GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, when the UK Prime Minister went to Lisbon he quite arrogantly lectured other European leaders about how they should be running their economies. Not content with trying to control us at home, he is trying to do that in Europe as well. He came back to the UK saying that Europe is going our way and that he had changed the agenda. However, as far as I can see, the only way in which Europe is following Mr Blair's agenda is by piling yet more red tape on business and more regulation, and making Europe an ever more expensive place in which to do business. Mr Blair's government introduced about 3500 regulations last year alone – a record increase. The lessons of Lisbon have not been learned in London or Brussels, because we still see every day in this House more regulation and more red tape being produced. I challenge both Commissioner Prodi and Mrs Lindh to come up with one example of where a burden on business has been removed or repealed since Lisbon, one example of an EU measure which makes it easier and not more difficult and more expensive to employ people and one example of a proposal for a regulation which has been dropped as being too expensive or disproportionate to the aims sought. I hope that I will be proved wrong in my assessment of the success rate from Lisbon being very low indeed. We still have directives on how to climb ladders. We still have directives on lawnmowers, fluorescent ballast and one on electrical waste which is quite simply going to be a tax on computers. How is that going to promote the e-economy in Europe? Regulation may feel like cost-free political points to politicians, but someone has to pay the bill. The people who pay the bills are the customers of these companies, who pay them in higher prices and, above all, the people of Europe, who are priced out of jobs. I call on the Commission and the Council to live up to the fine words of Lisbon with action: remove red tape and, above all, make it easier, not more difficult or expensive to employ people in Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, food safety issues have quite rightly dominated much of our thinking and that of Member States in recent years. I welcome today’s statement and debate as a recognition of the continuing need for action. It is right that public bodies and politicians, whether in local authorities or governments, should play a part in regulating food production and processing. The European Commission and we in the Parliament, too, should do all in our power to ensure that consumers Europe-wide can have confidence in their food purchases. The BSE problem is one case where, at a European level, stringent conditions were put in place in relation to the export of UK beef. These conditions were met, resulting in the recent lifting of the ban which has had such a major effect on agriculture and related industries in that country. This came as a long-awaited sign, bringing some relief to our hard-pressed farmers. Can it be acceptable then, given that the European Union body responsible judged it the right time to lift the ban, that individual states, without producing and publishing a clear justification in terms of food safety, should maintain the beef ban This decision by the French government last week comes as a particularly bitter further blow to Scotland’s beef farmers, whose herds are predominantly grass-fed and did not have a BSE problem in the first place.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, the proposed directive is intended to replace 15 existing directives on the recognition of professional qualifications. The Commission has chosen a horizontal approach that carries the danger that all professional qualifications will be lumped together. That should not happen. Qualification dumping should be prevented on consumer protection grounds alone. We must ensure that training is of a high quality. The Committee is also concerned that cross-border service provision is to be facilitated by lowering the requirements for the standard of qualification of the service provider. Under the Commission’s proposal, any supplier who is lawfully established in a Member State will be allowed to provide services in another Member State on a temporary basis for 16 weeks in a year, without needing any authorisation or being subject to any controls. We were unable to agree to that. Service providers have to fulfil their duty both to the recipient of the service and to the authorities of the host Member State. That is the only way that control and protection mechanisms can have any effect. Especially sensitive activities must be subject to controls. The citizen cannot assess the quality of doctors or tax consultants for themselves, for example. He relies on the existence of the familiar tried and tested systems of training, qualification and authorisation. The Committee on Employment and Social Affairs would also like to be sure that persons who, because of national regulations, are highly qualified professionals are not disadvantaged by comparison with those who have a low level of qualification but the same job title. It is, however, essential that the wording of the legislation does not call freedom of movement into question. We therefore welcome the fact that the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market and its rapporteur Mr Zappalà, whom I congratulate on his balanced report, have found a compromise between a horizontal and a sectoral approach, ensuring that professional organisations were able to contribute their expertise in the transposition of the directive.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we know that traffic emissions are one of the greatest environmental problems we have and they have also proved to be one of the hardest to get rid of. That is because the volume of traffic is growing even faster than the economy. In this sense the problems of air traffic are still greater because we have to find global solutions for them. On the other hand, we have heard that the Kyoto Protocol does not contain provisions concerning air traffic emissions. Furthermore, air traffic problems are not discussed in the directive on ceilings for emissions which is under consideration. Being in this situation we really have to channel greater efforts into the work that is done in ICAO and its environmental protection committee, which drafts international environmental norms. This is a regrettably slow process, but we have to be able to set objectives that are sufficiently ambitious in scope and create negotiating mandates to be able to make progress accordingly. In my opinion it would not be a bad idea if the developed, industrialised countries, including the European Union, were to set an example in this matter. It is important to develop engine technology, as a decline in the volume of traffic is not foreseeable. We will have to have recourse to different acts, environmental taxes, charges and administrative measures, for example regulation of departure and arrival times, taking account of the fact that rail traffic exists alongside air traffic in areas where long distances are not a hindrance, and that must be developed.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, we do not doubt that it is an important issue we are discussing here, but this is something that crops up time and again. In the past, we always agreed that we would deal with such issues as part of a more comprehensive debate. It is therefore inappropriate to invoke the urgent procedure, particularly as the issue which is to be left off the agenda, is so important. I would also like to point out – although I was unable to participate in the Conference of Presidents in person, owing to our European People’s Party Congress, my colleague, James Provan, was there to represent me – that the issue has already been voted on in the Conference of Presidents and so there is no need for it to be raised once again. We are against invoking the urgent procedure on this issue.

Political group: PPE-DE
We are today choosing to vote against Parliament’s resolution on progress by the Intergovernmental Conference. Large parts of the resolution go further than the Convention’s proposals. A constitutional/consolidated Treaty for the EU is desirable in itself but should be based upon a clear demarcation between politicians’ power and the EU’s areas of competence. We take a particularly dim view of the resolution’s supporting what is termed the passerelle clause whereby Heads of State or Government are able to give up the Member States’ right of veto without this needing to be ratified by the Member States’ parliaments. We also oppose what the resolution says about reducing the number of Commissioners, which would mean each country losing the right to appoint a Commissioner. We also oppose Parliament’s being given full right of codecision regarding the EU budget. Finally, it is also unacceptable for it to be possible, as proposed in the resolution, for changes to be made to the Constitution without unanimity and without ratification by the Member States’ parliaments. This would undermine the current system whereby the Member States own the Treaties. We also repeat our opposition to a permanent Council President being appointed to replace the rotating Presidency.

Political group: PPE-DE
draftsman for the Committee on Development and Cooperation. – Mr President, as a farmer I declare an interest. I join in the praise for the rapporteur, Mr Schwaiger, who has put much work into this excellent report. As draftsman for the Committee on Development and Cooperation, my interest is naturally on the effect a new WTO round will have on developing nations. A week ago I was convinced that, with hard bargaining, there was some hope a deal could be struck to give a fair balance between providing reasonable protection to the EU industries and agriculture on the one hand and market access for developing countries’ goods on the other. Now that an agreement has been reached between the USA and China, I wonder what chance small nations like Lesotho or Swaziland have in a globalised free trade market. Only strong regional cooperation will give them a chance of survival. This round on liberalisation of trade takes place at a time when the gap between developed and less-developed countries is continuing to grow. In fact, for large numbers of people in the least-developed countries, there are no benefits. The agenda of the Millennium Round comprises only agriculture and services, but the Commission rightly wants a much more comprehensive round. As far as agriculture is concerned, the EU will be unable to avoid further concessions in market access. The EU cannot pay compensation to its agricultural producers and at the same time block market access for third countries. But, in return, the developing countries must improve their core environmental standards and accept that this is not yet another form of protectionism. The Development Committee wants to see WTO rules that do not hamper eco-labelling schemes and green public purchasing. It also calls for a joint standing working party on trade, globalisation and labour issues to be set up by the ILO and the WTO. It calls for an in-depth revision of the TRIPS Agreement and stresses that the patenting of life must definitely be excluded from the TRIPS Agreement. It wants to see animal welfare included in discussions. The EU must not be bullied by the USA into accepting an agreement that is detrimental to the developing world. US domination of the WTO must end.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me thank Mr Laschet, the rapporteur, for his excellent report, which should receive the support of the vast majority of people in plenary today. Many speakers have emphasised how important it is that the global community should take joint action, failing which many problems will remain insuperable. I would like to remind you of the importance of environmental pollution and the fight to eradicate poverty in particular. These are subjects that can only be tackled together, and Amendment No 7, which has been submitted by the Group of the European People’s Party and the Group of the , stresses the importance of the water supply. I would, however, like to mention one subject that has not, so far, been discussed in very great detail, and one to which I urge Commissioner Patten to give his particular attention. This subject is a common approach to human rights in the field of modern medicine and biotechnology. A few months ago, Parliament approved a very good report produced by Robert Evans of the Socialist Group, on combating illegal trade in human organs. Yet when we look at developing countries and newly industrialising countries, there is a great deal to be done in this area, and I think this is another task on which the EU and the UN must cooperate. What is more, Parliament has often underlined its opposition to human cloning and its desire that the UN should intervene in this area too. We are following the debate in the UN Committees with great interest – and let me emphasise once again, Commissioner Patten, that the European Parliament supports the Costa Rican initiative, which also has the backing of over 60 other members of the UN. This is expressly stated once again in Amendment No 8. While Kofi Annan is with us, I think we should reiterate the importance of this new task for the UN, for new developments demand new responses.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Europe which is being born at the moment brings to a definitive close the unhappy season of great dictatorships which bloodied our continent during the last century. The new Europe is not an enlarged Europe though; instead it is a reunited Europe. At last, countries and peoples who have had to endure a communist dictatorship are joining a broad area of peace and freedom. I would like to welcome my fellow Members from Eastern European countries. But we cannot conceive of a federation of nation-states which lacks a fundamental law governing the relationship between the institutions and the citizens: this is why it is important for us to sign as soon as possible a Constitution based on the principles of freedom, subsidiarity, centrality of people and which promotes a social market economy. Nevertheless, Europe cannot renounce its Judaeo-Christian roots: they are the bridge which unites East and West, they are the true element which unites half a billion people; they guarantee the secular nature of the institutions, and at this point we should remember the evangelical precept: ‘render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's'. We are calling for a reference to these roots to be included in the preamble to our Constitution, as it is on the flag: indeed, you know that the 12 stars represent the 12 tribes of Israel, crowning Mary’s head. Why not follow the example of the text of the Polish Constitution – as often urged by the Group of the European People’s Party during the Convention debate – where there is an explicit reference to the word ‘God’? This is an example which our friends, who from now on will sit in Parliament, can give us, an example which we are sure that the whole of Europe should follow.

Political group: PPE-DE
While agreeing with some of the concrete concerns expressed in the report about, in particular, women’s rights, and while approving some amendments which point the way to progress, we do not intend to support the European Union’s claim that ‘respect for, and promotion of, human rights and fundamental freedoms... constitute fundamental objectives of EU foreign policy’. Within the European Union, one of the fundamental rights of man, the right to make an adequate living from his labour, is being trampled underfoot for nearly 20 million men and women. A fairly substantial proportion of immigrant workers, those regarded as not having the proper papers, is being deprived of any legal existence. All the while, outside the European Union, several of its Member States, among the most powerful of them, are supporting, arming and financing vile dictatorships, especially in their former colonial empire. And what about that manifestation of respect for human rights that took the form, for several weeks, of bombing Kosovo and Serbia? Under these circumstances, we are abstaining from the vote on this report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The sinking of the Prestige, which caused a large-scale environmental and economic disaster, is a cruel reminder of how crucial it is to attach the utmost priority to maritime safety at both European and world level. We must rapidly adopt an entire range of measures designed to prevent future accidents similar to that of the Prestige. Heading the list of these measures are implementing the Community and international legislation in force and monitoring compliance with these regulations. The measures set out in the two Erika packages must be implemented without delay. These agreements, which have already been concluded, can be built on and they will be built on more effectively if those working in the fishing and fish farming industries are involved in the negotiations. This disaster is not, therefore, as some would have us believe, ‘just’ a Spanish matter. I believe it is crucial to set up a temporary committee. This is indeed crucial if we are to prevent similar disasters from occurring again, to find out the causes and the consequences of what has happened as objectively as possible: what is at stake is Parliament’s credibility and the dynamic role that Europe must play in the field of maritime safety.

Political group: PSE
I voted against the motion for a resolution because the reference in Article 1 to ‘re-certified aircraft with low by-pass ratios’ would effectively put an end to a project to re-engine aircraft in an unemployment blackspot of West Wales which could potentially create 400 jobs. This is because the engines which the company concerned plans to use have a by-pass ratio of less than three and so would be excluded from EU airspace under the Regulation as it stands. Article 2(2) excludes from the scope of the Regulation only aircraft which have been completely re-engined ‘with engines having a by-pass ratio of three or more’. This is in spite of the fact that the engines in question would easily meet all noise and emissions standards. Aircraft noise is not determined by engine by-pass ratio alone, and I believe that aircraft noise should be measured by the actual noise made during take-off, fly-past and landing as is the case under the Chicago Convention.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the current situation is clearly unlawful. There is no legal basis for giving the US authorities direct, unfiltered access to the personal data of European passengers and it is contrary to Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights; it is contrary to the Community provisions on the protection of personal data; it is contrary to the Community Computer Reservations Systems Regulation. Part of the responsibility for this unlawful situation lies with the European Commission, for the US legislation requiring the disclosure of this information dates back to November 2001 and was updated in May 2002, while the system did not enter into force until March 2003. In the meantime, the Commission failed to inform Parliament of any of this and negotiated at senior-official level with the United States to achieve the joint statement of 18 February 2003 which, in practice, allowed the US authorities indiscriminate access to the personal data of European citizens collected by airlines for completely different purposes, even suggesting that national control authorities should not take action against airlines complying with the United States’ requests. Only the firm reaction of the European Parliament and said control authorities induced the Commission, at last, to acknowledge that the conditions of adequate protection required by Article 25 of the directive were not being met as regards the transmission of data collected in the Union. I would, however, point out that, in the case of Italy, the ban by the control authority on access to data collected by the company, Alitalia, has not met with negative reactions or sanctions from the United States authorities. The Commission must, therefore, make more vigorous endeavours to achieve a genuine international agreement with the United States as soon as possible which regulates the matter on the basis of fundamental principles: respect for the principle of reciprocity, on the basis of which, if the Union gives US citizens the same rights as its own citizens, then the United States must do the same for European citizens; respect for the principle of proportionality; respect for the principle of informed consent and the right of the person concerned to appeal to an independent authority or judge. In the meantime, pending the achievement of a satisfactory agreement, a situation of legality must be restored and access to data which violates Community law must be banned. In future, then, a centralised system will have to be established at European level for the electronic collection of data relating to flight reservations, containing adequate filters which ensure that only data which may be lawfully disclosed is transmitted to third parties, with due regard for the fundamental rights of the European citizens which we, Parliament and the Commission, are under obligation to protect, not least against terrorism.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, my group would also like to congratulate Mr Andersson for his work on this excellent own-initiative report: it has been a very good evening for those. As has already been said, we should not underestimate the effect that harassment in all its forms has on people's lives and health and the long-term mental and psychological problems we have heard about. If we are looking at figures, then if we were to take this Parliament as an example, we would be looking at a group roughly the size of the Liberal Democrat group as the percentage of those suffering harassment. Up to now, very little has really been done to address the problem of harassment generally, so this report is especially welcome as it allows an open debate on an issue that has all too often been ignored. A French survey also reveals that 70% of harassment of victims are women and this applies at all points of the employment process, so not only do you get paid less, you get harassed as well, and chauvinist and sexist connotations, which are more often targeted at women than at men, can frequently turn into something more serious. Therefore the Commission should give particular attention to ways of tackling this unacceptable situation for women in Europe. Mr Andersson is right, employers must have the responsibility for preventing harassment in the workplace, not colluding with it, or practising it. However the framework directive on health and safety at work does not clarify whether employers are responsible for the mental, psycho-social or social working environment, so I believe steps should be taken to revise the directive to include this definition.

Political group: Verts-ALE