GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I should like to thank Mr Oostlander for his sterling contribution as rapporteur. As a Swedish Christian Democrat, I fully support the two-strategy model which Mr Oostlander presents, involving vigorous, consistent and sustained criticism of all crimes, especially crimes within Russia against human rights, but also involving close and intimate cooperation with Russia, our large neighbour in the East. Recital KK in the report states the following: ‘given that Russia is in a political union with Belarus, it is appropriate in the interest of Russia’s democratic legitimacy for President Putin and the Russian government to point out clearly and consistently the comprehensive need for democratic progress and reforms in Belarus, not least in the light of the report submitted by the parliamentary troika from the EU, the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in Minsk on 16 October 2000’. I am the author of that paragraph, which has been applauded in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. I should here like to highlight the value of our really emphasising the seriousness of Russia’s in actual fact being in a political union with Belarus. With reference to the report we presented in Minsk, we first of all emphasised that the Belarus Parliament is at present lacking in powers, cannot legislate, does not have the right of veto against Presidential decrees and cannot adopt budgets. Secondly, we pointed out that electoral law has disqualified a quarter of the candidates in this so-called parliamentary election in October. Thirdly, we discussed access to the media, which is unfairly organised in a State-controlled system. Fourthly, we discussed the administrative criminal law which makes it illegal to urge a boycott of elections. Belarus is therefore in political union with Russia. It is important for us to emphasise the seriousness of this for Russia too.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I, too, subscribe to the analysis of the fellow Members who spoke earlier. Two questions remain, as far as I am concerned. One is that we spoke about a technical analysis. Am I to conclude from this that that technical analysis will provide more insight into the origin of the products? Is it possible to say when that analysis will be finished? I should also like to reiterate the question as to why the Commission does not bring a Member State before the Court of Justice if it is clearly in breach. After all, it cannot be said that we do not have the necessary measures. There are always measures in place to declare Member States in breach.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, like the rapporteur, whom I must congratulate, I too shall take as my starting point the obvious statement that, in terms of the population pyramid, Europe is an ageing continent. That may appear to be a handicap as far as many people are concerned, in the first analysis. My own personal opinion, and that of an increasingly large number of people, is that this may be an advantage if we can manage to do what is necessary in order to ensure that every citizen, regardless of age, remains a full citizen and that experience becomes once again a key value in a society which, in recent years, has favoured what is speedy, ephemeral and fashionable over what has lasted, time served and wealth of experience, not to mention what is human. Consequently, I can only be delighted, today, at the issue of this communication and this report aimed at building a Europe for all ages and promoting prosperity and intergenerational solidarity. The challenges, particularly the economic ones, are well known. I shall not harp on that subject. To face up to these challenges and transform these very real problems into real assets, I believe we need great determination and great moral, philosophical and political commitment. We also need considerable financial resources. This last point, of course, runs counter to the fashionable individualist ideology which advocates less public expenditure and less taxation on the working population. This is a miscalculation, considering the current and future demographic situation, and also considering the fact that today’s working population will be tomorrow’s non-working population, in economic terms. Finally, as far as I am concerned, and this is no doubt the most important aspect, investing in life is, in any case, a good economic investment, and adding life to the extra years is an approach which provides a foundation for human dignity. This alone gives meaning to the mathematical prolongation of life made possible by medical progress. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the first challenge facing the future of regional policy is, of course, that of enlargement. The disparity in the level of development between the richest and poorest regions will be doubled. We must, therefore, face up to the challenge of cohesion. In the first place, territorial cohesion is needed to take account of the geographical diversity of the European Union, in order to ensure that all European citizens are treated equally. Secondly, economic and social cohesion are necessary to ensure that the regions that are currently most vulnerable are not sacrificed on the altar of enlargement. At stake is whether the people accept the reality of enlargement. The very fabric of our common project is being tested in this way. A supportive, fair and unitary regional policy must be developed. It must not be a uniform policy, however. Account needs to be taken of the specific regional situations. In this regard, it is encouraging that the Convention chose to retain the content of Article 299, paragraph 2 of the treaty on the ultra-peripheral regions and make room for it in the future constitutional treaty. This is an initial first victory. It has yet to be confirmed by the Heads of State or Government. There is still a long way to go, and crucial questions remain to be answered. For example, what importance should be attached to the report published this summer raising the fear that regional policy might be renationalised? How could better account be taken of the specific situations of regions in the next financial programme? Lastly, how can the unique and original dimension nature of the ultra-peripheral regions be translated into concrete measures in the next programming period? Commissioner, we are all currently working towards European integration. The citizens of Europe will assess our success on the basis of the proposals that you draw up in coming months. For my part, I trust Europe will become socially just and economically competitive. Above all, however, I hope it will become a territorially balanced Europe.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I support the Commission’s revised model of operations, and here it will be put to the test. Our problem is that our good decisions get watered down on the way, and the coffers begin to leak. This principle of feeding off the burden has to end. For that reason, I would like to make three points. Firstly, we do not need two administrative bodies for one agency; secondly, decision-making must be carried out where the work is being done, that is to say at the Kosovo Reconstruction Agency in Kosovo; and thirdly, it is important to work in co-operation with the local people and, more particularly, on a multi-ethnic basis, as has been emphasised here. Actually, I could put it this way: reconstruction is not a matter of bricks and mortar, but co-operation. It is thus a new time for both the Commission and ourselves. Three criteria, directness, an unambiguous approach and transparency, give us strength, and will enable us to succeed.

Political group: PSE
We have today voted in favour of the report on the conclusion of the Framework Agreement between the European Community and the European Space Agency (ESA) in accordance with the EC/ESA agreement of 2003. Previously, we have also given our support to the resolution on the Commission Green Paper on space policy, adopted on 9 October 2003, the resolution on a uniform European space strategy, adopted on 17 January 2002, and also the resolution on an action plan for implementing the European space policy, adopted on 29 January 2004. We have also supported efforts to implement the Galileo project. It is important that EU competence not be otherwise extended to space policy and that industrial cooperation on space chiefly take place between Member States according to the Convention establishing the European Space Agency. The European Union’s involvement in space should cover research in the first instance. We reject the increased EU competence that is set to be included in the EU Constitutional Treaty.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner Byrne, animal feeds are, after all, food, and we need the positive list. You have been quoted in the German press as saying that there are thousands of substances that need to be tested. I hope that was a misquote, because if there really are thousands of substances added to animal feeds, that would be a scandal in itself. The number of additives needs to be limited and that should be implemented on a restrictive basis. After all, if the industry then comes along and says that it has forgotten a substance and makes the test available straight away, that substance can be added on. Of course, the positive list does not mean that we have nothing to worry about. The fact that there are people willing to dispose of toxic materials by putting them in animal feeds because that is cheaper demonstrates a criminal intent which should be punished accordingly. That also convinces me – and I think we in this House are all agreed on this – that a simple ban is not enough. We need to consider what substances we are banning and what happens to them next. Mrs Roth-Behrendt has already pointed out that legislation on waste should be closely linked with controls, just as it should be linked with what we are discussing here, so that there is not any overlap. We have repeatedly seen cases of substances that really should be destroyed finding their way into animal feeds. However, we should not throw the baby out with the bath water – please note, Mr President! We have already seen what can happen in the case of food waste. We also need to establish reasonable recycling arrangements where it is appropriate to do so. Yesterday, I visited a cat and dog food factory. When you see the meticulous controls applied there you realise that it is not a question of controls but rather of the sanctions that can be applied by consumers wielding their purchasing power against industry. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, on the report on the impact of liberalisation and the economic reform process our opinion can only be highly critical. It is not because we do not share general ideas on the broad economic policy guidelines but because here, under the pretext of liberalisation, it is trying to lead us along paths which, instead of increasing the well-being of our societies, will only deepen the social inequalities in our supposedly more advanced societies. In the report under discussion there are enough generic references to the United States model and phrases that have become the canon of right-wing economics that they cannot be accepted uncritically by those of us who try to keep a balance between broad economic objectives and building fairer societies. This progressive attitude cannot be reconciled with statements made in this report. Not only the ones I have just mentioned, but also others such as the statement on labour market reform, where it says, and I quote: “it is high time for labour market reforms that promote mobility and make it worthwhile for the unemployed to take up job offers”. This – and I say this with all due respect for Mr Gasòliba i Böhm – is treating the unemployed as if they were so many parasites. The key to achieving a balance between economic objectives, competitiveness and cohesion and social justice is not in this supposed liberalisation but in designing and putting into practice policies that make our economic systems more effective, extracting from other economies – copying if necessary – things that can enable us to move forward in both directions. We do not want models like that of the United States, which will lead us to greater imbalances and social injustices or resounding disasters, such as the liberalisation of the electricity sector in California. While you are at it, why not copy the American Treasury’s policies and abandon the European Central Bank performance model, which has caused us so much harm in the past? The rapporteur mentioned in passing this morning that there were European countries with models of interest. Of course there are. But why is this not highlighted? Because it is of no interest, or rather, it is of no interest to those who speak of liberalisation at all costs without thinking about the consequences.

Political group: Verts-ALE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. – Mr President, I would like to begin by congratulating Mr Lisi on his report. While he was drafting it, he attended the discussions on my opinion in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy and incorporated many of the points raised. Our differences are really minor, but I will return to them. As Mr Lisi said, Members pontificate here on many subjects about which they have an imperfect knowledge, but we all regard ourselves as experts on the problems of passenger travel. They dominate our working lives. So there was a warm welcome for Commissioner de Palacio's proposals to move ahead from the 1991 regulations, not just on denied boarding but on delayed and cancelled flights as well. There is no dispute that what we call the hierarchy of remedies must apply, starting with compensation levels proportionate to the distance travelled. I think most of the airlines have responded well to this debate, with the air service passenger commitment as a gesture of intent. I would say to those maverick airlines that ignore all that – and we know where they fly to, if not always where they live – that they would be wise to heed the public mood. No frills should not mean no concern. In our opinion, we are offered an amendment to Article 7 which called for levels of compensation to be based on specific impact assessments, so that it could not be argued that they were frivolously levied. I must say that the levels of compensation in Mr Lisi's report are well beyond what we wanted under Article 7. We wanted mandatory compensation of between EUR 300 and EUR 1 500, subject to distance and review. That has fallen to between EUR 200 and 600, but I accept that in itself is progress for the consumer. I am still concerned that this does not necessarily apply under Amendment No 31, which refers back to Article 9 and not Article 8. Perhaps the Commissioner can assure me that those amendments will actually apply. Otherwise, Mr Lisi and his committee have advanced the consumer cause and have allowed us to move forward to a system of airline ranking. If only this applied to all airlines, all flights and all problems. Every day further horrors come to light. On a British airline, a woman had to endure an 11-hour flight next to a 23-stone woman who sat on her, not next to her, throughout the flight. She was left with serious injuries and initially offered GBP 15 compensation. You might say that the airline began with one handicapped passenger and ended with two. Our journeys should be reducing handicaps, not increasing them. I welcome this report as a step in that direction.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, at last spring’s Lisbon Summit the Heads of State and Government set themselves an ambitious target. The European Union was to become the most dynamic and the most competitive economic area in the world. Innovation is the key to this. It is the subject of an excellent report by Mr Rübig, whom I would expressly like to congratulate on behalf of the Group of the . His report is thorough and precise; it is creative and full of insights. Only an innovation offensive will create the necessary conditions for making up the ground we have lost to the USA and Japan, preventing a mass exodus of researchers and finally achieving international competitiveness. Specifically, it means changing our systems of education. Young people must be able to be involved at an early stage, by teaching them science in schools and specifically encouraging their talents. Curricula must include projects modelled on professional management, by forming junior enterprises, for example. We need new information systems and higher technological qualifications in the training and further training of workers and students. Mr Rübig has always been concerned with revitalising small and medium-sized enterprises. His particular concern is important given that we have 18 million SMEs. Workers are specifically asking for programmes to promote SMEs in the European Union because over 70 to 80 % work in that sector. SMEs need simpler tax procedures, a dismantling of bureaucratic hurdles, and active support for innovative products and methods of production. Research needs to be integrated into operating structures. Access to start-up capital is essential, because young people need to be able to start new businesses, to become entrepreneurs. They need to be able to take all the current problems of the new economy into account. I hope we have all learned something from that. On this basis, Madam President, the European Union will be able to make a sustained contribution to the high performance, knowledge-driven economy we are looking to achieve. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
I regret the so-called reply which has been given to me because are we to conclude from the words of Mr Sasi that the Spanish authorities were acting correctly on 8 July when they expelled those 100 Romanian Gypsy families? No, we do not conclude that. They did not act in the defence of public order, they did not defend human rights and they did not safeguard national security. They did not act according to principles of justice and fairness, nor did they act with respect for human rights. No, the Spanish authorities only gave one response: the violent response towards refugees, the unacceptable response, democratically unacceptable. The Spanish authorities acted against that European spirit which is the driving force behind the European Charter of Fundamental Rights which affects all of us, Members of the Council. They acted in a way which shames and embarrasses us as Europeans and democrats. Facts such as these once again illustrate the urgency with which we require a common policy in this area; an equitable and basically civil common policy for the control and acceptance of immigrants. For this reason, we eagerly await the Tampere Summit. We require an initiative and a commitment which affects all of us, even the most reluctant of governments, which is, unfortunately, the case with the Spanish government in this field. I will go further. We hope that any abuse and any violation of human rights will be punished, and that we do not fail to respond when the responsibility falls to us, which is currently the case. Furthermore, if the perpetrator of the violation, Members of the Council, is a democratic government, ladies and gentlemen, there is no third way or means of escape in the defence of human rights, not even by giving a reply in this Parliament. We are either in favour of human rights or, quite simply, we are against them.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I am obliged to raise an extremely unfortunate matter. This Parliament is physically terrorising and persecuting a small Member State, namely Denmark, together with the Danish MEPs. For many years, we ourselves have had to pay for being able to watch a Danish TV channel. Now, it has been shut down, both here and in Brussels. That is not good enough, and I should like to ask you not to delay a single day in turning to the only person who can solve this problem, namely our trouble-shooter supreme, our charming, wonderful, delightful and gifted fellow MEP, Mrs Banotti, so ensuring that we have Danish television again no later than tomorrow morning and that Parliament does not in future make life uncomfortable for one of the best Member States by practising this form of terrorism upon member countries. (Laughter)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I voted for the Katiforis report on the European Union economy in 1999 to toe the group line, and also because it reveals an extremely serious deficiency which I hope it will contribute to eliminating during the next few years. However, the report does not fully explain, or rather it does not explain at all, that the economies of the States of the Union also and, above all, depend on the way in which pension contributions paid by workers are used. The report does not mention the fact – although this will have to be specified in the future – that over the last forty years, the governments of all the Member States have squandered and dissipated the capital entrusted to them by workers for their pensions. And so we now have no resources left to pay pensions. We need a completely different system. These leaders must resign. They do not deserve the loyalty of the elderly of today, nor the young people of today, nor the elderly of 2100, 2200 and so forth.

Political group: PPE-DE
This report rightly denounces certain aspects of this CAP which has served primarily to feed the profits of the big capitalistic farmers and large-scale distributors. The rapporteur says he wants to distance himself from that policy and protect farmers, especially small farmers, in every region of the European Union, even the most remote. We are not against the smallest of them being protected, and that is the only reason why we did not vote against this report. We are, on the other hand, totally against subsidies or aid for agriculture’s capitalists. We are also against the protectionist aspects of the policy advocated by this report because protectionism is a direct attack on the incomes of many farmers in third countries, including poor countries, and because it is harmful to consumers. We therefore abstained.

Political group: GUE-NGL