GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, it is always good to put the final question at question time. I would like to thank the Commissioner for his excellent answer. I was very pleased that the Commission takes a positive view of network sharing. At the moment the different ways in which this can be achieved are still open. I also understand your view that the competition rules must, of course, be respected and that these concrete assessments will only be able to be made once you have applications and notifications on this issue in your hands. You also referred to the Commission possibly providing specific guidelines on this issue, should the need arise. Furthermore, I would like you to confirm that, in your opinion, at the moment all the possible methods of network sharing – both geographical and the other methods to which you referred – are also open from a competition point of view. Is this your final opinion?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, my colleague's closing comments make an excellent introduction to my intervention. It is true, we need more strategic thinking and vision. This is a very, very difficult situation to deal with. Only if we try and put transatlantic relations on a new footing and make the quantum leap to strategic thinking will there be any permanent rapprochement between us in the long term. I have focussed, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Relations, Research and Energy, on investigating the economic implications. I came to the following conclusion, which my fellow Members supported and which I should like to thank James Elles for including in his report. Basically, we started from the premise that the transatlantic market already exists; you can see that for yourselves in several sectors. However, this has consequences because politicians and the public barely even notice this. We basically start from the premise that we are competitors. We are, however, also well aware of the fact that there is a closeness between us and that we are partners. But this very often finds relatively little expression in political action. So we need to take more note of economic realities and translate them into political thinking. That should also give us food for thought for strategic planning. The consequences are considerable. We have found evidence of increasingly frequent frustration between us and of alienation setting in. We have found evidence of segregation and of harping back to national policies – mainly on the American side but, to be fair, we are not completely innocent of this – and an upswing in so-called American and European values. This leads to more and more trade disputes, which feed on these problems. The question is: what can we do? As James Elles rightly says, we need to update the new transatlantic agenda and transatlantic economic partnership. How can we do that? I think we need a radical paradigm shift. We need to move away from mutual observation. We can achieve this paradigm shift in three ways: first, through a sectoral analysis of economic interdependence, secondly, by strengthening bilateral methods upstream of the WTO dispute settlement procedure and early warning system and, thirdly, through greater rapprochement. The Commission already set this out at the summit in the form of a positive agenda which the Council confirmed. And we shall welcome it on Parliament's part. I do not intend to go into any further detail right now. The details are there in the report and I trust that the Commission and the Council will support it.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, to the dithyrambic comments by my honourable friends about the ability, sensitivity and efficiency of the Greek Presidency, I should just like to add the satisfaction of those of us with first hand experience of what President Prodi referred to as passion and ingenuity. The agenda for Thessaloniki includes a series of burning issues which divide both the Member States and public opinion. The draft Constitutional Treaty is of primary importance and we hope the Convention will arrive at an integrated proposal which will get the European Union out of its identity crisis, rather than merely at a list of alternative solutions. I also hope, together with thousands of women's organisations throughout Europe, that the Constitutional Treaty will fully consolidate equality of the sexes in all sectors, abolish any exclusion on the basis of gender and safeguard the balanced participation of men and women in the European democratic institutions. Women will never accept a constitution which excludes equality of the sexes from the Union's values and objectives. Women will never accept that the escalating violence against them and the outbreak of trafficking and sexual exploitation cannot be dealt with due to a lack of clear legal basis in the Treaty. On the question of asylum and immigration, the thinking behind the United Kingdom draft on asylum reform, which literally leaves the 1951 Geneva Convention in tatters, should be rejected. Any political decisions in Thessaloniki will need to take serious account of the proposals of the UN High Commissioner for refugees. As Mrs Terrón i Cusí also said, most immigrants in the European Union come in through legal channels. We therefore need to manage immigration flows better, not to further reinforce our borders, apply repressive measures and/or link immigration with the activities of criminal networks. Finally, I think the agenda of the EU-USA summit should include: first, the abolition of the death penalty in the United States, secondly, the treatment of the prisoners in Guantanamo and, thirdly, what we called here in this House the lie of the century, by which I mean the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Mr President-in-Office, Thessaloniki must give the countries of the western Balkans a clear prospect of accession and we must start pre-accession preparations, which are the sine qua non for peace and stability in the region.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as representative of the Pensioners’ Party in the Group of the European People’s Party and , I also voted for the Pirker report, particularly because of Amendment No 13 – which has been adopted – tabled by the rapporteur, which provides for permanent erasure from the central database of the names and electronic fingerprints of those who, having arrived in our States without refugee status as yet, are then recognised as persons who should be permitted to enter the country and are accorded refugee status. This is an example of consideration for the dignity of human beings and their rights, and pensioners, who suffer a great many injustices, know just how important that is.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mrs Frassoni has asked what it is we are about here today and what kind of problem we are trying to solve. Why fix something that is not broken? I have to disagree with you on that point, Mrs Frassoni. There is in fact something dysfunctional here in Parliament, and it is the process of debate which, for far too long, has been far too predictable and therefore quite boring as well. MEPs enter in turn and read out their two-minute speeches, and the result is Parliament in which there is in actual fact no proper lively debate. We do not give people the opportunity to see a parliament in which there is a real conflict of opinions, and that is of course a pity, for we do in fact have a parliament in which, in the committees, we have quite lively and spontaneous debates. People just do not get to see that, however. The Corbett report tries to create a basis for a more lively debate and, clearly, it is very negative to object to this 'catch-the-eye' procedure. One thing is certain, however, and that is that, if we ourselves do not try to do something, nothing will happen. I therefore think that we need to put the lid on this tendency simply to continue in our old ways. It is also excellent that we are now being given the opportunity to distinguish between what is important or controversial and what is not controversial. That too will result in people’s being presented with a livelier Parliament. I should like to conclude by saying a couple of words about the amendments tabled by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. With the Treaty of Amsterdam, we arranged, as you know, for a new procedure – the open coordination method, beginning with employment policy – to be introduced. What those of us in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs proposed was simply that Parliament’s role should be established in the light of this method. The result would be more openness and more focus on this procedure. It would also mean more democratic control in the framework of the open coordination method. It is therefore very annoying that this knowledge or insight has not made much of an impression upon the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, which has not appreciated that it was important in this area too, which is quite new and of great relevance to the EU, to try to make democratic progress. I would thank Mr Corbett for an outstanding report. IN THE CHAIR: MR COLOM I NAVALVice-President

Political group: PSE
Mr President, in the wake of the fires which ravaged Portugal last summer, laying waste more than 10% of the country, it has become increasingly obvious that the disaster could have been avoided, to a great extent, by means of effective prevention measures. It brings to mind the old proverb, ‘prevention is better than cure’. During his visit to the regions affected by the fires, Commissioner Barnier himself drew attention to this consideration. It has become abundantly clear that we need monitoring systems, but above all that we need to guard against the causes of woodland decline. Only by studying the causes and their effects will we be able to mount a relentless campaign to fight the fires. The prevention measures, therefore, aim to reduce the size of the affected areas, fight the causes of fire and monitor our forests. The European Union cannot content itself with monitoring the fires and taking action after the disaster has occurred. What is needed is a real prevention policy. The task, then, is not to impose unwanted measures on Portugal, but rather to devise tangible, robust courses of action that are compatible with the national forestry strategy currently being devised. I would argue, therefore, that prevention should form an integral part of the Forest Focus programme, regardless of the regulation on rural development. When dealing with an issue as important as forests, one of Europe’s treasures, one cannot consider skimping on a few pennies. With a view to financing these prevention measures, therefore, I have already proposed increasing the amounts in the European Union’s general budget, by means of the financial perspective for the period up to 2006. No preventive measure can truly come into operation unless it is supported by adequate financial resources. Finally, I could not end this speech without congratulating the rapporteur, Mrs Redondo Jiménez, for the sensitive manner in which she has dealt with what is a most delicate issue for Portugal.

Political group: PPE-DE
It is not, unfortunately, the first time that today's topic occupies us, nor, unfortunately, has anything changed for the better in the past months. Although the Commission, when examining the competitive forces on the international stage, established that dumping was being practised and that competition was being blatantly distorted, the Council and the Commission have to date been neither prepared nor able to give the European shipbuilding industry effective support. It is of course all too easy to point only to South Korea's policy of giving subsidies. The existing situation is in every respect the result of the policy of global competition for sites, as advanced in the WTO by the Member States and by the Commission. We have just heard the news of the bankruptcy of the modern shipyard at Stettin in Poland. Thousands of jobs have been lost in a country preparing to join the EU and in any case faced with far-reaching upheavals. Nobody in Europe can or should hope to profit from this. Many of Europe's shipyards are located in less-favoured regions. This has to do with the cataclysmic consequences of an employment policy and an industry policy whose significance for the regions affected is far more than merely economic. That is why we cannot and will not accept the Council's and the Commission's failure to take practical action, and we expect further international efforts at resolving the problem. (Statement of vote cut short in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the sinking of the oil tanker Prestige off the Galician coast demonstrated, amongst many other shortcomings, the lack of coordination of the Member States in terms of combating pollution. The Commission now proposes a modification of the recently approved Regulation establishing the European Maritime Safety Agency, created following the Erika accident, not only to provide support in the field of marine pollution, but also in the protection against illegal actions. When it comes to pollution, the proposal seems to me to be rather confused. The Agency must have the resources necessary to intervene when a Member State requests it and under the authority of a State, with specialised ships which will operate under a chartering system and which will be made available, if requested, to that Member State. It is not specified whether they must be acquired, rented or hired on a permanent or occasional basis. I personally would like this issue to be clarified, because in Galicia, at the time of the visit of the Agency’s Director, right in the middle of the Prestige crisis, I read that one of the ships would be permanently based in Finisterre. The rapporteur’s amendments specify that the main responsibility in the field of pollution lies with the coastal States, which must have their own resources – which some of us find logical – and that the actions of the Agency will only come into play following a request from the Member State, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. But this principle is not a justification for the Community to remain passive. On the pretext that it is a competence of the Member States and not of the Union, we witnessed during the Prestige disaster how one of them, a country with a considerable coastline, did not possess, and still does not possess today, the minimum resources needed to deal with an emergency. The Commission cannot continue to ignore the need to establish Community response mechanisms or European coordination of the resources of the different States in order to cover emergency situations and respond to disasters. Amongst the new responsibilities, despite the reservations expressed previously, we believe, like the rapporteur, that the Commission’s proposal must be supported, since it contributes to increasing safety in maritime transport.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I appreciate the Commissioner's reply and I understand her position, given that she herself is from Greece. As she understood, the question does not concern the objective reasons and the implementation criteria, it concerns the scope. I have noted what she said about the public sector, but I should like to ask her: when does the Commission believe that it will have finished its evaluation of the scope of the directive and of what I consider to be the unacceptable exemptions being made for the public sector and certain industries? There is legal chaos in Greece. We already have judgments from the courts of first instance in Patras and Larissa and from the court of appeal in Crete, which apply the directive and do not apply the presidential decree. I should like to ask the Commissioner if she could estimate when we shall have this opinion from the Commission.

Political group: GUE-NGL
In relation to Amendment No 1 of the report on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC, Euratom) N° 2728/94 establishing a Guarantee Fund for external actions (COM (2003) 604), I would like explicitly to emphasise that ‘new’ atomic power stations also includes those that are to be ‘completed’ (such as Cernavoda in Romania). I would like to make it clear once again that a ‘new’ atomic power station is also to be understood as meaning the ‘completion’ of an existing one.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, at a time when Europe, with the Beijing +5 Conference in New York, is emphasising its pioneering role in the implementation of the principle of equality between men and women, it seems equally important to guarantee their freedom. This freedom is achieved through a right to specific protection for women, a right that is always related to their bodies, in particular to maternity and, more specifically, pregnancy. We are therefore pleased with Mrs Damião’s excellent report, which highlights the urgent need to revise the 1992 directive. Her request for a formal ban on dismissal during pregnancy is essential, and I will dwell only on this point. It seems to me to be dangerous to allow employers any leeway in this field, as they will always use it to their advantage. Today, with the revision of Convention 103, the ILO is levelling down the protection of pregnant women, by accepting certain dismissals that are said to be unrelated to pregnancy. Europe, with Mrs Damião’s report and the revision of the directive, has a duty to be a political reference for women’s rights world-wide.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, we have to recognise that this is another step in the process of making sure that, when we deal with this new technology, it works for the benefit of human beings and not against them. We have seen already other pieces of legislation come before this House, for one of which I was the rapporteur, which were part of the jigsaw creating the total picture of control over genetically modified organisms. With this particular piece of legislation we have to recognise a number of things. The main objective of this legislation and the agreements around it is to give people the right to make a genuine choice about GM products. We have listened to the concerns of people across Europe calling for the right to make an informed choice about GM food. We are trying to put in place a labelling and information scheme that makes the choice a reality. I have some sympathy with the remarks made by Mr Maaten about the imperfections of this scheme; nevertheless we have to work within the boundaries of what is scientifically provable and practically possible to implement. We live in an imperfect world, and the use of thresholds reflects the reality. Organic regulations allow for the presence of up to 5% non-organic ingredients. In practical terms that means that an organic readymeal could contain minor ingredients like herbs and spices which are not readily available in organic form. We do not label very low levels of residues of pesticides or chemical contaminates in foodstuffs although we know they are present. In any labelling regime there are bound to be imperfections. There has to be a cut-off point where the practical and the scientific reality cuts in. That is the best we can do with the science we have. One of the ingredients in the pizza that you might eat tonight might be a salami sausage but not every constituent ingredient of that sausage will appear on the pizza-box label. Our job is to make the best deal that science allows. Our priority has to be to give the consumer real choice.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, allow me to begin by thanking Mr Costa Neves for his very good work on next year’s budget. It is with satisfaction that I at least observe that, for the first time in quite a few years, there has been no serious talk about revising the budget ceiling. That is, for me, the sign of a rapporteur who, in a real sense, chooses to respect and apply the budget as a ceiling of expenditure and not as a target for expenditure. That is something I think bodes well for forthcoming negotiations. In spite of this, there is nonetheless good cause for warning against an unduly expansive budget, especially when it comes to categories 3 and 4. The limited margin in both these categories is cause for concern, especially when, in the wake of the terrorist attacks on 11 September, we see an approaching need for measures of humanitarian aid for Afghanistan, as well as a need for measures in the area of justice and home affairs. The European Union is already expensive for taxpayers. I believe it to be obvious that we must ensure that it does not become still more expensive. I see it as self-evident that, at this stage, Parliament should create room for negotiation in relation to the Council. There is, however, reason for calling for a general tightening-up, on the parts of both the Council and Parliament, before the second reading so that, from a purely budgetary point of view, they are able to handle the situation that has arisen in the wake of the terrorist attacks in the United States. Finally, just a few brief words about Mrs Buitenweg’s report. The rapporteur has made progress in the preparatory work before enlargement in 2004. That is good, and there is cause to thank her for this. I must however note that a very great deal remains to be done in order to prepare and adapt the administration before an enlargement that will soon be only two years ahead of us.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, we are all in favour of your action and initiatives to move the Union towards a union of security and of your action in connection with asylum and immigration. However, I should like to call for a few basics; we expect the consequences to be evaluated and we expect you to think your initiatives over carefully so that they do not contradict any aspects of previous initiatives. This care – and I have an example to illustrate this – is sometimes missing, as for example in the draft which the President referred to on so-called family reunion currently being discussed in the context of immigration policy. If, when we talk about family reunion, we mean the core family, i.e. spouses and dependent underage children, then it is an excellent measure, which is in the interests of integration policy and it has our full support. But if you then extend the circle of people which qualify as family far beyond those who would normally receive the right to move to the Union a year later, then not only have you clearly failed to consider the consequences, you are also contradicting your communications on future immigration policy. If you go ahead and extend the definition of family to unmarried partners, grandparents on both sides or students' live-in partners, give them the right to move here a year later, classify them as asylum seekers and also give them the right to work, then the immigration system will become unmanageable and uncontrollable and, in certain circumstances, all cases of immigration will come under your so-called family reunion system. Plus, you are depriving the Member States of the right to decide which and how many workers can move to the Union and you risk negating all the good points as a result. Mr President of the Commission, we want to continue to give you our support, but we can only do so if your initiatives do not contradict each other and if the initiatives solve the problems rather than create new problems.

Political group: PPE-DE