GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, allow me to reply to some of the points that have been raised. Firstly the question as to whether this is an interim solution. In my view, the Commission proposal with our amendments can be the basis for a solution to the comitology problem that is compatible both with the current treaty and with what is likely to come out of the European Convention. Of course, the Convention must do its work and get rid of the apparent contradictions between Articles 202 and 251 of the Treaty, and perhaps put some of the principles governing the delegation of implementing powers into the Treaty and into the constitution itself, but in my view what we are doing here could be entirely convergent with the work going on in the Convention. Secondly, despite the great convergence we have achieved in general, I would like to mention the issue of the two points which, according to Mr Bourlanges, the Group intends to vote against. I must say I disagree with the Group on this and I would point out that the position that I am defending is based on what was adopted by Parliament in Mr Bourlanges' own report. So I am consistent with what is in Parliament's position up to now, and, indeed, in our own Rules of Procedure, where we have called upon the President of Parliament to ask the Commission to withdraw or modify any implementing measure that Parliament objects to, or to bring forward a legislative proposal. So I am on the solid ground of what Parliament has consistently argued for over time in this and I would hope that the Group would rethink its position before we vote in half an hour's time. Also, on the question of the provisional adoption of a text pending the legislative procedure, this is important in certain circumstances in order to avoid a legal vacuum. The measure applies provisionally while Parliament and the Council go through a legislative procedure to review it, amend it or repeal it, depending on what we decide to do. But it can also be important to have a stopgap solution without a legal vacuum pending that legislative procedure. In other words, I am asking for a menu of options. If Parliament or Council objects to an implementing measure that the Commission has put forward, the Commission can either withdraw it – I think it has that right implicitly under the Treaty anyway but let us make that explicit – or it can amend it to take account of our objections, or it can put forward a legislative proposal. If it does the latter it can apply the measure provisionally, if this is necessary to avoid a legal vacuum, or not if that is not necessary. That range of opportunities is, I think, appropriate. We should maintain the full list and I hope the Group will rethink its position and vote accordingly.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child has so far been signed by 191 countries. The purpose of the special session of the United Nations in New York in September must be not just to get this convention ratified but to ensure that all the countries then apply it. One fundamental element is the fight against child labour. All too often children are seen as an investment to secure the survival of the family. The parents who, like their children, never received an education, are by definition the people who are living in poverty and debt. Children who are exposed from an early age to the harshest physical demands lose not just their innocence and identity, they often lose their whole childhood. I have seen children who will not survive beyond the age of 14. According to estimates by UNICEF, 200 000 children a year are sold in order to work on plantations in west and central Africa. Two million children in the world, mainly girls, are being exploited by pimps. There is cause for hope, however. I have seen positive examples on the ground in India and Nepal. The Rugmark Foundation is helping children whose parents work in carpet factories to obtain educational qualifications. This NGO was founded jointly by German development aid organisations and carpet manufacturers. These rugs rightly carry a quality label stating that they have not been manufactured by children. In the meantime, 10% of Indian exporters have successfully applied for a Rugmark licence. It is a first step in the right direction. It will only be successful in the long run, however, if consumers change their attitude and demand these products. Another example which gives cause for hope comes from Brazil. A pupil's wage has been introduced for 11 million children from the poorest families. This special programme has been set up for ten years and children are being paid a total of EUR 850 million a year to go to school. Examples such as the few which I have been able to cite should set a precedent throughout the world, for the sake of the children. (Applause) Religious freedom in Vietnam

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Islamic Council of Guardians operates as an unelected organisation consisting of Islamic theologians whose task it is, in accordance with Islamic principles, to preserve the heritage of the revolution of 25 years ago. The issue is that of whether this Council of Guardians does not instead discredit religion in itself, the role of priests and theologians in society and what is, in this case, the entirely dominant religion, namely Shi’ite Islam. These are the consequences for the Islamic revolution in Iran of the activities of the Council of Guardians, of the legislation they have promoted and of other legislation they have prevented. We Europeans and members of the European Union must state that, if people have the right to vote, they should have the right to stand as candidates. It is completely unacceptable for theologians to be able to prohibit people from both voting and standing as candidates.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we voted against this report as British Conservatives because although we are in favour of much of what is in the report – we are particularly pleased to see that classic and vintage vehicles will be exempted – we are concerned about the principle of substitution. This means that a product could be banned if another product that is safer or more environmentally benign is proven to be so. The problem is that sometimes these judgments are marginal. Also, it is a big threat to research and development. Companies will not bring products to the market if they think that at the stroke of a pen their product will be removed from the market. Lastly, it is very dangerous for consumers, as it will create a monopoly situation in the product market with subsequent price increases. We voted against to register our displeasure about this particular aspect and this is something that we will also need to fight a big battle on when it comes to the forthcoming Chemicals Directive.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would prefer that we would have had no directive whatsoever on whole-body vibration, because even the ISO Standard report says there is no quantitative link between whole-body vibration and lower back pain. However, having said that, I am very pleased that we have reached an agreement. It is not ideal, but it is better than it might have been. I would have liked it if we had kept the derogation for agriculture and forestry. That was extremely important, but I am pleased, however, that we have agreed that agricultural machinery will not have to be changed until 2014, that is, if the machinery has already been bought by 2007. I am also pleased that we have moved back to the common position limit value of 1.15 m/s2. It is far better than what the Group rapporteur suggested in the first place, which was 0.7 m/s2. The Group suggested 0.8 m/s2. We have moved back to something that is reasonably sensible. If we had not, tractor and dumper-truck drivers would have had to drive their tractor or their dumper-truck for between two to four hours. There is still going to be a problem with harvest time, but most of industry can cope with this apart from the agriculture sector. Those of us who insisted that the levels suggested in the first edition of the report were unworkable won the day. I would like to congratulate everybody on the hard work they put in. We have achieved a worthwhile compromise. It is not ideal, but I will reluctantly be asking my group, , to vote for the directive.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, I firstly want to thank Mrs Gillig for the considerable, and very skilled, work she has done on this report. The result is a well-balanced report, which I support. Parts of the report contain some basic attitudes with which I cannot agree. Globalisation and free trade are at times presented as prejudicial to social development in the world, but I basically think it is the opposite way around. For the developing countries in particular, free trade is the way out of poverty and social deprivation. Social development and workers’ rights are most to the fore in countries with open economies, while the worst examples of basic workers’ rights being infringed are to be found in countries which seal themselves off from the world around them. Basically, then, I think that free trade benefits social development but, that being said, we must of course ensure that the ILO Conventions are effectively complied with so that workers are guaranteed proper working conditions, for I agree with Mrs Gillig that free trade and economic growth are not enough. The Commission’s report shows that the task of ensuring that the Conventions are complied with is one which the ILO does not have the ability to implement, and that is why it has to be asked what it is we ourselves can do. Given the nature of the case, I shall reject the instrument of trade sanctions, but it is important for the EU to put the issue on the agenda at international forums. Unfortunately, not all countries share our view of workers’ rights. We must therefore put the pressure on. It is also only right that workers’ rights should become a natural part of efforts to combat poverty so that, when we provide aid to developing countries, we also factor in workers’ rights. Finally, it is important for us to make an effort in the education field, incorporating information about workers’ rights into vocational training so that such rights can be implemented, both in our own part of the globe and in the poor countries of the world.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, perhaps you could give the Commissioner the opportunity to explain to the House what he intends to do with this Parliament initiative, bearing in mind the new code of conduct which governs relations between Parliament and the Commission.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to echo the compliments for Mr Mulder’s report and input. In much of it we recognise ourselves as the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, but at the same time we note that the credits for agriculture and rural development are falling sharply in the 2004 budget. For agriculture alone the share is falling from 40% to 36%, while there is a slight increase for rural development. In its policy plans the European Commission says that agriculture must produce with a greater market focus, but at the same time any incentive to do so in the budget is being taken away. It is not really acceptable that the amount for the promotion of agricultural products for example has been reduced in the preliminary draft budget for 2004. In addition – as Mr Mulder himself has said – the dollar rate is a great risk: a rate of EUR 1.07 is being assumed and that is substantially lower than the current rate. The question is what that could mean for the budget in the long term. There has also, despite a number of outbreaks of major animal diseases, been almost no extra money set aside for possible future outbreaks. At the same time we have started on a different policy for outbreaks of animal diseases, for example the new policy for foot and mouth disease. This means that in the event of future outbreaks the Commission might spend far less money on slaughter. As the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development we should like to see this money being set aside to cushion the market consequences for farmers who at the time are vaccinating without the animals being slaughtered, but who experience the consequences of this, that is lower market prices. This is also the first budget for the Union of 25 Member States and in fact it is very strange that, converted to the structural funds, there is still less money available per head of population for the new Member States than for a number of existing Member States. To summarise, Mr President, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development thinks that the money that is to be spent on rural development, in particular in the new Member States, must be expressly intended for strengthening the small and medium-sized enterprises in rural areas. There must be extra money for the promotion of agricultural products that meet all the food safety, animal welfare and environmental requirements and money must be set aside, perhaps through fund formation, for cushioning the effects of a different vaccination policy for animal diseases.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, like everyone else I should like to congratulate the rapporteur for the work he has done on this proposal. He has worked very hard on it and moved it quite fast, in parliamentary terms. When you consider the full implications, what he has achieved has been quite phenomenal. This is the most extensive recycling scheme we have ever seen in Europe. Unfortunately, we live in an increasingly throw-away society where we produce more and more waste. What I am pleased to see with this proposal is that we are finally moving in the direction when the days when we can throw fridges, televisions, toasters, mobile phones and other electrical goods into a landfill are over. We all want to see a new era in which environmentally-friendly electric goods are fully recycled or reused. We all need to play our part in this as consumers and become habitual recyclers. But are these proposals going to help us? Furthermore, are Parliament's amendments going to make things better? In large part I can say ‘yes’, but not entirely. Too rigid an application of the principle of individual responsibility will cause major problems for small- and medium-sized enterprises across Europe and prevent sensible collective schemes being implemented. Enforced mandatory separation of electronic waste at each household, which could then, when non-compliance is found, be threatened with punishment is not a sensible way to encourage the cooperation of consumers nor is it, in every case, technically feasible. Do we really want to include consumable spare parts and sub-assemblies in this proposal even if they add contamination and enormous technical problems to the recycling process? Does not everyone realise that small firms throughout the European Union need some extra time and assistance to cope with their full responsibilities and do this job properly? All this leads me to think that we need a bit more time. After tomorrow's vote we should all pause for some thought about how we can make this directive fully environmentally friendly, cost-effective and attractive to the public.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to thank the Representative of the Council Presidency for his answer. Nevertheless, I am a little disappointed that this is viewed from a bilateral angle first and foremost when, ultimately, there is in fact a major tripartite relationship. We provide partnership funding and there are cooperation agreements in place, in order to help Armenia, and still the aid cannot come into play because Turkey has imposed an economic blockade, and so many things cannot get through to the Armenians at all. We are negotiating with Turkey as to the possibility of its acceding to the Union and so it is in the interests of all of us that every state that wishes to become a Member should cultivate friendly relations with its neighbours. Can you not exert greater influence over Turkey, so as to enable there to be peaceful developments in this region, and so as to enable Armenians themselves to develop in the way they need to for there to be progress on the cooperation front?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, conflict prevention has hitherto not been a real priority. For military interventions, men and supplies are already in prospect, but it appears that we are not quite ready for prevention. We are looking forward to April. The key question remains, as Mrs Lalumière remarked earlier, whether the European Union will be sufficiently resolute when it comes to prevention. In the former Yugoslavia, we were unable to prevent conflict for a long time. And every now and again, conflict prevention ended in disastrous circumstances. I would refer to the many African examples, and Rwanda, in particular. The mandates on the basis of which prevention is organised must be sufficient so as to be one step ahead of the conflict. They must be able to work proactively and provide for crisis management. Commissioner, you talk about this entire armed force which will need to be set up. But our point of departure must first of all be based on a sound understanding of the underlying reasons and of the origin of conflicts. In many cases, the underdevelopment, neglect or suppression of certain regions, religions, cultures and ethnic minorities lie at the root of the evil. That is a fertile breeding ground for the illegal arms trade and banditry. Let us therefore not overlook integrated development cooperation as a means of addressing the deeper causes of conflict.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Ferrer, for the recommendation on the implementation of certain articles of the EC-Mexico Interim Agreement on trade. The report is thorough, but I am afraid that I do not agree with the choices and recommendations it makes, although we do welcome some of the criticisms mentioned. However, these criticisms are decisive, and have led us to oppose the motion. I refer, for example, to the insufficient democratic transparency displayed leading up to the agreement, and we, along with all the other Members I imagine, have received a great deal of criticism on this point from both Mexican and European civil organisations, as Mr Kreissl-Dörfler said. We are particularly concerned by the fact that the rapporteur is satisfied with the progress made by Mexico in the area of human rights and democracy since the application of the global agreement. We now have conflicting evidence revealing an increase in violations of human rights, supplied not only by civil society but also by UN representatives and officials, by Mary Robinson herself, by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and by many other sources. The most serious violations include the systematic use of torture, illegal arrests, disappearances, executions by paramilitary death squads, the arrest of trade unionists, bans on strikes and allegations of enforced sterilisation in the State of Guererro. At the same time, the Saint Andrés agreements and the rights of the indigenous peasants are not being observed. All this is common knowledge and I need say no more. We believe, along with the German and Belgian Governments, that we should enforce observance of Article 1 of the Treaty, which contains the fundamental principle, and adopt instruments and set in place practical controls to ensure its implementation. There are many other aspects of this agreement which, we feel, require correction: I will give just one example – it reveals a European Union economic policy which does not take into consideration the social and economic situation in Mexico or its human development. The EU-Mexico Agreement could have negative implications if it does not take into account the need for balanced development, and not uncontrolled liberalisation, which could lead to greater poverty and inequality.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, although some of the aims of the Tobin tax are fairly worthy of support, introducing the tax exclusively within the territory of the European Union, as the first area of the world to do so, would sound the death knell for the European currency markets. If the world’s other important currency trading areas were to be excluded from the Tobin tax, the fact that tax was liable to be paid in Europe would lead to currency dealing moving to those areas. This has already been made clear a number times in this debate. It is not enough that all the world’s industrialised countries should be included in the scheme, as then currency trading would move to tax havens outside that group of countries. There should therefore be a universal application: it is not enough that the G7 countries or the other industrialised countries are involved. On the other hand, it would be so difficult to bring the scheme into force everywhere in the world at precisely the same time – and personally speaking, I do not believe we can achieve this – that the Tobin tax dream might as well be buried. Furthermore, although there might be international consensus on the introduction of the scheme, the question would remain regarding how the tax revenue would be distributed. The world’s currency dealing centres will hardly agree to the tax revenue being used, for example, for a variety of well-meaning, UN-backed purposes throughout the world without a considerable amount of the revenue remaining with them. With regard to the Tobin tax as a means of preventing future currency crises, it has to be realised that the causes of a currency being overvalued cannot be averted through taxation. For that reason, as Mr Karas also said, we should give more attention to the policies that lead to a certain currency being overvalued in relation to its actual potential value. This again would require measures to regulate the exportation and importation of capital; otherwise it would not be possible to focus on policies in this way. Although it seems a reasonable scheme, the Tobin tax is not without its problems, even if there should be agreement as to its implementation, which I do not believe there will. It has to be remembered that money at present is first and foremost information, and that the global economy will, in the future, rotate more and more on the basis of information and intellectual capital. For that reason, the uninterrupted flow of assets in massive volumes between the world’s financial centres is not merely speculative activity, which has nothing to do with the real economy. If this ‘feedback’ mechanism, which gives users the opportunity to make choices, were hampered by measures such as the Tobin tax, mistaken decisions might be made that turned out to be so costly in terms of the economic consequences that the tax would never be able to make up for it. Hence, as Mr Karas has stated to his credit, our Group is resolutely opposed to the introduction of the Tobin tax.

Political group: PPE-DE
I could not agree more with the proposals of both the Committee of Independent Experts and the European Parliament that, in each Member State, a single directorate-general should be entirely responsible for the implementation of the Structural Funds. This would improve coordination between the various departments of the Community, national and regional administrations involved. I would also like to point up the need to concentrate more funding on project quality and on the real impact of the Structural Funds in the regions concerned.

Political group: PSE