GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, this report is not about drafting the most ideal version of the Statute for Members. It is now about taking the negotiations with the Council a step further, and I am starting to despair of this. The Commissioner, Mrs de Palacio, said that spectacular progress had been made in other fields, but that that was not the case here. In my opinion, that is very true. Why was the Belgian Government’s compromise involving a supplementary national tax rejected? Why do the major groups persist in wanting to regulate the new immunity and rules in this Statute? Why must the language regime, too, come up for discussion in this Statute? This contamination makes the negotiations too difficult. Objections of principle are all very well, Mr Rothley, but an acceptable agreement is even better; not only for the sake of principle, that is to say, a European rule for Members of the European Parliament, but also in order to put an end to the current questionable expenses practice. Last week, the Bureau adopted a new rule which will enter into force when the Statute does. My group grades the present rule an emphatic ‘unsatisfactory’, but gives the new one a good seven out of ten. It is true that we find the tiredness surcharges absurd and regrettable, but we welcome the fact that travel costs would be reimbursed only on the basis of the costs actually incurred. That is a considerable step forward. If an agreement on the Statute is rendered impossible, we are back to square one as regards the travel costs, too. That cannot be the intention ... can it?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by congratulating Mrs Hermange on her work on achieving a barrier-free Europe for people with disabilities. I believe it is necessary to complete the strategy for integrating the rights of people with disabilities into Community policies, particularly the transport sector, access to buildings, the information society and consumer policy. However, I am convinced that the issue of practically integrating people with disabilities will depend not only on traditional obstacles, such as the physical barriers enclosing public areas and transport, being overcome, but, above all, on the general public taking a new approach to the everyday situation of people with disabilities. It is clear that, in these cases, psychological factors and people's prejudices may be much greater obstacles than those created by physical barriers. Another important point to stress, which also featured in the Stockholm Presidency Conclusions, is that of the integration of people with disabilities into the world of work. We must work towards a situation where companies employ more than the obligatory number of people with disabilities, making things easier for companies by consistently reducing or abolishing both the contribution and tax burdens. This would have the positive effect of using this social potential, which is currently only partially exploited, and would benefit the entire economy. Currently, 37 million European citizens suffer from some form of disability and the unemployment rate for this category is over three times higher than average. Moreover, let us not forget that the quest to achieve full employment in the Union does not mean concentrating solely on job creation but involves providing better jobs for all people, including those with disabilities. Lastly, I consider it essential for research in Europe to play a fundamental role, through its centres, in the development of technologies intended to improve the quality of life of people with disabilities. In this way, we would be able to close the gap between Europe and the United States of America. Finally, may I emphasise the role that the Member States must play in improving the skills and promoting the specific professional training of people who cooperate within voluntary associations and the social cooperatives, in order to provide adequate professional training which is suited to the different forms of disabilities.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, there is no reason why we should withdraw this resolution, and we have no intention of doing so. (Parliament rejected the joint motion for a resolution) *** Motion for a resolution (B5-0653/2000), by Mr Chichester, on behalf of the Group, on the creation of a monitoring centre for industrial change (Parliament rejected the motion for a resolution) *** Motion for a resolution (B5-0656/2000) by Mrs and Mr Clegg, on behalf of the Group, on the creation of a monitoring centre for industrial change (Parliament adopted the resolution) (4) *** Report (A5-0209/2000) by Mr Veltroni, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘Principles and guidelines for the Community’s audiovisual policy in the digital age’ [COM(1999) 657 – C5-0144/2000 – 2000/2087(COS] (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0199/2000) by Mr Heaton-Harris, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Tourism, on the report from the Commission – ‘Survey into the socio-economic background of Erasmus students’ [COM(2000) 4 – C5-0146/2000 – 2000/2089(COS)] (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0207/2000) by Mrs Boumediene-Thiery, on behalf of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, on the report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the implementation of Directives 90/364, 90/365 and 93/96 (right of residence) and on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the special measures concerning the movement and residence of citizens of the Union which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health [COM(1999) 127, COM(1999) 372 – C5-0177/1999, C5-0178/1999 – 1999/2157(COS)] (Parliament adopted the resolution) Explanations of vote - Bouwman report (A5-0213/2000)

Political group: ELDR
The UK delegation of the Labour Party recognises the serious UK Government concern over this directive. It is important to strike a balance between protecting agency workers and avoiding burdens that could stop business engaging them, particularly for short-term assignments. Temporary Work Agencies make an important contribution to the employment market in the UK and should not be penalised. Increased administrative burdens could lead to increases in costs, which could be passed onto user organisations or cause the closure of the business and job losses. The EPLP has thus voted against Amendment 42 calling for the deletion of the 6-week derogation from the original Commission proposal. It feels that it is important that at least a 6-week derogation remains in the proposal. The EPLP voted for Amendment 73 to support comprehensive and effective impact assessments. This helps SMEs. The EPLP submitted and supported Amendment 71, calling for an extra transition period for the UK. It is therefore necessary that there is an additional period of 3 years, allowing 5 years in total, for this directive to be implemented in the UK and Ireland. The EPLP has supported this report at first reading but with the strong reservations set out here.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Mr Morillon on his report and on the timeliness of that report, in two regards: the common defence policy is an issue under discussion in the European Union and the interim situation which other Members have already mentioned. At the moment, the Iraq crisis is a problem which affects all of us. But in the European Union, although the problem is a common one, the solutions have been different, because the Union has neither a common foreign policy nor a common defence policy. Perhaps we should remember that the fathers of Europe, in 1954, tried to create the European Defence Community, and that it did not work. This report is a positive step, as was the report presented in this House a few years ago by the President. This is a long process which we must work on, so that Europe may have a common defence policy, which is not in opposition to anybody, but in cooperation with our allies and also with the alliance with the other side of the Atlantic. It is not a policy against NATO, but it must be created with their cooperation as well. Just as in 2002 we have managed to establish a single currency, which does not so far involve everybody, but which is expected to do so, we must create a common security and defence policy, in the knowledge that it will cost money and with the conviction that the European Union will have the resources necessary to achieve it. The Convention must take this into account when drawing up the Union’s Treaty.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would like to congratulate the two rapporteurs, Mr Morillon and Mr Cohn-Bendit, on their work. I believe we should not forget the special situation currently affecting relations between the European Union and the Arab Maghreb; the economic association agreements are leading to a genuine unofficial enlargement towards the South and must bring us closer together on such important issues as immigration. The Maghreb representatives are constantly telling us that they will do nothing about immigration until the European Union offers them clear compensations. Neither must we forget potentially explosive situations such as the Western Sahara, which is impeding the creation of the Maghreb Arab Union, which is so important if the economic and political union of the Maghreb and its relations with the European Union are really going to be what they should be.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I too share many of the views and proposals put forward by Mrs Boumediene-Thiery. To be brief, I should like to confine myself to the worries associated with the ultra-security-conscious approach that has just been confirmed by the last European Council. Following the American model, this positioning is dangerous and menacing; more to the point, it does not get to the roots of terrorism. Under the guise of fighting this curse, the legislation piling up in each of our countries is already giving rise to new infringements of human rights. I am thinking, for example, of the so-called preventative measures concerning the issue of visas in Germany, of the measures authorising the quasi-deportation of twenty-six thousand people in the Netherlands, of the measures in France that have brought about an increase in expulsions of more than a third in comparison with the start of 2003. The European position is getting further and further away from the universal principles of asylum and solidarity. Have not the Heads of State just flouted these principles by authorising de facto, as from 2005, the keeping of systematic records on all people living in Europe? The same attitude prevails in the draft directives aimed at harmonising asylum policy. Should we not therefore be worried, as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has just made clear, about the concept of safe third countries to which refugees can be passed on without any certainty about their safety? Finally, the same can be said of the European charters, which our Parliament has fortunately just rejected. On the contrary, the future of human rights in Europe will involve a genuine policy of welcome, equality of rights, including the right for everyone to vote and to be elected in all elections, and complete respect for the freedom of expression, including freedom of association.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, in view of the Commission's response to the debate last night and, in particular, to my colleague Mr Mombaur's point on the expiry of the Coal and Steel Treaty, the protocol attached to the Treaty of Nice and the legal uncertainty now surrounding that, I would ask the rapporteur to comment on this point. Would he be in favour of referring it to our own legal services as the Commission is apparently about to do?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I apologise for coming back to the issue I raised before. Thank you very much for precisely citing the article to which reference was made. However, like Mr Wieland, I take the view that this refers to other articles, all of which I have read and which have nothing to do with the procedure adopted this morning. Then there is the option of a proposal by the President. I would like to know whether what happened this morning was a proposal by the President and was based on a decision by the Bureau, or whether the President decided to move such a proposal spontaneously. We must recognise one thing: the Rules of Procedure deliberately make amendments to the agreed agenda difficult, for after all, they should not occur all the time. On the other hand, obstacles are deliberately erected and, as we must acknowledge, there are minority rights as well. If, for example, the Conference of Presidents decides that no debate should take place on an issue, it is possible to counter this with 32 votes. In other words, very carefully balanced rights exist which also make it possible to proceed against a short-lived majority. These obstacles are deliberate. The only possible exception is ‘a proposal by the President’. Here, the question which also arises is whether that is correct. I therefore request you to clarify, firstly, whether this was a proposal by the President, and, secondly, whether it was based on a decision by the Bureau. Thirdly, I doubt whether this is an adequate legal basis for this procedure.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by making a point of thanking Mr Beysen. It is unlike me to start a speech by congratulating the rapporteur, because I think that is what we are here for and we generally make a good job of it. I think, however, that Mr Beysen deserves special praise for his hard work in contacting the other groups right from the start, in order to ensure the report was as unanimous as possible before it was tabled in plenary. And he has succeeded admirably. So thank you for involving us from the outset. As a result, my group feels there is no need to table any amendments because, in my opinion, what Mr Beysen has done is fine as it is. I would therefore like to just comment briefly on three political points that are important to me. First, as the Commissioner made clear, this decision comes under the general heading of the liberalisation of the energy market; in other words, it contributes to what is already on the Council's agenda. And when it comes to the overall package to open up the energy market, let there be no mistake, we have handed our homework in on time. We adopted our first reading here in plenary on 13 March, after the Council urged us to get a move on. The Commission did likewise; it too has done its homework, unlike the Council. The Council is doing what it always does, what it does best – nothing at all. It sits and talks and fails to come to any decision. That amounts to institutionalised indecisiveness, and that is why we need to say at this juncture: this is an overall package and we want results so that we can move forward. Secondly, I really do think the Commission was right in this context to suggest – and our resolution should reflect this – that strategically important projects in the trans-European energy network sector should be given top priority. By which we mean projects which are vital for security of supply, strategically important projects which are important in opening up the market, especially those relating to one part of this package I referred to, namely the regulation on which Mr Mombaur acted as rapporteur. It is a pity he is not here today; I think he too would have had a few comments to make here. Thirdly, unlike traffic networks, the industry and companies involved in the energy networks generally make real money. They make money! And that means that it is primarily up to the industry to finance these projects. It is our job as legislator to support this by putting framework conditions in place, which brings me back to the fact that the Council needs to wrap things up. So that is how we want to go about this, by cofinancing support but with the companies in the front row when it comes to putting money in the kitty.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on a point of order, we should be celebrating the International Criminal Court, which today comes into formal existence. Unfortunately, in the United Nations yesterday, the United States vetoed the United Nations mandate for Sfor in Bosnia, in which many EU countries are participating. I should like to express my strongest possible objection to the operation of that veto in the Security Council, because it effectively vetoes, not only the mandate by the United Nations in relation to Sfor, but also the foreign policy of Ireland and other countries which operate in Sfor based on the UN mandate. Ireland may therefore have to withdraw from Sfor because a UN mandate will not now exist if this veto persists. I would ask you to convey my objections at least, if not the objections of many others in this Parliament, to this operation by the United States. It is unbelievable that the United States is seeking to act outside international norms of law. It is unbelievable that it wants its personnel to be free from prosecution if they are involved in human rights breaches. It is not acceptable to this House and it should not be acceptable to the European Union.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I would first like to express my warmest thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Seppänen, and the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, for an excellent report and some excellent cooperation. The Commission has drafted a creditable communication on the state of global competitiveness in the forestry industry. This document has meant that forestry matters have been made the subject of very necessary debate in the EU, which, unfortunately, happens all too rarely. The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development is mainly satisfied with the policies set forth by the Commission and Parliament’s draft report. We would like to stress the importance of the whole forestry chain in our own opinion, and that includes the importance of the profitability of forestry and wood harvesting, which is responsible for the raw material base of the forestry industry. Sustainable agriculture in Europe still depends on the family forest businesses practised by twelve million private forest owners and the activities they are engaged in. The Hague Convention on World Climate Change failed. We, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, have followed the climate agreement process actively, as, in our opinion, the Kyoto Protocol takes totally insufficient account of the importance of forests. Forests and all wood products are a considerable carbon sink, and their importance in this respect has to be recognised. The coordination of matters of forestry in the EU is poor. There are more Directorates-General to deal with them but there is a lack of uniformity. Personnel resources have been increased in the area of the environment, but the Directorate-General on Agriculture responsible for forestry has very few resources to work with, as does that for industry. For that reason, I support Amendment No 1 by Mrs Schierhuber on behalf of the Group. Likewise I want to show my support for Amendments Nos 3 and 4 in particular, which are from the opinion by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. Our committee approved them by general consensus.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, as the motion for a resolution tabled on this issue by the majority of groups in this House maintains, the financial commitments of the European Union in the Middle East should go hand in hand with a clear political presence, and the Union should be involved in all the negotiations in the peace process. For decades – almost as many decades as the conflict in the region has lasted – broad sections of European public opinion have mobilised themselves with the intention of contributing to a situation where hate and senselessness may give way to rationality, harmony and simple common sense amongst the parties involved. Nevertheless, such public resolve has not been proportionately reflected in the European institutions. There have certainly been notable declarations on the matter, such as the Venice declaration, but they have languished over the years. Such a political absence, the lack of genuine political will to act and the simultaneous existence of too many discordant national voices not only damages the Union in terms of the common European project, but also disappoints the expectations of many non-Europeans who would be happy to see us acquire greater responsibility and suitable coordination between external policy and other policies. I ask myself and I ask you, representatives of the Council and the Commission, whether the recent appointment of a High Representative of the CFSP will go hand in hand with the establishment of a genuine common and Community political will.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, the European Union is starting the necessary process of enlargement, initially involving thirteen new Member States, without defining what the Union is and even without knowing the size of its future territory. This is causing a situation of uncertainty which could lead to the dilution of its political character into a union of national governments without the means to solve the internal problems of social cohesion and territorial balance or to take its place in the world according to its full political and economic weight. As a Member for Galicia and a European citizen, I must express my disapproval of this legislative initiative from the Commission. This disapproval does not relate so much to the issues dealt with in this initiative as to its fundamental failings which this House still has time to remedy. How can this Parliament, which represents all European citizens, rule out its own full legislative initiative? How can we, in the same context, not accept that the Commission President must be elected from among MEPs? Why is the exercise before the Union of the powers of the national authorities, federal states and Autonomous Communities not recognised? How can we deny the establishment of a European employment policy linked to the Structural Funds policy? These questions are useful to highlight some of the grave deficiencies in the legislative proposal on reforming the Treaties.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I bring greetings from the Finnish dockworkers, who know how to load and unload ships professionally and competently. They send their greetings and say that the proposal now before us should be rejected. If it were to go ahead, stevedoring would become ‘flag of convenience work’. It would be done by people who sail on ‘flag of convenience’ vessels and who lack the special professional skills that are needed in the difficult snowy and icy conditions that exist in the north to guarantee the occupational safety of other dockworkers. We have had bitter experiences of flag of convenience vessels flouting terms and conditions of employment and health and safety and environmental protection standards. Under the guise of competition, ship owners are now trying to extend the exploitation of seamen from the seagoing context to the ports. That cannot be accepted, given that it is being done on the pretence that it increases competition. Both port employers’ and workers’ organisations unanimously agree that competition will not increase with this directive. It is only economic and social dumping that will increase.

Political group: GUE-NGL