GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Madam Vice-President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I am happy that we are here together today, after all the discussions over recent months, and can confirm that all three institutions – the two legislative institutions and the Commission as the proposing authority – take the view that the regulation has to enter into force in May of this year. No other course would be possible, because there is no legislative process which is fast enough to allow further changes to be made in May. What is crucial in our view is that noise protection regulations are right for our people, that we must protect people in the vicinity of airports and that American interests have not, in any case, been affected thus far. Individual interests of American companies may be affected, but the regulation does not enter into force for aircraft registered in third countries until 2002, which is why we must bite our tongue somewhat and choose our words carefully, Mr President-in-Office. I wonder if we should abolish this regulation as far as third country aircraft are concerned. It has not even entered into force. It is on the statute books but will not enter into force until May 2002. Why should we abolish it? I think that we should begin with a legislative procedure at the end of the year. Once agreement has been reached on global standards in the ICAO working parties, we can start to adopt these global standards in our regulation insofar as it relates to third country aeroplanes for the year 2002. If, during the course of the legislative procedure, which takes six months or a year, we receive an indication in September that these standards have also been adopted by the general assembly of the ICAO as they stand, we can conclude the legislative procedure well before May 2002. This was also what my fellow member was asking. We should not begin the legislative procedure under the slogan “suspend” but under the slogan “adaptation to new, jointly-agreed standards”. In this respect I think that Mr Slater should put his money where his mouth is, as we say in Hamburg. It is not enough for him to say that he wants to agree with us; as the Vice-President has called on him to do time and again, he must also say what noise reduction quality standards he wants to agree on. On that basis, Madam Vice-President, you continue to have our full support. We admire you, because the Council has gone on the attack time and again, saying you should draw up a legislative proposal right away and give in to the Americans. You rightly said, the Americans are our friends but we will not be blackmailed when it comes to our own environmental protection. Stand by your guns, Madam Vice-President! If the Americans approach us on this matter, we are perfectly able in principle to start the legislative process the day after tomorrow. But I would advise that we wait for the first working results from the ICAO working party on noise protection regulations. Then we can start on a sound legislative process in the interests of all our citizens, because we want global standards which are more stringent that those we have had in the past.

Political group: PPE-DE
The very title of this report, ‘Growth and employment initiative – measures on financial assistance for innovative and job-creating small and medium-sized enterprises’, is sufficient reason for us to vote against this text. The rapporteur knows, as everybody does, that ‘financial assistance’ to companies, innovative or not, does not create jobs. He knows that the so-called small businesses are generally subsidiaries of large financial groups. And he knows that these groups pocket this aid in order to increase their profit. And, when the assistance stops, they shut up shop without even feeling obliged to reimburse the aid given, such as, in France, Daewoo in Lorraine or Mitsubishi in Brittany, which closed their factories, making hundreds of workers redundant. The European Parliament, however, is still being asked to endorse, on the basis of representative democracy, a practice that only benefits industrial and financial groups, and certainly not the unemployed. For our part, we refuse to take part in this trickery. And if the European institutions have funds to give away, they should go to public services since, in all the countries of Europe, there is a shortage of health staff, teachers and public service personnel.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the torrent of words, not to say hot air, about the main guidelines can no longer obscure the fact that the Lisbon process has stalled and that the European Union has no economic policy. This, in fact, has been a recurring problem since the birth of economic and monetary union, in spite of all the proposals that have been made. There is, of course, an issue of governance. Mr Blair, Mr Chirac and Mr Schroeder are proposing a super-minister. And why not? But what use is a minister if nobody knows how to solve the underlying problem? What is more interesting is the observation in Mrs Randzio-Plath’s report to the effect that governance suffers from a democratic deficit. She calls for debates in each country, in each national parliament, debates to which the whole of society should be able to contribute, before the springtime meeting of the Council. I may tell you, however, that such a proposal was carried by this Parliament back in 1996, following my report on public participation in the Union’s institutional system, but it was never implemented, and this Parliament has not pursued the matter. In essence, structural reform is something of a magic formula. Reforms are indispensable, but clearly the real issues are their direction and substance and the need to avoid contradictions. If we take the case of the labour market, positive mobility is essential, yet at the same time the Member States are taking decisions designed to prevent workers from the new Member States from exercising freedom of movement within the European labour market. The European Union must therefore create a wider range of incentives, particularly for the much-vaunted development of human capital, an effort that will undoubtedly require a high volume of resources which we are not mobilising at the present time. People speak of industrial policy, but that has not been functioning properly since the time of the Maastricht Treaty. As far as funding goes, it has been established that investments of general interest will not be made without an increase in Community resources. And I must emphasise that the authors of the Lisbon objectives also proposed that public funds devoted to priority projects be exempted from the discipline of the Stability Pact. But that is not all. Everyone knows that there are large sums of money flowing into portfolio investments and restructuring but not into industrial investment. One fundamental problem is therefore that credit facilities, the tax system and savings rules provide insufficient incentive for industrial investment. At a time when the falling dollar is strangling our recovery, it is not actually enough for the Central Bank to effect a general cut in interest rates at the risk of deepening the liquidity trap – what is required is a genuine policy of differentiated credit conditions based on the Lisbon objectives.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The struggle in Iran for reform and freedom is of great interest. There have been considerable reasons for optimism in the election of President Khatami and the overwhelming vote for reformist candidates in the February elections but, as Human Rights Watch notes, the struggle to control the press is, in many ways, the struggle to control the future direction of the Islamic Republic as a whole. The very success of the reformist agenda seems to have provoked a backlash by the conservative reactionary forces and an attempt to punish the majority who voted in February for reform. They are targeting the independent press because it is a major channel for reformists. These attempts surely cannot succeed in the long run because the youthful population is impatient for change showing that Islam and guarantees of rights and freedoms are perfectly compatible. We must do all in our power to encourage and support reform, including especially basic legal safeguards for freedom of expression as required by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Iran is a signatory. In the meantime, we call on Iran to cease the persecution and prosecution of journalists and writers for views which do not threaten public order, or national security, but only the vested interests of conservatives.

Political group: ELDR
The Commissioner will be interested to know that I had the honour of chairing a meeting last week on the issue of child pornography, organised by the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children. We had an excellent presentation from the officer from Europol, Mr Morgan, and I also had the pleasure of announcing the agreement that I think had just been published in the papers that day. But I would like to ask how you think extradition requests will work when, for instance, material originates in third countries, where perhaps the same kind of basic legislation does not exist? Secondly, what should be our approach to this kind of material arriving from outside the Community? This is clearly going to be the route taken in future to circumvent legislation both here and in the United States.

Political group: PPE-DE
I voted for this resolution because in it Parliament wisely does not opt for the ‘imperialist’ theses of the large, populous European countries against the self-affirmation of the others. The resolution limits itself to a responsible vote so that a sensible balance can be found based on the history of the Community. Thus those who would like to see Parliament become an ‘echo chamber’ for the more populous countries' revisionist intentions will be defeated.

Political group: PSE
We have voted in favour of a report on securities and guarantees for traditional own resources. The report as a whole makes sense. There are, however, a few points from which we would disassociate ourselves. Paragraphs 15 and 16 pave the way for introducing a single corpus juris in the EU and for harmonising criminal law and the administration of justice in the Member States. First of all, this is unclearly formulated. Secondly, we are not in favour of harmonising criminal legislation and the administration of justice in the Member States. What we do support is establishing the necessary instruments for combating fraud involving EU funds more effectively. We are in favour of supplementing the OLAF regulation by setting up a unit under OLAF to lead investigations and make it easier to follow up criminal cases in the national courts. The unit must only concern itself with crimes committed by EU employees. In the longer term, consideration should be given to introducing a European public prosecutor to follow up cases of fraud involving EU funds in the Member States. We must not, however, have harmonisation for harmonisation’s sake and, in other areas, the Member States’ criminal law and administration of justice are national concerns. - McCartin report (A5-0396/2000)

Political group: PSE
Unfortunately, the World Food Summit organised by the Food and Agriculture Organization has demonstrated that the fears I expressed to this very House a month and a half ago were entirely warranted. The absence of thirteen European Heads of State from the Summit and the Italian Prime Minister’s request that the end of the meeting be brought forward because of a football match graphically illustrate how little interest famine in the world generates in our countries. One international conference takes place after another – Monterrey, Rome, Johannesburg; Europe would have the world believe that development is its chief concern. At the same time, however, it abolishes the European Union Development Council, and the Directorate-General for Development may also be axed soon. And we abstain from any binding involvement or commitment whatsoever on behalf of the poorest populations. This was the other huge disappointment at the Summit, where we confined ourselves to subscribing to commitments that had previously been undertaken without any means of obtaining the tangible resources required for their fulfilment. This, incidentally, had happened in Monterrey too, but it was even worse in Rome. Mr Berlusconi even had the effrontery to cast doubt on the duty of the industrialised countries to assist the developing countries in their desperate plight, invoking the precept that ‘God helps those who help themselves’. Likewise, the WTO helps the United States and the European Union to maintain and even increase their export subsidies on farm produce, subsidies which fly in the face of the sacrosanct principle of free trade proclaimed by those same two parties and which are used to a great extent to the detriment of the poor countries that are the main exporters of raw materials. How can anyone attach any credit to a US Administration that has just increased its subsidies to cotton farmers or to the governments of the EU Member States that refused to commit themselves in Doha to a timetable for the reduction of their subsidies on agricultural exports? We are disappointed by the resolution that the European Parliament has proposed, because it fails to condemn the gulf between the words of our governments and their deeds. The Roman Emperors used to have a formula for appeasing their poorest citizens: bread and circuses. I believe there were certainly circuses this time in Rome, but the bread was forgotten.

Political group: Verts-ALE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. – Mr President, perhaps I can reassure Mrs van den Burg that the concerns of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs were rather carried over into the debate on the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, and indeed a number of the amendments that were adopted by us in our opinion at first reading were, in my view as draftsman, more appropriate to your committee. Nevertheless, the opinion that we put forward reflected the concerns of a majority of our members and those concerns were particularly directed at the need for, and importance of, employee information and consultation. A number of amendments concerned informing the employees of the target or offeree company, and another amendment concerned the importance of consulting the employees of the offeror or predatory company. The second area of concern to us, where we were in line with a number of other committees, is the issue of jurisdiction. We felt it very important that jurisdiction should be in the Member State of the offeree company to avoid any ambiguity or confusion. We also put forward an amendment covering the issue of jurisdiction on bids originating from companies in countries outside the European Union – third countries – and the need for those to be subject to national authorisation within. A third area of concern which was addressed in the opinion of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy was that of the Scandinavian countries in particular over multiple classes of shares. Those were the three points that our committee was concerned about.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, we are quite happy for you to temper justice with mercy, as it were. However, I would like to support Mrs Pack and make the fundamental point that if we are having shorter part-sessions it is not acceptable for reports not to be voted on because rapporteurs are no longer present on Thursday evening. We agree with the procedure adopted today, but we would like you to make it clear once again, including to committee chairs, that Members should ensure that they stay until Thursday evening.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would also like to congratulate Mr Cushnahan on his report. I should like to thank him for once again being so adaptable in writing that report and being prepared to involve his colleagues so that there is no need for us to go through a lengthy amendment procedure because we reached consensus when the report was being drawn up. Once again we see the handover of power in Hong Kong has generally gone very well and has defeated some of the more pessimistic forecasts. Clearly, demonstrations still take place on a weekly basis in Hong Kong, movements are permitted in Hong Kong which are not permitted in China, the economy has survived a difficult period and continues to thrive and, as Mr De Clercq has said, the WTO membership for China should actually be an opportunity for Hong Kong, given its tremendous power in financial services in particular, and given that much of Hong Kong manufacturing has already moved to China. However, as Mr Cushnahan has pointed out, there are areas of concern and they are set out well in his report so I do not need to go through them. But I may quote one or two examples. The Chinese news agency telling Mrs Anson Chan and the civil servants they had to better support the Chief Executive seems to me like interference in the affairs of another country. The various reports of businessmen being put under pressure not to trade with Taiwan is also cause for concern. The recent sacking or movement of one of the directors of Radio Television Hong Kong appears to have been as a result of pressure from the mainland. All of these things in themselves may not add up to a great deal because they are part of a normal power struggle that you would see, provided, that is, that what Hong Kong was based on was a thriving, democratic system that could resist those sorts of pressures. But we have to be concerned that in Hong Kong democracy is not going the way that we would have liked. We have already heard of the unfair nature of the election system. We will note, as was pointed out recently in the Financial Times by an adviser to the former Governor, the extent to which the rules were pushed back in 1997. But when you see someone like Christine Loh resigning because there is no point in being in the legislative any more that, to me, is a significant signal that things are not going well. And when someone who works for the Chief Executive is accused of interfering in opinion polls, that also bodes ill for the future. It is not just a question of point scoring, a lot of modernisation is needed in Hong Kong. That will only come about if there is a consensus and the top-down government in Hong Kong at the moment is ill-equipped to build consensus within Hong Kong. While we recognise there has been a smooth transition, there remain areas we have to watch. I would hope that we can continue with these annual reports and these Parliament reports so that we can monitor very closely the situation in Hong Kong.

Political group: PSE
As the motion for a resolution presented by Mrs Jackson states, current legislation in this field is fragmentary and inconsistent. Consumer protection demands extremely accurate and complete information on food, including information relating to new animal feed and to the labelling of GMO-free products. Moreover, we need to review all the legislation concerning food and products derived from genetically modified organisms in order to be able to guarantee an advance assessment of the risks, with the aim of protecting consumer health. Thus, it is crucial that the Commission proposes new criteria for the testing and labelling of all new foods and processing aids derived from genetically modified organisms, paying particular attention to products obtained from animals fed with products containing GMOs. It is also essential that the figure of 1% as the minimum tolerance threshold can be revised after 12 months in the light of relevant scientific and technical studies and opinions.

Political group: GUE-NGL
In the series of second-reading amendments, we have voted in favour of everything that is in pursuit of transparency and of as comprehensive a labelling as possible. On the other hand, we have voted against the compromise amendments that, in actual fact, would endorse the lifting of the moratorium.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the debate on the Annual Report on Competition Policy ought to be the most important debate on this subject to take place in the House each year. This is not always the case however. The explanation can be found in the nature of Parliament and its Rules of Procedure. They do not lend themselves to discussion of long-term issues. After all, this is a political chamber, not an academic body or a group of experts. To take an example, here we are at the end of 2002 debating the content of a Commission report relating to 2001. Many significant events have taken place since then. Given these constraints, any report by Parliament is unlikely to be a suitable document and provide an overview of the present state of the debate on European competition policy. I do not of course wish to imply any criticism of Mr Lipietz. He has done good work. What happens is that interplay between political majorities and minorities, a feature of chambers like ours, means that a whole range of elements tend to be added to resolutions such as the one before us today. Often these elements have little direct bearing on the main issue, which on this occasion is competition policy. Clearly, this is nothing new. I am sure Mr Lipietz would agree with me. When he appeared before the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs he regretted the introduction of many of the additional sections and the rejection of other potential ones. I am therefore bound to agree with the rapporteur. I believe that if the report were approved as it now stands, it would not prove to be a document offering useful insights or significant contributions to the current debate on competition, despite the rapporteur’s good work. Further to Commissioner Monti’s statement today, you should all agree on these shortcomings. In Mr Monti’s view, there are several serious problems in the area of competition at present. These relate to modernisation, to reform of Regulation 17 dating from 1962, which we trust will be undertaken as a matter of urgency, and to the various difficulties arising from repeated jurisprudence on mergers at the Court of First Instance. I refer to the three rulings. Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, European competition policy and the Commission’s work in this field have been vital to the creation of the single market. Thanks to the introduction of the euro, it has become obvious that price differences between the Member States still exist. Allow me to suggest that we should today be considering whether competition policy needs to be strengthened, institutionally or in some other way, so as to overcome the last remaining barriers between us and the single market. These, then, are some of the problems we should be tackling. It is unfortunate that we have failed to do so in the course of this debate.

Political group: PSE