GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I should like to begin by saying that I am in favour of simple, clear, transparent ground rules for the political groups in the European Parliament. I am, however, opposed on principle to the use of taxpayers’ money for political parties. It is quite simply a question of whether parties are to be supported by public funds or by members of the individual parties. I believe they should be supported by the latter. In this matter, it is not the people, or the electorate, that have created a need for publicly financed political parties. The need that has arisen in this case has been created by professional politicians, and that is, as I see it, an artificial need. For what is a European party? For the individual taxpayer, it exists solely on paper and is a mere mirage, devoid of substance. In financial terms, there are no large amounts involved – as yet. This is the thin end of the wedge, however. I anticipate the aid increasing all the time, and it would grow at a rate in excess of the general rate of inflation. I also think a question mark can be placed over the democratic element in this proposal. The principle must be that, if we absolutely must give taxpayers’ money to European parties, all parties should be given it, and that would not be the case under the proposal. I am in favour of clear transparent rules, but I am not in favour of aid for European parties, and that is why I also reject this proposal.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I can only endorse the conclusions of the final Göteborg document. Moreover, I would like to stress a few points which I feel are extremely important for Europe's growth: pensions and the project for financial sustainability, the new cycle of negotiations on international trade reform, the issues relating to public health and a strict relationship between the use of natural resources and economic growth. On this point, for example with regard to some of the areas related to agriculture, we might have wished for more ambition, partly because the current fear is that some of the situations which have been consolidated within the European Union, specifically those relating to the agricultural sector, will be sacrificed to enlargement matters. With regard to food safety in the context of enlargement too, in our opinion, the tendency is sometimes to subdue rather than aim towards a way of working which will provide guarantees to the consumer. We are still too fresh, if you will pardon the expression, from the crises we have had in recent years – dioxins, mad cow disease – not to see food safety as a priority in the political decisions we have to take over the next few years. Now, on a political note, we feel that, in some areas, the relationship between the Council and the European Parliament has not been what we would have wished it to be, and on extremely important political matters such as the relationship with Russia and the space shield, for example, we have seen alarming acceleration. If we do not have an adequate debate in Strasbourg, we will be in danger of creating a series of points of no return which could cause deep rifts, particularly in a politically sensitive period such as this one, where some countries – such as Italy, Spain and Great Britain – have stable governments but in others – such as France and Germany – things will change every time there is an election. Therefore, some positions might be subject to pressure which is due more to electoral positions than overall European positions. In our opinion, the European Parliament must have the extremely important role of redressing the balance.

Political group: PPE-DE
I am grateful for the Minister's assurance that there is no pilot project so far. My understanding was that there was an intention to run one. I certainly do not see the point in passing the recommendation if it was not intended to be implemented. My alarm comes from the fact that the recommendation passed last November did not even acknowledge the risks of discrimination. That must be acknowledged because the network of fundamental rights experts pointed out that such profiling presents a major risk of discrimination. If one is to profile people by their characteristics, such as nationality and psycho-sociological features, and then decide from that who is likely to be a terrorist, one has to be very sure, it said, that there is a valid statistical link between the characteristics and the risks. I would like an assurance from the Minister that, if he has not done any pilot projects yet, if there are going to be any, or any real projects by Member States, he carries out that statistical exercise before allowing the projects to take place.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, warm thanks, first of all, to our rapporteur Mrs Prets; I think we all agree on the basic premise that the fight against discrimination on the grounds of gender deserves our wholehearted support. We should not, however, allow this concern to deflect our gaze from the problems that this directive engenders. In essence, it has to do with the insurance sector. The Commission, along with many Members of this House, takes the view that gender should no longer be taken into account when calculating insurance premiums, claiming that this is intrinsically discriminatory. A majority on the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market disagrees with this approach; the fact is that calculating risks is what insurance companies do, and where there are different levels of risk, these may be taken into account. To take one example, in private old age pensions insurance, insurers take account, in their calculations, of the tendency of women to live longer than men can expect to do. I do not see that as intrinsically discriminatory; it is one of the factors that may be taken into account when working out the contributions. Another example is to be found in motor insurance; according to the statistics, it so happens that women cause fewer accidents than do men, and so insurers charge women lower rates. I do not think that is discriminatory; that is the application of mathematics, which cannot simply be abrogated by legislation. The one exception I would make is in the case of maternity and pregnancy, where I do not believe there should be any difference between men and women when it comes to the costs. This is an area where both sexes, of course, share responsibility, and the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has therefore decided that they must be treated equally in this respect. What leads me to oppose this directive is the fact that it stands for massive interference in people’s private affairs. I am opposed to the introduction of unisex tariffs, and I hope that the amendments that our group has resubmitted will be supported by a majority of the plenary tomorrow.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, in recent days, even as we speak, reports have been flooding in of the increasing number of cases of young soldiers and many civilians who have fallen victim to extremely serious illnesses linked to radioactive pollution caused by the use of weapons with depleted uranium warheads. Firstly, Madam President, I am sure we would all wish to send our deepest sympathy to the families of the young soldiers, the European civilians and the citizens of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on the death of their loved ones following radioactive pollution from NATO shells. Secondly, I must tell you that I greatly welcome your statements on the depleted uranium issue. In particular, I support your call for an urgent ban on the use of these lethal shells. I am quite aware that some people deny that there is any association between the deaths and ill health and the use of the shells, but I also know that no military authority is able to prove the contrary. Therefore, if it is not possible to obtain an immediate ban, it is essential to impose an immediate moratorium, for although these shells are not currently in use in war they continue to be used in exercises. I trust that you will pursue this matter.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I fully agree with Mr Vitorino’s statement that immigration is a two-way process which involves both rights and duties that have to be accepted. There are also other facets to this problem, amongst which we should certainly examine the issues of entry, housing and civil liberties; in short, integration into our European society. I believe it is a question, in this case at least, of turning these guest workers into citizens. What image of Europe are we projecting to the outside world, Commissioner, if, at the point of entry into the Union, the Schengen system, instead of helping to create an area of freedom, security and justice, is often gradually turning into a formidable instrument of electronic data collection and control? Then there are the problems of housing, the head-in-the-sand attitude, the tendency – helped by the media – to focus our fears and turn them into spectres that have much to do with highly misunderstood aspects of the cultural identity of our societies. Thus we often have a reductionist image. The report, with which I fully agree, should perhaps in my opinion have developed certain aspects which are plainly set out in the Commission’s communication: civic citizenship; guaranteed core rights and obligations; respect for diversity; action to combat discrimination; women; family; civic, cultural and political life; participation; education; and, not least, religion. I believe these varied aspects have to be taken into account, particularly in view of the legal tradition and the humanistic values which form the heritage that is still shared by our society. Commissioner, Mr Moraes, we must reject the reductionist tendency of seeing immigrants merely as man- or woman-power, from a purely economic point of view. This attitude must be utterly rejected: these people must be regarded as human beings who enrich our society, not just in terms of their ability to create growth and well-being but above all as people who embody values and a human, spiritual and cultural identity.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I support Commissioner Monti's initiative and I am pleased that his Commission colleagues are also supporting him. Certainly the current rules benefit car manufacturers and dealers and disadvantage consumers. I see this particular proposal as upholding the principles of the single market, and I am convinced that it will lead to cheaper cars for EU citizens. I have one major concern and that concerns my own country. Is the Commissioner aware that the vehicle registration tax in Ireland will add anything between 50% and 100% to the price of cars? So an initiative like this will be virtually meaningless unless the Commission is able to persuade the Irish authorities to reduce the vehicle registration tax. I know tax is a national competence, but we are moving towards harmonisation of tax and I would therefore humbly request that the Commissioner approach the Irish authorities to seek a reduction in the vehicle registration tax, so that Irish citizens can enjoy the same benefit as their continental counterparts.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to give colleagues a short update on where we stand on this important proposal. First, may I say that your vote today will mark a further substantial step forward in the delivery of reform of the European Commission. As you will recall from our previous debates, this reform of the staff regulations brings in the major revisions and restructuring of the employment conditions and career development for staff throughout the European institutions. Colleagues, when we had a debate here in Brussels on 27 March 2003, you were kind enough to give us your support for the amendments we proposed. However, we asked you to hold off from voting on the legislative resolution to give us the opportunity, as rapporteurs, to negotiate with the Council and the Commission to sustain Parliament’s position. This is not an item of codecision, it is an item where we have an opinion. We have done that successfully and we now want you to vote on this substantially; we want to release the next stage of the discussion process – the convening of a consultation committee involving the Council, the Commission and representatives of staff and staff unions throughout the institutions. So please, support this today. The amendments we are tabling reflect the current negotiating position and ask the Council and the Commission to bring back to us further changes that they will make beyond the original proposal. We will be returning to you with two further reports in a few months' time to confirm the whole process.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would just like to explain why we are asking for this item to be removed from the agenda – moreover, we would then be in favour of the item on Illinois being included – and we would like to ask whether a statement on North Korea might be included on the agenda of the Brussels part-session at an appropriate time, given the country’s announcement that it intends to withdraw from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. We feel it would be more appropriate for this item to be addressed in a more formal, more in-depth manner than will be possible in a last-minute topical and urgent debate.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to congratulate Mr Duisenberg on a successful year in running euro monetary policy. Clearly what matters is internal price stability, and the external value of the euro is of much less significance. Indeed that was one of the reasons for creating the euro in the first place: it was precisely to protect the European economy from the volatility of the foreign exchanges to which Mr Goebbels has just referred. I am particularly pleased, too, that Mr Duisenberg has reiterated his promise to publish forecasts and econometric models, and I entirely understand his caveats. I hope that when he publishes the macroeconometric model he will do so in a form which makes it available and easily usable by outside researchers, perhaps on CD-ROM. However, in connection with Parliament's view of last year I would urge Mr Duisenberg to reconsider a formal framework for the publication of summary minutes. As he said, much of the debate which happens within the Council is filtering out in the form of discussion within the monthly bulletin, but this is not the same as a regular report with a formal framework in which it is discussed. That would help anchor expectations within the market, as well as fulfilling the important accountability mandate of the ECB. It is also clearly crucial the ECB should look only at the euro zone as a whole in terms of its inflation and price stability objective. It is essential to point out that different growth trends exist within the different national components of the euro zone economy, and that this implies different sustainable wage growth rates over time. That is why it is important that there should be an overall discussion of what potential sustainable growth rates of wages are in each of the component parts of the euro zone economy, and why this will actually help deliver low inflation combined with low unemployment. Those are the main points I would like to make. I would also very much like to back Mr Goebbels' remarks about the importance of enlargement, namely that we should not have two standards – one for us and one for them. I very much hope that we will continue to apply the criteria of the Treaty, no more and no less.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, I very much hope that Gothenburg will be an opportunity for the Swedish Presidency to present a proper review of achievements. I hope that the Gothenburg Summit, following the Stockholm Summit, at which full employment was once again confirmed as a European priority, will, on the home stretch too, make a major contribution to the sustainable development strategy. But there is no denying that the Irish people’s rejection of the Treaty of Nice could cast a major shadow on the success of Gothenburg if the Summit hides its head in the sand or proceeds with business as usual. I should like to say the following to Mr Poettering: the signal that we Socialists expect from Gothenburg is not just that enlargement is a priority, but that it is enormously important for Europe to be strengthened, and that must be done with the full and democratic involvement of the people. Those two things are not incompatible. Obviously the Irish must be allowed to work out their own solution to the problem that has now arisen, but the low turnout in the referendum and the negative results are not simply an Irish problem. They are symptomatic of the dangerous gap that is opening up between European policy and the public in all Member States, not just Ireland, because of the lack of democracy, the lack of transparency and the lack of dialogue. I am grateful to Mr Prodi for making it clear that Europe cannot be built by diplomats behind closed doors, and I particularly welcome the commitment of the President-in-Office of the Council, who is advocating a convention. I do therefore ask you to make sure it does not become a watered down version. But I also ask that you urge the Member States to step up the public debate on Europe’s future and on enlargement. It really might be a little more than the Member States are now reporting. On the other hand, I would say to the President-in-Office of the Council that I also hope the Gothenburg Summit will be a red and green and not just a green Summit. Mr Andersson has already mentioned the political breakthrough achieved in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs on Monday on the right to information and consultation, safety and health at work, more equal opportunities for men and women, all areas that relate to the quality of work which is so important to the Swedes. Besides that, I sincerely hope that Gothenburg will give a clear mandate for the introduction of a European strategy on poverty, social exclusion and proper, decent pensions. I think that if Gothenburg can demonstrate that, then it will show people that the European project is worth fighting for.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to congratulate Mr Stevenson on the quality of his report. It is the result of a very long period of work, carried out intelligently, taking account of the opinion of his fellow Members and the experts we have heard within the Parliamentary Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. I sincerely thank Mr Stevenson. The issue of plant protein supply for the European Union obviously involves economic factors, but also, and more importantly, it involves strategic aspects relating to the nature of the European agricultural model and the role played by this model in external trade. We should be aware that we import almost 80% of the plant proteins required to fulfil our needs and that this heavy reliance cannot be approached solely from the point of view of the commercial interests at the time. Aside from the current matter of GMOs in imported soya proteins, we must ask ourselves what would happen in Europe if, for whatever reason, whether due to climate or other reasons, the supply from the United States, Brazil and Argentina were to be cut off. Commissioner, those affected by the American embargo in 1973, as I was, are aware of the price of this reliance and cannot tolerate the level of risks run today. Paradoxically, although demand is high in Europe, production here is stagnating, or even decreasing, and the worst thing is that the European Union does not seem determined to remedy this situation properly. Of course we can examine your proposals on the introduction of a ‘carbon credit’, which are a step in the right direction. The impact of this credit could, however, be limited by its small scale, and discontinuing the use of set-aside land for non-food crops might not be compensated for by the move towards some energy crops being produced by workers’ cooperatives. The various measures you are advocating on behalf of the Commission to adapt Agenda 2000 to current needs do not seem sufficient to address the current problems. This failure is both serious and regrettable. Without going so far as to set the unrealistic objective of total self-sufficiency, the European Union could still reduce its reliance on external suppliers. That, Commissioner, is why I ask you to examine more carefully the recommendations of the Stevenson report, which I, indeed we, find relevant. They were unanimously approved by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. I recommend in particular that you pay attention to those advocating greater investment in research into the protein sector under the 6th DP and those concerning the introduction of plant protein-producing crops in cereal crop rotation. I believe the same applies to the security of our long-term supply and the promotion of sustainable agriculture.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, on behalf of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, I would like to send my condolences to the families of the victims – a total of 100, as the Commissioner has said – of this epidemic of atypical pneumonia. This virus, as we have also said, is spreading at the speed of air travel over the whole planet, in particular in South-East Asia and Canada. Europe so far appears to have been spared, relatively speaking. The Commissioner has given the current figures in the Member States and the candidate countries. I would also like to thank him for his detailed description of the two-way exchange of information between the WHO and the EU monitoring system. At this stage, what can be said? First of all, I believe there is cause for concern, if we refer to the statements made by a WHO spokesman, who said that this will be complex and could be a very long-term project. In short, the fight against the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic seems to be a real race against time for health authorities and researchers all over the world, in particular as far as treatment is concerned. Secondly, we do have grounds for reassuring European citizens, as far as we can, as the Commissioner stated in a press release that only those suffering from the disease are infectious, which facilitates traceability. That said, however, it should be stated here that it is impossible not to be disgusted by the Chinese Government’s behaviour, which was both thoughtless and irresponsible. It took the Chinese Minister for Health almost five months after this virus first appeared to make the information public. Having said this, I shall return to Europe to end on the most important point. It should be noted here that this new crisis provides yet another argument for the case of those, including the previous speakers and, of course, myself, who want public health in the broadest sense to become a shared competence of the Union. This would be more appropriate now than ever, at a time when we are drawing up our draft Constitution. I am convinced that, in the long run, the crisis will lead to progress in this ‘Europe of Health’ and speed up the project mentioned by the Commission to set up a European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control based on the model of the Atlanta CDC by 2005. IN THE CHAIR: MRS CEDERSCHIÖLDVice-President

Political group: ELDR