GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I wish to thank Mr Marset Campos for his sterling work on this report, which has been characterised by considerable consensus. It is an extremely important debate that Commissioner Patten is drawing to our attention here. The European Union is now going on the offensive and, in its relations with Belarus, is active in a quite different way than it has been in the past. We demonstrably have a pariah state at our borders. In spite of this, it is important that a structured dialogue with Belarus be instituted, as pointed out in a number of amendments by, for example, the Group of the European People’s Party . Mr Patten intimates what might be the shape of that dialogue. As the European Parliament, it is our task to demand that a structured dialogue of this kind be brought about. What are at stake are cross-border and domestic policy matters of common interest, such as illegal immigration, the sex trade and trafficking in human beings, including women. It is also a question of the European Union’s now adopting a structured approach to instituting discussions and of its putting pressure on the Belorusian authorities, not by isolating them but through active engagement and discussions with them. I believe that the European Union ought in actual fact to give priority to Belarus in the present situation. Especially in view of the fact that the European Union is so divided in its view of Iraq, it is perhaps a matter of additional urgency that the common foreign and security policy, which was set out in the Treaty of Maastricht and which is now in pieces, be given a dimension relating to Belarus. Precisely now, when we are divided within the European Union, we ought to unite around those areas in which we can take vigorous action. I think we should engage in some self-examination and ask ourselves the question: have we been sufficiently vigorous and energetic when it comes to Belarus? Belarus suffers from huge problems, of course. These include a leader who is quite consciously governing his country dictatorially; the disappearance of opposition politicians and others of whose fate we are unaware, such as Victor Gonchar, Anatoly Krasovksy and Yuri Zaharenko. Other problems are a lack of freedom of association, whereby the regime attempts to control the trade unions; legislation governing religious freedom that limits the right of various new evangelical churches to operate freely in that country; and, in addition, politicians who not only disappear but are also imprisoned. We must nonetheless apply a strategy towards the Belorusian authorities that involves our saying: ‘we are not going to isolate you but, rather, conduct a dialogue with you’. Belarus has itself chosen the isolation to which it has been exposed. Let us join forces within the EU in the interests of new relations with Belarus, involving demands for democracy and human rights.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, you have not provided an adequate explanation of why you are submitting this proposal at the present time. Nor have you provided an adequate explanation of why you are unwilling to allow this experiment with reduced rates of VAT for labour-intensive services to continue, even though you must realise that the analysis of the findings is inaccurate, given that the Member States’ reports are so general that they did not stand up to scientific scrutiny. The Commission is obliged to supply Parliament with a well-founded opinion, not just a general opinion containing snippets of information simply hinting that no tangible impact on reducing ‘black’ work can be identified. Commissioner, there are economic research institutes which can undertake this study on your behalf. There are social science institutes that can do so too. This Parliament – and, indeed, you yourself – must have a sound basis for a decision, and you are well aware that a six-month period is really not long enough to carry out studies of any kind. With this in mind, I urge you to set this experiment, which no one has taken seriously, on a serious footing at last and let it run for the next six years.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, although, like the vast majority of this House, I naturally regard the tragic problem of the Middle East to be an absolute priority, as Vice-President responsible for Questions to the Commission and the Council and on behalf of all those who have asked and wish to verify what the Commission’s position is, I would like to add my voice to what the Chairman of the , Mr Watson, has just said. We cannot cancel Questions to the Commission. Change the time, find the right solution, but Question Time cannot be treated as a joker which, according to the Commission or the Council’s ability to come here, can be thrown away by Parliament. It seems to me to show a lack of respect to cancel these events and I trust in you and the House to maintain Question Time, even if we hold it at another time.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Over the past few days, Member of the Group of the , Alexander de Roo, has insinuated both in this House and in the media that the Liberal shadow rapporteur, Chris Davies, has changed his position under pressure from the Aznar Government in connection with the possible election of Pat Cox to President of Parliament. This was an absurd and unfounded allegation. Mr Davies has conscientiously attempted to reconcile his own dislike of the Spanish project (shared by myself) with the position of the majority of the that it is inappropriate to criticise a specific country in a general report. Today’s vote illustrated that our group has abstained and that Mr Davis and various Green members of the Group have voted in favour of the criticism levelled at Spain. However, by voting against the Liberal amendment (which, in turn, led to the rejection of the entire report), the have missed a major opportunity of stopping the Spanish project on the basis of general principles. Although the intentions of the Group of the may have been noble, their method was neither effective nor conclusive. At the moment, the European Parliament does not have a single position in this weighty matter. Riis-Jørgensen report (A5-0373/2001)

Political group: ELDR
Could I associate myself with the comments made by Mrs Kinnock and in particular support what she has said about good governance within developing countries. May I ask about another priority within the Convention in relation to development, and something that he has prioritised, which is the causes of migration from developing countries, and that we maintain an emphasis on Commission activity in this area, that we understand the causes, extreme poverty and instability of migration from developing countries and we incorporate this continually in the debate on the causes of migration to the European Union, including applications for asylum. We realise there are real development criteria here to be looked at and a need for an emphasis to be maintained.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I particularly welcome the tabling of a Green Paper on PVC, but I have to say straight away that this Green Paper disappointed me, because it opens the door to panic, not to panic about jobs, but panic about PVC as a material. This has been quite perceptible here today. I should like to say to Mr Sacconi that he has tried to put a few things straight and he has succeeded in doing so in parts, but not everywhere. I think that we have a great deal more to do here. We must, I believe, take note of one thing: if we are discussing how to phase out or replace PVC then we are on the wrong track. PVC is a material which we encounter every day, which we need and can use in many areas of our lives. In my opinion this is also how it will stay in the near future. The fact that this requires us to solve problems is something that is also true in any other sector and with any other material. The weak points of the Green Paper are that it mentions products, such as cadmium and lead, which industry actually uses only very rarely in the PVC production process even now. I have seen for myself how the measures under the voluntary commitments are being introduced in companies. I, myself, am no friend of self-regulation; I have always campaigned hard against it. After all, we need laws to achieve something. In this case, however, it was not the lobbying trap to which someone at the front referred a few minutes ago: I satisfied myself of its effectiveness. We should appropriate industry's findings and not randomly back or call for substitutes which we ourselves have not yet investigated, and about which we ourselves do not know the full facts. These are points, therefore, which certainly need to be taken into consideration, and the Green Paper needs to be altered to reflect them. Where legislation is concerned we always say that we need to make progress quickly and that we need to know what's what. The entire body of legislation on the use of PVC – the incineration directive, the landfill directive – provides legislative foundations on which we can build when we want to use and dispose of this particular material.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Saddam Hussein is the root cause of the Iraqi crisis. Without the military pressure imposed by the United States and its allies – mainly Great Britain – upon the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, the UN weapons inspectors would not have been allowed into the country. We must not forget that Saddam Hussein threw out the previous weapons inspectors in 1998. That gave him four years in which to develop biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction and long-distance missiles of the Al-Samoud 2 type. The existence of these self-propelled missiles was long denied by the Iraqi regime. Now, they are being destroyed under the supervision of the weapons inspectors. Ever since its defeat in the Gulf War in 1991, Iraq has systematically sabotaged the possibility of the UN weapons inspectors’ investigating the presence of weapons of mass destruction in the country. The then American defence minister, William Cohen, warned Iraq when the UN weapons inspectors were thrown out in November 1998 with the words: the tug-of-war cannot go on for ever. Saddam Hussein is a dictator and tyrant, prepared to embrace any methods whatsoever to fight his enemies, including that of murdering his sons-in-law. He did not hesitate to employ chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s and gassed 5 000 Kurds to death in the city of Halabja in 1988 during the final phase of the war. It is just such weapons of mass destruction that the UN inspectors have not been allowed to search for. For twelve years, Saddam Hussein has attempted to mock the surrounding world by playing a cat and mouse game with the UN weapons inspectors. He must be got rid off, partly in order to create peace and stability in the region but, in the first place, in the interests of freedom and democracy for Iraq’s oppressed population. The EU’s common foreign and security policy has foundered when it has been most needed. Difficult situations put our trust in each other to the test. Obviously, there is now a lack of such trust in each other within the EU. A European Union in which we do not have confidence in each other is an unstable structure.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, of course I have nothing against part of the budget being dedicated to preventive measures against violence towards children, young people and women, as long as it is dedicated to providing financial help to organisations working at grassroots level. However, I think that the amount proposed is laughable and the Council’s desire to reduce it even further, shocking. The European Parliament and the Council are easing their conscience on the cheap because, besides domestic violence and violence connected to sexual exploitation, we should also acknowledge the growth of social violence which results from the increase in poverty and from the growing destitution amongst the working classes. The greatest act of violence is the serious effect of unemployment, but also the deterioration in the working conditions of those who still have a job. Is it not an act of violence for example, to force women, mothers, to work on production lines at night in order to make the machines more profitable and to provide greater profits for shareholders? Now, not only do the European institutions tolerate such violence, but they have even made it worse by removing measures in the social legislation of some countries which gave some protection to women. And the mollifying speeches of the Daphne programme do not compensate for the rest.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, as other colleagues have mentioned, the rapporteurs hope that amendments to this regulation will facilitate the Kingdom of Norway’s participation in the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction and, in each of the amendments tabled, they have highlighted the action plans, Parliamentary resolutions and the annual evaluation of the Centre. They are also seeking to relaunch the Centre’s work, change the guidelines for action of the Management Board and – it must be pointed out – ensure that Member States cooperate with the Centre as required. We are all responsible for achieving this; the Monitoring Centre, our national public institutions and the Member States themselves. The only way to improve the Centre’s work is by ensuring that the information provided by Member States and the regulations governing the Centre are ever more thorough and reliable. Failure to do so would make it impossible to put an end to an evil that particularly affects the youth of Europe. I also believe that if we fail to take this opportunity to amend the regulation with a view to relaunching the Centre’s work, we run the risk of creating further problems when it comes to incorporating the applicant countries in this work. In the short term, I think that this is one of the key issues to be tackled, which is why we fully agree with the rapporteur and why I believe the report will be adopted unanimously. Each institution must fulfil their respective obligations and urge Member States to gather reliable information by working clearly and effectively together. What is more, they need to draw up specific action plans to tackle a problem that particularly affects the youth in our countries and implement them more rigorously and with greater enthusiasm.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, this proposal is a case of clashing interests, and as far as that is concerned, it is not surprising that it is attracting attention in this way. What I would like to say to the Group is that it should at least not stand in the way of tonight’s discussions. The different positions can be articulated, the vote has not been scheduled for this evening, and if the largest group in Parliament is of the opinion that the vote should not take place tomorrow, it seems more appropriate to me to submit such a proposal tomorrow when we have a full House rather than doing it this evening. That would be premature and in so doing, we would miss the debate. If a group would like to vote against, it has of course every right to do so, but we must also give others the opportunity to vote in favour and let the democratic process run its course. What is now threatening to happen is that no viewpoints will be articulated, although I believe that clarity of this kind will be needed this evening before we can eventually take a vote some time in the future, whenever that may be.

Political group: PPE-DE
The effects of constant announcements regarding the liberalisation of the gas and electricity markets that are not followed up with genuine results are a considerable handicap to European credibility with citizens. These liberalisations should be genuinely set in motion so that they are perceptible to households. Furthermore, based on the European ineffectiveness with regard to South Korea concerning unfair competition on the ship building market, we urgently need to implement the procedure for settling WTO disputes for the sector in question, also in order to open the way for the emergence of a competition policy at international level.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mrs Ghilardotti, firstly because she showed a great deal of flexibility in meetings of the Committee, including taking on board a series of proposals by the , and secondly because this has meant that her very good report on the Common Position on the framework directive for minimum standards in national employee information and consultation points in the right direction. As with the directive on European works councils, the issue is not codetermination, but information and consultation on important economic, financial and employment policy developments in business. Restructuring cannot and should not be hindered, but it must no longer take place in the form of a commando raid, as so often happens – witness Renault's shock at Vilvoorde – but only following prior notification of the employees concerned. There are, though, many parallels with the works councils directive in other respects. The regulations on European works councils apply only to mergers of businesses across national boundaries, but restructuring often takes place at a national level. The favours flexibility. For example, management and labour in a business can, through agreements, arrive at a special made-to-measure arrangement on information and consultation for that business. That is subsidiarity. The Common Position says rightly that agreements should be able to be more, or even less, favourable than the minimum standard. Yet, the rights of local works councils may not be jeopardised under national law. Article 1 prescribes that the procedure should be carried on in a spirit of cooperation. This means partnership. Partnership aims on the one hand at the clear representation of interests, and on the other hand at their conciliation in shared dialogue through information and consultation. There is no doubt that this is economically advantageous. Inadequate information results in insecurity, mistrust, and finally only fear, ending in blockade. Timely information means transparency that creates trust and avoids businesses making friction losses. Both workers and employers are winners, and in the same way. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as we all know, the European Parliament has, in successive reports and motions for many years now, expressed its interest in and sensitivity towards small and medium-sized enterprises and their problems. It has used various means to highlight the important role of small and medium-sized enterprises in creating jobs and introducing technological innovations. However, this much-vaunted interest on the part of the Member States’ governments and the Community institutions is pure hypocrisy since, to all intents and purposes, small and medium-sized enterprises are unable to access funding programmes, unable to take advantage of technological invention and technological modernisation programmes, unable to take advantage of staff education and training programmes and unable to do anything about their unfair treatment at the hands of the tax authorities. These problems could be addressed by revising the banks’ humiliating lending criteria and by making full use of associations of enterprises and chambers which promote technological development programmes and school education programmes. The Commission’s action programmes have done little along these lines; and yet, in the Commission’s announcement and Parliament’s report, here we are promoting options which are mainly of interest to big lenders and, more to the point, we are doing so on in the name of small and medium-sized enterprises. It is a public outrage to propose promoting a single European capital market, ostensibly to serve the interests of small and medium-sized enterprises. The same applies to proposals for single European pension funds, to proposals that insurance fund reserves be channelled into high-risk financial investments and to tax cuts on profits. Certainly, solving problems in connection with the unfair treatment of small and medium-sized enterprises by the tax authorities, simplifying and modernising patents and reducing excessive administrative expenditure and start-up formalities for small and medium-sized enterprises are steps in the right direction. But we consider that satisfying the demands of big lenders in the name of small and medium-sized enterprises is provocative and we shall vote against it.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, it is clear on reading the Seville conclusions on the reform of the Council that Parliament’s recommendations have only been followed partially. The focusing of the European Council on its main role, namely to strengthen the coordination role of the General Affairs Council and greater transparency, are certainly along the right lines. Nonetheless, the European Council could have been more ambitious with regard to the actual functioning of the Council and better cooperation with Parliament in speeding up legislative procedure. We would also have preferred the Community method to be formally confirmed at every stage of the decision-making procedure. Furthermore, to change the subject, the Spanish Presidency deserves thunderous applause for its statement on the Middle East. The European position, which was clear, concise and to-the-point, stands out favourably in comparison with the stalling tactics of President Bush’s speech. In reality, sustainable peace cannot be achieved unless the two adversaries comply with the basic principles of international law and respect the resolutions of the United Nations. We have to put an end to terrorism and occupation. A temporary Palestinian state is an illusion – borderless states do not exist. Israel must therefore draw back within the borders established in 1967 and dismantle its illegal settlements. The Seville Declaration requires military operations to cease. Restrictions on freedom of movement must be lifted, as walls will not lead to peace. Bravo, Mr Aznar, well done! Now you just have to convince our US counterparts that the European vision for peace in the Middle East is the only way to put a stop to these massacres. Moreover, if it is true that lasting peace could be achieved in the Middle East by a change in leadership, then, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I beg you to ensure that Mr Sharon and Mr Arafat bid goodbye to politics on the same day, at the same time.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, this report concerns the prevention and reduction of risks associated with drug dependence. From the beginning, we Swedish Social Democrats have held the view that the recommendation focuses to an unduly high degree upon harm reduction. Our point of departure is that the most important measure for reducing harm is that of preventing dependence itself. That does not mean that we deny the need for efforts to reduce harm. Such efforts must, however, form part of a coherent strategy aimed at bringing about lasting change and lives not dependent upon illegal and other drugs. On this point, the committee has complied with quite a few of the proposals we have tabled. It is therefore very odd that the same committee in the same report should also have accepted a number of amendments in quite the opposite vein. I mean the proposals concerning so-called chill-out rooms, drug classification, special injecting rooms and positive information about drugs. These are proposals that we cannot under any circumstances support. Such measures would imply social acceptance of drug abuse. Nor, obviously, do we accept proposals that are basically contrary to the UN Convention on Drugs. The fact that a drugs policy based upon the three components consisting of prevention, treatment and control really can be successful is, I think, confirmed by the latest major survey carried out in Swedish schools. This survey shows that 92 out of every 100 pupils in Swedish schools have not even tried drugs. This is a result that, in an international context, is extremely encouraging.

Political group: PSE