GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am extremely grateful for the word of advice and would like to make a few comments supplementary to Mr Laschet’s report, which has my full backing as representative of the Foreign Affairs Committee. It looks to be an isolated case of no great significance, but as he said towards the end of his statement, this is about momentous moves to set the course for the future, as well as about sending out signals. That is why it is absolutely vital to secure supervisory powers and opportunities for participation for the European Parliament. I am grateful for the fact that the Committee on Budgets has provided proposals that do justice to my committee’s intentions. I believe it is necessary, for example when special representatives are appointed, for us to have a say in each individual case. I think it is vital for the Commission to grasp that what we are doing here is setting a course of decisive importance for future foreign and security policy. In our view, practically all the financial resources for civil crisis management have been at the disposal of the Commission’s budget to date. I believe this instrument should be used and not watered down by making this sphere, like others, increasingly subject to intergovernmentalisation. There are moves afoot within the Council that I would describe as extraordinarily dangerous, in that it is deemed acceptable to have matters that are traditionally the preserve of the Community and the first pillar settled exclusively by Foreign Ministers. If we were to go along with this, then we would forfeit all hope of being able, firstly, to emphasise the special significance of the civil aspect and, secondly, to communitarise the common foreign and security policy in the long term, in the context of the interplay between civil and military crisis management, because we would then be committing ourselves to going in an entirely different direction, as is very much the trend in many national capitals these days. For this reason, I would urge you and also the Commission to make a fitting contribution, not just in the interests of Parliament, so as to enable it duly to have its say, for this is about the Commission’s role in shaping future foreign and security policy. That is perhaps even more significant than the parliamentary interests we see fit to bring to bear here. Therefore, I am grateful for having 50% more speaking time! We should take the opportunity to make Parliament’s views on this clear and to enter into close cooperation with the Commission, because it is at apparently inconsequential junctures such as this that the tone is set for the future development of the entire European Union.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would first of all like to express my appreciation to Mrs Valenciano, who, in her excellent report, has tackled this sensitive issue in a clear and compelling manner. The will therefore support the report. The genital mutilation of women and girls is a terrible violation of fundamental human rights. More than 130 million women have already fallen victim to this, and another two million are added every year. Europe should therefore pull out all the stops to combat this phenomenon, wherever it appears. I too understand that some Members are considering voting against this report on account of the sections on asylum and extraterritoriality. However, I would like to reassure everyone: if we consider the present asylum practice, we see that in most of the fifteen Member States, genital mutilation is already a basis for asylum. I believe that to be appropriate. From that point of view, the report merely accommodates existing practices. It is true that at present, the principle of extraterritoriality only applies to child-sex tourism, but it should also cover mutilated women or women who are at risk. For this is the only way to prevent EU citizens, for example from Somalian extraction, from taking their daughters to Somalia during the summer holidays to have them mutilated. If these people realise that upon their return to Europe, they are at risk of being prosecuted, we then give the parents a weapon with which to protect their daughters against the pressure of society. Finally, I would like to direct a comment to those who do not want to deal with genital mutilation due to it constituting an expression of a certain culture or religion. In all countries where genital mutilation is practised, local groups are running campaigns to abolish it. It is therefore not a case of us imposing our Western standards. No, it is precisely these women whom we need to support by showing our solidarity tomorrow during the vote. The Koran too leaves no room for mutilation. Despite this, it is mainly in Islamic countries that it is practised. We must therefore call on the Imams to help eradicate this phenomenon. This is crucial, since we cannot afford negative stereotyping of Islamic beliefs in the current sensitive climate. Genital mutilation is not a religious phenomenon, it is a violation of a fundamental human right.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, it has already been said that, after a war which engulfed the country in misery, Mozambique is now facing a natural disaster of terrifying proportions. Although it is currently impossible to calculate how many people have died, we do know that around 80 000 are in imminent danger of drowning and 300 000 have lost their homes and crops. They urgently need aid such as food, water and shelter in order to survive. This immediate need will subsequently be replaced by a requirement for medicine to prevent epidemics, which have apparently already broken out, and aid for reconstruction. However, the aid needed now is difficult to get through, despite the efforts of the NGOs, because the roads, bridges and railway lines are damaged. Helicopters are therefore needed. Apparently there are only five at the moment to rescue about 80 000 people from trees. The machinery mobilising the aid is too slow. The Group of this House has suggested that preventing natural disasters, including preventing conflicts, is the best way of avoiding situations like the one now being suffered by the people of Mozambique. I must remind you in particular of the efforts of Mr Rocard during the previous term. The European Commission responded in 1994 by setting up a disaster preparedness programme known as DIPECHO. This was intended to be proactive and, using a regional approach, to prevent disasters or at least to minimise their effects on the population. However, Africa is surprisingly not included in the DIPECHO plans. Mozambique, which is now suffering a foreseeable disaster, just as the famine now threatening in Ethiopia was foreseeable, is excluded from these plans. The DIPECHO agenda includes south-east Asia, Central America and the Caribbean. This is reasonable and we support this, but we have to ask the Commissioner, why not Africa? The Group has always supported the Commission’s humanitarian aid policy. We have always supported ECHO, its policies and its actions, even some which have been disputed by certain bodies. We believe that solidarity must be the distinctive feature of the EU’s external action. In view of all this, we also believe the time has come to demand a redoubled effort by the Commission and the Member States, on behalf of those who are now drowning in Mozambique. The EUR 1 million which has so far been made available is completely inadequate in view of the needs which have been assessed by the Mozambican Government at 65 million dollars. The time has also come to demand greater efficiency. We hope that the debate at the beginning of this afternoon, the Commissioner’s knowledge of the situation in Mozambique and the visit by Mr Nielson will lead to a major effort being made by all sides to help Mozambique.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I voted for the report which acknowledges the state of the accession negotiations between Slovenia and the European Union. In two days time, next Saturday, I shall be the guest of the Slovenian State Secretary for Foreign Affairs in Ljubljana. Why is that? Because he belongs to the Slovenian Pensioners’ Party, and this will be the first meeting between the Pensioners’ Party represented at the European Parliament and one of the many pensioners’ parties that exist in the candidate countries. The most important of these is the Slovenian Pensioners’ Party and I hope that this party, which is succeeding in getting Slovenia into Europe, will join forces with me in working to improve the lives of pensioners throughout Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I would like to thank my colleague, Mr Konrad, for generously giving me a minute to talk on behalf of the constituents Mr Cashman and I share in the United Kingdom, and who are affected by the uncertainty over Alstom. I will come straight to the point; it is perhaps a reflection of our different views that I want some answers from the Commission about the way forward. It is clear this business has to be restructured and that it must change in its present form because of the lack of demand for its products. However, I would like to ask the Commission, firstly, its views about the sale of the transmission and distribution division to Arriva. Could the Commissioner confirm that this will not be subject to any further delays for competition purposes or, if that disposal or sale is to be referred to him, that he will speed up the procedure as much as possible, so that the employees and that very important division with a long-term future are not affected by any more uncertainty? As far as the other parts of the undertaking are concerned, will he confirm that the Alstom management will be free to consider offers and to sell other parts of the business to whomsoever they choose and wherever they come from? We know that there are businesses in Germany and potentially in Japan and America which would be interested in giving a future to employees by reconsolidating the sector. Finally, will he look at the competition implications in the transport business, and at the fact that within the United Kingdom the majority of railway rolling stock is manufactured outside the country, whereas other countries seem quite capable of introducing into their contracts provisions to ensure that rolling stock is made in their own country? That is a crucial issue that will affect the future of an excellent railway assembly plant in Birmingham where there is no future work. At any rate, as part of a restructuring process, we would like to see those people employed in making trains for the United Kingdom market.

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, allow me a brief comment, if you will, before the supplementary question. Not only has the process to integrate Cyprus into the European Union failed to resolve the Cyprus question; by integrating the free part of Cyprus, it has resulted in de jure partition and recognition of the Turkish occupation. Not that things would have been much better had the two sides accepted the Annan plan which, unlike the UN resolutions, attempted to impose a particular form of federation which was not so very different from the recognition of two states in Cyprus, in other words partition. Under these circumstances I wonder, Commissioner, how the Commission is going to deal with a situation in which a candidate country, in this case Turkey, has forces occupying and has colonised part of a country which is already a Member State of the European Union, in violation of numerous UN resolutions. I am not just talking about resolving the Cyprus problem, I am talking about dealing with the occupation. Will the European Union accept responsibility for liberating the occupied part of Cyprus?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, I would first like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Markov, for drawing up this report. He has done a thorough job and, furthermore, listened to those of us who have a different opinion with regard to this issue. Road safety is an important matter. From the point of view of the transport sector it is also essential to improve the social status of drivers and the esteem they are held in. The Commission proposal, however, was badly drafted. In the committee debate we were able to improve the proposal, although, in the opinion of our group, the end result is still not acceptable. The proposal would increase inflexibility and lead to practices that would be difficult to monitor and which would cause the sector to incur additional costs. Furthermore, natural breaks at work cannot be taken advantage of. The new regulation will not improve road safety either. Our group is proposing that we reject the Commission proposal and ask the Commission to carry out a thorough study of the need to change current rest periods, taking digital tachographs into account. We have also put forward important proposals for improvements in case the rejection proposal is blocked. The basic idea behind them is that the provisions on rest periods in the current regulation are adequate provided that they are complied with and monitored effectively. More effective monitoring will lead to better results than if the provisions are merely made more stringent on paper.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, like Mr Stevenson I want to raise a point of order with regard to a matter of discourtesy to this House. Some months ago I wrote to the President of the Commission asking a formal written question, as I am entitled to do as a Member. I received a reply which said: 'the research needed in order to provide a detailed response would be out of all proportion to the result desired and exceed the requirements of a response to a written question.' That is a gross discourtesy to any Member asking a question of a body, which is supposed to be, there to serve and to be transparent in response to requests for information. If that were the sort of response a minister in the British Government gave to a member of the British House of Commons, he would deservedly be pilloried in that House. I expect better from the President of the Commission. I wish to say, on behalf of this House, that when a Member asks a perfectly legitimate question I expect that question to be answered to the fullest extent. We should not just be given an excuse and some sort of non-answer. I would like to remind the President of the Commission of his pledges to provide transparency and openness in terms of information to this House.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, if the Tampere Summit achieved one thing, then it was the fact that the Member States were reminded that they once signed something called the Treaty of Amsterdam. I have to be honest with you; it was vital that this should happen for we needed to give form to the aforementioned area of freedom, security and justice. Of course Parliament wanted more far-reaching European commitments to come out of the Tampere Summit but I have to say that since these important issues are now on the European agenda all the same, along with a scoreboard, a clearly-defined task for the European Commission and thus also a role for the European Parliament, then that is a very good thing and I would like to congratulate the Presidency on this, but also the European Commission in particular. However I would like to raise two critical objections in connection with the outcome of the summit; first and foremost with regard to the rights of the citizens of Europe. It is a good thing that it was at last resolved at the summit that all citizens of the European Union must be accorded equal rights, and that includes those who are non-nationals of the Member States. Citizenship of a Member State must not be founded on exclusion and discrimination though. And so it is also my hope, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, that the Council will assign the European Commission the task of establishing what the rights of citizens from third countries are, and that the Commission will interpret these in the broadest sense, respecting the non-discriminatory principle, also when it comes to voting rights, to the right to live as part of a family and to the right to freedom of movement, notwithstanding the fact that nothing was said on this at the summit. Secondly, the policy on asylum and migration appears to me to still be lacking in balance. For one thing there are intergovernmental measures which can be implemented immediately through the action plans but which are primarily geared towards the protection of migrants, and for another there are tasks for the European Commission, common asylum policy, protection of asylum seekers. On behalf of my group, I would like to urge that the principles of the Geneva Convention find full expression in all its aspects in the two aspects of the migration policy and that the Commission and Parliament become fully involved in all said aspects.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to know whether I have understood you properly. The Group Chairmen will speak, then we will have the Commissioner’s and the Minister’s replies, and then the debate will be resumed at 9 p.m. without the Commissioner and without the Minister. Is that right?

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, the Group supports the reform set out in the White Paper and which we have been able to discuss with the Commissioner. We look forward to receiving the concrete proposals from the Committee on Budgets and the other committees. Like the previous speaker, we accept this proposal as a one-off measure, a necessary measure in order to take the reforms forward. We also believe that it is cost-neutral. We are also pleased that the Commission has realised that the other institutions must have similar rights, that this will be included in the scheme and that it will be accepted. When we compare our institutions, I would like to warn the Commissioner about one point, namely about accepting the promotion system which we have in the European Parliament. I have heard that the Commission is interested in this, but I have unfortunately received indications that there will be no real assessment of the actual knowledge of various employees as the assessment is a “zero sum game”. This is said by way of welcoming the continued reform work.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, using biofuels may be really excellent from an environmental point of view, especially in view of greenhouse gas emissions. It need not, however, necessarily be so. Rather, it depends entirely upon how these biofuels are produced. Using heavily subsidised, highly refined agricultural products to produce biofuels may, in many cases, be unwise from an environmental point of view. If consideration is to be given to the overall environmental impact, there are significantly more interesting techniques, for example the production of ethyl alcohol derived from forest products. If a system sustainable in the long term is to be obtained, biofuels must therefore be assessed from an overall perspective and in terms of their environmental drawbacks. Taxation must also be adjusted in the light of this long-term environmental impact. I also believe that if a breakthrough is to be obtained in connection with this new technology and the extensive investment required, countries must be able completely to remove tax for a transitional period so as to bring about the required investment in terms of engines, filling stations etc.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I abstained from voting in the final vote on the report, which was adopted by 275 votes in favour and 96 against, with 11 abstentions. I voted against the imprecise paragraph to the effect that ‘the Union's foreign and security policy’ must be ‘backed up by credible political, economic and military capabilities, supplied by Member States and NATO’. The wording might entail neutral states having to supply military capability. To propose that military efforts be financed through Community funds or to apply the enhanced cooperation method within the military sphere would be wrong roads to go down. Certain Member States would then be able to form a military alliance within the EU. Nor could I support the proposal that ‘within the framework of a future reform of the United Nations, the European Union should be allocated a permanent seat on the UN Security Council’. At present, the EU has two permanent members of the Security Council: Great Britain and France. It would weaken Europe’s role in the UN if these nations’ two votes were to be replaced by a single EU vote. The report seeks to bind the EU’s defence industry and military organisations more closely together. This should not however take place at the expense of NATO but, instead, through Europe’s increased acceptance of responsibility within the Atlantic Pact, for example through its taking over responsibility for the operation in Afghanistan.

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, perhaps you could give me a clearer reply to the following question, which is extremely important for enlargement: Does the Community legislation applicable to candidate countries from the moment they join, the so-called acquis communitaire, include, in your view, the aid and financial support of the CAP?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr Lamassoure’s report is very interesting. I share his ambition to give more powers to the Union so that it can cope with its responsibilities and with what is expected of it. In particular I approve his efforts regarding foreign policy, defence and security. However, I do have some objections. We need to rewrite the objectives which form the basis for the Constitution of the Union, and that is what will convince our citizens that progress in competences is fully justified. What are those objectives? The market, currency, freedom of movement – these are not enough. We must go further. At world level Europe is committed to effective multilateralism. It bases its security on dialogue, the abolition of poverty, and development links. It chooses full employment and progress in human capacities. It is against exclusion and bases its cohesion on the sharing of common goods, and finally it has given itself a public space which enables multinational and transnational Community citizenship and democracy to be exercised. These choices are what gives Europe its identity. In the form of a constitution, they should be the subject of an annual and multiannual policy agenda. The balancing of rules and the division of competences are intended to achieve these objectives. In this respect, the report lacks any ambition as regards the essential renewal of the social model and of growth, an important subject for our citizens and a subject on which we are divided. The rules of competition must be balanced by common rules and tasks concerning security, public services and industrial policy. The Union must have its own competence in matters involving economic policy, and it must have a redefined framework for the coordination of national policies, as well as fiscal harmonisation of the budgetary and revenue tools. As for the exercising of these competences, the democratic challenge and the requirement for efficacy, on these points the report is too brief and a few amendments would improve it. As for the nature of the actions of the Union, I cannot accept the assumption of the rapporteur, who believes that the Union can manage things only in exceptional cases. A political Union which did not manage at all would actually be very irresponsible. Finally, the separation and division of competences should not be based only on the principle of subsidiarity. When coupled with the rule of competition, it does not legitimise a community. It should be accompanied by a second principle, the principle of solidarity. Let us try to spell it out. Players in civil society must be consulted directly, and must be able to manage resources jointly in order to carry out projects which are of Community interest. Let us therefore be brave enough to form a society in Europe.

Political group: GUE-NGL