GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, at the end of the Spanish Presidency a great deal of things could be said to you about your accomplishments, many of which we have heard this morning, some more positive than others. But no one who aspires to be the least bit objective will fail to recognise that we have not seen six months of formalities, simple management or passive drifting in resigned apathy. Or was establishing a genuine internal market for energy not an unthinkable goal only a few years ago? Or is configuring and developing a European satellite communications system not a step forward in new technologies, significantly changing the current scene and breaking a monopoly that some considered to be irreversible? Who could ignore the fact that, finally, the foundations have been laid for a common immigration policy based on generously opening up our territory to those people who legitimately want a better life, as well as effectively combating the illegal and outrageous trafficking of human beings? Regarding the progress made in the negotiations with the candidate countries, this has been spectacular, and the criticism that some very sensitive chapters were left uncompleted is loaded with partiality and a lack of equanimity. Enough has been done in the complex electoral context in Europe during the past few months. Finally, the criticism based on a supposed change of priorities along the way is selfishly forgetting the dramatic acceleration that has taken place at the beginning of this century and is describing as fickleness what in fact was a remarkable capacity to adapt and to react to the unexpected problems that arose, which required immediate responses. In short, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, we were promised more Europe and more Europe is what we got. We were presented with an extensive and intensive programme, which was largely completed. The Spanish six-month Presidency began with a renewed enthusiasm for the future of the Union, and despite the obvious problems and obstacles, that enthusiasm is stronger than ever now, as a result of the Spanish Presidency. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to warmly welcome this report by Mrs Carlotti and congratulate her on her very thorough and far-reaching work. I am struck, in particular, by how strongly the theme of genuine partnership shines through; how the EU/ACP Joint Parliamentary Assembly is a unique relationship in modern political life and – imperfect as it is – it can stand as a model for new and innovative relations between North and South, which are perhaps today needed more urgently than ever before to build a more peaceful and sustainable world. That does not mean that there is not room to improve the workings of that relationship. I commend Mrs Carlotti for the proposal she makes in that regard. I would like to expand on a couple of them. First, if a partnership is a genuine one, then it must also be a consistent and coherent one; one that manifests itself not only in the EU's development policy but also in the EU's trade and economic policy; not only a partnership within the confines of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly, but a partnership that extends into other international institutions like the WTO, the World Bank and the UN. At the WTO in particular, there is enormous scope for the EU and ACP working more closely together. On trade there are some huge political challenges ahead, not least the negotiation of the regional economic partnership agreements. These have the potential to have damaging effects on some of the poorest ACP countries who are simply not ready to open their markets to the EU and who do not have the negotiating capacity to engage not only in this process and the WTO process but also in the process of their own regional cooperation agreements. It is therefore essential that the JPA plays an active role in shaping and monitoring this process. Greater involvement of civil society will also be key. I appreciate the proposals in the report which would enable the views of NGOs to be heard far more systematically in the JPA's proceedings. Finally, a partnership must be a partnership of equals. We urgently need to find the means and the resources to fund it, to address the basic imbalance between the representation of the EU side, reflecting Parliament's political make-up and spectrum of political views, and a system of representation of the ACP states based on one country, one vote, which prevents different political views being expressed. The JPA is a unique instrument of cooperation and solidarity, North and South. We need to value it, improve it, and build on it as a model for North-South cooperation.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would first like to support what Mr Mennea has said, and then to ask this question: do we see the social significance of sport as the old ‘bread and circuses’ or ‘bread and sport’, or do we see it as a means of improving health and building moral fibre? It has never been clear what social significance we should attribute to it. By and large, I have to say that the top-level sport we are generally talking about here is not necessarily a healthy pursuit, any more than the extreme sports that I go in for, or used to do. Only the gods on Mount Olympus can say whether top-level sport is healthy or not – we certainly cannot. Let me turn to the facts now. Because of globalisation, our consumer society has become ever more hungry for stars, sensations and records. So, officials and businessmen have turned ‘bread and sport’ into a branch of show business that is now one of the biggest in the world, and the process of commercialisation, is of course, continuing. And the systematic doping that this commercialisation encourages is simply intensifying this process. Those are the facts of the matter. There is no way we can change those facts unless we create greater transparency, and unless we set up an independent anti-doping agency which is accessible to everyone and which everyone understands. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
The Swedish have voted against the draft report since we find it incompatible with the principle of subsidiarity, in spite of the fact that the subject as such – the situation of young farmers – is of pressing importance. We especially object to paragraph 10 in which the unreasonable proposal is made that the ‘EU should consider making it mandatory for the Member States to provide minimum levels of installation aid to young farmers’. In our view, this is emphatically not a supranational issue. - Varela Suanzes-Carpegna report (A5-0365/2000)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the monopolies’ ban is the key element of functioning competition order in Europe. The Commission deemed the practical administration relating to the monitoring of the monopolies’ ban to be unsatisfactory, something I would wholeheartedly agree with. But opinion differs as to the solution. The Commission’s proposal does not formally deviate from the monopolies ban but the upshot of this proposal is a transition from a ban with permit reservation to a permit with ban reservation. In other words, we are making the transition from the principle of banning to that of misuse. Both I and other MEPs utterly reject such a drastic change of system. I do not accept that a practical transposition problem should give rise to changing the law. We would be changing the law to make it executable again, which is something I consider to be unacceptable. The Commission is giving up its monopoly on exemptions. Competition restrictions are to be automatically exempted against the background of this planned system of legal exemption, insofar as the provisions of Article 81(3) of the Treaty on European Union allow. The requirement to lodge applications in Brussels will be dropped; in other words, the Commission will be completely in the dark in future. This is unacceptable to my mind. The Commission’s programme is to be supplemented by enhanced follow-up supervision of the national authorities and Member States’ courts. But if this takes place in the course of renationalisation then what we will have here is a patchwork quilt of competition policy. This is unacceptable in my view. It would weaken a key element of European policy. The change of system in European monopolies law that the European Commission is contemplating is high risk as far as competition policy is concerned. There are enough other options in the present system to safeguard open markets and free competition. In any case, the Commission’s proposal refers back to old proposals that were put forward as long ago as the fifties and sixties. There was no majority for this at the time. Since France laid a huge amount of emphasis on legal exemption at the time, it was damaged by concessions in agricultural policy. Forty years on, this proposal has again been placed on the table and I am certain that it will create room for manoeuvre for the monopolies, to the detriment of Europe’s consumers. I consider this to be unacceptable.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, before we vote on this particular report, I think that it is important that Members are aware of the legal advice given by our own legal services, which was not available when we voted in committee. This makes it quite clear that certain aspects of this report fall outside the scope of the Community's responsibilities referred to in Article 175. The good news is that voting for Amendment 28 will solve all those problems. (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) After the vote

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I congratulate the rapporteur and I welcome the Commission proposal for the revision of the current rules concerning recognition of non-EU seafarers. The present rules are cumbersome and have led to duplication and high administrative costs. It is therefore logical and beneficial to establish recognition of training given in third countries. It is essential that recognition, not only of third countries' systems and procedures, but also of their continued compliance, be, for a substantial initial period of time, strictly monitored at European level, as such recognition will be global in nature. One particular difficulty highlighted by various Community seafarers was the question of the lack of language understanding and fluency in communicating with third country seafarers. I welcome therefore the fact that language requirements are included for the certification of third country seafarers. This is essential to ensure safety, particularly in emergencies. Maritime safety is a priority and we must do all we can to ensure that human error is kept to a minimum. The Commission and the European Maritime Safety Agency will carry a huge responsibility. I would like to emphasise also that we must do everything possible to support and encourage seafaring as a profession within the European Community itself. I would like to highlight certain amendments for support: Amendment No 11 which clarifies that certificates issued before the directive enters into force would remain valid; Amendment No 21 which provides that only countries complying with the STCW Convention should receive recognition and Amendment No 22, which proposes a definitive period for Member States to implement these proposals.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is with great concern that I note – as do many of our fellow citizens – a decision taken by the US Congress, which makes the implementation of an aid package for Aids amounting to USD 15 billion in value conditional upon the willingness of the recipient countries in Africa to accept supplies of genetically-modified food. Although this composite measure is not legally binding, it is clear to me that it puts African countries under a great deal of pressure. This, in my view, amounts to a trade policy pursued at the expense of the poorest, and that is to be repudiated! This decision by the US Congress has made that plain, and one wonders how much leverage the biotechnology and agriculture lobbies, with their business interests, are exerting on the American administration’s humanitarian aid policy. There is no doubt that recent decades have seen many millions of dollars poured into the development of genetically-modified seeds, and now, as I see it, every market is to be pressured into opening up to them. Humanitarian aid can, however, be effective only if it does not play second fiddle to commercial interests, and so I would like to ask the Commission what it is contemplating doing about this, or what view it takes of such a development in this area. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we all want to see the end of the ‘banana war’, but the immense complexity of the problem deceives no one. Clearly the banana has become a political issue, with the dispute symbolising a certain conception of world trade, of a Europe which stands by and defends its decisions, its specific political nature and its commitment to the countries of the South. So on this issue – I know – the Commission’s task is not an easy one. It is torn between contradictory positions and I understand the difficulties encountered in trying to reconcile the various interests. But while I share the desire to put an end to a trade war which is poisoning transatlantic relations, this cannot be done at any price, abandoning without compensation the principles of justice and solidarity which guide the action of the European Union. I, for one – and there are many in this Parliament who feel the same – refuse to see Europe dictated to, even indirectly, by a handful of multinationals with colonialist attitudes and anachronistic social behaviour. I am sorry, too, that we have not fought for the retention of a specific quota for the ACP countries which alone guaranteed them access to the market. But the rapporteur’s proposal is satisfactory because it defends the quota system and rejects any automatic move to an exclusively tariff-based regime. So I thank him and I also thank Mr Fernández Martín for putting the committee’s point of view. Of course, the ACP countries know they must adapt to world trade. But let us give them time. Let us give them enough time, let us give them the means to produce their plants themselves, let us help them build their greenhouses. Let us encourage organic farming and, in ten years, believe me, the price of African bananas will have fallen to the level of dollar bananas. They will then become competitive. If we impose the brutality of an exclusively tariff-based regime too rapidly, bananas are going to taste incredibly bitter to thousands of small African producers.

Political group: PSE
Politics is like drilling through thick planks of wood and, far too often, the only way forward is bit by bit. We all know that, in times like these, it is a political imperative that we give people a feeling of security. We need openness, labelling and transparency. Politically mature citizens want to decide for themselves what to eat. It is clear that this demand cannot relate solely to the end product. So we have a fundamental interest in documenting the history of our food and making it transparent. Farmers on the ground are responsible for animal protection and food safety. They must be held accountable for what they feed to their animals, not only to secure their own economic success (though this is a factor we should not lose sight of) but also to satisfy consumers. When I look at individual actions, I sometimes get the impression that time is running away from us. My own land in Germany, Rheinland-Pfalz, has introduced a seal of approval for beef which aims to guarantee not only the origin of the animal but its history and what it has been fed. The feedingstuffs industry has come on board of its own free will and offers an open declaration of feed materials and stronger controls. Farmers would otherwise buy their feed elsewhere: only with this information can they get the seal of approval. I hope in future there will be more such self-imposed obligations. This would set the wheel in motion and feedingstuff manufacturers would be practically forced to make an open declaration out of economic necessity. In the here and now, however, it is a question of taking a political decision and establishing the legal bases, which must be the same for everybody. That is why we need the open declaration. We need traceability and we also need controls. I hope that the report by Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf will set the wheel turning. I do not understand the Commission’s position in opposing a positive list at all. - Sanders-ten Holte Report (A5-0093/2001)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in March this year we adopted the directive on cableway installations designed to carry persons. If the directive had already been implemented, the accident in Austria might not have happened. This demonstrates just how important legislation is here, and directives in areas as sensitive as product safety need to be implemented as soon as possible. I hope that will happen before 3 May 2002. The proposal on product safety before us today is a general directive relating in particular to those areas not covered by existing directives. I would like to thank the Commission for adding a very important new point here. I have in mind the presumption of conformity, that is to say that if products comply with European standards they are considered to be safe. I believe that this principle is enormously important for consumer protection because it makes it possible to check at any point whether a product complies with standards or not. In view of this, Amendment No 37, which provides for external certification and for CE declarations to be issued not just by companies, but also by external and impartial agencies, is particularly important for consumer protection, because it would, of course, considerably increase consumers' confidence in such declarations. In the case of Amendment No 14 on the publication of standards in the Official Journal, I naturally have some difficulty with this because the present copyright is with the national standards agencies, who are therefore entitled to royalty payments from the European Union. In addition, there is the question of what the scope of current standards in Europe is and what the scope of European standards would be. I therefore have some very considerable reservations and wish to reject this particular provision. With regard to export bans, it cannot automatically be assumed that our standards are appropriate throughout the world. There are many countries that have their own regulations and safety standards which meet those countries' needs far better than standards currently in force in Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, in your communication on the European research area you also referred to the poor mobility of researchers and to the problems within Europe. Hence my question: do you intend to follow up this communication on the European research area with legislative initiatives, with a view, for instance, to improving mobility as well as social protection during periods spent abroad?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the liberal group is not very happy with the rapporteur’s proposals. Firstly, because they contain legislation which is not workable in practice and harms the competitiveness of self-employed drivers. Secondly, because compliance with the rules cannot be monitored or enforced. They are therefore unnecessary, and the liberal group is always opposed to such legislation. Thirdly, there is sufficient national legislation. Even the Common Position is giving this due consideration. And if there is any legislation required at all, then the majority of my group are satisfied with the common position. The transport sector consists of a few major businesses, and their employees must be given sound working conditions. It is in the interest of the internal market that a European framework be created for that purpose. But the transport sector also consists of many small, self-employed drivers. They are independent businesses with one or two lorries which service a vital segment of the market. They must be able to do their work, their businesses must be profitable and their services competitive, and they must not be bogged down by unnecessary red-tape and legislation. One of our major objections is therefore to the proposal that self-employed drivers will need to comply with this legislation in three years’ time. It would be preferable to see what the proposals bring and only then to consider whether self-employed drivers should adopt this framework or whether separate regulation is required. As for night work, we agree on the times as described in national legislation, for they offer plenty of flexibility. However, the period of availability is creating problems for us. Here too, we would like to take a pragmatic approach. Drivers often face unforeseen hold-ups, as a result of which they need to have more frequent breaks to eat, for example. There are other reasons for long delays. If all that were to be included in working time, the driver would very soon reach the maximum limit, as a result of which productivity would decline unnecessarily. That has little to do with health and safety. Finally, the definition of working time is far too detailed. Here too, the liberal group has chosen to subscribe to the common position. You will gather from my speech that there are a few additional aspects which I have not mentioned. I cannot explain those rules to the voter. The liberal group will be voting against the relevant amendments and in favour of the common position.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I shall be brief, because almost everything has been said already, while I was waiting my turn. The situation in Peru, like the situation in Paraguay, gives cause for concern. Nevertheless, I must say that what we have witnessed in Peru is nothing new. The President of Peru has for years been failing to play by the rules that we expect in a democracy. So I would not just send a delegation of observers to Peru, but I would also recommend that the European Union, the Council and also this Parliament should pay more attention to the whole region. We need more than just a resolution every now and again, we need to be constantly alert and critical, so that the people who are working for democracy are aware of our support. Furthermore, I would like to point out that is not just the OAS, important as it is for Latin America, that has supported democracy in Latin America. The European Union and this Parliament have in fact also played a key role here. We have spent a great deal of money in this region and it would be gratifying if now and again people talked about the European Union’s contribution in Latin America, and not just about North America’s role. This is not intended to be a chauvinistic remark, I am just making it so that justice is done towards us. I hope that the European Parliament’s views on Peru will not go unheard in that country. I know that a great many people set a lot of store by what this Parliament says. Lastly, I would also like to mention that the longest standing relationship between the European Parliament and another parliament is with the Latin American Parliament – to which Peru also belongs – and that involves certain obligations. I accordingly hope that we will obtain a large majority in favour of this resolution. MR ONESTAVice-President

Political group: PSE