GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, years ago, the European Commission undertook that it would commit itself to the local dimension of European employment policy. There were, unfortunately, no additional financial resources; these had to come out of the European Social Fund. Parliament sees local employment markets as having priority. They make substantial contributions to improving the conditions under which people work, to improvements in services, in the social economy, in the third sector, both in centres of population and in regions to which access is difficult. They improve the start-up conditions for new businesses, not only in the regional domestic market, but also at the national and international level. The under-representation of women, to which Mr De Rossa has referred, means that effective measures need at last to be taken to support them in all positions in businesses. Integration is being promoted. Marginalised groups and the socially disadvantaged such as old people, the unemployed, and people with disabilities, find entry into local labour markets easier. Territorial Employment Pacts, in which towns and local authorities cooperate, are equally noteworthy. Dialogue is taking place between the social partners. What is missing, though, is the purposeful exchange of experiences and best practices across national borders. In order to make more effective use of the potential of local and regional jobs, we need employment strategies by the social partners in enterprises – of which Mr Menrad gave a very good example – and on the part of the authorities. Aid on the spot can certainly be provided by development agencies, observatories – including via the EU's Socrates and Leonardo programmes – by community initiatives and by the Structural Funds' support of employment services. The concept of lifelong learning will then help with adaptation to technological change and with the acquisition of new knowledge. I expressly refer to my fellow MEP Mrs Lulling by supporting the demand in Mr Schmid's very fine report for a marked increase in financial resources for education and for its content to be of the best possible quality.

Political group: PPE-DE
I did not vote in favour of the Lamassoure report because it anticipates the work being done by the Convention. We cannot call on the representatives of governments, national parliaments and the European Parliament to redefine the future architecture of the European Union and, at the same time, try and draw up plans for the house of Europe on our own. If we need to define who does what in Europe and why as clearly as possible, the European Parliament cannot do so alone.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the Commissioner has pointed out, this budget covers a broad spectrum of activities. This broad spectrum of European funding tasks also includes foreign policy. Europe is a major player on the foreign policy stage, especially in non-military crisis management, and the Committee knows that different problems arise with these budget headings than with funds administered within the European Union by the Member States. The Committee on Foreign Affairs has therefore made it a priority to ensure that the decisions adopted by this House are also implemented. It is unacceptable that year after year, billions of euro are not spent because the services, the cooperation with the Directorate-General, do not function effectively. That is our criticism of this budgetary procedure. There has been restructuring within the new Commission. Europe Aid has been launched, and we expect that as a result, the programmes agreed by Parliament will be implemented more speedily in future. But at the same time, we expect the Commission to refrain from setting up its own new implementing organisation and to draw instead on Member States' competencies, as they should be playing an active role in this area as well. We want the political management of all these problems to be undertaken in Europe, but we also want the allocated funds to be drawn down. In a year's time, we will measure your success in terms of what you have done with the many additional posts which have been created. So this issue will undoubtedly arise once again during the next budgetary procedure, including the discharge procedure.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I just wanted to correct what Mr Posselt said. He said that he did not think there was a quorum on the vote on Mrs Buitenweg's report. By my calculations, 242 people voted on that report including about 35 Members of the , and they should be congratulated on supporting that excellent report yesterday.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Pérez Álvarez. Thank you for this sound report. I should above all like to focus on one element in this report in which reference is made to the Commission’s approach, which has been relatively cautious so far. The topic is labour relations. Everyone knows that they change at an incredible rate, and when I say an incredible rate, I mean an incredible rate. As has been mentioned by different people, these encompass non-typical work of different kinds, and include temporary staff, the self-employed, the self-employed without staff, the spurious self-employed etc., a large number of whom attend the workplace to work. This is not only important for the workers’ own health, safety and well-being, but also for that of those indirectly involved. In other words, changes do need to be made, particularly if you consider current legislation in the different countries and realise that some countries include the self-employed in their occupational health and safety legislation to some extent, while other countries do not at all. The Commission has opted for a recommendation. I would have preferred a stronger instrument, with immediate effect. The reason is simple: we can accept the fact that a kind of evaluation is planned in four years' time and better measures will follow if need be, but on the other hand – and I should like to come back to this in connection with the previous topic – at what stage is the enforcement of this legislation monitored? In the workplace and, if you are lucky, by labour inspectorates. This inspection is often inadequate, however. The most forceful impact is exercised by employers’ organisations, trade unions in the workplace, works councils or other consulting organisations. They carry out this work, and without legislation they have no leg to stand on. Relations between employers and employees at the workplace are being completely overlooked here. This is of crucial importance, and this is why tougher legislation will be needed in this area in due course.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, this is a very complicated process as Mrs Karamanou has already explained. I would therefore urge you to allow me to very briefly explain the process once again. I have also agreed to do this with the member of the Group who works as a coordinator in our committee, since the has proposed two amendments, although only for the legislative resolution. The text of the resolution itself should be rejected. However, I would urge a vote to be taken on the legislative resolution, together with both amendments, in which it is pointed out that we invite the Council to put forward a new draft text. The present text should therefore be rejected and the Council invited in the legislative resolution to submit a new text. It therefore comes down to the rather unusual process of the text which is actually to be voted on being rejected, but a vote then having to be taken on the legislative resolution. I would urge that this rather remarkable procedure be carried out. It gives us the chance to obtain a new text.

Political group: PSE
The purpose of the Dublin Convention and Eurodac is to allocate to a single Member State responsibility for examining an asylum application, and the justification for the proposed regulation is that there is a need to extend fingerprinting to certain categories of illegal immigrants on the grounds that a substantial number of them will have claimed asylum previously or intend to do so. The problem is that some have not and will not, so this means that the proposed regulation goes beyond the strict terms of Dublin by guessing at or anticipating the existence of an asylum application. Thus the Dublin Convention is, in the words of the UK House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities, a shaky edifice on which to construct a system for taking and exchanging fingerprint data on those who have not yet made or may not make an asylum application. This is a legally uncertain basis for legislation and that makes me unhappy. There is also an absence of clarity in the definition of the illegal immigrants to whom the regulation will apply. Member States are required to fingerprint every third-country national over 14 who is apprehended in connection with the irregular crossing of their border – that is not very precise. Fingerprinting is a serious invasion of privacy and the compatibility of such requirements with the European Convention on Human Rights needs to be carefully weighed. I am not sure that this has really been done. There are also data protection worries, which is why Parliament wanted to extend the provisions on erasing data to include, for instance, those who obtain any kind of legal status to remain in a Member State even if not full refugee status. I am glad to see the amended proposal takes up Parliament's demand to erase the data when an individual has got a subsidiary or temporary form of protection, but could I enquire whether this would cover for example – in the system I know best – the UK's exceptional leave to remain? Finally, Mr President, whatever the justification for widening the Eurodac fingerprinting system to some categories of illegal immigrants, I am personally not convinced that this proposal is legally watertight. Are the Council and the Commission so convinced?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, as draftsman of the Committee on Agriculture, I should like to recapitulate a number of the committee’s main causes for concern on this question. The most important objective of the Commission proposal – and I should like expressly to stress this once again – is the traceability of beef or bovine animals from birth through to processing and sale. This is one of the consequences of the BSE crisis and we must bear the objective of this proposal, i.e. traceability, in mind when debating what information should appear on the label. We want labels which are practicable, simple, safe, cheap and easy to control. Labels must be easy for consumers to understand, which is why the information needs to be kept to a minimum. Consumers want information, not a novel. Information on the fattening process and, where applicable, on antibiotics or other stimulants administered, as demanded in proposed Amendment No 48, have absolutely no business to be on the label. Information which does not come under compulsory labelling but which is requested by market participants or is already included on labels in the Member States can continue to be included within the framework of voluntary labelling. This applies in particular to information on the region of origin of the meat. As far as the entry into force of the regulation is concerned, we agree in principle with the Commission’s approach that compulsory labelling should be introduced in two stages, but we do not agreed with the timetable insofar as we think that the date of 1 January 2003 has been put far too far back. We shall have problems explaining this to consumers. The Committee on Agriculture agreed on the wording “by 1 January 2002 at the latest” in a compromise on the introduction of compulsory information on origin, i.e. stage 2. Now the Committee on the Environment has opted for 1 September 2001 and I think that we can agree to this date. It is only a matter of four months. But we are emphatically against making all the information, including the indication of the place of birth, compulsory when the regulation enters into force in September 2000, rather than in two stages. That makes no sense, as the electronic database on which traceability depends is not yet up and running in the majority of Member States. A compulsory labelling system for beef can only be as good as the system for registering bovine animals and all their movements.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am very happy to be speaking at the request and on behalf of Mrs Sauquillo. We would first of all like to thank Nelson Mandela, who once again truly deserves the Nobel Peace Prize which has been awarded him. I would like to stress that the Arusha Agreement does not represent the end of the war, for peace has not yet been established, but the agreement does exist and requires an immediate initiative from the European Union. The initiative must include the following elements: we must send a message to those who have signed the agreement to urge them to persist and keep going along the road they have chosen; we must send a message to those who have not yet signed the agreement to remind them that there is no alternative to peace, that the only alternative to peace is to continue with the suffering caused by colonial inheritance, death and oppression; we must also send a message to the neighbouring countries to request that they refrain from interfering in the domestic affairs of other countries and must contribute to and uphold the peace process. The European Union's initiative must include financial assistance, for genuine, stable peace processes need assistance if they are to evolve into stable democracies.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to warmly thank Mr Garriga Polledo for his work and I also look forward to fruitful cooperation in connection with the budget for 2005. The comment I would like to make is of a more general nature, as both Terry Wynn’s report on the financial outlook and also the report before us now speak of the Lisbon process, the need to achieve greater economic growth. I ask myself why there is no mention anywhere of the promises made in Gothenburg? Then the issues were the quality of the growth that we are bringing about, sustainability and biodiversity. There must be more investment in clean sources of energy and energy saving and that must also manifest itself in the budget. The Member States seem to want to achieve the objectives of Lisbon mainly through a kind of management by speech, as money and real social policy are not being put on the table. Hollow statements are made, but we hear no more about sustainability and the promises that were made about that, they are being forgotten. I want a Europe of people and the environment, not of the market and currency. In other words, not only a Europe of Lisbon, but also of Gothenburg.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, like my fellow MEPs and the Miguélez Ramos report, I must highlight the Commission’s arbitrary working methods. It is absurd that the Commission did not consult Parliament or the Council on reforming the Advisory Committee on Fisheries and yet it is consulting us on this proposal for a regulation to strengthen the dialogue between the Commission and the fishing industry. This means that the Commission did not consult us on the primary regulations but is doing so on the accompanying aspects. It did not consult us on the regulations establishing the dialogue but is doing so on how to strengthen this dialogue now it has been established. Yet the Commission’s reforms of such an important body as the Advisory Committee, which is the only body to involve the fishing industry in decisions affecting it, have prompted serious criticisms and doubts in Parliament, in the Council and in the industry itself. These criticisms involve the fact that a large part of the industry actually involved in fishing is not sufficiently represented on this new committee. Having said this, in short, the financial resources in the proposal are welcome. It only remains for me to congratulate Mrs Miguélez Ramos on her report and, in particular, to defend the amendment which imposes the obligation to present Parliament with an annual report on the substance and conclusions of the debates of the working groups created by this regulation. I must also applaud the request contained in the opinion by Mr Gallagher, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, for detailed reports on the distribution of funds among the various Member States and organisations which may benefit by this proposal.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, after listening to my Danish colleague, you can appreciate the fatuous level at which the debate was carried on in Denmark, a debate which led to a ‘no’ vote. However, a decision was made, and we must respect this. I should therefore like to take this opportunity to wish Mrs Ulla Sandbæk luck with her victory, for it is not of course only silly British Conservatives and Jürgen Haider who have seen this as a good result.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to add my voice to all those who have already spoken in order to draw this House’s attention – which was not really necessary, but it had to be done – to the appalling tragedy unfolding in Mozambique. I have some figures here, which I believe are the most up-to-date ones available. More than three hundred people have already died, six hundred and fifty thousand have become displaced, two million four hundred thousand people have been cut off, with eighty-five thousand needing to be evacuated, some of whom are in treetops, others on roofs. As has already been said, helicopters are the priority and it is equally important that there is no delay in providing this humanitarian aid. Otherwise, apart from the tragedy created by the floods, the next tragedy will arise: that of a lack of aid to the people, who will die of hunger and disease and who will die in the floods. This would be a real tragedy and one which would weigh heavily on the conscience of us all. The Commissioner said a while ago that he had emotional ties with Mozambique, as I have myself, and that he therefore understands the whole tragic situation taking place and what is at stake. I hope that the mission by Commissioner Nielson and the Portuguese State Secretary will provide the information that this House needs in order to understand the current situation, and what the most urgent needs are, so that we can help the people of Mozambique, who genuinely deserve our help, in their struggle for development.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it is with some regret that I must disagree slightly with my colleague, Mr Katiforis. I am speaking particularly on behalf of the UK delegation in order to say that we will not be supporting this report for many of the reasons that Mr Katiforis has already outlined. We do not accept the argument that price makes no difference to the amount of cigarettes consumed. In fact, I have figures here from the UK, which show that a 10% increase in the price of cigarettes leads to a 4% decrease in consumption. So there is a link between the cost of smoking and the amount that is actually smoked. That is the case that the UK delegation is making, particularly with regard to Amendments Nos 2 and 3 on reducing the excise duty below that set out in the original report. It is important for Parliament to vote against this report, because very recently we adopted the tobacco directive, which, as we all know, took various public health measures to reduce smoking. It therefore seems very inconsistent to adopt this report, which seeks to pass measures and form opinions which will, to some extent, go against the measures we have already taken on public health grounds. That is not to say that we do not understand the issues raised about the applicant countries and about small and medium-sized tobacco producers. If voting against this report has an effect on them, that is unfortunate and is not something that we would wish to see. But when we are discussing tobacco we are talking about a product which is harmful to health wherever you happen to live, and that is the main argument. This is a health measure rather than anything to do with production or with harmonising duty, though that we accept the latter as a principle. I felt that I needed to explain our position and say why the UK will be voting against this report later today.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, almost thirty years ago now, everything seemed to favour the emergence of a new nation in Angola: the immense size of its territory, its fabulous natural resources, its small population and its network of small towns spread across the entire country. Everything could have been so different, had it not been for the blindness of the Portuguese dictatorship and the brutality of the fight for power that followed decolonisation. Bereft of the pity of the gods and victim of the madness of man, Angola was engulfed in one of the great tragedies of our time, one-third of the population displaced, hundreds of thousands of children abandoned, the destruction of towns and the dismantling of the country’s burgeoning economic infra-structure. All the resources seized by the opposing forces were dedicated to war and to cruelty, with total indifference for the population. We know that in the midst of the poverty and the widespread suffering, countless individuals linked to the State apparatus managed illegally to accumulate incalculable wealth. The time has at last arrived for peace and for hope. The international community and the European Union in particular must spare no effort to consolidate peace, to promote democracy and to save millions of people who are exposed to hunger, disease and poverty. The motion for a resolution that we will be approving today shows that the European Parliament has not forgotten Angola. As a matter of fact, the EP has given many moral commitments to Angola. We must redouble our efforts to provide emergency aid to the population under threat, particularly those people who, located in the areas under the influence of UNITA, are living in the most abject poverty. The Angolan authorities, however – and this must be emphasised – also have the moral obligation to give up much of the wealth they have accumulated and help their own people. They also have the obligation to contribute to steer emergency aid in the right direction and to guarantee that it reaches those for whom it is intended and does not disappear en route. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, we in the European Parliament are therefore keeping a close eye on events in Angola. The European Parliament wants Angola to be a land of peace and of progress, a land and a country that is part of the international community. Angola has enormous resources, huge talents and huge hopes. And here, in the European Parliament, we must stand shoulder to shoulder with the Angolan people, even if at times we have to get tough with the authorities installed in Luanda.

Political group: PSE