GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I have three observations to make. We were horrified by the events of 11 September. The suicide attacks to which the Palestinian terrorists are subjecting the Israelis are a daily 11 September, and beginning to evacuate the settlements changes nothing at the moment unfortunately. My second comment relates to the Roadmap. We must not be mistaken as regards its nature. It is a framework and is not designed to be a straitjacket. It opens negotiations and is not designed to close them. It is a programme and is not designed to be a diktat. Thirdly, in the negotiations that are now beginning, Europe’s position is weak because it is unbalanced and appears to be biased. Italian diplomacy has begun to work towards restoring the balance. We must wish it every success in ensuring that the Italian Presidency finally enables Europe to play a useful role in establishing peace.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, first of all, I want to state that, as chairman of Finland’s national UNICEF Committee, I have a special interest in this issue. Secondly, I note with satisfaction the incredible importance of cooperation on particular themes. Unfortunately, the feeling in UNICEF is that the organisation has been given assignments to carry out only for as long as there has been no special European organisation that has been able to do so. As Mr Howitt mentioned, thematic cooperation must include education and the fight against poverty. I hope that we shall be able to see a significant increase in the EU’s contribution to high-quality education for women and girls. We know that this has been a topic taken up by the UN, and it will be a topic at the UN’s special session on children in September 2001. We have obtained a communication from the Commission concerning the EU’s contribution to the conference for the poorest countries, but I wonder: will there also be a communication from the Commission about the efforts being made to prepare for the special session in September 2001? The EU’s input will be required in this area too.

Political group: ELDR
We voted against Amendment No 7, the author of which – with his outdated and chauvinistic ideas – would like to slam the EU’s door shut to Turkey. The fact that he hides his stance behind a proposal for a referendum – in which every EU citizen would be asked to voice their opinion on the matter – does not justify that stance. Does he propose referendums on questions that really matter to the public, such as the redirection of State arms budgets to schools, hospitals and public transport in the EU? We are not, of course, opposed to Turkey’s accession to the EU. We are, however, opposed to all those who cite religious or ideological reasons for refusing to lower a border on a continent that is already all too divided. Nevertheless, we do not accept the reasons why the European ruling classes would like Turkey to be integrated into the framework of the EU, nor do we accept the clean bill of health given to the Turkish Government, especially when basic rights and freedoms are being trampled under foot in Turkey, such as the Kurdish people’s right to enjoy such rights and freedoms, and when political prisoners are still detained. We also do not understand why backing should be given to the conditions imposed by the European institutions on Turkey, for which the leaders of the country will undoubtedly make the working classes foot the bill. We have therefore abstained from voting on this report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Commissioner, it is quite significant that at the beginning of this new century people in Europe, men and women, are being called upon to redefine their rights and obligations. We hope that this important Cologne Council decision will become a reality. Globalisation on the one hand and enlargement on the other, make it urgently necessary to define those rights. Seattle is a real source of concern in that context and we hope that the European Council in Nice will not be a wasted meeting. But if we are to secure the public’s participation in this new planning, we would like to learn what plan the European bodies and specifically the Commission are proposing as the social and democratic model of Europe in the twenty-first century. I listened to your general guidelines and I would like to ask you what is the position of children, as entities in their own right, in the Commission’s plans for the new model of society in the twenty-first century.

Political group: PPE-DE
I congratulate Mrs Rodriguez Ramos on her excellent report on multifunctionality in farming and the reform of the CAP. I fully support this report, in particular with regard to calling for a European agricultural policy that also takes account of the multiple functions of farming, specifically maintaining the rural population, regional planning and the preservation of the environment, the landscape and the cultural heritage, also introducing the concept of territorial cohesion. I also wish to underline that the European Parliament prides itself on its action to ensure respect for Europe’s diversity, which means that where farming is concerned, we have a duty also to consider the non-commercial aspects in order to achieve the harmonious development of the European Union.

Political group: PPE-DE
All the Christian Democratic proposals by the Group of the European People’s Party having been, in principle, adopted in plenary, thereby considerably improving the content of the report, I have voted in favour of the latter in the final vote. The fight against poverty is the main objective of EU development policy. History shows that state monopolies have often led to economic inefficiency, mismanagement, corruption and injustice in developing countries. Particularly in the case of services for the benefit of everyone, such as the supply of water and energy, together with education and health, the state sector has failed in the majority of these countries. Reforms in this sector can therefore contribute to improvements and growth. Through a number of amendments by ourselves in the Group, this is clearly shown by the report. The report is therefore in line with the Commission’s assessment that the fight against poverty can only seriously be taken up through the objective consideration of all the alternatives for reform with a view to increasing economic growth and countering corruption. Monopoly situations, be they public or private, must be replaced by competition and diversity with a view to increased fairness and better economic management. Clear legal framework regulations must stand as guarantees of the right to services for the benefit of all. Small enterprises can operate as important engines of growth in the developing countries and should therefore be supported financially and through technical aid. - Flemming report (A5-0034/2004)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner Busquin, the Group of the has read the report by Mrs McNally on women and science with great interest and is, of course, dissatisfied with the imbalance which exists between the position of women and men in science. We do find it important, though, that this situation should be highlighted and proposals formulated to improve the position of women. Commissioner Busquin has since also published a report of a study commissioned by the European Commission. Twelve top female scientists from different Member States have collated hard evidence which illustrates the imbalance within the world of science. Moreover, they have formulated very concrete proposals to improve the current situation of women. The study clearly shows that the cause of the imbalance must be tackled within the scientific world itself and not amongst the women, who are said to have different interests and ambitions and make other choices. These appear to be prejudices. There are pressure points at universities and research institutes and within industry. Within each of these professional circles, there is again an imbalance in the distribution of jobs. For example, the percentage of female professors varies in the Member States from 4% to a maximum of 18% of the total number of professors. Furthermore, it appears that the percentage of female professors within one and the same institution is remarkably lower than the percentage of female assistants. From an analysis of job-application data, it appears that women who clearly aspire to a scientific career are selected in much smaller quantities than their male colleagues. Having children does not even seem to be a stumbling block, quite the opposite in fact; women with families are said to publish more than single women. It is remarkable to observe that a higher percentage of women have scientific jobs in Southern European countries than in Northern European countries. An explanation for this is that the latter group of countries boasts flexible options for career breaks, with the consequence that re-entry into a scientific career is not so evident. One needs to exercise extra vigilance, therefore, when it comes to women and family-friendly measures and take the necessary precautions so as to ensure that women actually retain the same opportunities as men. We hope that this study, in conjunction with Mrs McNally’s report, will be an incentive to take further initiatives to meet the need for statistics. We rely on the European Commission to take steps to create the circumstances in which the proposals that have been made can be translated into practice. I would like to finish with the words of Commissioner Diamantopoulou: we are fighting for our rights and not for privileges.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I am going to confine my comments to the general Commission discharge for 1998, which has taken on a highly political and divisive tone right from the start of our discussions. I feel that we have been through several rounds of a boxing match but ultimately the whole committee, including the rapporteur, said that discharge should be granted. Rather than stick with the hysterical, drum-beating report that the rapporteur produced, which, if truth be told, had little originality, no sense of direction and no suggestion on how to move ahead constructively, the committee decided back in March to postpone the discharge and to set out seventeen clear conditions which we expected the Commission to sign up to in the space of a couple of months. We were delighted that the rapporteur saw the error of her ways and supported our way of thinking. Round one to us, the anti-PPE alliance. The rapporteur then tried a fast left hook with her headline-grabbing explanatory statement. She lost. Round two to the anti-PPE alliance. The Commission responded constructively to most of the points we set out in March. The next Stauner report was in the same hysterical tone as the first round but this time we were ready for her. Round three to the anti-PPE alliance. We thought the fight was over, but no, we were in for more with the new explanatory statement. We have yet to see the result of that round but we are confident about the final knock-out round and we confidently predict what will happen on Thursday. The only real question that remains is why her name is still on the report. The truth is, we know that the Commission has a long way to go in getting its act together. The Court of Auditors was right in not giving its O.K. to the Commission expenditure in 1998, but we are willing now to give the Commission the benefit of the doubt. We think that this is a genuine attempt at reform and the Commission needs a certain amount of time to implement the necessary changes. We will keep an eye on the situation and make sure the Commission sticks to the promises it has made. For example, the promise to cut the number of errors is a major promise but it will not happen unless we have the commitment and the resources to go with it. Commissioner, can you assure us that particularly in the areas of high risk, agriculture, structural funds and research, we will see more checks rather than fewer, as happened in 1998? Will we see significantly more resources for auditing within the DGs in cooperation with the internal audit service? Can you give us these figures, please? You know, Commissioner, that one area where we were dissatisfied with your answers was in response to lessons learned from Fléchard. We know from the Court of Auditors, unlike Mrs Stauner, that we cannot get the money back. Will you make a commitment though to cooperate fully with our internal inquiry committee and give us the information we request? Finally, I hope that in our committee, we will be able to stop fighting each other and get on with fighting fraud.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, your statement was not as clear as Commissioner Patten's. I am actually seriously concerned that, in spite of their professed commitment to the International Criminal Court, the EU's Foreign Ministers will after all get cold feet on 30 September and issue provisos that undermine the credibility of the Rome Statute. If the universality of the International Criminal Court is compromised the Rome Statute is weakened. We cannot have two classes of law within international law. Article 98 is no basis for bilateral agreements because it was only envisaged for agreements between States Parties to the Treaty. It was an article that the United States itself proposed. It does not apply between States that do not even want to recognise the International Criminal Court. I very much hope, however, that on 30 November the EU will say 'no' and that it will not allow itself to be beaten into submission.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, wood is a renewable material, a construction material with a future. Wood regrows, it rots and finds its way back into the natural cycle from which it came. So we should not forget wood in the Sixth Framework Programme on Research – we should make sure that the priority area for wood is accordingly drawn up with due care, especially in the field of biotechnology. I believe that wood will be a lot more important for us in the future than it has been in the past. As wood is also very widely used in the international construction industry, the wood industry faces numerous problems. It has to deal with a huge number of technical trade barriers, a multiplicity of national standards and authorisation procedures and also, to some extent, bureaucratic testing, monitoring and certification requirements. This is an area where the European Commission should apply SLIM. And perhaps the wood sector is an ideal one for introducing model procedures, possibly including BEST. I would like to thank Hans-Peter Martin, as promoting small and medium-sized enterprises is, of course, a central and essential matter, and one where we have an important partner in the Commission. However, there is also the matter of making appropriate changes to building laws and regulations, because fire regulations in Europe in particular vary widely. We believe it is high time that the construction products directive was adopted. This directive in particular would enable great progress to be made in marketing wood. As regards world trade, I would like to stress that Japan has very restrictive legislation in this area. This is something we also need to discuss because wood is, after all, not just a raw material and a construction material, but it will also be highly important in future through biotechnology. That is why we especially want to promote smaller biomass power stations, which will make an important contribution to Europe's energy self-sufficiency, so that this is also an area where wood has an important role to play.

Political group: PPE-DE
That does not answer my question. I do not dispute the fact that nationality is granted by the Member States, my question is: what happens when it should not have been granted and the person is living in another Member State? How will that person later be located? What practical method do we have for locating him or her?

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to thank Mr Oostlander for his wise words to us, as always. The fundamental problem with enlargement is that we will see a large expansion of the Union from 1 May, and that will be much more problematic than earlier rounds of enlargement, while at the same time the Union’s ability to receive new members is not as great as it was before. The EU is now more demanding and involved, and enlargement is not a machine or an animal: it is the most complex human creation of all – the European Union. We must, however, treat Turkey just as fairly as all the other countries seeking accession to the EU despite the fact that our ability to receive them has weakened. A lot of progress has been made in Turkey in a short time. There are new laws representing civil society and there is democracy. The status of women and the Kurds is now being openly debated, although I have no conclusive knowledge of where military power ends and civil power begins. The significance of the status of the military is a very big problem. The Copenhagen criteria have not been fulfilled, by which I mean the establishment of the rule of law and human rights. There is still work to do regarding this. The judiciary is not independent and Turkey should sign the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. We face a familiar problem: just laws are passed, and a lot of decisions are taken, but whether or not they are implemented in practice and this implementation is monitored remains a big, murky problem that we have been unable to solve, and this is in the hands of the Turks themselves. Can they do it? That is the question this time round, and we will only answer it afterwards.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am quite sure that we all accept the premise that an inappropriate speed by any vehicle can cause accidents. But more often than not accidents are attibutable to the manner in which the vehicle is being driven, or the carelessness of drivers failing to be vigilant, especially in bad weather for example. Accidents are also caused by drivers crawling along at a snail's pace on motorways and in some cases they could be avoided by having a minimum as well as a maximum speed limit. There has to be recognition that there is a world of difference between motorway and urban driving. Whilst clearly agreeing with the Commission and my colleagues, including Mr Hatzidakis, that we must do all we can to improve road safety across the European Union, I cannot agree that the way forward would be the introduction of this directive, which advocated a one-speed-fits-all approach. It is recognised that the United Kingdom has the best safety record in the EU. It is equally true to say that it was one of the first countries to fit speed limiters on coaches, for obvious reasons. In addition, this directive is also meant to improve the environment and congestion and again I would refute that claim. To extend this directive to those categories of vehicles included in the proposal, and to impose the upper speed limits as outlined, would be a mistake. It is bad enough struggling along motorways when two heavy goods lorries are running parallel because one decides to overtake on a hill and clearly cannot accelerate. If this directive comes into play I believe that congestion and environmental pollution will increase. Finally, the right way forward would be to seriously consider advances in technology, for example the proposed voluntary agreement on pedestrian protection. In addition, there is also the possibility of ISA and I would support a study by the Commission along those lines. Nevertheless, ultimately, it should be left to the discretion of the Member State to decide what would or would not be appropriate. With the exception of a couple of amendments, my delegation will be unable to support this report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, last month in the UK, in a region that neighbours mine, the Michelin Group announced significant redundancies at its Stoke-on-Trent plant due to company restructuring and increasing global competitiveness in the world market for tyres. I, like all Members present, am saddened by this loss of jobs. Equally, I am saddened by the announcement made by Goodyear that has prompted this resolution. But I doubt very much indeed whether a European works council would have been able to change this company’s decision. This House is very good at producing resolutions and legislation and we sometimes, in this institution, forget that Europe cannot survive alone. We need multinational companies to base their businesses within our continent. In my few months here, I have found it astonishing that whilst we all talk about the need to encourage businesses to grow within the EU, nearly every resolution we pass actually encourages businesses to leave. In our last plenary part-session in Brussels we voted on the end-of-life vehicles directive and managed to make the legislation retrospective, adding huge costs for the European motor manufacturers that they could not have predicted. Two days later, Toyota, which employs several thousand people in my region, stated that this directive would not only increase the cost of cars but could well also mean redundancies in their Derbyshire plant. In a world where surely less regulation is the key, we in this House seem to believe that we can add more regulation and costs on business and that they will stay within the European Union, untempted by other locations elsewhere where there are fewer burdens. We MEPs speak often about SMEs and have now come up with a unique way of creating them. Take a large successful business, add European regulations, and within months you have created a small one. Perhaps before we criticise anybody outside this place we should take a good look at ourselves and what we do here.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I certainly endorse the line taken by Mrs Muscardini and Mr Naïr's reports, and their content, but there is a need to focus on certain factors which are not dealt with. It is important to start from this consideration: the European Union's strategy for the Mediterranean, developed at Feira, in addition to failing to provide practical recommendations, does not take into account certain developments which have taken place in recent years in the Mediterranean Basin. After centuries of struggling and marginalisation it has resumed a key position in world trade again, which, after the discovery of America, had been dominated by the Atlantic routes. Thanks also to the new production boost in Asia, Europe now trades more with Asia than with America. For these trade routes between America and Asia, the Mediterranean provides a valuable centre for unloading goods for northern Europe, which means that carriers do not have to make detours. This is thus a new development which the European Union cannot ignore and which has already yielded the first, astonishing results. And it is towards this integrated, well-structured system that we must endeavour to direct our funds, a system which is already equipped with transport intermodality in the form of aircraft, railways and motorways. Without this practical step, the funds will frequently not be exploited, as is the case at present.

Political group: ELDR