GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, when the Barcelona Summit takes place, it will be two years since the Lisbon process began and the objective was set of creating the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy in the world by the year 2010. It is now high time that we provided stronger support for developing and consolidating the process of modernising the European economy and that we made clear our demands for practical measures. If we are to be able to create a dynamic and competitive Europe, then deregulation, liberalisation, structural changes and tax reductions must be implemented. That will in turn lead to basic conditions being created for new companies and new jobs, as well as to increased prosperity. We shall not obtain a dynamic and competitive Europe though further detailed regulations or through the EU’s taking on responsibility for an increased number of areas. What is fundamental to achieving the Lisbon objective is, first of all, an internal energy market characterised by liberalisation, competition and openness. This is of the greatest importance to European industry and the people of Europe if they are to obtain better service and lower prices. The second prerequisite is an internal market for financial services with a view to improving the opportunities for investment and economic growth by means of lower capital costs and increased profitability. Modernisation of the European economy is partly aimed at reducing unemployment in Europe, for example by increasing employee mobility, something which is also very important if the common currency is to flourish. Small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular, must also be provided with sound basic conditions in which to start up, grow and become larger – or, perhaps, even to become large companies. I believe that these viewpoints should have been the main content of Parliament’s statements about the continued direction of the Lisbon process prior to the Barcelona Summit. Unfortunately, that has not quite been the case, something which we Conservatives regret. The report even contains a number of points that are in direct conflict with dynamic and competitive development. If the report were really to have supported the Lisbon process, it should have focused upon deregulation, liberalisation and increased competition.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in the space of one minute I can only paint a sketchy picture of the rapporteurs’ work, and I apologise to them in advance. I recognise all that they have done. I would simply like to say to you that the compromise, which consists in providing medicines with data protection for eight years, plus two, plus one, is a great New Year gift from the European Parliament to the pharmaceutical industry and recognition of the effectiveness of powerful lobbies. This gift will, however, further deepen the deficits for the Member States’ social security budgets by delaying the marketing of generic medicines. Why such generosity? The pharmaceutical industry put forward the reason that it must fund research, but studies have proven that only a fifth of new medicinal products launched on the market during the last twenty years were really innovations. In addition, the New York Times writes that two thirds of medicinal products approved between 1989 and 2000 were only minor modifications of existing medicinal products. Furthermore, if our social security systems urgently need generic medicines, then what about developing countries where 95% of AIDS victims live and where there are also a large number of endemic diseases? There, the lack of generic medicines is, quite simply, criminal. Amendment No 19 of the Grossetête report refers to this. For goodness sake, let us adopt this and uphold the spirit of Doha. Let us at least set our solidarity with the developing world against the pharmaceutical lobbies.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I will not join in the German polemic, but wish the Danish Presidency good luck. A polished, presentable presentation has been given, without so much as a single independent thought. Danes are, after all, a humble people. We are and remain the tail of the German bulldog, but the Prime Minister’s rhetoric makes it look as if it is the tail that is wagging the dog. And behind this fine picture – this fine rhetoric – is a reality that encompasses a great many contradictions. My esteemed fellow MEP, Per Gahrton, expressed one of them. A very remarkable contradiction which lies in the fact that the Danish Government, which now holds the presidency of the EU, is propped up by a party that represents a pronounced degree of hostility to outsiders that borders on racism. Together with this supporting party – the Danish People’s Party, which is also represented here in this House – it has presented a programme on foreigners the contradictions of which were very clearly documented by Mr Gahrton, and I would like to repeat Mr Gahrton’s question. The second point in the rhetoric is the European mastery of the manipulation of referendums – the clear message to the Irish population. I do not know what this clear message is. The situation that Ireland is in has not changed, and the Danish Presidency has demonstrated its ability to manipulate referendums previously. The final and crucial point is the mantra: an area of freedom, security and justice – AFSJ. Without blinking the Prime Minister, the Danish President-in-Office, talks about a strengthened fight against terrorism. Now, nearly one year after September 11, we are seeing panic legislation which firstly leaves much to be desired in respect of the elemental Rule of Law, and secondly sets out EU measures that have no basis in the treaty. I am thinking in particular of the European arrest warrant. The Rule of Law and democracy are on the way out.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I am going to answer Mr Gorostiaga because I understand that he talked about me, and I will show respect where he has shown disrespect and parliamentary courtesy where he has shown discourtesy. I just wished to point out that what I did in my speech was clearly point out that each time the President of Parliament courageously speaks out to condemn the cowardly murders by the terrorist group ETA, Mr Gorostiaga, taking advantage of the freedom that he has as a Member of this House, a freedom that his friends in the terrorist group ETA trample on every day, takes the opportunity to justify the unjustifiable. Therefore, Mr President, the only thing that I wished to do was to ask how long we are going to have to tolerate this type of statement in this House, which is an offence to the memories of the victims and makes a mockery of the positions taken by Parliament?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I wanted to justify our vote straight away, but unfortunately you did not notice in this confusion. This Chamber knows that I have asked for a serious debate since the start. As Members of Parliament of the Austrian People’s Party in the European Parliament, we have spoken out against this resolution because we believe and we are convinced that it does not reflect what we imagine European agricultural policy to be. It is clear that, with such resolutions, the real existential anxiety and need of European farmers cannot be addressed, given that there are 80 different types of virus and 300 million animals in Europe. I would like to point out that in Austria more than 60% of land consists of mountains and disadvantaged regions. We rely on exports and we must do our utmost to ensure that these regions remain inhabited. I actually find it frivolous to make policy on a day-to-day basis at the expense of farmers. I cannot imagine how animals that have been vaccinated can be labelled. Mr President, consumer protection is a matter of great concern to all of us in this House. I do not believe that consumers would pay tribute to us for that, as it would only lead to further loss of confidence.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I suppose I can start on a note of slight optimism in that President Mugabe has now named the days for the election as 24 and 25 June. But on the down side, he is increasing all the army and civil servants’ pay as a straight bribe. I sincerely hope that Members of this Parliament will have the chance to act as observers, as these elections must be seen to have been free, fair and transparent in the atmosphere of fear that President Mugabe has created. Only last month we passed a resolution in this Chamber condemning violence, calling for the return to full democracy and for free and fair elections to be held. Some of these demands have now hopefully been implemented, but not before another white farmer had been murdered. We all accept that there must be a redistribution of the best land in Zimbabwe, but this must be done through round table negotiations, and not with the violent acts we have seen over the last few months. President Mugabe has now set up a committee of white farmers and Mugabe supporters, hopefully to reach a sensible agreement on land redistribution. President Mugabe should never forget the economic damage that will be done to Zimbabwe’s economy if land redistribution simply means the land goes back to subsistence farming in small blocks. There are few people in the rabble we have seen invading farms who could afford the employees, the machinery, seeds and fertilisers to farm these units to give a potential export output. I have seen some of the farms that were reclaimed some years ago by Mr Mugabe and most of the fertile productive land has reverted to bush and the buildings and farmhouses are now crumbling ruins. What a waste in a country dependent on agricultural exports! Over the last few years, there has been a move to persuade political leaders in African regions to carry more responsibility for conflict prevention. It was, therefore, gratifying to hear Nelson Mandela criticising the policies of the Zimbabwe president who is destroying his country. I am sorry that President Mbeki, his successor, who is probably the most powerful leader in Africa, has not in public condemned the violence in Zimbabwe. We in Parliament are right to call on the Commission to review its development cooperation with Zimbabwe if transparent elections are not held or if the opposition wins and the violence continues. The use of Article 366 should be considered. The World Bank has now cut funding because of debt arrears and Zimbabwe, as a country, is in liquidation. We can but live and hope that a peaceful conclusion can be reached in Zimbabwe as it is the people themselves who are suffering most in this unstable situation the country finds itself in.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Commissioner, we owe it to the people of Europe to tell them the whole truth about this dioxin business. In addition to this, we must finally obtain world-wide figures for this sinister matter. That is why I am asking for a Temporary Parliamentary Committee of Enquiry to be established, with the responsibility of ensuring that the whole range of problems is brought to the table, and that all the lessons to be learned from it are looked at. I can see at least three. The first would be to amend European legislation which has shown obvious shortcomings. There are some products which need to be banned, and some mechanisms which need improving. The second is the question of the notification procedure which did not work and which must be clarified, toughened up and improved. And here we come to the vital matter of inspection. This Europe of ours will not work, and there will be no confidence that Europe does work, if we are not able to move from this type of co-ordination of inspection towards a genuine Community-wide approach to at least some aspects of food inspection. From this point of view, Mr Prodi's proposal for an authority or agency seems attractive. There is a need for an authority with specific responsibility for food safety, but it would have to remain independent, because we need both the Commission and Parliament to uphold the public interest in this matter. I would like to insist finally on the banning of animal bone meal. How many more times must we have the kind of accident that results from this practice before we put an end to this absurd system which leaves land fallow and farmers, who should be working in order to keep the heritage and the countryside of this Europe of ours alive, unable to work because we favour the use of recycled waste, particularly animal waste. This is an absurd and dangerous system which we should really bring to an end. I would like to end with the idea that behind this question, which is asked so often, lies the fundamental issue of the direction that farming is taking in Europe and around the world. We shall be reopening the WTO negotiations, and like everyone else in this Parliament, I expect you, the Commission to ensure that standards for health, the environment and society are set to limit and restrict this theory, which is becoming more and more dangerous, of a free market whose prime motive is profit. Europeans expect something better than this. Mr Commissioner, I would like to know if you are intending to propose a ban on animal bone meal and within what framework you think this measure might be possible.

Political group: PSE
I congratulate Mr Mastorakis on his report, which I wholeheartedly welcome. I should like to highlight two points that I consider to be of great importance: - complete support for extending the competences of the European Maritime Safety Agency to include the fight against pollution. There are major advantages in coordinated Community action in this area and the Agency can play a crucial role, by integrating mechanisms that will make cleaning-up operations more effective following oil spills; - agreement that the Agency will be able to intervene in matters of security, as a result of the new tasks assigned by the Member States through the directive on ‘ships and port facility security’.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, several journalists have told me that 'Plenum Aktuell', the German-language summary of our debates, has recently proved to be particularly deficient. The German text contains neither Monday’s debate on Basel II nor the debate on the outcome of the Convention, which many of us regard as historic. Until 11 this morning, there were no reports at all, something that seems to have something to do with the reorganisation of the press service. I think this bodes ill for the quality of the reports on our debates, and I would be glad, Mr President, if you would set the relevant inquiries in motion.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I chose to vote in favour of Amendments Nos 13 to 17 and, in that way, went against the line taken by the Group of the European People’s Party . The reason for this is that these amendments are keenly critical of the serious irregularities at Eurostat. I also voted in favour of Amendment No 21 which regrets the fact that Commissioner Solbes Mira, the Commissioner directly responsible for Eurostat’s administration, did not act sooner in response to the unsatisfactory state of affairs and that he did not accept political responsibility. I also supported Amendment No 1, expressing the view that the accountability of the Commission would be strengthened in the future if the Commissioners accepted that they had individual political responsibility for their departments. The report as such was constructive, however, and I therefore voted for it in the final vote. The report was adopted by 467 votes in favour, with 11 votes against and 9 abstentions. - Piétrasanta report (A5-0003/2004)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I would propose that it be approved at midday. We are perfectly capable of doing so.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, I would first of all like to thank Mr Jarzembowski for his hard work regarding this matter. The proposed compromise is a cautious step towards opening up the market in port services and increasing transparency in ports. The compromise is not the best possible one, but is nevertheless an acceptable solution. Including pilotage services within the scope of the directive is problematic, especially in areas that are sensitive in terms of safety at sea and the environment. The compromise honed in the conciliation procedure is, however, acceptable in this respect. It is important to increase the efficiency and competitiveness of ports as transport hubs in the development of the transport system throughout the Union. Opening up ports to controlled, healthy competition and increasing their transparency will improve their competitiveness and levels of efficiency, which will increase the use of combined and maritime transport. Maritime transport is vital for overseas regions and it offers a more environmentally friendly alternative in congested areas. This compromise is a cautious step in the right direction.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, several of us have voted against the resolution on Mr Oostlander’s report. We have many reasons for this, both due to fundamental considerations, and to the very divisive and negative feeling that has governed most of the votes today. Fundamentally, we think that Turkey has its place in the European Union, as it has had a place for several decades in the Council of Europe. However, Turkey needs to comply with specific conditions. The resolution says this, but does so badly, and the conditions are wrong. It thus interferes in Turkish law, on the one hand. On the other hand, there is a serious omission in that it does not clearly state the right of the Kurdish people to self determination, in accordance with the United Nations Charter. This is what we wish to highlight by our negative vote.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Sichrovsky has just given us some food for thought. It is true that being on the left does not make you proof against a fascist mindset. History has borne this out. Therefore it is absolutely true that the left must reflect on their past too, as must the right. But the object of the exercise today is for the democrats to give thought to the tasks they face here and now. The task facing the democratic parties at present, be they in East Germany, in your country, in Italy or in Spain – El Ejido to name but one – is how to actually mobilise the silent majority of people who stand idly by and watch as defenceless, helpless people are driven through the streets and murdered. How do we mobilise this majority? The question we must ask ourselves is this, ‘Why are five thousand people in my homeland – which is North Rhine Westphalia in Germany – prepared to take to the streets in protest against a decree on fighting dogs, but only 300 turn out to protest against right-wing extremism?’ That is the question we must ask ourselves. I will tell you something, Mr Sichrovsky, you represent the Freedom Party. People who criticise your party are not disparaging Austria as a whole. I respect the Austrian people but I despise the racists in your party – let there be no mistake about that – of whom you are one. (Applause) The same applies to you, Mr Pirker, in every sense. Therefore, to recap: the point of these oral questions, and the statements made by Mrs Ludford, Mrs Schroedter and Mrs Kaufmann, is not to single out any old region in Europe and say ‘that is where things are at their worst’. We German delegates, coming as we do from a land notorious for its perpetrators of fascism, always find it hard to bear that something like this is going on in our country, of all places. But anyone who believes that fascism is a German phenomenon inevitably plays down the fact that the problem is endemic to Europe. Therefore I say again: this is a European battle. (Applause from the left)

Political group: PSE
We have abstained from voting on Amendment No 16 in order to support Amendment No 12 from our own group instead. We support the idea that registered partners should also be counted as family members but believe that this is provided for within the concept of ‘unmarried partners’. We should also like to see more Member States change their legislation so that it recognises registered partnerships for homosexuals and the circumstances in which they cohabit. In applying the definition of family members, it is important however that the principle of subsidiarity should prevail. It is not appropriate for the European Parliament and the Council to change the Member States’ family legislation by means of a directive concerning asylum policy. In Amendment No 12, we have therefore proposed that partners of the same sex should be recognised as family members if legislation or practice in the Member State that receives them entails unmarried couples, same-sex couples and married couples being treated in the same way.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I will quite openly admit that this issue rather tends to pull me in two directions at once. From the legal point of view, on the one hand, it is quite clear that pacta sunt servanda – treaties under international law are to be adhered to. We know which territory is internationally recognised as being Israel’s, we know which areas are occupied; we also know that products from Israel can be imported and that produce from the areas occupied by it cannot be. In practice, gathering evidence is very difficult; so, in practice, is knowing where to draw the line. The Commission’s answer has this to say on the subject: ‘These principles do not apply to products which have been sufficiently processed within Israel's internationally recognized borders.’ Does that, then, mean in practice that oranges harvested on the West Bank are processed in Israel, the juice bottled and exported to the EU? Is that what is meant by ‘sufficiently processed’? Or is it ‘sufficiently processed’ only if the juice is blended with that of apples and bananas in a mixed fruit cordial with the orange juice making up less than 50%? I think this shows us how difficult it is in practice to draw a distinction, even where the proportions are concerned. That is why, in this context, we should ask ourselves the important question as to whom this is meant to benefit. Does it do the Palestinians any good when an Israeli orchard, or a factory on the West Bank, is closed down? The workers there are laid off, and then the same production operation restarts in the Israeli heartland with immigrants from Russia. This, of course, does the Palestinians no good at all, but at least the position is clear-cut in legal terms. We have then maintained the legal position, but we have not necessarily helped the Palestinians. We should ensure that the actions of the Commission or of the European Union do not make overall relations between Israel and the Palestinians worse than they already are. I am therefore in favour of the Commission continuing to act in these matters with the same caution and conscientiousness that it has demonstrated so far, never losing sight of the overall framework within which relations between Israel and the Palestinians are developing.

Political group: PPE-DE
I am very pleased with this European Commission proposal. Up until now, there has in fact been no specific legislation applicable to the extractive industries. The existing directives were used, in particular the framework directive on waste and the landfill directive. That was not really satisfactory, however, especially since the extractive industries produce large amounts of waste. It is easy to imagine the chain of harmful effects on the environment that might flow from bad management. It was therefore high time that these activities were regulated and the specific needs of the sector met. Generally speaking, the extractive industries view this proposal favourably. I know that some differences have emerged concerning the classification of waste. The most important thing is to establish criteria for determining which kinds of waste are hazardous and which are not. It is also important to look to the future and encourage research into more sustainable production that produces less waste. I also support the creation of a financial guarantee to pay for the rehabilitation of sites after closure.

Political group: GUE-NGL