GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, much has been said during this debate and it is obviously difficult at this point to add anything new. I will therefore insist on the aspects which the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party considers to be most important in this preparation for the Spring Summit. Firstly, on assessing the results so far since Lisbon, we observe that, rather than making progress – at least in relative terms – we have moved backwards. If we compare the levels of productivity in the European Union and in the United States we see that the European Union comes out worse. We believe that this is because we have not been able to make sufficient progress on a framework favourable to business initiative for investment. This is because, despite the declarations made at the successive Councils in Lisbon, Gothenburg and Barcelona, there has not been adequate action on the part of the Member States, which have committed themselves to making a series of reforms, of which the really important ones are reforms to make the labour market more flexible, to promote an environment more favourable for the creation of companies, at a time when growth forecasts within the European Union are low. Small and medium-sized enterprises are key, but it has been demonstrated that the bureaucratic obstacles to creating a new business are infinitely greater in the European Union than in the United States. This is not a favourable environment either for the creation of companies or for small and medium-sized businesses or, above all, for those companies which are taking a new direction by applying new technologies. Therefore, the twin objective of creating companies and applying and developing new technologies has also been significantly delayed and clearly, despite the successive commitments and solemn declarations, which were repeated in Barcelona, on the process of liberalisation of sectors which are still protected, in energy and telecommunications we see once again that they have not been fulfilled. I therefore hope that rather than making great declarations, the Brussels Summit will fulfil its commitments.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the Member States really do seem to have forgotten that enlargement is a continuation of the historic project which began with the fall of the Berlin Wall. I share the Commissioner's view, and above all his concern, that it is apparently the Member States' failure to recognise their responsibility which is causing the project to founder. Have the Member States only just realised that these problems in agriculture would arise, and that a solution must be found, first and foremost, by the European Union? Do you really not realise that delays in the timetable are grist to the mill of nationalist forces and actually encourage their emergence in these countries? I therefore call on all the democratic movements here in this House, in the Member States and in the candidate countries to ensure that this major and historic project, which so many people in Europe have worked so hard to achieve, does not fall into the hands of election propagandists. I have just had an opportunity to see for myself how difficult it was to fulfil the Copenhagen criteria item by item in Latvia. For historical reasons and due to the great efforts made by Latvia, it would be impossible to explain to the local population that Member States are not prepared to do their homework here. It is clear that the obvious deficiencies in European agricultural policy cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely without a reform. It is also clear that Europe needs a constitution. It is essential that this takes place in parallel to, and does not delay, accession. After all, it was the prospect of enlargement and accession to the European Union which gave the crucial impetus to the reform movements in Europe and encouraged them to embark on a course towards a democratic Europe. Let me cite Latvia as an example. Although the majority of its political elite opposed this move, Latvia has amended one of its electoral laws and granted the Russian-speaking community an unlimited right to stand for election. This is accepted as a matter of course in our own countries. Yet in Latvia, this was a highly sensitive issue, just as agricultural policy is for us. So if Latvia can do it, why can not we? This comparison may not seem relevant to you, but it is relevant in terms of the candidate countries' expectations. What we expect from them are the qualities which we ourselves should be displaying, namely a willingness to move towards integration, and an enthusiasm for reform. Without constitutional reform and financial solidarity, Europe cannot progress. The tasks to be resolved must be resolved here. We cannot point the finger at the enlargement countries and tell them that they should be doing this and that if we cannot manage to do the same things ourselves. I would certainly recommend that Latvia's accession be planned for the end of 2002, for I am convinced that this country can resolve its remaining problems. The European Commission must also continue with the process of decentralisation and pursue policies which are close to citizens in order to shape this process successfully.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, rarely has there been so much insight and common sense in evidence on all sides of this House, as is proving to be the case during this debate today. That is no doubt due to the issue we are dealing with, the urgent nature and significance of which everyone deems equally important. We want to prepare ourselves well for the European Year of Languages. Indeed that is why all three institutions have been making overtures to each other and sparing themselves long-winded negotiations. I would expressly like to thank Mr Graça Moura for the work he has done. It has been such an outstanding effort that all the coordinators in the committee simply had to give him their backing. I have to admit that his charm must have had a lot to do with this, as well as his expertise of course! What are we aiming to achieve with this action, which we are supporting so vigorously? We want to make our fellow citizens receptive to the advantages that mastering several languages brings. The different languages are part of cultural diversity, and understanding other languages is a particularly effective way of tapping into the riches of our cultural heritage. It is simply wonderful to be able to read and understand a poem by Verlaine in French, or one by Heine in German, or by Vasco Graça Moura in Portuguese. But even at a mundane everyday level, one cannot get far without a knowledge of other languages. Indeed, only those who speak several languages can gain full access to the internal market. As the Socrates rapporteur, I am very much in favour of placing special emphasis on the importance of learning the language spoken by one’s European neighbours, and of launching pilot projects on this very issue, in the course of the Year of Languages. Of course we all hope that the measures planned for this Year of Languages are not one-day wonders, rather they should extend well beyond the year itself. I hope the Year of Languages will bring the success we all need. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
The increasing attention paid to road safety represents added value for Portuguese interests. In fact, the adoption of this report will enable many problems experienced on Portuguese roads, and in particular on some roads in the Algarve, to be solved. Creating a European Road Safety Agency, as proposed in this report, seems, in my opinion, to be of enormous importance, particularly to ‘speeding up developments in road safety and providing access to road safety data and best practice information across the EU.’ Furthermore, I think that the European Transport Fund, another of the measures proposed, is an important pillar for the proper development of infrastructures for roads, railways, maritime routes, river and sea ports and airports, in the aim of creating a European network of balanced and sustainable infrastructures. For all of these reasons I am persuaded to vote in favour on this matter. This report is based on a premise that is good for my country, since it seeks to launch new initiatives to improve access in the outermost regions.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for her work on this. A number of the national action plans were criticised for not taking on board the particular position of women, as Mrs Swiebel has been pointing out, in terms of social exclusion. While I would agree with Mr Pronk that a lot of this is about money, it is also about other interlinking factors like a lack of real equality of opportunity. When you consider that at the moment in the UK there are women graduates likely to earn less than male graduates with similar degrees at the start of their careers, then there is a problem. The situation is even worse if you are male graduate of Bangladeshi or Pakistani background; your employment chances are as good as those of a young white man with no qualifications whatsoever. So there is a whole series of policies here which have to interlink to deal with issues about social inclusion. Of course, we also know that women are more likely to have career breaks, to work part-time, to work on short-term contracts and they are still less likely to hold elected office. These factors help to explain why my group will not be supporting amendments which seek to remove the commitment to equal treatment for those in precarious or atypical employment. Equally, we are not supporting the amendments which seek to delete mention of factors of economic and monetary policy, which we believe have a significant impact on social circumstances. My group sees the value of social security, not just to assist the sustainability of income, but as a measure of social inclusion as well. We also believe that the participation of those experiencing social exclusion and working to relieve it is essential in coming to conclusions and solutions. Social inclusion involves having a voice in the decisions that affect you and we will therefore not be supporting Amendment No 7 either.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, my group will be voting in favour of this proposal because, to take up Mr Wurtz’s arguments, this is not just a French issue, but a European issue, both because of the size of the Danone Group and because of the potential repercussions of the measures proposed in various countries. Furthermore, because the European Company Statute has been approved by the Treaty of Nice, we feel that this is an extremely topical issue and one that also needs to be addressed by the Swedish Presidency. Bearing in mind the fact that my group has also brought up the situation of other multinational companies that operate across Europe or even worldwide in the car and steel manufacturing sectors, we feel that this issue should be given substantial consideration in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. Maybe this could replace another item, because the issue is serious enough to warrant a more in-depth and detailed study.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we certainly support those aspects of the report that censure the system, and for that reason we will be voting for the report, despite the impotence that it expresses. What sort of a society is it in which nearly a third of humankind does not even have access to that most basic commodity, drinking water? Millions of people in poor countries die every year if not of thirst then at least from the many diseases spread by contaminated water. Is it because there are insurmountable technical obstacles to providing all the inhabitants of our planet with drinking water? No. Everyone knows that it is quite simply about money. Everyone also knows that twenty-first century society has accumulated more than enough material and financial resources to provide this. But water itself and its distribution have become a colossal source of profits for the multinational conglomerates. These conglomerates – Vivendi, the former Société Générale des Eaux, Suez, Bouygues – are free to raise water prices while international institutions vote through resolutions and prepare the ground for them by systematically dismantling public water services in poor countries. Their profit is dirty money, contaminated by the blood of the millions of people who die of dysentery, cholera, typhus, malaria and bilharzia. In 10 years, the number of human beings without drinking water has risen from 1.2 billion to 1.7 billion. This is a crime against humanity and speaks volumes about the deadly harm inflicted by the current organisation of the economy, which plunges a part of humanity into barbarism.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, there is much in this resolution on Turkey's progress towards accession which is commendable – in particular the call to the Commission to implement a properly resourced pre-accession strategy. But where is the real welcome for the Helsinki decision to accord Turkey candidate status? Where is the recognition in the resolution of the remarkable efforts, and I quote here from the explanatory statement that accompanied the resolution, 'the remarkable efforts that Turkey is making to adapt its structures to EU requirements'? In fact what a pity that Turkey was not discussed during the wider enlargement debate in the context of the other candidate countries. Of course peoples of Kurdish origins as well as other cultural and linguistic minorities must not be subjected to political, economic or other discrimination and must have the opportunity to express themselves freely, but this expression should be through entirely peaceful means and without intimidation and terrorism. We should remember that the removal of Turkey from the western orbit was a prime objective of Soviet policy throughout the Cold War period and that the PKK was supported as an instrument of this policy. Where is the demand in this resolution that the representatives of minorities should renounce violence? Civil peace is a prerequisite for investment and economic progress. Terrorism has been a barrier to such progress. We should also be clear that the resolution of extraordinarily difficult problems such as Cyprus, which requires the assent of all the people of Cyprus, will not be helped by frustrating Turkish progress towards accession. After all Turkey, along with Greece and the United Kingdom, is one of the guarantor powers in relation to Cyprus. I detect increasing nervousness in this Parliament about the potential impact of the accession of Turkey on the Union. I might say there is increasing nervousness among the citizens of many of the current Member States about the pace and intensity of political integration within the EU and the leftist thread which runs through the fabric of this development and is increasingly visible. How much more desirable and acceptable would be the goal of a looser community of nation-states trading freely and acting in unison over a limited range of policy areas and how much easier it would then be to accommodate a country such as Turkey.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I wanted to give an explanation of vote stating that I had abstained on much of the Maaten report. Not because I do not share its health policy objectives, but because I really cannot understand why the Commission and this House wish to pass such detailed regulations at European level, since all they do is destroy our credibility. When we start regulating the size, colour and position of notices and pictures on cigarette packets, then we are no longer the Europe in which I believe. I disagree with Newton Dunn; it is not a question of double standards. But we are responsible for the health of our citizens and we must decide on rules here. Other regions must decide on their own regulations. We cannot have rules which damage exports, with the result that others will then export to these regions. I hope that we can reach agreements with the Council and the Commission here which contain clear, unequivocal health regulations, but not the sort of details which, in all conscience, we cannot decide in this House.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Regulation 1408/71 has been around for more than three decades and was created in order to coordinate Member State legislation in the field of social security. Its main aim is to ensure that workers moving within European Union territory do not suffer disadvantages in their social security rights. Over the years, various amendments have been made to this regulation that have made it extremely complex and some very positive developments have taken place in the social security systems of the various Member States, including my own. These facts demonstrate the urgent need for this regulation to be reformed. The Commission’s proposal, which is to be welcomed, clearly sets out the aim to be attained: to coordinate social security systems with the prospect of enlargement in mind. This involves coordination and not harmonisation. The intention is to modernise and simplify the regulation and, in this context, a significant step forwards has been taken in various areas, in particular with regard to the rights of the unemployed, pensioners and frontier workers and their families. The list of types of social security covered by coordination has also been extended and measures are set out for solving the problem of double taxation. The rapporteur has really shown great commitment to the work on reforming this regulation and I congratulate her on this. I must state, however, that some of the proposals she has put forward raise difficulties, which meant that the PPE members of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs had to vote against the report. I shall confine myself to discussing one of them, which concerns the definition of the family: Each Member State recognises a particular concept of the family in accordance with its national legal system. It would not, therefore, be legitimate to impose any type of family model on the Member States.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, the word ‘historic’ has been used a very great deal in connection with the write-ups from Copenhagen. It is beginning to feel rather trite, but there is no better word, for the fact that ten countries that are former Communist dictatorships are now being welcomed in from the cold and into the Community is certainly an historic decision. At last, the continent and its citizens are being united. The fact that the door was so clearly opened to Bulgaria and Romania was also historic, as was the signal given to Turkey. The EU is no Christian club. It is a union of values that defends democracy and human rights. Certainly, all summits are teamwork, but there are appalling examples of teamwork’s having capsized and of people almost having come to blows. When this has happened, it has been felt far beyond the closed negotiating chambers. There was undoubtedly a certain amount of drama in Copenhagen, but matters should never of course be too pre-arranged from the start. In spite of this, and above all in spite of the concessions within agricultural policy, the Liberals hope that the reforms are here to stay. The will was there. Everyone was prepared to compromise, but it is the Danes who must be credited with the outcome. Your objective, from Copenhagen to Copenhagen, has been crystal-clear all down the line. Despite the hesitancy on the part of certain people, you yourselves did not hesitate, Mr Rasmussen and Mr Haarder, but always sounded a clear note. While others demurred, like Hamlet whingeingly soliloquising ‘to be or not to be’ at Elsinore, you had the path clearly marked out. Your efforts will go down in history. As a liberal, I am very proud that it is a liberal government that has brought about these events. Political victories can only be enjoyed for short periods, however. After Christmas, the work now begins again. The EU is to be reformed. Powerful leadership is needed, as well as the political courage to dare to implement a number of the institutional reforms required. The EU must become more effective, and that requires more majority decision-taking, especially within agricultural policy. The EU must become more democratic. A common constitution, common visions and common leadership are needed. Referendums must be held. We must all show that the new countries are welcome. They will be no B team but, rather, be as welcome as we ourselves are. There is therefore a heavy responsibility upon us all, including the Greek Presidency. Finally, we must also tackle the issue of how large the EU really can become. We eagerly await the Commission’s report on the strategy in relation to the countries that in future will border upon the EU.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Mrs Schreyer, ladies and gentlemen, EUR 32 million are needed. Who can help? Mr Mulder is willing, who else? The Commission or the Council perhaps? Every year we go through the rigmarole of the budget procedure again and unfortunately not everyone’s wishes can be met. As rapporteur for the Committee on Fisheries, I naturally also regret that our wishes do not necessarily have top priority. The 2004 budget procedure is, however, unusual in two respects. Firstly, it is the first one to be drawn up using activity-based budgeting; this is an improvement that I very much welcome, since it gives us a clear overview without having to spend a lot of time leafing through the budget lines, especially in the area of fisheries. Secondly, we are faced with the unusual situation that from 1 January 2004 until 30 April 2004 the budget will apply to the present 15 Member States, but from 1 May 2004, the date of accession of ten new countries, it will apply to 25 Member States. We are enlarging and have still not done our homework. The situation is alarming. In the light of the catastrophic state of fish stocks, last December the Council agreed, after much dragging of feet, to the reform of the common fisheries policy, not least because of clear promptings from Parliament. One of the most important features of this was the creation of a ‘scrapping fund’, which was to start before the end of this year. So far, however, the Council has not given the green light for the use of the flexibility instrument. That is hard to understand. I therefore call urgently for this point to be raised in the conciliation procedure beginning on 16 July, so that we can at least learn what position the Council takes on financing reform of the common fisheries policy. I am by no means releasing the Member States from their responsibility. But we cannot allow the Council to use the Member States’ unwillingness to provide the relevant information as an excuse for blocking one of the main purposes of the reform. Please give us your support.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, these are oral questions. We still have 10 minutes left. The first question is my question. These are not second class questions, nor is there any such practice. It is that usually we run out of time and, in this sense, I should like to put my question, hear the Commission's answer and proceed to the secondary question to which I am entitled under the Rules of Procedure.

Political group: GUE-NGL