GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions is a very special body. It receives complaints from citizens, as the two previous speakers rightly said, who believe their rights as EU citizens have been restricted. As draftsman of an opinion on the right of residence, I would like to make a few comments on the specific problems in this area. The free movement of persons is one of the basic freedoms achieved through European integration. Since the Maastricht Treaty there is a general right of residence, provided the individual concerned has adequate means of subsistence and adequate health insurance protection. Freedom of movement and right of residence can be restricted only for reasons of law and order, security or health. Experience has shown the Committee on Petitions that in practice the right to freedom of movement comes up against a great many problems because: (a) Member State authorities are slow to transpose the rules of Community law, (b) problems arise with the recognition of diplomas and qualifications in the case of specific professions, (c) the rules on social security have not been standardised, e.g. complicated forms for the refund of medical costs. An analysis of Treaty infringement proceedings between 1996 and 1999 shows that in 97 cases there was a direct link between the petition and the Treaty infringement proceedings before the European Court of Justice. Unfortunately, the Council often ignores the communications from the Committee on Petitions about serious violations of Community law by Member State authorities. That reflects a negative attitude towards the European citizens’ right of petition. In future the Council should devote the necessary attention to the rights of EU citizens.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, before I start I would like to say that I have been a Member of the European Parliament for just 19 days and this is my first speech to this illustrious House, and perhaps the last, but I do not think it is audacious of me to talk about culture today, because for the last eight years I have been Managing Director of Euronews, a European channel which has observed and broadcast the activities of Parliament, the Commission and the Council, but which has also put an enormous amount of effort into observing and broadcasting European cultural activities, whether official or not. And as a person from outside who can perhaps comment with fewer political implications, I would like to say that culture is very broad, it has many facets and that two European capitals is not excessive. In sport we have two Olympic games, in winter and in summer, within the same year, and no harm is done. Culture is perhaps even broader and we cannot deny the new countries which are going to join us the opportunity to organise and hold a European capital of culture in one of its cities. I personally and my group therefore support the Commission’s position of naming two cities as European capitals of culture. On the issue of how to select them, we believe that competition should prevail. This is provided for, to a degree, by having two cities from two different countries within the same year. But we should also try to ensure that there is a degree of competition amongst candidatures from the same country. We hope that the Commission can resolve this issue.

Political group: PPE-DE
I should like to thank the French presidency for its answer. I nonetheless want to ask whether the Council welcomes this type of very contradictory and unclear statement from the Commission’s President. It is nevertheless the case that, if the desire is to create close cooperation between the Council, Parliament and the Commission, it is unfortunate if the Commission’s President produces vague statements of this kind, for his statement can only be interpreted in terms of his wanting to open the way to tax harmonisation despite creating a smokescreen for this.

Political group: PPE-DE
One problem which of course affects young people in particular is unemployment. Unemployment gives rise to certain activities that are undesirable. The President of Eurochambers, Dr Leitl, recently said that unemployment is quite unacceptable as a matter of principle among young adults in the 15-25 age group, and that they should have a choice – either work or study – so that they can integrate into society. Do you think this type of initiative could also be launched within the Youth programme?

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I should like to talk about two matters: first, in my capacity as shadow rapporteur for the Group on various transport matters; secondly, as shadow rapporteur on the other institutions. So firstly, I should like to address Mrs de Palacio and secondly, Commissioner Schreyer. The TENs programme is a wonderful one, which allows transport, energy and telematics projects throughout Europe to be decided upon by the nation states themselves in order to connect the 15 countries now in the Union with the 10 countries coming in, embracing the whole of the European Union and making sure that each nation can build its part within the trans-European network. I have nothing but full confidence in that programme. I would just point out that there is an item of some EUR 225 million for studies relating to it in the budget, whereas the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, of which I am a substitute Member, says that they do not want more studies but more action and implementation on the ground. With regard to the Marco Polo programme on transfer to other modes of transport, away from road traffic and the congestion which it causes, I give that my full support. We need to have more telematics and computer information technology used to advance the efficient movement of goods and passengers throughout the European Union. Touching upon the Galileo project, we need to maximise the use of the private sector. I welcome this project. I hope that we will not use it for automatic levying of tolls on lorries, but rather allow individual drivers of private commercial vehicles to avoid congestion by knowing their best route from where they are to where they want to go: in other words, to help the motorists rather than tax and hinder them. On the other institutions, we have had useful discussions in the last day or two. I was delighted to attend the conciliation meeting in July and pay tribute to Mr Magri and his superb chairmanship of that committee. There was one matter that was left. That was where our rapporteur, Mrs Gill, thought that the Commission and the Council were being generous - I would say extremely generous - in their attitude to the budgets proposed by three of the other institutions: the Court of Justice, the Committee of the Regions, and the Economic and Social Committee. Whereas Parliament's budget is only going up by 13%, the Council's by 21% and the Commission's by 8% or 9%, the Court of Justice, for example, is asking for 57%. I am delighted the Council has knocked that figure down to 46%. But in an amendment that we tabled from the United Kingdom delegation, we are asking for a further, similar reduction. The same applies to the Economic and Social Committee. It asked for 33%, knocked down by the Council to 27%. We want it down by the same percentage again. The Committee of the Regions asked for 63% and was knocked down to 54%. We want a further reduction to 46%. We can afford these increases, but that is not the point. We must get the best possible value for money from these other institutions and ask them to re-examine their budget spending.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I was hoping to address my questions to Mr Solbes, but I do not see him in the House, and so Mrs de Palacio or Mrs Diamantopoulou may answer instead. I should first like to make a request: please do not abuse the adjective ‘sustainable’. It is rather like those awful restaurants where they put cream or parsley on everything and in the end ruin every dish. ‘Sustainable economy’, Mrs de Palacio and Mrs Diamantopoulou, means absolutely nothing. It is just a nod towards the environmentalism of the , towards the with ‘solidarity’ and towards the right with ‘economics’. In short, a little semantic correctness would not go amiss. Let us now deal with some rather more serious matters that I have noticed. President Prodi has spoken of a single cycle of economic policy coordination – I am referring to point 2.3, b4) – and, indeed, only a single cycle is needed because the objectives laid down in the Stability Pact and the broad economic policy guidelines must coincide with those of the real economy, in other words the labour market and, above all, welfare. You realise that the labour market and welfare are two sides of the same coin. Well, while the labour market already has an implicit coordination process – the Luxembourg process – which has been making positive headway for six or seven years now, the same is not true for the more recent (as one might say) Laeken process for coordinating welfare action, which has yet to be put into practice. The two systems are unbalanced: much has been done in the area of close coordination on the labour market, while everything still remains to be done as regards welfare. My request is therefore that the two coordination processes be synchronised as fully as possible so that they then make it possible to fulfil not only Lisbon but the Stability Pact too.

Political group: PPE-DE
We Moderates give the highest priority to the best possible level of safety for nuclear energy. We believe that the Swedish safety organisation, in conjunction with the work done by the IAEA, WENRA and other existing organisations properly fulfil the requirements for devising safety regulations and monitoring compliance with these. We are, however, doubtful as to whether the EU has the required Treaty-based competence to take decisions on directives concerning the safety of nuclear installations, at least where the Seppänen report is concerned. In the final vote, we have chosen to vote in favour of the report since it has not been possible to vote on the proposed legal basis for the directive and since the report is clearly much better than the Commission’s proposal.

Political group: PPE-DE
For a long time the European institutions encouraged, thanks to subsidies, the kind of intensive farming and cattle rearing that suits the interests of the agro-food industry. Intensive breeding and the massive use of animal and bone meal led to the outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Even after it was clearly established that animal and bone meal was responsible for propagating this disease, the European institutions continued to conceal this evil and to hand out subsidies to promote consumption and marketing. Faced with the scale of the disaster, the European authorities eventually and belatedly changed their approach. Under cover of financing measures to make up for the errors of the preceding period, they rushed into a policy of ‘purchase for destruction’, which it is difficult to reconcile with the European budget. Now, after having encouraged intensive farming, they are trying to ‘boost’ extensive rearing and ‘organic farming’. We abstained on this report, which in effect asks for a full discharge for a chaotic ‘agricultural policy’, in which the only factor that remains constant is the payment of substantial amounts in the form of subsidies that are often only of limited benefit to the small farmers and are of far greater benefit to the beef and veal industry and the capitalist firms that are prospering in the sector of animal feed and meat processing and marketing.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the oil tanker Erika, the ownership of which is veiled by accommodation addresses on Malta and probably in Italy and Greece and which was hired by Total-Fina for the transport of oil, foundered off the Breton coastline, with disastrous consequences. The implications for the environment and for the flora and fauna of the European maritime environment are enormous. The cause of the disaster must be sought in the weakened structure of the oil tanker. So people are doubtful about the safety of ships which carry dangerous or polluting goods. The International Maritime Organisation has issued international rules in this connection. States can carry out port inspections. In Europe, legislation is stricter and it is compulsory to inspect 25% of the incoming vessels according to the port-state control directive. However, it seems that none of the Member States meets this figure due to a lack of inspectors. It is clear that there is no lack of legislation. In my opinion, the Commissioner is quite right. Where the scheme falters is in the enforcement of existing legislation. But how are we now going to enforce this if there is indeed a lack of inspectors, esteemed European Commission? Can the Commission provide an assurance that Directive 93/75 concerning minimum requirements for vessels bound for or leaving Community ports and carrying dangerous or polluting goods will be implemented correctly in all Member States? Should its implementation not be more strictly monitored? Would it not be beneficial, in the short term, following the Rotterdam model, to inspect according to a points system in which, for example, account is taken of the ship’s age, whether it is single or double-hulled or whether it sails under a flag of convenience. In short, to give priority to older sub-standard ships over ships which meet all quality requirements. The Erika was built at a Japanese shipyard and is single-hulled. There are four more sister ships in service at present. Construction of this type of ship was halted at the time because the risk of rusting was especially high. Some of them also sail under the Maltese flag. Are we waiting for the next accident to happen? Would sanctions not be appropriate, as the Commissioner stated, for the classification society? RINA is currently the talk of the town. Malta is entering the accession negotiations. In my opinion, the European Union can only accept Malta if it is guaranteed that the Maltese flag will sail without an accident in future.

Political group: PPE-DE
The Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities unanimously condemns the delay on the part of the Commission, which is even more serious given that it extends from 1992 to 2000, which is the period in which there have been the most changes in terms of women’s access to work. Furthermore, we believe that this deficiency in the legislation may be exacerbating a very serious phenomenon, that is, the rejection by young people of motherhood. We ask the Commission, before the end of 2000, to present an amendment of Directive 92/85/EEC and that that directive be applicable to all pregnant workers, in all areas and occupations, with no exceptions or conditions. The new legislation must be clear and progressive. It must provide for new working situations and also the new family situation of single parent families. The pregnant worker must be provided with adequate protection, which is designed for their specific circumstances, but this should not mean discrimination or a reduction in their work opportunities, but quite the opposite. We must be able to provide the means for breast-feeding to be compatible with work. Mr President, in today’s Europe there is no room for a divorce between women and employment, and much less a divorce between women and maternity.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the last conciliation of this term of office was aimed at establishing a common market for railway transport, and it has been a great success, especially for Parliament. It is, however, annoying that the Council refused to reduce the number of members of the board of the new European Railway Agency, as Parliament wanted it to. This will indubitably lead to unnecessary bureaucracy, as explained so eloquently by Mr Savary here in the House and, best of all, during the negotiations. On the European Parliament’s side, we succeeded, however, in introducing a legally binding document whereby the Commission is to carry out a thorough review of the structure and composition of all the authorities. Efficient management must be based upon the general European interest. It would be a retrograde step if the view were to be taken that the greatest merit of the decision-making bodies were that they were constituted on a national basis, because that would reduce the chances of bringing about the greater efficiency that is needed. National interests may certainly have their place, but they must definitely not reign supreme. Parliament succeeded in bringing the liberalisation of freight services forward to 2007, thanks to Mr Jarzembowski. His wording means that the Commission must seek also to liberalise passenger services in a similar way after 2010. To ensure rail safety, all railway workers, such as train drivers, who affect rail safety must, from now on, use a generally known vocabulary and system of orders to eliminate any risk of misunderstanding. All trains must, furthermore, be provided with black boxes similar to those on aircraft. The railway package’s four rapporteurs – Mr Jarzembowski, who was responsible for the report on the development of the Community’s railways; Mr Savary, who was rapporteur for the report on a European Railway Agency; Mr Dirk Sterckx, who was responsible for the report on safety on the Community’s railways; and Mrs Ainardi, who was responsible for the report on the interoperability of the trans-European rail system – have all helped inject life into the European railway sector. It is necessary to develop the railway infrastructure in order to reduce the congestion on our motorways and enable us to fulfil the environmental requirements. I wish to thank the European Parliament, together with the rapporteurs, Mr Jarzembowski, Mr Savary, Mr Sterckx and Mrs Ainardi for this important step. A particularly worthwhile instance of progress was the fact that we succeeded in uniting all the different parties. There was only a minor split between the parties. We were able to maintain a more or less common front against the Council, a fact that is, of course, in large part the reason for the outcome. The conciliation was held in a constructive spirit, and the entirely new mood we can now sense exists between Parliament and the Council found its optimum expression.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, if the speeches are becoming repetitive, that is a very good thing. It shows the widespread support. We want a consolidated European space policy. We do not want continuous, ad hoc structures. We need a permanent solution. This must be made clear at the ESA ministerial meeting. The reasons are obvious. There is considerable European added value in working together. There is an existing acquis which must be built upon. We must have independence within this part of the world in this very important sector. It allows us to have links with third countries such as the United States - why not - and also Russia and countries further afield such as South Africa and some of the applicant countries. It allows us to retain our scientists and our technologists. Otherwise we will lose them. It allows us to recruit the new generation of scientists and technologists. We cannot do that unless there are projects that capture the imagination of our talented young people. It allows us, of course, to have spin-offs in a variety of sectors which have already been mentioned and which will enhance the SME sector. It allows us to be much more efficient in carrying out our EU objectives and policies on climate change, agriculture, security and development in the developing countries. We are playing uphill on a very sloping playing field against the United States. They use cross-subsidy to the tune of 31.8 billion of public money - and rising fast - compared to our EUR 6 billion - and falling. They use public procurement, without blushing, to encourage their space sector. They use R[amp]D. They use a monopoly on certain electronic equipment to keep us from exploiting the high-tech space sector. We have already heard about launchers and satellites. Clearly the problems of the telecoms sector have been difficult for satellites in the European Union. But there is no reason, with an up-turn, that we should not, with public procurement and public funds, be launching far more satellites in the future for public, citizen benefit. As far as Galileo is concerned, Mr President, you know more than anyone else in this House what is needed. I am delighted that Mr Prodi is prepared to be proactive. He will have the support of many people in this Chamber. Finally, let us not forget astronomy and space exploration. I would like to hear a bit more about the European southern laboratory. Let us have space policy in the Convention. It is an ideal area for the European Union.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, child sex abuse is a criminal offence, whether it is committed by homosexuals or heterosexuals. The distribution of child pornography on the net is also a criminal offence, and so is making child pornography. Victims of paedophile activity are often facing lifelong trauma with some of them turning into child abusers themselves. The distribution of child pornography is facilitated by the Internet. Not only is the scale of distribution magnified, but there is a risk of the offence being trivialised. Various MEPs have already spoken a good deal in the wake of this commendable report, commenting for example on how good and necessary it is that there should be contact points, that the police should have the relevant expertise and that there should be clear penalties. These are all points underlined by Mrs Plooij. But anyone who is at all familiar with this sordid subject matter knows that the contact points are inundated with information and that – in stark contrast with this – the number of people who analyse this information is very limited. I feel sorry for them, not only because of what they are witnesses to, but also because of the volume of material in respect of which they must feel powerless. We pretend that we are all agreed on this, but this is not so in practice. In actual fact, there is a great deal of resistance. Tourist areas, also within our own European Union, do not want to admit that poverty forces poor children into prostitution. The Internet has the aura of progress. And when it comes to harmonising our legislation at European level, reference is made to all kinds of grand legal principles. I think that whoever wills the end must also will the means.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for his introduction but I am still left with a few questions. You said that you have a total shake-up of the framework programme in mind. We have tried to do this with the fifth framework programme and, as it now transpires, with very little effect. In a resolution quoted by yourself, which was adopted in this Parliament on 18 May and for which I was rapporteur, I recommended multi-disciplinary teams for research, since innovations often occur on the cutting edge of different disciplines. I cannot find any reference to this in your report which I have now read and which you adopted this week. My second point, Commissioner, is that you recommend the European Union to take part in national programmes. I have also written that, in Europe, we need to move away from techno-nationalism, but once again if the framework programme is what we are concerned with, this Parliament – and I repeat this very Parliament – plays a crucial role, and how will Parliament’s role take shape if we apply variable geometry?

Political group: ELDR