GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, as rapporteur for the rules governing Members of Parliament, I would like to make a couple of observations. In December 1998, the European Parliament adopted a statute with a qualified majority, a decision which was confirmed in May of this year by an overwhelming majority. We therefore have a statute, all that is now required is the approval of the Council. It is not enough that the Council submits an alternative draft. That is no solution. I would like to remind you that the European Commission has unequivocally approved the statute of the European Parliament. Permit me to make a few observations regarding the principles which will govern our actions. One thing is for sure; this statute will not be drawn up by the press, be it the Swedish press, the British press, the Dutch press or that of any other country. Not even the highly regarded French daily Libération will write this statute, nor shall we allow ourselves to be governed by a statute produced by civil servants. We are not children who can be taken to task; we shall not be harassed by civil servants. Therefore, I would recommend that the Finnish Presidency gently shelves the Council document. We will not place ourselves in the Babylonian Captivity of the Council. We will preserve the Parliament's autonomy and reject any type of guardianship over the Parliament. (Applause) We shall make constructive proposals to the Finnish Presidency. I look forward to initial talks taking place at the beginning of September. My request to the Finnish Presidency is that the talks, which will be necessary, be conducted at the highest possible political level. In this way, I believe the success we are after will be achieved as soon as possible. Mr President, we are pinning high hopes on the Finnish Presidency. We are also pinning our hopes on the Finnish Presidency as far as the European Parliament's involvement in drawing up the catalogue of fundamental rights is concerned. The Council cannot seriously be considering the option that only two members of Parliament collaborate on this catalogue of fundamental rights. Without a minimum of 15 delegates, an imbalance will exist between the European Parliament and the national Members of Parliament, where such a balance is required. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as others have also said, this is an incredibly important report. The nightmare scenario for the future is that society will be divided into two groups: the initiated, who know everything and are plugged into the knowledge society, and those who have been left behind and will therefore be marginalised in society. Nor is there any doubt that this is a European issue, which is why I also sincerely support what the rapporteur has said about open coordination being the best method of achieving progress in this area. The only way is to make it genuinely very embarrassing for the Member States if they do not do something in this area, and for the status of their efforts to be made as public as possible. We must proceed with the proposal on lifelong learning as quickly as possible, and I naturally hope that the Commission will include the views adopted by Parliament today in the proposal on lifelong learning, for that is where they in fact belong. I also think that we must endeavour to get some new thinking into this area. We must bear in mind that, if adults are to learn about a subject, going back to school is not an option. Instead, they have to learn in some other way. They have to learn in the context of the labour market; they have to have time off work to be able to go to classes; and they have to learn through the process of schools and teaching coming out to the workplace. I believe it is very important to establish the connection between work and learning so that we can continue with lifelong learning. The last thing I want to say concerns an idea for the Commissioner that could perhaps be taken further and might also put pressure on the Member States to demonstrate that they are doing something in this area. It is the possibility of introducing ‘knowledge accounts’ for the individual Member States through which the latter would simply report each year on how much they had done in the area of lifelong learning to combat illiteracy and promote knowledge and education in general. ‘Knowledge accounts’ are a good idea, Commissioner, which I hope you will consider.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too get the feeling that sustainability, in the context of preparations for this year's Spring Summit, is seen only as an appendix to general policy development. This is indeed regrettable, as – or so I believe –the future development of our society is to a very large degree dependent on how we manage to fashion the elements of our lives in an ecological way that will also be able to enable future generations to live decently. In so far as that is the case, we need to step up our efforts in the area of sustainable development; it is here that I address my remarks particularly to the Council, as we in this House, as well as the Commission, have specified in precise terms what shape sustainable development should take. President Prodi, when the Gothenburg Summit was in preparation, laid out before this Parliament very clear indicators and objectives for sustainable development, and these I can wholeheartedly endorse. What I believe hampers our discussion is the Council's failure to take these objectives on board, so that, whilst we are drawing up projected goals for many policy areas, sustainable development is not one of them. This means that it is not possible for us to impose any binding obligations, nor can we monitor what is done. I do not at this point want to draw up a long wish list, as one does at Christmas, but we have to focus our considerations on one or two core elements, and in that respect, strategy for dealing with climate change is certainly one important area, and transport another. What matters is that there should be binding targets, which the Member States have to achieve. I might add that this encourages renewed investment and creates jobs. Let me remind you only of the way in which the promotion of forms of energy such as wind energy has created tens of thousands of jobs in the European Union. What we need, then, is definite goals, goals that we must achieve, rather than only – as Winston Churchill put it – planning great things but taking small steps!

Political group: PSE
When he spoke about the Commission’s annual report on competition policy, the rapporteur pointed out that competition policy cannot be separated from social and environmental policy, as it must contribute to full employment, social and economic cohesion, and to protecting the environment and consumers. Nevertheless, when he spoke about a few instruments which are crucial to achieving the objectives that have been mentioned, the rapporteur did little more than criticise various aspects of state aid and demand the harmonisation of rules concerning the repayment of illegal state aid. This threatens the right of Member States with a weaker and structurally more vulnerable economy to support economic sectors which have suffered as a result of liberalisation and international competition. On the other hand, the rapporteur ignores the main causes of the distortion of the rules on competition, specifically the growing number of mergers and their consequences for that distortion. Another cause is the turning of public companies into private monopolies, with serious implications for society, specifically for employment and for the cost of public services. Another main cause of distortion to the rules of competition is the abuse of their dominant positions by various cartels which maintain unacceptable practices in social and environmental terms, including the sacking of thousands of workers. That is why we are voting against this report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam Palacio, I do not understand why you have let the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs accept this procedure. I do not understand why the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs is to deal with a list of names without knowing how this list has been drawn up and without knowing how it can be altered. If the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs had taken its tasks seriously, it would have refused to deal with such a matter until it knew how the list of names could be altered. To win the respect of the Commission, it is not enough simply to agree to work at the Commission’s pace. This is something that should have been rejected.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is in my capacity as chairman of the temporary committee on the Sterckx report, on which we have been working for half a year, that I ask you to vote on it in order to obviate the risk of it lapsing. I ask you to have due regard for the work that Members have been doing for half a year and to put the Sterckx report to the vote. (Applause) Report (A5-0257/2004) by Mr Sterckx, on behalf of the Temporary Committee on improving safety at sea, on improving safety at sea Before the vote on Amendment No 2:

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would at least like to compliment the Commissioner on providing such a clear commentary. I would mainly like to respond in my capacity as rapporteur for Budget 2001. My first question is as follows: what will the additional cost of these measures be in animal premiums, over a period of four to five years? According to provisional calculations, it will cost EUR 157 million this year and as much as EUR 1.75 billion over the years to come, and we are talking in terms of animal premiums. My second question is does BSE have anything to do with the size of the farm? I was under the impression that it did not, yet you have set a 90-animal limit per farm nonetheless. That seems to me to be in conflict with an effective programme for fighting BSE. Nor have I heard anything about a maximum premium per hectare, for the number of animals per hectare. Could you comment on that too? You are going to dispense with the 350 000 ceiling on beef taken into intervention, which is in itself a good decision. But could you comment on what the financial implications for the European Union are expected to be over the coming year?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Budgets, I would like to draw attention to the economic effects this legal decision will have. The European Union is granting different forms of economic aid to different countries. Macro-financial aid is one of the most important, in addition to which equivalent forms of aid can be given in the form of European Investment Bank guarantees and Euratom loans. There is, however, a ceiling to this provision of loans, which has been determined in interinstitutional agreements. That is a maximum annual figure of EUR 200 million from the Guarantee Fund. This causes problems for possible new loans from the European Union, because this ceiling is inflexible. The present loan and guarantee decisions might lead to a situation where this ceiling is easily exceeded, if something unexpected happens. I would therefore think that, from the point of view of the Committee on Budgets, it is important that the Commission should make a multiannual assessment of likely future fund requirements, which would serve as a general guide. The aim should be that Parliament and the Council agree on priorities concerning the use of left-over margins, and that a procedure should be agreed in order to make any changes to these principles. In the case of macro-financial aid, the Commission appears to have considerable faith in the ability of the international institutions – the IMF and the World Bank – to evaluate the economic situation in whatever countries are concerned. The role of these institutions is perhaps too important, and the Commission often automatically accepts conditions imposed by others on these loans. For this reason, I think that Mrs Matikainen-Kallström’s remarks and amendments are very important, as they take account of the fact that such areas as employment and social security should also be examined when determining how the money from loans should be spent.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, on behalf of the Group I should like to very much welcome Mr Wieland and congratulate him on all the work he has done over a long period. It has been a test of endurance and, as he says, it is a complex and technical report. He has struggled with it as a lawyer. I have to say that as an engineer I also found it difficult to work with. On reflection, bearing in mind this is a first reading, I would say to the Commission tonight that it still has a lot more work to do on this with the Council. In the light of the recent communication from Mr Prodi on simpler and better regulation, this is a candidate for the Commission to have a further look at. After all, we are looking for a regulation that will make the internal market work and, as colleagues said, will also ensure a consistently high level of safety standards for users of machinery and people who work with them. Having said that this is a technical directive, it is important that I say to the Commission tonight that there are some important political signals contained in the work of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. In particular, there is an issue that Mr Miller and I have worked on – I know he will refer to it in a moment – which is the treatment of particular categories of lifts for disabled people, in particular those installed in private dwellings. We were disturbed when we saw the draft to find that this directive discriminated against this important category of machinery. This type of machinery operates very satisfactorily. It significantly improves the quality of life for disabled people, because it is installed in their own homes. I have seen these installations. They are engineered to very high standards of safety. We need to make sure that they are allowed to continue. It is not the business of this directive to take satisfactory equipment off the market without any basis for doing so. So we ask the Commission to make sure that this machinery is properly included. Some work still needs to be done; there are still some aspects to be considered. In conclusion, I want to say that we must put the internal market aspect to the fore, in particular the primacy of the CE markings. This is still not fully satisfactory.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I believe that there are many of us who are deeply concerned about what is happening in Vietnam. The European Parliament too has expressed its concern on previous occasions. The tendency is to want to break people down and frighten them into silence. There are regular and constant violations of the conventions on freedom of expression, religion and association signed by Vietnam. The list of methods of oppression includes the draft law designed to abolish the right of small farmers to demonstrate peacefully in pursuit of their rights. It is particularly serious when the laws are exploited to oppress people. If Vietnam is to call itself a state governed by law, the laws must protect people’s right to express themselves and freely to practise their religion. Vietnam must also stop detaining and harassing dissidents and journalists, and its prisoners of conscience must be released. In this connection, I want especially to mention the UBCV. One of this organisation’s leaders, Quang Do, has also been nominated for the Nobel Prize in 2003. I genuinely wish to assent to this resolution.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I just want to ask Mr Kinnock, can we be sure that all these excellent reforms will also be implemented in this House? *** IN THE CHAIR: MR IMBENIVice-President

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Mr Harbour’s interpretation is correct. The text should in fact be translated in English as “without delay”. For the rest, I would ask for a vote in favour. The conciliation procedure is unavoidable. But I am highly confident that we will find a compromise on the basis of the Commission’s explanation yesterday. (The President declared the common position approved as amended) *** Recommendation for second reading (A5-0077/1999) by Mrs Hulthén, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the Council common position with a view to adopting a European Parliament and Council regulation on substances that deplete the ozone layer (5748/1999 – C5-0034/1999 – 1998/0228(COD)) ***

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the directive we are debating is very important; perhaps it is the directive of the parliamentary term. Because we are not just saying 'the polluter pays' and, consequently, whoever has to pay can pollute; we are saying that the polluter must pay the cost of restoring the damage which he has caused. Consequently, the directive may respond to our citizens' huge hopes for public health and the environment and we must not water it down. Various views were expressed during the debate. We have proven that we can find compromise solutions such as, for example, the gradual introduction of compulsory insurance so that the cost of the damage is never passed on to the taxpayer and the polluter can cover the damage under his insurance, or the compromise whereby the Member States must undertake to restore the damage if the polluter cannot or if the person responsible cannot be found. We have problems, however, to which it would appear that we cannot find compromise solutions: how can we talk of agricultural and forestry practices which somehow exonerate the use of chemical fertilisers, pesticides and weedkillers when we all know – from the Union's own statistics – the damage which they can cause to biodiversity, the ground and water? How can we somehow issue blank licences to polluters, accepting the complete exemption of those who hold licences or respect the current state of the art? We have to find ways here too and the relevant compromise proposals exist. If, however, we do not do something in this direction, industry will never be persuaded to abandon polluting processes. So things are still serious and I would say that we should also debate the other issues on which I heard the Commissioner being very negative. We cannot have a directive that says nothing about genetically modified organisms and the damage which their free use may cause or which makes no reference to the damage caused by shipping or the use of nuclear energy. Compromise amendments have been proposed which I find to be exceptionally moderate and realistic and I do not understand how citing international conventions, especially conventions which not all the Member States of the European Union have signed, can be the answer to this question. So greater willingness needs to be demonstrated by both the Commission and by us, ladies and gentlemen, so that this legislation really is the legislation of the parliamentary term. I should also like to say something because certain members spoke of 'teratogenesis'. Frankenstein, with his technology, produced a monster ever greater than himself. Let us not therefore put ourselves in the ridiculous position of producing a baby monster which is far inferior to our powers.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, the Commissioner has actually said everything that the rapporteur was meant to say. I think that we in this House are, for once, agreed on the need to recast this Regulation, so I think all I need to do is to put on public record my thanks to the Commission, to Mrs Malliori, and to the management of the Monitoring Centre. Although I assume that we will, tomorrow, adopt the rapporteur's proposal as a resolution of this House, there is one point on which we probably do not agree, and that is the question of whether Members of this House should be allowed to sit on the management board. The Commission was against the idea, and justified its opposition. The Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs did not agree. As rapporteur, I in fact had an open mind about this issue, but I accept the Committee on Home Affairs’ majority decision; it saw no problems in terms of conflicts of interest. This leads me to assume that we can accept this Monitoring Centre in the same way as the other three agencies, and, if the House believes that its Members play an important part in the work of this body, then I work on the assumption that the Commission, too, will eventually accept that as this House's democratic decision. The ultimate objective of both parties is that the Monitoring Centre should work much better and that its work should be carried on as efficiently as possible from now on. I believe that the work we are doing serves this purpose, and so I take it as read that we will, tomorrow, come to a sound decision, significantly strengthening the Monitoring Centre and enabling it to continue with its work.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, confronted with the worrying development of sex tourism and, more generally, the sexual exploitation of children in Europe and throughout the world, Mrs Klamt is quite right to put forward measures in her report which are adequate to deal with the serious problem before us. I particularly recall measures such as the inclusion of children’s rights in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the setting up of free telephone helplines for children. There is an urgent need for a coherent policy for the protection of children to be implemented. I therefore support Amendment No 4 calling for a European centre for missing children and victims of sexual abuse to be set up in order to coordinate the activities of the organisations set up in the Member States. The Commission must undertake to actually establish this European database. I wish to point out that Parliament has already adopted resolutions on this subject. It must be noted that the proposals made have only been implemented in part. Much more effective measures are required. Finally, I must alert the House to the latest developments. It is now not just sex tourists who are travelling to third countries; we now have children being sent here, to Europe, like so many items sent by parcel post. Considering, then, the transnational nature of the problem, I think that we should demand that Europol supports national and transnational inquiries and gives an annual report of its work.

Political group: GUE-NGL