GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, notwithstanding the events of 11 September, the Commission communication on asylum basically remains not only appropriate but more necessary than ever. The Evans report, for its part, is no less topical or relevant. This is not the time to step back and it is, therefore, crucial to work towards a solution common to all the Member States with regard to the criteria for assessing requests and to cooperation between national administrative systems. I can see that we will have to confront certain challenges in order to come up with effective regulations. This effort must not only involve the European dimension, however, but also cooperation with third countries, specifically with the asylum seekers’ countries of origin. In order to avoid the ‘Kafakaesque’ situations often described in the European press, it is crucial that we adopt – and we are not asking for much – minimum standards that will ensure faster and simpler procedures for granting asylum so as to prevent the demoralisation and uncertainty that beset asylum seekers. The creation of a space of freedom, security and justice will inevitably involve the need for the mutual recognition of judgments. In order to reach this stage, however, we must first of all harmonise asylum procedures. Mr President, this communication, for which Commissioner António Vitorino is responsible, is making a timely appearance on the agenda. On the basis of the framework defined in Tampere, we are committed to create a common policy in the field of asylum, which I am sure will have the support of the Council and of Parliament. Through a joint effort by the Community institutions and civil society we will achieve a platform of understanding, so that by 1 May 2004 the objective outlined by the European Council will be complied with. Mr President, we have a historical responsibility to take this decision and there is no time for hesitation. I wish you the best of luck, Commissioner. IN THE CHAIR: MR SCHMIDVice-President

Political group: PSE
Mr President, these days divorce is no longer the exception. Often, couples go their separate ways in a civilised manner. They find it unpleasant to continue sharing each other's lives, but they do not start hating their ex-partner. Unfortunately, others separate on the basis of accumulated hatred. Parents who separate on that basis are a disaster for their children who become victims of that insoluble conflict. One parent wants the absolute power of decision over the children in order to exclude the other parent forever. Everyone is familiar with the awful situation in which the parent to whom custody of the child is awarded, often the mother, tries to make contact with the other parent impossible. We also recognise the equally terrible situation in which the other parent, often the father, abducts the child and makes him or her untraceable. Children remember that sort of occurrence for their whole lives. My mother lived through such a separation and abduction 85 years ago, and she still talks about it. Mrs Banotti has tried to make creative use of all the possibilities for securing effective arrangements for parental access on a cross-border basis too. She is trying to preclude all situations in which parents can misuse the existence of different rules of law in the Member States of the European Union in order to delay or prevent effective arrangements for parental access. A part of her solution involves drastically curtailing the right to call in a judge in order to overturn a foreign court order. That regulation will only work if both parents are nationals of an EU country or are resident within the European Union and if their relationship was confirmed by a legal marriage. Only a part of the problem will be solved, but a precedent will be created. If we also start applying something similar to other situations, we are undertaking in the future to have centralised unitary legislation such as does not even exist between the 50 States of the United States. That is why I see drawbacks. But I have many more objections to tackling legal weaknesses and setting precedents in ways that leave social problems permanently unsolved. Because we support the goal that has been set, we are voting for the proposed measures.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I wish to state that I voted against Mrs Van Lancker’s report. Rarely do such conservatively ic reports find their way into the European Parliament plenary sitting as this report of Mrs Van Lancker’s on the EU’s socio-political programme that we voted for. In her programme declaration, Mrs Van Lancker says she would like to implement all those measures whose very implementation people sought to prevent by voting in a non- majority in the European Parliament in the last elections. I repeat, ‘prevent’. I shall be quite appalled if the Commission really intends to support these totally unrealistic, almost absurd demands, which have just been approved. Parliament’s proposals could not be more at odds with the aims of Lisbon. At Lisbon the mainly leaders of the EU governments declared aloud their aim to make Europe the world’s most dynamic and competitive economy. If Mrs Van Lancker’s proposals are adopted we shall definitely be stepping back light years in terms of our ability to achieve the important, ambitious and indispensable aims of Lisbon. What then does the good lady propose? According to Mrs Van Lancker, working hours in Europe must be shortened significantly, the body of EU socio-political legislation must be increased substantially, the levels of social protection in Europe must be raised massively, the power of the Trade Union movement increased and supranational labour market negotiations made possible, labour organisations must be given greater rights to be heard, and socio-political influence must be a priority in all sectors of the economy, in competition policy and in public procurements. I might just remind my colleagues of the wise words of the Chairperson of the CDU, Angela Merkel, who said that in politics we need more sociability, but sociability is not the same thing as socialism.

Political group: PPE-DE
Relations between the European Union and the United States are inextricably linked. We have strong bonds rooted in our respective pasts and we share many common values. The strengthening of our long-standing transatlantic relationship is to our mutual benefit. However, this has to be a relationship based on equality and mutual respect. In America's hour of need, after the 11 September attacks, Europe responded with unstinting support and solidarity, and rightly so. Regrettably, though, the same sort of solidarity and cooperation has not been reciprocated in US foreign policy. Prior to 11 September, it was absent on the issue of Kyoto. It is non-existent with regard to a common approach on the Middle East, which is our most critical contemporary political problem, and on which the US unfortunately adopts a partisan role. It was cast aside by the recent decision on the part of the US to impose import tariffs on steel. Furthermore, the return to US unilateralism – especially evident in its perceived intention to extend the war on terrorism to Iraq – displays contempt for our role in international affairs. It would seem that for the US, the transatlantic relationship is simply one of convenience, to be used when it suits, but ignored when US policy and interests take priority. All these experiences, particularly those in recent days, underline how essential it is for the EU to strengthen its foreign policy role, including its defence and military capabilities, so that a proper equilibrium can be established in our transatlantic relationship.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Trans-European Networks have set back rail transport, a symbol of public investment and service that have been the norm for decades and which have featured in epic poems telling of conquests that have enabled access to hitherto uncharted areas. The wholesale shift towards liberalisation, like other parallel factors, was bound to reach the railways, in the same way that it has reached education, health and water, establishing the market economy as a single and fundamentalist ideology. We do not, out of a sense of nostalgia, want to turn the clock back. We do, however, want to help to ensure that the railways and with them public services move into the future in a way that will benefit the community and that they are not motivated solely by financial interests, serving few areas and passing through at high speed. Interoperable networks, multimodal links, proper safety, environmental safeguards, real participation and liability of Member States as a crucial part of a rail structure are prerequisites for ensuring that this happens. I therefore thank the rapporteurs for their work.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I support measures to tighten controls in the fight against money laundering by obliging banks and professionals to report clients under suspicion to the authorities. Billions of pounds are lost every year across the European Union due to money laundering and fraud. When we think of crime, an image of burglaries, violent muggings and knife attacks by gangs of youths on our streets often springs to mind. Money laundering is an unseen crime, but it costs the taxpayer dearly and those found guilty should pay the price. Those misusing the financial system should be caught and punished. Moreover, money laundering is responsible for financing the evil trade in drugs, trafficking in humans and other horrific crimes. We should not turn a blind eye to crimes of this kind. We must crack down on banks and professionals, encouraging them to report clients under suspicion to the authorities. We should even extend the scope of this proposal to include high-spending gamblers and auctioneers at the top end of the market. Madam President, this issue is an important one at a European level. Money laundering is not simply restricted to Manchester or to Madrid. It knows no borders, and tainted money changes hands across regions and countries. It is not enough to enforce purely British legislation, but measures must be taken across the EU. We must work together to tackle this challenge. Therefore, I applaud the efforts of this House to curb the use of the financial system for money laundering. – Graefe zu Baringdorf Report (A5-0079/2001)

Political group: PSE
The rapporteur focuses a great deal on the need to reduce the capacity of the Member States’ fleets and to establish a system of penalties that will compel the Member States to ‘comply with the provisions requiring them to reduce their fishing fleets under the MAGPs’. He also points out that not all Member States have met the criteria laid down in the MAGP. He furthermore calls for more precise criteria for measuring fleet capacity. Unfortunately, the rapporteur does not name the Member States that have failed to meet the MAGP objectives. Portugal was one of those that fulfilled the MAGP criteria from the very outset, since it did not take the opportunity, like some others did, to modernise and even to increase its fleet. Bearing in mind the Green Paper on “the future of the common fisheries policy”, what we need is for the States that have already made large reductions not to be forced to make further reductions in the future. Another factor that must be considered is the balance between a Member State’s fish consumption and the capacity of its fleet. Furthermore, reducing the fishing effort does not necessarily mean a reduction in the number of vessels. This reduction could be implemented by improving catching techniques or by not fishing for a certain amount of time, with the appropriate compensation for boats that are forced to remain idle.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, please allow me firstly to pay tribute to a person connected to the world of transport, the head of local police recently murdered by the terrorist group ETA. Secondly, and turning more specifically to the report, I would like to make a series of comments. I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on his work and Karla Peijs, our shadow rapporteur, since she has made enormous contributions to this document. I will move on to the issues in the report. Firstly, there is concern amongst a series of delegations, a series of groups, because we believe the report does not reflect, or reflects very little, the situation of certain countries whose infrastructures have not yet been established, as opposed to other countries in which infrastructures, investments in infrastructures, essentially roads, are completely finished and which only need to be improved. That is one of our group’s concerns. Secondly, I would like to express our support for the creation of a road safety agency. The number of fatal accidents currently occurring on European Roads requires not just a message but an effective and active European policy, and we believe that the road safety agency can be a good instrument. Finally, we also support the creation of the transport fund, with objectives and considerations other than the trans-European networks and the Structural Funds in the field of transport. We will support these two ideas which we consider to be positive.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I will omit replying to that particular remark. Can I first of all thank you very much for giving me the floor and can I pay tribute to the rapporteur and indeed to Mr Böge. As someone who was in the last Parliament I know how much thankless time and effort they have put in since BSE first began in a very difficult area to try and find a resolution and a way forward to help everyone in a very sensible way. I think both of them not only take credit for themselves but indeed bring credit to this Parliament for the way in which they have carried out that duty. BSE has unfortunately been with us for some considerable time and I suspect that we have to recognise that it will probably be with us for some years ahead. We have to try to find ways by which we can control the disease of BSE and TSE and at the same time create the consumer confidence that is needed because consumer confidence has been lost. With respect to Mr Martinez I will only say one word to him – sludge. I will say no more as far as that is concerned. Everybody has problems in the European Union of one type or the other and no-one should try to make or take advantage of the other's problem. However, whatever we do, we should not overburden the producer because he has already been considerably overburdened. As to the argument whether you slaughter the whole of the herd, there is no scientific evidence to say you should. There are many instances in my area where maybe BSE occurred five, six or seven years ago in one animal and there has never been another case since. Once we get to the stage where we have a vaccine or some way of identifying or testing if an animal has BSE, then there is an argument for testing the rest of the herd and if there is a trigger level whereby it goes beyond that, then the whole herd should be taken out. But it would be wilful carnage to simply go in and slaughter good animals in the thought or the notion that BSE may possibly be in the whole herd. That would be a drastic approach. One other point: where I come from, in recent years there has been a continuing downward trend. Indeed, in Northern Ireland last year, we only had, I think, three identifiable cases of BSE and the projection for this year is one or at worst maybe two. I was listening to what the rapporteur said that if there are clear reasons then she would agree for areas that have low instances of BSE to have certain controls and mechanisms. That is an important thing to recognise because in my area farmers feel very secure because of the very low instances we have of BSE and because of the strict controls that we have monitored and made sure worked over recent years. That is perhaps why our situation is much better than the rest of the United Kingdom. This is an area which has to be looked at in the months ahead – we must create the confidence within ourselves that we can begin to move forward as we begin, hopefully, to see the back of the TSE/BSE problem.

Political group: PPE-DE
I should like to thank Commissioner Lamy for that full answer. I have three supplementary questions. Firstly, although he was admirably clear, it would be clearer to us and to everyone if we knew the timetable for agreement in the Council of Ministers and what will happen if there is no agreement by qualified majority voting. In relation to that, he kindly invited me and others to his Conference on Impact Assessment last week. It was an extremely good conference, but a single statement will not have a major impact on the ACP. It will need some backing up. With Senegal responsible for 8 000 tonnes of imports and Ivory Coast 41 000 tonnes, the ACP believe they can be very seriously affected. Finally, with regard to the earlier answer to a question from my colleague, Mrs Kinnock, about our obligations under the Cotonou Agreement to extend market access for ACP countries in terms of the trade negotiations, does this not fly in the face of those promises and call into question our commitment to development in those countries?

Political group: PSE
Our policy for combating drug addiction has proved to be a failure. I therefore believe it is important to use the reform of the Conventions on Drugs to: 1 – look into decriminalising the consumption of some drugs and legalising them; 2 – move towards drawing up rational prevention policies based on scientific knowledge of each drug and not on the emotional and radical approach which, by treating all drugs in the same way, ultimately removes credibility from preventive action; 3 – boost the development of a damage reduction policy that takes account of the positive results achieved in the pilot experiments run in Berne and Liverpool, which involved administering, under medical control, opiates to patients with a long history of failed treatment. These results include a fall in the crime rate, in the number of overdoses and in the number of cases of HIV, tuberculosis and hepatitis B and C transmitted. - Report Bayona de Perogordo (A5-0053/2003)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, much has already been said by other Members. This new terrorist tragedy where even three-year-old toddlers are killed without hesitation takes us back to a situation we hoped was behind us. While we all recognise that, sadly, Algeria will have to live with terrorism for some time to come, this upsurge during Ramadan is turning the clock back. We did hope President Bouteflika’s initiative would have a positive effect, but the events of the last few days give us cause for concern. That is why, like other Members, I believe we must not hesitate to condemn terrorism and offer full cooperation to the Algerian government to defeat it. Having said that, we must not let the terrorism obscure the genuine progress being made towards democracy and the rule of law, and the fight against terrorism cannot justify the continued domination of Algeria by the opaque, inscrutable power of the army. So, on his visit, President Prodi was right to sign an agreement and to give EUR 5 million to bolster the independent press and establish a statute for journalists. I think that is exactly what needed to be done, along with offering victims of violence asylum in our countries. Unfortunately, that is not possible in some of them, while it has been possible, on the other hand, to provide hospitality for many terrorists who have organised very dangerous networks from there. Finally, I think we should consider sending a delegation to Algeria. It is a long time since Parliament visited that country and the first thing we need to do is find out exactly what is going on.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner, our wonderful rapporteurs, one of the issues which comes up time and time again in debates on the budget is the proper administration of expenditure. That was the case and continues to be so where other areas as well as the Structural Funds are concerned. We have received many comments on this issue, almost all of them expressive of indignation but hardly any of them proactive. However, a number of solutions have been put forward this, as in past years, including the placing of funds on reserve, and we heard this proposal reiterated just a few minutes ago. I believe that this particular medicine would do more harm than the illness, and so I feel that the right direction to take would be that of simplification. It has already been said that Commissioner Barnier has set a major project in motion in this field and involved Parliament. Proposals have been developed which, if implemented without delay, will make it possible to limit the loss of Structural Funds appropriations by Objective 1 regions. However, that is not enough: we need to streamline the all too numerous bureaucratic elements and the endless succession of requests for documentation and controls, and we need a consolidation of funds which responds to the current situation through the integration of development measures. This is crucial for enlargement too. A stronger Union does not necessarily mean a more ineffective Union – quite the opposite: the simplicity of the rules and the application of the principle of subsidiarity will make the European budget a flexible political and accounting tool which is free from the burden of the RALs, and, most importantly, it will result in a closer, more intimate relationship between the European Union and the citizens.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I hope you will not rule me out of order, but I have a very specific question to the Commissioner on research. I rather sympathise with my colleagues who think that the way in which the new programmes are going to be organised makes it difficult to see what is actually happening. My specific question is this: one of the things on which research is urgently needed is the efficacy of vaccination in outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease. I do not know – and I conducted some research into this – what is happening as regards such research within the Framework Programme, either the present one or the one which is planned. It would be extremely useful for many people in Europe to know what is being done. I fear very much on the basis of the experience in the United Kingdom that foot-and-mouth disease is not going away and that we may be dealing with it over a long period. European research is therefore absolutely urgent.

Political group: PPE-DE