GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, we need to get one thing straight here. This hypothesis, that the Community is breaking Treaty law is simply nonsense. Treaty law makes provision for adjustment and this proposal adjusts just one point of the law. So it is not a question of breaking Treaty law. The non-attached member is moaning that we are not treating the environment properly and is calling for environmental protection. Well my question to my fellow Austrian member is this: when will you stump up the money for the Brenner base tunnel? Then you would be doing something for environmental protection. We are, in fact, taking far too long about implementing the Brenner base tunnel. That is the only real solution to the problem of transit traffic in the Alps. Instead of bandying fine words, Madam, you would do well to push ahead with plans for the base tunnel and stump up the money. That would be your job in a government in which you are represented. We do not need vox pops! Mr Stockmann made a great number of valid points, namely that the main objective, to reduce NOx emissions, has in fact almost been achieved and that the 108% clause is disproportionate and inaccurate. Mr Stockmann, vote with us tomorrow in favour of the Commission proposal and you will achieve exactly what you want to achieve. I can understand that you do not want to stab your Austrian rapporteur in the back, but consider carefully how you intend to vote tomorrow. Vote in favour of the Commission proposal. Just two more brief comments. If we maintain this clause, there will be no change in real freight volumes; instead the transit journeys which are no longer possible will be replaced by a journey using one haulier into Austria, transhipment and a journey using another haulier out of Austria. In other words, transit would be split, we would have more exhaust emissions and more costs to consumers. That is not the solution. The solution is to build the Brenner base tunnel so that we can shift freight from the roads to the railways in the long term. That is what we should be fighting for.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, this is not the first time that the House has concluded that the situation in the Middle East is critical. It is critical both for the Middle East itself and for the European Union because, apart from all the important issues which the peace process encompasses, it represents a new challenge for the common European foreign policy. In other words, the European Union must play a more active, more systematic and more intensive role in projects in the region and, of course, in the peace process. There are precedents for this. Let us not forget that the highly important UN Resolution 242 was devised mainly by Europe. So, to pick up on something very important which Mr Patten said, peace is not enough, we also need to monitor what happens, to see what the scenario is once an agreement has been reached, I think that the European Union should review its presence and involvement in the region. Thus, as well as the special envoy, I think that the time has come for the European Union to set up a task force consisting of representatives from the Commission, the Council and, yes why not, the European Parliament – after all we have two eminent parliamentary representatives from countries in the region here today – to work out detailed proposals and positions on specific issues being addressed during the current peace process and on any issues which we need to bear in mind in the period following the agreement. IN THE CHAIR: MR DAVID MARTINVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, the free movement of workers – a cornerstone of the Treaties of Rome, and the most important of the four fundamental freedoms in our internal market – can only operate effectively if the employment services also do not end at national borders. This is the role of EURES, a network which is intended to provide information, advice and employment services across national borders. We agree with all the key points contained in Mr Ribeiro e Castro's report. I should also like to take this opportunity to thank the rapporteur for his competent work. In particular, we share his critical views – which he has just repeated during this debate – under Recital A, which sets out a clear set of conditions for the Commission as regards the provision of objective reasons and statistical information. This will also make our job easier. However, the report – like so many others – succumbs to a common temptation: it adds a lengthy list of new demands for future improvements to those already put forward by the Commission. In my view, the repetition of what is self-evident, and this House's often over-zealous efforts to list every conceivable demand, simply detract from the impact of a report and the credibility of our joint endeavours. I often have the impression that if the Commission puts forward five demands, for example, this House feels compelled to add at least another five. I cannot support this approach. What is important is not the number of demands we put forward in a specific case but their practical implementation. I think it is excessive, for example, to devise and implement permanent information systems, in particular within youth organisations, universities and the media, as demanded in Article 15 of the report. I think this is something which we can safely leave to the EURES units at local level, in line with the principle of subsidiarity. I also have great reservations about the creation of additional operational units, as set forth in Article 16, because they lack substance and are often used as a fig leaf in order to conceal the failures of existing bodies. The growing importance of EURES' role in the light of the forthcoming EU enlargement must be clearly underlined, as in this report. Sound career advice and employment services can undoubtedly help to channel potential widespread interest in migration. Nonetheless, the goal of further integration of the labour market within the Fifteen must not slip into the background. What is absolutely essential is the restructuring of EURES' finances and the reform of its legal basis, as demanded in Article 27. This is borne out by the problems at local level and the enquiries directed to us as parliamentarians. As the representation of citizens at local level, Parliament must be given a key role in this area.

Political group: PPE-DE
I wish to congratulate Mr Pirker on the excellent report he has produced on the communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament entitled ‘Towards integrated management of the external borders of the Member States of the European Union’ which I fully support, in particular with regard to the aptness of creating a European Corps of Border Guards. Whilst not replacing the national authorities responsible for managing their external borders, this would enable them to work together to ensure the internal security of the Union and the implementation of the principle of freedom of movement. I would also stress my conviction that the efficiency of border management will probably be improved by the adoption of common measures in the field of external border management.

Political group: PPE-DE
I congratulate my Socialist colleague, Mrs Karamanou, on her report on combating the sexual exploitation of children. Europe must introduce stronger measures to tackle this disturbing subject and ensure that offenders are punished in a similar way across the European Union. We have all heard of awful and tragic cases of child pornography and child exploitation across Europe. We must seek to ensure that history is not repeated. Our children must never again suffer such terrible afflictions and we must do all we can to prevent this. Cooperation should be increased between Member States in the European Union through common penalties for offenders and police services working together across the Member States. Tougher penalties must be dealt out to those participating in the sexual exploitation of children and offenders must not be allowed to get away scot free. Hard measures should be taken against those guilty of exploiting children, as well as those who gain financially or are members of a criminal organisation. Parents who have agreed for a child to engage in prostitution or pornography should also be regarded as criminal offenders. I fully agree with Mrs Karamanou that victims and witnesses should be given better protection and assistance. Financial compensation for rehabilitation is important, but we should remember that you can never buy back innocence. Our children are our most vulnerable citizens and we should make every effort possible to protect them.

Political group: PSE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. – Mr President, I speak on behalf of the author of the committee's opinion, Michael Cashman, who cannot be here today. Mr Cashman welcomed, in his opinion, the proposal for a regulation on the application of the Århus Convention to EC bodies and institutions as a concrete step to align the EC legislation with the requirements of the Convention. Although the committee's opinion approves most parts of the Commission text, there was some need to improve it. As the rapporteur on the proposal for a regulation regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, Mr Cashman insisted that this regulation must be in line with the letter and spirit of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 on public access to documents, where, after negotiations, a sensible balance was agreed between, on the one hand, the citizen's right to openness and transparency and, on the other, the need to protect certain interests and to preserve the effectiveness of the institutions' working methods. The opinion suggests, for example, a deletion – in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – on exceptions where public authorities would not be covered when acting in a legislative capacity. The opinion suggests that the operative text of the Commission proposal should clarify that all exceptions under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 shall apply to requests for information. Finally, a general concern of the committee's opinion is about the deadlines proposed by the Commission. Particularly when it comes to access to justice, Community institutions and bodies should be obliged to act within reasonable deadlines and to increase the duty of public awareness-raising in order to achieve meaningful consultation. Clearly, Mr Cashman would have wanted to add his own opinion but could not be here today. I hope I have set out the main points that he would have proposed in the debate.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to warmly congratulate all who have been involved in the hard work of bringing these reports to a coherent, positive and even strong conclusion. I particularly welcome the demands that nuclear decommissioning funds be fully subject to EU competition law. The management of nuclear decommissioning funds should never have been used or misused by the utilities as a form of state aid and as an excuse for going on a buying spree across Europe for other utilities. We risked this acceleration and creation of cartels. Therefore, I welcome the Commission's assurances here today. Neither the Commission nor the Council has covered itself in glory in the past on this issue but we have a more consistent approach now. In particular, although many Member States ring-fence these funds, France and Germany are allowed to set aside the funds for waste management and use them for acquisitions. This amounts to a clear misuse and even corruption with regard to them, and I welcome the fact that competition law will now apply. It would otherwise have had a very distorting effect on the energy market across Europe. How can we have a free market when there are three companies with EUR 10 billion or more at their disposal to buy up other companies? I am glad that logic has obtained and that these funds will be subject to competition law. I also very much welcome the inclusion of sustainability objectives and the equal status given to sustainability together with competition and with security of supply. In particular, renewable energies need to be promoted throughout Europe. For too long they have been the poor relation, particularly to the vast funds that the nuclear lobby has been able to access by fair means or foul, as I have already outlined. I hope that more funds will be available for renewables in the future.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, spectrum auctions are pushing up profits in Member States in a manner never before seen. At the same time the reconstruction of Kosovo, after the illegal war there, is being financed at the expense of other countries receiving aid, in a way that is improper and dishonest. Our group supports the former position expressed by Parliament, according to which the Council must agree to amend the financial perspectives, particularly with regard to Category 4. Waging wars and rebuilding countries must not be allowed to happen at the expense of former preferences in the budget. We also support the committee’s position according to which expenditure set aside for a common foreign and security policy is operational expenditure, which must remain the budgetary responsibility of the Commission. That will clarify the context in which discharge is granted. Furthermore, the granting of discharge must also concern a common foreign and security policy. However, we will not support the Council and Commission line wherein the main political focus will not shift at all towards the prevention of unemployment.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, with reference to Rule 2 of the Rules of Procedure of this House I want to draw attention to a statement made quite recently in the Scottish Parliament in which a Conservative Member of that Parliament said, in relation to the chairman of the European Parliament's Committee on Fisheries, that ‘it is incumbent upon him to represent the views of the UK Government in relation to the Constitution, and the fact that it might enshrine the common fisheries policy’. This was in relation to the draft Constitution and Mr Stevenson's rapporteurship of a report on the subject. Can you perhaps confirm, Mr President, that under Rule 2, no member may receive a binding mandate, and further that it is certainly not incumbent on the chairman of any Committee to receive a mandate from any government - be it Edinburgh, London, Madrid or wherever. Could you perhaps also confirm that Mr Stevenson is in fact free to stand up for Scotland if he wishes to.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the Commission has decided to haul France up before the Court of Justice because of its delays in liberalising the gas market, as laid down in the 1998 directive. Opening up the energy sector to competition is indeed vehemently opposed by the unions, which reject the idea that the right to energy should be regulated by the dictates of money. In 1997 and 1998, our group opposed this directive. Because we refused to accept the creation of a system based on competition, we proposed guaranteeing a fair supply at the best price, the fair treatment of users and a standardised system of charges. Energy is of strategic importance to the Member States’ economies and should not, therefore, be considered to be a commodity like any other. If we implement the directive suddenly, we risk putting all gas operations solely in the hands of huge multinational groups, and thereby seeing the conditions of public service deteriorate. Once again, it has to be said that the Commission appears to be in more of a hurry to see the principles of free competition applied than to worry about the fate of employees. Instead of contributing to speeding up the process of liberalisation and deregulation, should the Commission, when presented with any new proposal, not undertake a study of the consequences of plans for liberalisation on employment, on working conditions and regional planning? I therefore call on the Commission to renounce its dogmatic position and to withdraw its charges at the Court of Justice.

Political group: GUE-NGL
My position has been traduced. I am asking for experts to assess the implications. I am not saying that I am the expert. Can we please have a civil debate on Sellafield for once in this Parliament? Let us protect our people. That is the bottom line I am asking for.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam Chairman, I voted against the Howitt report and did so in line with the majority on the Industry Committee. We must strive for conditions which are wealth creators. Our companies, both big and small, can operate at their best. Corporate social responsibility is good for companies. Being a good corporate citizen will redound to their advantage, will show up on the bottom line. Therefore, it is in the corporate interest to be socially responsible, and any company which is not is heading for self-inflicted disaster. But a proper solution will differ – by size, by industry, by location, by financial condition, by many variable circumstances. That is why I find this report by Mr Howitt not just laughable in many of its absurd demands, but dangerous. Not only will its red tape and bureaucracy kill off the dynamism of our companies and wreck our SMEs with unnecessary costs, it will also eliminate any likelihood of us in Europe playing any part in realising the laudable aims of corporate social responsibility. The Commission's approach is correct. Mr Howitt's interventionist approach is wholly misguided. We must urge the Commission to stick to its well-considered way. This is why I voted against Mr Howitt's report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we are always so surprised when the balance of nature is upset. What I should like to ask is whether we could investigate why the balance has been upset under European research programmes?

Political group: PPE-DE
We have supported the rapporteur’s position, recommending the rejection of the three initiatives of the previous Danish Presidency on protecting the confidentiality of Europol information, on amending the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees and on amending the Europol Convention. The Danish positions would have prevented any democratic control by national parliaments, would have provided no prospect of keeping the citizens informed and would have consolidated the centralised approach to decision-making. The rapporteur himself explained in his report that the proposals ignored all requests and proposals tabled by Parliament in the aim of genuinely increasing its democratic control and powers over Europol. The proposals instead erred further on the side of secrecy. Furthermore, they failed to take account of the Commission proposal to create a joint EP-national parliaments committee, or even of the opinion of Europol’s Director advocating greater democratic control. We consequently support the rejection of these initiatives, although we do not support all the alternatives proposed by the European Parliament.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr Fiori’s report adopts positions on many difficult issues regarding human genetics, including the ethical principles which ought to apply in this area. As a Christian Democrat, I believe that we need ethical parameters in society, with the most fundamental aspect being respect for human dignity. However commendable the aim, it does not justify our using people as a means to an end. Cloning is, therefore, unjustified in any form, whether the chosen adjective is ‘therapeutic’ or ‘reproductive’. It is impossible to make such a distinction, as therapeutic cloning is nothing other than the initial stages of reproductive cloning, with, from the beginning, a stated intention to destroy the embryo which develops from the substitution of the cell nucleus. The embryo already contains everything needed for a human being. Up to birth and beyond, we do not develop into people, but as people. Research using embryonic stem cells is ethically highly controversial and is, moreover, banned in four Member States (Germany, Austria, Ireland and Portugal), but this is not the case where the use of adult stem cells is concerned. It is, therefore, my view that research using adult stem cells should be prioritised, while ethically highly controversial embryonic stem cell research should not be funded through the Framework Programme. Under the principle of subsidiarity, this does not prevent individual national governments from choosing to fund such research. The fact that the funds available within the Framework Programme are limited means that we must set priorities. As such, research which is so ethically controversial and which clearly breaches the law in many Member States should not be supported. I have therefore chosen to support the report as it was presented prior to the reading in plenary, in line with my vote in favour of Mr Caudron’s report on the sixth framework programme.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, a few days ago, 19 Chinese people lost their lives in Morecambe Bay in the north-west of England. They were cockle picking on the sands, the tide came in and they were all drowned. Would you agree with me that this tragedy, whilst clearly on British soil – or in British waters – is equally a European or international issue, and that we must work together to counter the international people-smuggling gangs that were exploiting these poor people who were being paid as little as one pound per day for their work? Furthermore, this case once again highlights the clear need to establish an effective and efficient common European system for asylum and the same for immigration, including legal migration, as a matter of urgency. It is clear that what is a United Kingdom tragedy one day could easily occur in another country's territory on another day. (Applause)

Political group: PSE