucial question throughout has been whether or not to support Mrs Niebler's amendment – my fellow Member, Mr van Velzen, is engaged in conversation just now, but he addressed this point and pleaded in favour of it. I too am in favour of our supporting it, addressing as it does the crucial question of how harmonisation is to be organised at European level. The Commission has rightly pointed out that we need more harmonisation in this sector and more uniform structures. Of that there can be no question; we have been discussing this point for years. I have in the past always been a fanatical advocate of a single European regulatory authority but this idea is now dead and buried. We opted for a different variant and I think that numerous regulatory authorities have demonstrated that they are independent, self-sufficient and autonomous and that the state too is more than capable of developing excellent competition models here. Of course, there are other models which fall short of our expectations at European level, of that there can be no doubt, and something needs to be done here. The crucial question is how to configure the relationship between the European and national levels and here I would have preferred a lighter model, either along the lines suggested by me and my fellow Member, Norbert Glante, or along the lines of Mrs Niebler's model. Which is why I shall call for a vote in favour of Mrs Niebler's amendment tomorrow. Once again, we must pause for thought and I am most grateful to Malcolm Harbour and Nicholas Clegg, who have pointed out that they have been wondering in the meantime if the variations which they supported were the right ones and I think that is most intelligent of them. We have enough time to consider this between now and the second reading; perhaps we shall have found a common approach by then.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, first I would like to say how truly thrilled I was to hear that the Belgian Presidency has made the issue of children's rights part of its presidency programme. I would like to congratulate them warmly. We have great expectations of this presidency and we will be keeping a very steady eye on what is happening and on progress. I would also agree with Mrs Hermange who rightly pointed out that, up to very recently, children could not even be mentioned in this House. We were constantly told they were not part of the competence of the Treaties and our concerns for their welfare were beyond the reach of this Parliament. Happily now we can discuss them. As long as I have been here in Parliament we have observed the awful dangers that many children in the world live in: a litany of miseries which are listed in this resolution here today. Not too far from here children are still viewed as disposable objects for international adoption, for example. We should hang our heads in shame that we have more legislation on the books of the European Union relating to animal welfare than we have relating to the welfare of children. And lest anyone should attack me on that, I would like to say that I support animal welfare legislation as well. But the situation is shameful. There has been a political push forward. You will see in this resolution that we call, for example, for a dedicated unit in the Commission looking at children's rights, looking at legislation so that we can assess its impact on the children and also on the lives of their families. It is with great pleasure that I commend this resolution to the House. I am happy to be one of the sponsors of Sara Méndez and her lost child. Through my work in Parliament I too have experienced the fact that so many children are deprived of the company and love of both their parents, very often due to selfishness and lack of understanding about the particular needs of children.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to begin by congratulating the President of the Council on a successful summit in Stockholm. I believe that many Swedes were delighted to see their country finally being able to act as host to the leaders of the EU. Stockholm was supposed to be about the creation of a competitive Europe. It was supposed to be about action, not EU rhetoric, but was that the case? No, unfortunately not enough, as the President of the Council himself has admitted. Reform of the EU is going too slowly. It was unfortunate that those in Stockholm were unable to agree on a timetable for deregulation of the energy markets. On the other hand, they did succeed in agreeing to create a common financial market, which has been eagerly awaited. We liberals now assume that the Council is prepared to act such that we achieve a solution which can also be accepted by Parliament. Mr President, this is about democratic support and openness. The Swedish Presidency has an overall vision of bringing the Union closer to its citizens. This is an excellent ambition. It therefore surprises me that at the Stockholm Summit the first step was not taken towards wide-ranging reform of agriculture and food policy, as this is the question possibly most under discussion over the breakfast tables in Europe, even – as I have understood – in the Prime Minister’s own home. Finally, I would like to point out we are now halfway through the Swedish Presidency. One issue is becoming ever clearer: – It is becoming more and more problematic for Sweden to remain outside the EMU. My question to the President of the Council is therefore this: according to the Council, what difficulties will be posed in terms of a more cohesive Union by Britain, Denmark and Sweden remaining outside EMU in the long term? I am not seeking an answer in terms of domestic policy but a theoretical opinion from an EU perspective.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, The World Education Forum in Dakar is a follow-up to the first conference of Education for All held in Thailand eleven years ago. There has been some progress but, unfortunately, not enough as yet. As we speak there are 125 million children in the world who do not go to school. There are 880 million illiterate adults, two-thirds of whom are girls and women. The Community is the largest donor to many of these countries. It is regrettable that we are not sending our highest official to attend that conference on behalf of the Community. We also regret that there has not yet been a communication on children's rights from the Commission. A prominent African leader made a very pertinent comment. He said that education is the only existing vaccination against AIDS. One of the main problems with providing education in many countries is the catastrophic effect AIDS is having on the lives not just of children, many of whom are orphans because they have lost one or both parents. In several of the African countries which I recently visited, I was informed that in order to have one teacher, the colleges must train three, because by the age of 30 so many teachers are already dead from AIDS. This underlines the seriousness of the problems. Many of these children who are not in school are working. Future plans for education programmes and commitments on the part of the donors to the developing world will have to take this into consideration. Unfortunately, only 2% of the aid we send to these developing countries is actually being spent on education. We hope very much that this conference will raise the issue again and bring to it the urgent attention that is needed.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, we have been calling for a Commission proposal to solve the institutional problems that exist. It is at long last before us, and we welcome that. Your paper makes a further interesting and important contribution to the work of the Convention, but it does not provide a total solution for all institutional problems. It does cast some light on the Commission's position regarding a whole raft of issues. For example, majority voting in the Council as a general rule, which we welcome. Majority voting by Parliament on legislation as a general rule, which we also welcome. Bringing justice and home affairs within the Community framework, which is also good, and the creation of a Secretary of the Union for foreign affairs as Vice-President of the Commission with a special relationship with the Council, that is fine, and it represents a workable compromise as a means of solving a difficult problem. And there is much more besides. I can see many positive points in your proposals. However, in some areas, Mr Prodi, your proposals do not make things clearer – they just create greater confusion. Let me pick out one of them in particular. This is the issue of the appointment and political responsibility of the Commission. You are suggesting that the European Parliament should elect the President of the Commission. That is a good proposal, and a much-needed step forward. But at the same time you say that this President of the Commission must be elected by a two-thirds majority of the European Parliament, which prevents the results of the European elections from being reflected in a decision regarding an appointment at European Union level. In other words it prevents something from happening that is precisely what you want: it prevents voters from deciding who they want as Commission President for the next five years. This means building in a permanent compromise, rather like the permanent grand coalition in Austria. We cannot and we will not go along with that! The second issue is that the European Council is to confirm the election of the President of the Commission by the European Parliament. How is that to happen? By a majority or unanimously? What do you have in mind? And if the Council does not confirm the President, what then? Does Parliament have the right to dissolve the Council? That is what I would suggest. Your proposals do not include any mechanisms for resolving conflicts. Ultimately, and this really takes the biscuit, the Commission is accountable to both Parliament and the Council. So how will that work out in practice? Will you resign every time? If Parliament says that it has confidence in you, will you stay, and if the Council says you must resign, will you resign? What sort of message does that send about building the institutions of the European Union? It is simply a recipe for confusion! Mr President of the Commission, your proposal in this respect creates more problems than it solves, and the European Parliament regards what you want to tell us is a step forward as actually being two steps back! (Applause)

Political group: PSE
The same sort of illegal immigration is taking place on a huge scale via Turkey to the Aegean and the Greek islands. First, do these plans for Morocco include Turkey? Secondly, has the Council taken any action vis-à-vis Turkey, which has been granted candidate status and therefore has an additional obligation towards the European Union to guard its borders properly? Hordes of illegal immigrants can hardly pass by unnoticed. What has the Council done about this?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is not easy to speak following Mr Cashman’s speech, and I would firstly like to congratulate him on having had the idea of producing this own-initiative report, on the way he has drawn it up and on achieving the unanimous support of his committee. I would also like to congratulate the Commission on announcing that it is going to propose a services directive and simplify some of the procedures necessary for free movement – in this case of mortal remains – and we eagerly await the presentation of this proposal by the Commission. I believe this issue is of particular importance. It is said that societies are measured in terms of their respect for their elderly people, and even more in terms of their respect for their mortal remains. I believe it is our obligation to make as much progress as possible in simplifying as far as we possibly can the procedures necessary – which affect the families so much – for the free movement of mortal remains within the Union in the event that death takes place far from their places of origin. Furthermore, I believe that Mr Cashman – if you will allow me a little humour on such a serious issue – is showing his great qualities as a politician, because he is showing concern for people who are never again going to be able to vote for him. I believe that the fact that certain countries of the European Union have not signed the Strasbourg Agreement, as the rapporteur has quite rightly said, obliges us even more as the European Union – in view of the imminent entry of ten new countries – to establish certain rules in order to simplify as far as possible the procedures necessary for the free movement of mortal remains within the European Union.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I have taken the floor to express both satisfaction and concern: satisfaction at the tangible step forwards taken by the European Community in terms of combating terrorism; concern at certain inappropriate compromises imposed by some Member States as a condition for them agreeing to endorse our Convention, compromises which we were not able to oppose before it was too late because Parliament was not consulted before the decisions were taken. The Italian situation is one example: our Italian citizens had to suffer humiliation and dissatisfaction on the part of the other Member States just because our government attempted, without success, to make the scope of the European Convention subject to certain conditions, excluding from it certain offences which are of great importance to our Prime Minister, who – by pure chance, as the State attorney for Milan, Francesco Saverio Borelli, would say – happens to be on trial in Italy for precisely these offences. I refer in particular to the offences of corruption and fraud. Failing in that attempt, our government had the gall to request, and this time obtained – a concession made purely to get out of the impasse – another misleading clause, which, in fact, is in danger of rendering the Convention on the European arrest warrant unenforceable in the foreseeable future. I refer to the clause to the effect that the government deems it necessary to amend the Italian Constitution in order to be able to implement the European rules. This is not the case: our Constitution does not need to be amended in any way; it provides all possible guarantees. My country can therefore now postpone indefinitely the introduction of a major instrument for fighting crime on the pretext that the Constitution has not yet been amended. I am aware that adopting the amendment we have proposed on this matter would be a superfluous gesture, but it would be the only way to make it clear that Parliament needs to be involved before decisions are taken, not afterwards.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, in fact, our ritual congratulations at this point for the rapporteurs and the Commissioner are today fully justified, because today this Parliament, together with the Commission and the Council, is taking a genuine step forward in terms of bringing our agenda into line with the agenda of the citizens and simplifying their lives and, although it does not give them new rights, it does at least make it easier for them to exercise the rights they already have. Administrative simplification is very important, as other Members have pointed out, but I would also take this opportunity to say that for the first time we are modifying the old Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and we are beginning to talk not just about the free movement of workers in Europe, but also the free movement of citizens, and we are beginning to organise a discussion and political practice in which the right to European citizenship begins to become a reality in relation to such fundamental elements as the right to health. It is therefore an extremely important first step of a strategic nature. I would also say, Madam President, that this success and the congratulations we are all offering must not lead us to be complacent: we must continue to be demanding because this is simply a first step. We do not yet have a European card. This is a simplification of forms; the card is not yet an intelligent card, there are still many steps to take before the right to health for all Europeans is truly guaranteed, coordinated and justified by a Community authority. I therefore believe, Commissioner, that we must continue to make progress; this is the first step, as I have said, in a long battle to make the social Europe more administratively simple, but also more profound and more serious in terms of our status as citizens.

Political group: PSE