GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, according to the renowned French economist Jean-Paul Fitoussi, whose astuteness and common sense we all admire, the EU’s economic government is run by just three people: the secretary of State in charge of fiscal surveillance, the minister responsible for monetary policy and the minister charged with coordinating and boosting support for competition policy. Fitoussi’s intention here is to stress the current fragility of the structure of economic governance in the EU, while acknowledging the vital role played by competition policy in economic governance. Executive, legislative and legal powers also fall within the competences of the minister for competition. Competition in European culture is a means of progress and development and never an ideological end in itself. It must consequently strengthen and consolidate a market economy that does not abandon its social dimension and always responds to the needs of the consumer. This policy must therefore involve all EU institutions, especially Parliament, as this is the body that represents all European citizens. At a historical moment, when the EU faces challenges in terms of social and economic progress, and when it also feels the need to re-shape the institutional framework that governs its workings, Parliament can hopefully take on new competences within the scope of this policy that are not merely consultative. Competition policy will only be successful, however, if the Commission is able to create equitable conditions, whereby rules can be applied across all Member States. Progress has been made in this respect during the past year, but this is an area of competence that requires constant work, especially given the difficult economic situation, which makes it opportune for Member States to use state mechanisms and aid in order to safeguard companies and their own citizens’ jobs. The report tabled by Commissioner Monti is to be welcomed and represents hope for an improvement in competition policy within the EU. Parliament’s motion for a resolution, subject to the approval of some amendments that have been tabled, will also constitute an extremely important guiding policy document and provide a sound basis of support for the Commission itself.

Political group: PSE
- Mr President, the proposed deletion does not make sense. There is no reason to have the remainder of the paragraph as it has been suggested. That is a matter for the Committee on Constitutional Affairs to deal with. The reason we have a reference here is to try to take a decision as to whether, under the proposal from the Commission, the funding should be moved to Parliament's budget or not. I do not think it should be moved to Parliament's budget, in the interests of transparency and accountability and also because it has cost implications. It is important that we leave it in the Commission's budget. Therefore I suggest that we support Amendment No 8 as it stands.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner. I should like to start by thanking the chairman of our Committee on Foreign Affairs, Elmar Brok, for including important points from the various committee opinions in the joint motion. As joint draftsman of an opinion on behalf of the Committee on Fundamental Freedoms and an opinion on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, I am one of the few members of the committees required to give an opinion who has been able to take the floor in this debate and I do so in order to voice my criticism of our in-house procedure. First, the timing of the debate. I think that it would have been better to wait for the Commission's next progress reports. Secondly, it is a great pity that only a few of those reporting on individual countries for the Committee on Foreign Affairs have taken note of the opinions of the other committees and that the draftsmen of these opinions were not automatically allocated speaking time during the debate, as is our custom in the House. Nonetheless, I am delighted that a number of very important points raised by my committees have been included in the common opinion, including the all-important Article 13 and the acquis developed in the meantime in order to combat discrimination. I think enlargement negotiations should attach equal importance to this and, for example, internal market legislation. I also believe that it is important to note that the motion calls, for the first time, for the security of the external borders of the enlarged European Union to be a Community responsibility, rather than the sole responsibility of the country on the border. Finally, one further request, this time in my capacity as an Austrian member. I think Mr Schröder has written an excellent report on the Czech Republic and I should like to ask the House to support him on all counts. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
The recent news has reminded us of the importance of this issue and of the extent and seriousness of the violence, hidden or otherwise, suffered by children and women in all social spheres. In the case of men’s violence against women the cause of the violence is machismo-inspired and in the case of violence perpetrated by parents against their children the cause is an unthinking, even pathological, outburst. Hence the need for a generously financed programme accompanied by a stepping up of preventive and punitive legislation in this area.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the final speaker in this debate I should like to stress once more that competition policy lies at the very heart of the internal market and I believe that for the European Union it is a very important policy instrument for strengthening Europe's position in the world and pursuing the Lisbon objectives. Competition policy is supposed to protect European consumers, lead to fair market prices, create increased supply and increase all market participants’ dynamism and capacity for innovation. Competition policy prohibits both State and private monopolies. It fights measures that distort competition and it is a precondition for all companies to have fair opportunities in and on the market. We are on the right track, but unfortunately we have not yet reached our goal. We are on the right track because we are seeing a fall in the number of cases investigated and because there has been an increase in the fines imposed. We have not yet reached our goal because obstacles to fair competition abound and there are many different bodies with responsibilities in this field, which allows distortions of competition to creep in, and because we are too slow in implementing some directives. We have not yet reached our goal because we have not completed our work in the interests of public welfare, because services of general interest do not yet have the clear exemptions and rules within competition law to make it possible to allow services of general interest and competition law to function harmoniously together. I also welcome the Commission's proposal to apply the 'de minimis' rules to all arrangements between SMEs and call on the candidate countries to implement the competition rules quickly so that there are no distortions of competition between different industrial locations.

Political group: PPE-DE
I voted in favour of Preliminary Draft Amending Budget No 5/2004 in order to allocate the budgetary resources mobilised from the EU Solidarity Fund as swiftly as possible, to ensure the necessary Community assistance for communities affected by natural disasters in Spain, in France and in Malta in 2003, thereby helping to ensure that this assistance is provided as quickly as possible. To this end, it is also crucial that this amending budget is adopted at first reading, as has happened in the past, specifically in the case of the forest fires that occurred in Portugal in the summer of 2003. The EU must demonstrate full and prompt solidarity with regions in the Member States or candidate countries that are affected by natural disasters and alleviate the serious consequences of these disasters for people’s living conditions, the environment and for the economy. For this reason, aid must be not only swift, but also visible in the appropriations provided. I therefore believe that the criteria for eligibility to the Solidarity Fund must be amended to provide for this. - Report: Lulling (A5-0151/2004)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Workers often have problems in identifying with Europe. Whilst in view of global trends the European single market is developing in a dynamic way, and there is ever closer economic and monetary union, social union is generally treated like a ghost at the feast. Since the Treaty of Amsterdam was agreed in 1997, the Union has had new instruments for enhancing social policy. And since the Lisbon Summit in March 2000, it has been the Council's intention, in addition to high growth and more skilled jobs, also to aim for greater social cohesion. With the third social action programme, the Commission is underscoring the recognition that economic policy, employment policy and social policy need to be more closely interlinked. Employability is providing evidence of this interlinking. In order to make the transition from the industrial society to the knowledge society, people – and not just young people – need better knowledge and skills. This means that the Member States have to invest more in education and training, multilingualism, mobility and communication. Many of the demands made in the Van Lancker report are not acceptable. For example, the Luxembourg process which applies to employment policy is to be extended to social protection and social exclusion. This method of determining Community objectives and implementing national action programmes which are assessed annually – including by the European Parliament – is so successful precisely because new qualitative and quantitative objectives are formulated whilst simultaneously strictly adhering to the principle of subsidiarity. It cannot arbitrarily be transferred to other areas, as specific procedures are needed. The Christian Social Party does not support the right to a minimum income or a standard pension. Nor do we accept the renewed demands for a reduction in legal working hours at European level. It is far inferior to flexible working arrangements, as the experience of many European companies has demonstrated. Furthermore, the request that there should be a legal basis for NGOs to regulate a 'civil dialogue' is not acceptable. The rapporteur has departed from the principle of subsidiarity out of a sheer desire to adopt centralist solutions. However, as the Group of the 's key amendments have just obtained a substantial majority, I have voted for the report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I did not quite understand. Has Mr Turmes just proposed to vote in favour of the urgent procedure or against? It was not altogether clear.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, let me begin by saying that I have no problem with approving this very sound report in principle. I just want to point to one issue which in my view is not considered in the report and which raises a major problem in relation to Macedonia and the effectiveness of EU financial and other support. I am referring to the sanctions against Yugoslavia. Do not misunderstand me: I too believe that we need to take effective action against the Milosevic regime. But firstly, these sanctions have a far-reaching and adverse impact on many of the neighbouring states too, including Macedonia, which find themselves in an extremely difficult economic situation as it is. Secondly, the entire population of Yugoslavia is being held accountable for the actions of Milosevic and his circle, which is wrong on humanitarian grounds and politically counterproductive. So I believe that we should take today’s debate as an opportunity to call for a rapid end to the policy of sanctions, as stated in Amendment No 10.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Security and Defence Policy unanimously approved my Amendment No 22 regarding a new Paragraph 9 of the resolution with the following wording: ‘Calls on the partners to ensure that the State has a monopoly on the use of force and that no parallel military structures can continue their activities’. If it is – ever – to be possible for peace to be achieved between Israelis and Palestinians, or between the State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, it is crucial that the power of the State should have a monopoly on the use of force and that Islamic terrorist paramilitary groups – such as Islamic Jihad, Hamas and Hizbollah – should not be allowed to be armed and to carry out terrorist attacks against civilians as they at present do with great regularity. My amendment was unfortunately rejected by Parliament. However, the line of reasoning I put forward has been included in paragraph 3.3 of the resolution in the compromise demand ‘for the Palestinian Authority to dismantle terrorist networks, including by arresting and prosecuting all suspects’. I regard this request as progress in itself and as being very clearly worded in the same spirit and along the same lines as my original amendment.

Political group: PPE-DE
In general terms I find Mrs Smet’s report and most of the committee’s amendments wholly acceptable and worthy of support. Others have referred to particular activities and sectors which are proposed to be covered for the first time by working time regulations. For example, my group colleague, Mrs Lambert, referred to doctors in training and I associate myself totally with her remarks and support the proposals relating to that sector. I do have a concern though that sea-fishermen, especially share fishermen, who are wholly self-employed, will be adversely affected by some aspects of these proposals and I seek some clarification of this. Share fishermen jointly own their vessels and are paid solely by share of their catches. Their work patterns are dictated by factors outwith any control, such as weather conditions and fish movements, and therefore it is difficult to imagine how restrictions on working time could possibly be practical in this sector. Of course, health and safety issues are a major reason for limiting working time but fisheries is already subject to codes of practice and to regulations which are monitored by competent authorities. Share fishermen up to now have been assured that their unique circumstances would be catered for through exemption. I believe that share fishermen must continue to be regarded as a special case and not subjected to impractical regulations. I will be taking full account of the potential impact on fishermen of the various proposals and amendments before casting my vote tomorrow. I will be listening very carefully to the summing up of this debate for indications that the needs of share fishermen particularly can be accommodated satisfactorily.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, first of all, I should like to underline that the Swedish presidency has most certainly been a great success, unfortunately not in every respect, but that would be impossible to achieve. The final balance is very positive. I also welcome the support that you continue to pledge with regard to the Belgian presidency. Perhaps you will allow me to draw your attention once more to a few elements. First of all enlargement. Enormous efforts are being made on that score by the Central and Eastern European countries, but the question of whether the European Union is ready for enlargement is becoming ever more pressing, of course. For example, if I consider how long it has taken us to adopt a common position on the free movement of persons, I am a little apprehensive about discussing far more complex issues, such as agriculture or the funding of the EU. It is therefore of the utmost importance to ensure that the European Union is ready on time. But it is also important to prepare our own public opinion for future events. That is not only necessary in Central and Eastern Europe, but also in the European Union, as we have witnessed during the Irish referendum. It is great to have Mr Milosevic in The Hague, but I do hope that the money pledged will also be paid out swiftly to the population in the former Yugoslavia, for we need to offer prospects, particularly in those regions. We must also ensure that the European Union takes steps in Macedonia to promote the peaceful co-existence of the two nations and the prevention of any future explosions in the Balkans in this respect. Mr President, I believe that, where Russia is concerned, our relationship with Mr Putin should not purely be amicable. We should, above all, criticise him for the inadequate enforcement of human rights and, especially, for compromising the freedom of the press. On that score, our message to Mr Putin should be crystal clear. Finally, the energy policy was a minor failure on the part of the Swedish presidency. It is extremely regrettable that the French/German axis has caused the derailment of the liberalisation process within the European energy market. This appears to me to be a major task for the Belgian presidency.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Monti, on the subject of the report concerning the scoreboard, I wish, on behalf of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, to say that we are not satisfied with the outcome of the vote in the committee and have therefore, together with the Group of the European People’s Party , tabled a number of amendments. On condition that these amendments are adopted, we shall vote in favour of the report. I would also thank the Commission for the work done on the scoreboard, which is a very useful tool for achieving the objective of a general reduction in state aid. I welcome the report on the Commission’s 31st report on competition policy. I am especially pleased with the support given by the committee to my proposal that consideration should be given to setting up a competition court, Article 225 A of the Treaty of Nice having paved the way for such a possibility. A competition court would increase the legal protection of European enterprises. A competition court would have to operate as a counterweight to, and supervisor of, the Commission’s experts on issues relating to competition policy. It would ensure that the Commission was no longer viewed as the body that both investigates and judges enterprises. It would make for greater transparency of the enterprises concerned. I absolutely do not want to see a weakening of competition policy in general. On the contrary. Nor do I want to see the Competition Directorate-General’s role in competition policy weakened. I want to support Commissioner Monti and all the other forces for good in their view that, in the future too, competition policy should remain precisely that, with no interference from other policy areas, such as industrial policy. I am delighted that Mr Monti is well disposed towards a European competition court. I would also take the liberty of looking forward and commenting on the Commission’s motion for a resolution for reforming EU competition law. Throughout the reform process, the Group has supported the Commission in stating that reform is necessary. At the same time, we have maintained that this must not lead to a renationalisation of competition policy. The Commission has assured us that this will not happen and has referred to a network’s being set up, consisting of the Competition Directorate-General and the national competition authorities. I am confident that this network would be effective. At the same time, I would, however, put forward a proposal that I hope the Commission will consider. It is about creating a special unit or task force in the Competition Directorate-General whose task it will be to ensure, and monitor the fact, that the competition rules are applied equally in all the Member States. This is a large and important task that will become still greater with the forthcoming enlargement. I shall go into this in more detail in a letter to the Commissioner.

Political group: ELDR
Commissioner Reding, Commissioner Lamy, I will confine myself to discussing the liberalisation of the water sector. Mr Lamy, you think that more competition will provide the poor with high quality drinking water. I personally dispute your view and I believe that there are more and more of us who do so. Any commercialisation of water will automatically lead to an increase in consumption, for that is precisely how the system works. You say that there is no mention of liberalising the resource in the requests the Union makes to the developing countries. That does not make things any better, for commercialising water distribution will make it impossible to guarantee proper water management. Moreover, we also know from experience that it is not the poor who benefit from commercialising water. Bogota, Buenos Aires and Jakarta are proof of that. Therefore, let us have the political courage to define water as a public good and exclude it from GATS.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I have voted against the report on the provisional establishment of the European Police College. In the EU, there is an obvious risk of believing, in area after area, that cooperation is advanced simply through establishing new institutions and authorities. I also object to the fact that the text of recital 7 in the report goes above and beyond the Portuguese Republic's text in demanding one special seat for the Police College instead of cooperation on a rota basis. The fact that police powers are proposed in a number of recitals under the directive, together with the fact that common curricula are proposed, I see as moves towards centralisation, with the risk of bad practice getting the better of good practice.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, money laundering means concealing the origin of the proceeds of crime so that they can be presented as the income of a legitimate company. Anyone who can hinder, interfere with or prevent money laundering hits organised crime – I agree here with the previous speaker – right where it hurts, i.e. in its quest for profit. The European Community adopted a directive to fight money laundering very early on and this triggered laws in the Member States, which previously had no such legislation. At the time, this was a good law; now it needs renovating, like any old building, because nothing is as inventive as the criminal mind. If the directive is adopted as Mr Lehne and the Committee have drafted it, we shall have the best, most modern and strictest anti-money laundering law in the world, the implementation of which in fact only gives rise to two problems. The first problem is a degree of uncertainty in the House as to how to deal with the special relationship between lawyers and their clients, because we are calling for a reporting obligation if money laundering is suspected. The proposal developed by Mr Lehne and the Committee is a good proposal. It is a simpler and more manageable proposal. It basically runs as follows: if a lawyer is giving legal advice, then the confidential relationship between the lawyer and the client continues to be protected. If he is somehow involved in the transfer of money – buying, investing or whatever – then he no longer enjoys this protection and has a full reporting obligation. This both protects the confidential relationship and meets the demands of the fight against crime. The second problem is the Council and, at present, there is no solution to it. The Council has rejected fundamental proposals. The reason may be – as Mr Lehne indicated – that the finance ministers are responsible and have too little experience in legislating under the codecision procedure and absolutely no experience in fighting crime. The only way left open to Parliament is as suggested, namely to maintain the amendments proposed at first reading. We shall have a conciliation procedure. As Council representatives are here, I say to you: dress warmly for this conciliation. We have no intention of allowing an excellent bill to be ruined for the sake of an amateur law in the fight against crime! (Applause)

Political group: PSE