GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you have presented us with a very ambitious programme. My Group hopes that you will, in fact, be able to complete most of it, especially in the area of internal security. I should like to raise two points which I consider are particularly important. First: optimisation of the Schengen system of security at external borders. Secondly: improving asylum policy and combating illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings. I should like to start by referring to an actual situation in Belgium at its external borders. We all know what has happened. Surprisingly, internal border controls have been introduced in Belgium, almost overnight, causing hour-long jams and problems with both passenger and freight cross-border traffic, angering citizens and damaging the economy. The reason was the imminent legalisation of some 75 000 illegal immigrants who have been waiting for a decision on their asylum applications in Belgium for three or four years or who have already been illegal residents in Belgium for five or six years. I should like to point out that the measures taken by Belgium comply with the law and the Treaty. But they also show that this is not the answer to the problems which have arisen and that we must find new approaches and that, in the final analysis, the answer lies in a community arrangement. For the rest, Belgium took a similar decision here as France, Italy and Luxembourg have done in the past. The Council is responsible here, hence our requests. What I should like to see, what we should all like to see is for you to optimise Schengen as a security instrument, for you to re-regulate the temporary reintroduction of internal border controls, for you to give Member States preliminary information, together with information on how long such controls will last, and for you to implement all this only in absolutely exceptional situations and for you to implement fast and complete communitisation. Secondly, fast, uniform asylum procedures do, of course, need to be introduced and EURODAC needs to be introduced immediately as a matter of urgency, so that the jurisdiction of the states can be laid down and so that we have efficient instruments against illegal immigrants.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have as yet been unable to find a simple solution to the problem of liberalising public transport. That does not mean to say that we should not continue with the liberalisation process. Quite the reverse, in fact. Nevertheless, this liberalisation process should not be forced. It must be carried out in stages. In principle, I am against exceptions to freedom of services, but it is clear, of course, that a very limited list of exceptions should be possible, particularly for less sizeable contracts. Finally, I should like to say that it should also be made clear that it certainly cannot be the intention to replace the government monopoly by a private monopoly. I therefore think that a compromise solution must be found, particularly in the interest of the user. Many thanks, Mr President.

Political group: ELDR
The Group has endorsed the joint motion for resolution on relations between the EU and Russia. I, for my part, would like to point out that: First: we need to create a pan-European system of security and political dialogue, mainly under the auspices of the ΟSCE, in order to forestall any concern on Russia's part about the integration of the Baltic states and Poland into the European Union. However, it would be a huge mistake to extend ΝΑΤΟ eastwards, as Russia would interpret this as an effort to encircle it. Secondly: the European Union must take a positive attitude towards Russian goods entering the markets of the new Member States following their accession, taking account of the peculiar nature of the competition problems still facing Russian companies. Thirdly: at a more general level, the European Union needs to promote the perception of and the institutional structures and economic mechanisms for a common European area with Russia, as with the Ukraine. Conserving cold-war divides at political and economic level under post-cold war conditions would be a policy fraught with danger and bereft of any prospects. - Report Hoff (A5-0156/2002)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr Alyssandrakis, ladies and gentlemen, everyone is in favour of mankind’s direct or indirect access to space for, in the first place, it is a dream, a fantastic adventure and a way of expanding our knowledge. But, in addition to this, it has, above all, generated incredible change in our everyday lives. Satellites and telecommunications have been mentioned, and we could add the weather forecast. However, we must also acknowledge that space is a strategic issue: we have mentioned the terrible war between the United States and the USSR. Today, although the United States and Russia still dominate this sector, the countries of Europe play a major and increasingly significant role. It is of paramount importance that we establish a European strategy if we want to lend more weight to the Union and this strategy must maintain a balance between the various uses made of space. The European Space Agency has played a role which has been crucial for the cooperation between European countries in the field of the exploitation of space and research development. However, as the rapporteur suggests, it would appear necessary to extend its activities to projects launched within the Community framework. We must also make up for the absence of a genuine European policy and a European strategy ensuring the effective use of space systems to monitor the environment and to provide security, protect natural resources, detect or forecast natural and man-made disasters and combat fraud. A large chunk of the practical applications involving space is already controlled by the market, and I feel that this is dangerous. The Commission must put forward measures to control what are genuine abuses. Lastly, together with many of my fellow Members, I am extremely pleased that the Galileo project met with such approval. It will ensure that Europe makes a substantial contribution to the establishment of a worldwide satellite navigation system. To sum up, the new approach to space policy must be based on a close partnership between the Member States, the European Union and the European Space Agency. This is the only way to achieve the consensus such a policy requires.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the prospect of economic reform in Vietnam has certainly improved over the past few years. However, there is still no progress as far as political reform is concerned. There is a constant flow of reports about the arrest, detention and ill-treatment of dissidents in Vietnam. Defenders of democracy, critics of the communist regime, religious communities and former refugees who want to invest in Vietnam are still at great risk. International human rights organisations are still not getting a hearing from the Vietnamese government. They are also banned from monitoring developments and carrying out inspections in the country. The central government is doing its level best to block any form of communication between the dissidents and the rest of the world. International donors must challenge human rights violations and must call for political reform in Vietnam in addition to economic reform. I am very much in favour of strengthening the economic ties between the European Union and Vietnam. However, as one of the country's biggest donors, the European Union must take a firmer stance and do more to ensure that human rights are respected there. I would also strongly advocate an independent investigation into the well-being of Mr Binh Vinh Trinh and other investors in Vietnam. Having made a fortune abroad by working extremely hard after fleeing from Vietnam, as many people did a few decades ago, Mr Trinh started investing in his native country again. However, he was arrested under the pretext of illegal investment, and brainwashed in solitary confinement, all of his possessions were seized and his investments were confiscated. This acts as a deterrent and naturally has an extremely negative impact on the decisions of other investors. There must be proper legal protection of foreign investments and investors in Vietnam and the corruption there must be brought to an end. This is an essential precondition for future economic and political development in Vietnam and her links to the world economy. In addition, Vietnam must protect, safeguard and guarantee human rights. There has been absolutely no progress in Mr Trinh's case over the past few months. He is still on the run and none of his or his family's unlawfully seized possessions have ever been returned to him. As soon as he sets foot in Vietnam, he will be put straight back into prison. I call on the government of Vietnam to make a gesture by respecting the rights of Mr Trinh and other investors and those of other political dissidents.

Political group: ELDR
I voted for this report and I am glad that a large majority of Parliament did the same. Thanks to the compromises negotiated with the Council and Commission, everything is ready for this directive on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells to be quickly adopted and implemented. This is excellent news for the fight against a number of incurable diseases, which can increasingly be treated by transplanting human cells and tissues, and it gives new hope to many of our fellow citizens. There does of course need to be transparent and strict regulations for such therapeutic practices and medical research both in order to minimise the risks and to ensure that ethical principles are followed. The result obtained is quite satisfactory in this respect. The principle of voluntary and unpaid donation is therefore established. The principle that the human body is not to be treated as a commodity is also recognised, avoiding it being regarded merely as a source of financial gain. Report: Lehne (A5-0469/2003)

Political group: PSE
We have tried to seek a compromise. I believe there are two ways of carrying out politics. The inflexible way, which makes dialogue difficult, and the flexible way, which involves giving ground and trying to be constructive, a positive politics. We propose accepting a combination of passive and active measures (which in any event could have been included in another directive!) in the event that we replace the European Experimental Vehicles Committee (EEVC) tests, provided that these passive measures do not constitute more than 25% of all the measures. The alternative measures to the effective EEVC tests (which have proven to be effective for more than 20 years) should not therefore differ from the latter by more than 25%. We concede that the EEVC tests can be subject to a further viability study (like the alternative measures which the industry may present). The condition is that this study must be entirely independent. Finally, we wanted to clarify that the alternative measures must, in all cases, maintain the same level of protection as the EEVC tests, so that they protect all the parts of the body included on those tests. I believe that my group has made a great effort to make these concessions and I hope that you will accept them and that they will improve the protection of pedestrians.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, very briefly in reply to Baroness Ludford's speech on the question of whether or not there should be a debate on euthanasia, I think it is entirely proper that Parliament should debate euthanasia. I would personally recommend that there be no vote at the end of such a debate, and indeed my own delegation would expect a free vote because it is a matter of conscience. Just for the record, I wish to make it clear that my delegation has taken no position on this matter in the EPP Group. Mind you, Baroness Ludford's speech suggests to me that there might be some form of political euthanasia which I would support.

Political group: PPE-DE
I shall begin my speech by reminding you that the Eurodac system for comparing the fingerprints of asylum seekers and certain other categories of alien was created in order to facilitate the application of the Dublin Convention, a text which makes it possible to determine the State responsible for examining the asylum applications received in one of the European Union Member States. This Convention was signed on 15 June 1990. The report under discussion deals with this Eurodac system and the way it operates. The Council is proposing to alter this in a direction which is not at all acceptable to Parliament. Specifically, the Council has proposed to take the task of setting up the Eurodac system for the collection and comparison of asylum seekers’ fingerprints (the Eurodac database is used to determine the country that was the asylum seeker’s entry point and whose task it therefore is to examine the asylum request) away from the Commission and entrust it to the Council itself in order to regain jurisdiction over it. The Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs of course rejected this Council proposal. The rapporteur, quite rightly, pointed out that under the EC Treaty, the Council may, in principle, confer implementing powers on the European Commission, but only in “specific cases” can the Council reserve the right to exercise these powers itself and, clearly, this is not applicable in the case in point. Furthermore, Parliament would lose the right to be informed and would have to rely completely on the goodwill of the Council, and this is, of course, completely inadmissible! The proposed revised wording for Articles 22 and 23 of the Eurodac regulation, which is what has currently been referred to Parliament, was therefore rejected by the committee which proposed, instead, an amendment endowing the Commission with the unconditional right to exercise implementing powers. I, of course, unreservedly support this position.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, once again I would like to briefly outline the economic issues involved in this directive, and reaffirm my support for the amendments tabled by my colleague, Bernd Lange. These amendments actually have the advantage – and I should like to stress this – of reconciling environmental constraints and economic imperatives. The Council’s common position was to say that car manufacturers should bear all, or a significant part, of the costs of recovery and recycling. But, as Mr Lange so rightly said, this solution is totally unfair to European car manufacturers. Coming from a country which does have a car manufacturing industry, I can tell you that it is not possible, retroactively, to impose on them the total financial costs for all vehicles of their makes currently on the road, i.e. effectively making them bear the costs arising from 80% of the total number of cars in Europe. This solution is unacceptable because these car manufacturers have not had the opportunity to build the environmental demands we are making of them today into their manufacturing procedures and their manufacturing costs. The common position puts European car manufacturers in a disadvantageous position in relation to manufacturers which have just come to the European market. Of course, we are not here to defend a particular national interest or a particular industrial lobby. We are here to build a Europe that is competitive on the world market and to safeguard jobs in economic sectors where we are actually competitive. This is why, I urge you to support the amendments tabled by Bernd Lange. These amendments will be supported by the Group of the since they effectively reconcile all the interests involved – economic interests and environmental constraints – while granting Member States the freedom to select the means to implement these constraints, since these amendments envisage that the systems in place in the Members States, and some of them work perfectly well, will be able to continue to operate.

Political group: PSE
Taking advantage of the fact that, as a result of the Nice Treaty, the Council’s decision on the ‘Statute for Members of the European Parliament’ must now be taken under qualified majority voting rather than unanimity, the EP is once again insisting on a proposal that contains aspects with which we disagree. One such aspect concerns setting a monthly parliamentary allowance that is the same for all Members, regardless of which country they represent. Members of the EP are elected in national constituencies. Consequently, they are, and must remain, bound to these constituencies. Establishing a single monthly allowance fits in with a federalist view of the mandate of an EP Member, by seeking to transform today’s national Members of the EP into future ‘European MPs’. This is a vision that we do not share. Furthermore, as we have emphasised, the social realities in the countries of the EU differ greatly, making it inevitable that if this measure is implemented, in various countries, including Portugal, there will be enormous inequalities and disparities between the pay of workers and that of representatives and holders of public office, which would be quite incomprehensible. In other words, the salary of Members of the EP must be based on the salary of the Members of the national parliament of the country in which they are elected. Hence our vote against the report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as well as thanking Mr Radwan, the rapporteur, there are five aspects I would like to address. The first is that we are discussing an own-initiative report that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted unanimously – my colleague Mr Rübig will have something to say about what went on in the Committee on Budgets. By this we are clearly showing that we are alongside the people and that we act when necessary, that is to say, when it is time for us to speak up and get things done politically, rather than waiting until draft directives are on the table. Secondly, this parliamentary initiative is being taken before the Basel Committee adopts any resolutions and before the presentation of the draft equity capital directive to stabilise the financial markets, and it should have just as much long-term influence on these two events as what we have done to date in the aftermath of Mrs Villiers’ report. My third point is that we have indeed achieved much already for small and medium-sized enterprises such as banks, and much towards greater transparency in the political debate on this chapter, and much to reinforce European self-confidence in the Basel Committee. Fourthly, though, the fact that we have not yet reached our objective means that we have no shortage of demands to make: first, for the adjustment of the one million retail ceiling in line with the annual inflation rate; secondly for the deletion of the 0.2% granularity criterion; thirdly, for the recognition of physical collateral; fourthly, for acknowledgement of the specific financial situation when enterprises are set up or businesses are taken over. Fifthly, an unwarranted administrative burden, with resultant additional costs, devolving upon banks, must be avoided; our sixth is that the transparency of rating criteria should be guaranteed; our seventh, that rating should assess research activities and expenditure on investment in a positive light, and, finally, we call for the study on the effects on small and medium-sized enterprises to be produced and for it to be incorporated in the Commission’s proposal. The fifth area demands something of us. There is still work for policymakers, banks and businesses to do as we prepare for Basel II and the directive. A transparent partnership must be created or extended. All three of them need better framework conditions, and so I am also glad that the Austrian tax reform reduces the tax burden when profits are not withdrawn, as this strengthens equity capital.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, whilst there are perceptible signs of hope in Angola, it has to be said that the situation in Zimbabwe is being made ever more desperate by that country's obstinate President, who is incapable of letting go of the reins of power even at the cost of his country's wholesale destruction, and is thereby reducing his people to a wretched state. I want now to quote a figure supplied today by the aid agencies, one that is especially appalling, even though it is only a snapshot. Of Zimbabwe's adult population, 33% are infected with the HIV virus. From day to day, between 2 000 and 5 000 people die of this scourge; there are already 900 000 orphans in Zimbabwe, and that too is a consequence of the unspeakable policies of Mugabe and the ZANU-PF. No longer is there either prevention or treatment. Poverty makes these people's misery even worse. In this country, which once possessed a system of medical provision that was an example to Africa, there are scarcely any medical facilities left, and what provision exists is far from covering the whole country. The reason for this is that the country's doctors and nurses have fled, the hospital system has collapsed and there are no more medicines. These things are all consequences of a policy under which those with any hope for the future leave the country, and only the poor are left. The hunger there – the hunger that is spreading throughout southern Africa – is only partly a result of the drought and natural calamities that afflict such regions from time to time, but is man-made and used as a weapon. There is a need here for Europe to exert really massive pressure in the hope that sanity will yet prevail. Any such pressure, though, in fact needs also to be applied to those who now openly declare to NEPAD that they are committed to promoting good governance, the defence of human rights and democratic values. If they seriously mean that, then they can demonstrate their credibility by speaking frankly to their neighbour Mugabe, withdrawing political support from him and making it clear to him that he is isolated on a continent that is finding its way out of wretched poverty while respecting human dignity.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I wish to endorse Mr Jarzembowski's remarks for another reason. The plenary has substantively amended a Commission item by a large majority. The Commission must also accept, for once, that this House may substantively amend a Commission item. I am therefore in favour of continuing the process. (Applause) (Parliament rejected the proposal to postpone the vote) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** President. – Before we move on I would like to congratulate Mr Poettering who I understand has just been re-elected leader of his group. (Loud applause) *** Report (A5-0354/2001) by Georg Jarzembowski, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council decision on market access to port services (COM(2001) 35 – C5-0078/2001 – 2001/0047(COD)) Before the vote on Amendment No 47:

Political group: PSE