GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, on behalf of the Group of the , I should like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Redondo, for her work, which is unexpectedly topical following the most recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth. The parallels between swine fever and foot-and-mouth are obvious; in the case both of foot-and-mouth and swine fever, the Community decided in the past to pursue a policy of non-vaccination. However, the scale of the foot-and-mouth crisis has demonstrated that an unreserved policy of non-vaccination belongs on the test bench. I do not mean that we should resort to blanket vaccination in future. Killing infected stock, stamping out, must continue to be the mainstay of the strategy to combat these diseases. However, greater importance should be attached to vaccination. We should not, in my view, stand still on the question of vaccination; instead we should develop a strategy of comprehensive zoonosis prevention mainly for use during disease-free periods. This could include stricter controls on third country imports, controls at airports and quarantining new additions to livestock. Another important point is the principle of regionalisation. The Commission must act very quickly here and negotiate with EU trading partners in order to implement this principle. We cannot expect all the Member States of the EU to put up with import restrictions in third countries every time a disease breaks out in one or a few Member States. The European Union already applies this principle to third country imports. Now third countries must return the favour. Marker vaccines are very important here, as the rapporteur has clearly highlighted. More must be invested in these vaccines and in developing discriminatory diagnostic techniques, so that it will soon be possible to distinguish between vaccinated and infected animals and then make economic use of vaccinated animals. I should also like to comment on one more very specific issue, namely swill feeding, that is, using overs from canteens etc. These overs have been used as animal fodder for years and we must still be able to use them in future. As with meat and bonemeal, I support a conditional ban here, as formulated in Amendment No 37 by the Group of the , that is, it should only be possible to use overs if a suitable sterilisation process is used. I think that if proper controls are carried out then, as we have seen in the past in numerous Member States, we will still be able to use this valuable source of protein. We should support the proposed amendment by the which still allows overs to be used but subject to stricter conditions.

Political group: PSE
We are bound to vote against this report given the assertions it makes, specifically reaffirming the “overriding importance of the primary objective, that is, maintenance of price stability” regardless of growth and employment rates, defending the irrationality of the Stability Pact, calling for continued “wage moderation” and insisting on the old capitalist recipe that “the workers should pay for the crisis” when the gains of productivity transferred from salaries into profits have not contributed to more investment and more employment, but to the enriching of the usual small group. The report ignores the current economic situation and once again calls for further liberalisations, privatisations, integration of capital markets and, obviously, more labour flexibility and considers the criticism of the ECB’s behaviour in relation to the Federal Reserve to be unfair, overlooking the fact that the deflationist policy pursued has contributed to unemployment, whilst the restrictive monetary policy has not allowed skilful use to be made of the period of economic growth in the second half of the 1990s. This criticism is shared not only by various internationally renowned economists, such as Solow, but also by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, on behalf of the MEPs of the Group, I would like to express my gratitude for the countless expressions of solidarity, and thank you personally for your support and company during these times of anguish. We are constantly thinking, naturally, of the victims and their families. Therefore, together with other colleagues, we in the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs are taking the initiative of recommending to the European Union that it establish a day in memory of the victims. Plenary decided that it should be 11 March and I am glad that this proposal has been ratified by the Council almost unanimously. Mr Ortuondo did not support it and he will know and explain why. The European institutions’ support for the victims must not just be moral, however, but also material. In order to cover these needs, my group requested the inclusion, for the first time in the 2004 budget, of a line of EUR 1 million for the creation of a pilot programme to support the victims of terrorism and their families. Unfortunately, circumstances demonstrate that more must be done and, without prejudice to the measures to assist victims, which the Council has approved, I would like to express our desire for the financial contribution for the pilot project to help victims to be significantly increased, raising the status of that project to a wide-ranging Community action. That, Mr President, is the commitment of the Group which has been included amongst the political priorities for the next legislature and which provides for the creation of a European fund for compensating the victims of terrorism. Ladies and gentlemen, following 11 September an action plan to combat terrorism was approved but, nevertheless, on 11 March 2004, some of the measures laid down in it had not been transposed into national legislations. I repeat the request made by several colleagues, because it is essential that the Member States cooperate by quickly incorporating the measures adopted within the framework of the third pillar. It is vitally important to improve security in the prevention sector in Europe. Finally, Mr President, I would like to point out, on the basis of my country's experience, that it is not easy to defeat terrorism. It requires persistence and tenacity, but it is an inescapable challenge facing all Europeans if we want to continue to live in free and democratic societies. Nobody is free of this threat and it would be a tragedy if some people tried to evade it by looking the other way. We will overcome it if we face it together, with democratic conviction and with the force of the Rule of Law.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we believe that the liberalisation of the energy markets illustrates once again the conflict between the European institutions and the peoples of Europe. It is highly likely that Parliament’s vote will serve only to support the strategy for the – rapid – liberalisation of the electricity and gas markets and of the public service sector as a whole. The exaltation of the alleged positive effects of competition, namely transparency, lower production costs and increased job possibilities, is being contradicted every day by reality. In actual fact, what are most apparent are non-transparent decisions, the diversion of public funds into private interests, whatever the status of the undertakings, the rapid increase in prices for users, the granting of benefits to unethical private groups and the abolition of hundreds of thousands of jobs in Europe, while, as for workers’ statutes, they have gone right out of the window. For us, energy is an absolutely essential requirement and access to it a fundamental right. We believe that only genuine public, democratic control would allow us to streamline energy production and consumption while still guaranteeing respect for the environment and flat-rate adjustments. This would be an initial step towards a European public service which meets the needs of users and employees today. Parliament appears to be disregarding this concern. If it is to fully shoulder its responsibility to the citizens of Europe, Parliament must reject the directives on the energy sector and launch a genuine democratic debate on the actual effects of the policy which seems to be taking root in the European Union today.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I speak in support of my colleague, Mrs Junker, who has spoken on behalf of the Group. Haiti is the poorest country in the Americas; 80% of its population live below the poverty line. It has one of the lowest life expectancies, literacy rates and health indicators in a region which, as someone has already said, is itself rather poor. The political, social and economic crises have all worsened in the last four years. Half the population suffers from malnutrition; there is difficult access to clean water and where traditional exports have collapsed, drug trafficking and corruption are flourishing. Worse, the recently-formed Haitian National Police has been able to enforce the rule of law and has been severely criticised by human rights groups for its own abuse of protesters protesting against President Aristide's rule and for failing to protect them from machete and gun-wielding government-supporting militias. We condemn all the violence and political assassinations. We call upon the Haitian Government, the opposition and civil society to engage in a constructive dialogue, possibly in the framework of a national conference to pave the way for free and fair legislative elections. We call on the Council and Commission to use all political and diplomatic means to encourage the Haitian authorities, opposition parties and civil society to facilitate this dialogue. In the meantime, we ask for the restoration of the United Nations mission working with the Haitian police, the disbandment of the so-called special brigades – as suggested by the UN Special Envoy – and the disarming of the militias. That would be the first step on what may be a possible path to a solution.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to thank the President of the Commission for giving us two speeches within the space of 24 hours. Last night he clearly pointed out that we have the prospect of a successful European economy ahead of us for the next two or three years and quite clearly, if we have unexpectedly higher-than-normal growth, then that will help us in the endeavours of this annual legislative programme. The Commission President's speech this morning raises three concerns in my mind. The first relates to subsidiarity, where we feel strongly in our group, as the Liberals have just said, that we need to have a test for every single proposal put forward to show that it is in the European interest. Subsidiarity must be seen to apply: it must be clear that we are not legislating where it is not necessary to do so. The second concern relates to budgets. Given the higher growth rate than was predicted in the financial perspectives, which are based on 2.5% growth, we can see our way forward to taking slightly different measures on budgets than we would otherwise have done. On behalf of my group I would like to caution the Commission not to go ahead at this stage with shifting agricultural expenditure from category 1 to category 4. In Britain in particular we have a farming industry which is in desperate straits and wants to see some assistance given to certain sectors of agriculture: shifting money for agriculture from one part of the budget to another at this stage would be to give them a wrong message. Lastly, a word of caution about the question of information. This is what bedevilled the relationship between our Parliament and the previous Commission: the fact that we, under the Treaties, have access and the right of access to all information in principle. It looks as if we are running into difficulties with our framework agreement. I therefore stress that, if we want to have the Commission and Parliament working together, we have to be able to come up with a solution to this problem as soon as possible and not to have limitations on documents which are available to citizens. As Mr Bonde rightly pointed out, we should have a European Union where there is a free flow of information from the bureaucracy to all our citizens.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I am, of course, in favour of banning the use of silicone in breast implants. Last week, Madam President – if you will pardon this aside – I mentioned this document to my daughter, Cristina, who, moreover, was a runner-up in the Miss Italy competition, and I said to her: 'I am totally against the use of silicone implants, particularly for women. You don't use them, do you?' 'What are you saying?' she replied. 'I would never use silicone breast implants because I have absolutely no need of them. Are you saying I have to come to Strasbourg to inform all the MEPs to whom you will relate this conversation that I am fine just as I am, au naturel, without any operations?' And that is why I did not bring her to Strasbourg with my mother, my sister and my wife.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, there is no lack of good ideas, either new or old, when it comes to combating discrimination against women. There are laws, but there are great deficiencies when it comes to applying them and establishing the priorities. Earlier today, we had a press conference in the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities. I then heard that the number of people brought into the EU Member States for the purposes of sexual exploitation has now increased from 500 000 to 800 000. I wish to express my pleasure at having a discussion of these matters in this House on 8 March with a Swedish Commissioner. In 1996, I had the same discussion with Mrs Gradin, who then mentioned the figure of 500 000. Since then, we have adopted Community legislation, and the Member States have maintained that they are giving priority to the issue. While we have been legislating and prioritising, the figure has, then, increased by 300 000. This no doubt shows that it is now the demand side that must be focused upon. Otherwise, we can increase the appropriations to the Daphne programme for ever and a day, and all to no lasting purpose. I fully support Mrs Gröner’s proposal for a European Year Against Violence Against Women in 2006. I believe it is necessary. I think that the joint 1999 campaign was a good starting point before the turn of the millennium. The issue then genuinely came up for discussion in all the Member States. What is also very commendable is what has been termed a help desk at the Commission. Many different women’s organisations have contacted me through the years and said that there is almost no point in applying for funds from the Daphne programme. The application procedure demands so much work and so much expenditure that it is not even worth trying. Mrs Bastos, I think very highly of your report. At the same time, I am rather upset about the fact that the organisation of working life is becoming ever more hostile to children. We say that too few children are being born in the EU and that the EU has an ageing population. There should be more children, but it is no doubt entirely understandable that young people are not having children now, given the prevailing conditions governing the ability to look after children and bring them up. We also see how wage differences are not decreasing but increasing, both within one and the same workplace and between the sexes. Clearly, companies today require unfailing loyalty from their employees. Obviously, there must be organised care of children and the elderly. It would be a waste if all the well-educated women were never able to make use of their knowledge. I also wish to make a point of thanking Mrs Valenciano Martínez-Orozco. It was incredibly worthwhile bringing together three minority groups, as they are termed, in one and the same report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, you really have tormented me; I have had to wait for a long time, and Mr Swoboda has already said something about my temperament. Madam President, with your answers, you have provided a most welcome contrast to Mr Poettering this afternoon. You have responded to my questions objectively and in a very focused way. I have been in politics long enough to know that if you ask the President a question and a group Chairman intervenes excitedly, you are on the right track. (Applause from the left) For that reason, Madam President, I should like, with your permission, to ask you again to answer my questions to which you have not yet responded. I put three questions to you in all. Firstly, I asked how you explain the fact that such a sensitive matter could be left lying for so long by the Spanish authorities without being dealt with. After all, Madam President, you sent an enquiry to the Spanish authorities, and they very discourteously made you wait for months for a response. What were the reasons for this delay, in your view, and why did you not demand a reply? I would also ask you to answer the following questions. Are you absolutely certain that the Berlusconi/Dell'Utri case is unique? In other words, is it the only case in which the Spanish Supreme Court has sent an application direct to the European Parliament? Is this the first time this has happened? Can you definitely rule out any possibility that similar cases have arisen in the past, when the Spanish Supreme Court has approached Parliament direct and Parliament has immediately initiated its usual procedure? So my precise question is this: has there previously been a case like this one – which has given rise to doubt in your mind – where the Supreme Court has contacted the President of this House direct, and has Parliament accepted this procedure on a previous occasion? I would ask you to answer this question for me, because this has nothing to do with the Italian election campaign. Instead, my intention is to ensure that every Member of this House is treated equally, regardless of whether they are called Dell'Utri, Berlusconi, Poettering or Schulz. That is the reason for my questions, nothing else! (Applause from the left)

Political group: PSE
Reading this report, Mr President, I was unable – I do not know why, it is a rare occurrence – to avoid thinking about an injustice, a form of discrimination against women pensioners which is common in Europe, particularly in the country, so beautiful in so many respects, that is our own, Italy. Indeed, there are many women pensioners who receive a pension which is an eighth of the size of their husband’s pension, of a man’s pension, for there is a particular law of the Italian Republic which lays down that if a woman has worked for fewer years than her husband she is to receive a pension which is much, much lower than EUR 100 per month and, indeed, is very often no greater than EUR 25 per month. This happens because, under a number of different laws, the people who have worked for less time receive tiny pensions. Well then, I feel that we should do something to combat this discrimination against women.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I thank the rapporteur and the Commission for bringing forward this important report, dealing as it does in a sound way with significant matters. We in this Parliament must endeavour to do all we can to make it easier for European citizens to move freely around the Union. It is somewhat anomalous that, at the moment, it is easier to move goods or capital around the European Union than it is for European citizens to move around. Mr Vitorino said at the beginning that free movement is subject to too many obstacles, and Mrs Buitenweg has just given some examples that make this obvious. If the European Union is to move closer to the citizen, we have to make it much more of a common market for people than it is at the moment. However, just as with business, in order for this to function efficiently there must be regulations. For example, British pensioners retiring to Spain and others travelling from one country to another for work must be freed from unnecessary bureaucracy and excessive red tape. If we are to meet our target of making the European Union the most competitive economy in the world by 2010, and make it as easy for EU citizens to move from one Member State to another, as it is for US citizens to move from one state to another in the United States, then we need a free flow of European nationals moving between countries to live and work. This is about European citizens and their families being able to move around freely for work and to live; it is about teenagers getting residence permits in the country in which they have grown up. However, there are aspects of this report which could be misinterpreted or abused. That is why we need to build in a few extra clauses. My own government is concerned to ensure that our efforts to facilitate freedom of movement for legitimate EU nationals do not open new channels that could be exploited by criminal gangs and others. As we are all too aware, we live in a dangerous world. There is a minority – albeit it a very small minority - of people who may want to exploit for illegal and violent purposes the freedom of movement that this report facilitates. Therefore, we should not deny Member States the right to exclude people where there is a proven threat to national security. We need a few other safeguards to protect people from the hazards of modern living. I endorse what Mr Di Lello Finuoli said: the real issue is not whether people are married or with whom they are in a lasting relationship. The Treaty guarantees the right of all citizens to family life and we, as a Parliament, are empowered to uphold this. Others have spoken about this. Legitimate and lasting partnerships should never be put under threat. On the other hand, as a balance, perhaps we need to ensure that there are safeguards to discourage the small minority who might want to use marriage as an avenue to gain illegal entry. It is about free movement for people and freedom to live their lives as they wish: a free market for people, a common market for EU citizens and their families.

Political group: PSE
We voted in favour of this report, which proposes initiating a procedure to recruit officials from the countries that the European Union needs to integrate on its enlargement, planned for 1 May 2004. Nevertheless, we wish to stress that we disagree with the choice made by the European institution to employ these new officials at pay levels that will be lower than those enjoyed by current European Union officials, given that they will be taken on at a time when a new salary scale is being put in place, which will be less favourable to new employees, whatever their country of origin. Clearly, it is budgetary decisions that underlie this decision. These are always mentioned when social issues are concerned, but they never enter into play when it is a question of subsidising large European companies or providing military equipment for European defence. - Report: Read (A5-0374/2003)

Political group: GUE-NGL