GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, this is about the Stability Pact. We had a long discussion between the groups yesterday. The problem is that the Stability Pact is not completely binding upon all the Member States. What, of course, we have here is a document with guidelines for 25 Member States. Of these 25, only twelve are part of the Stability Pact. We therefore agreed to add something to the wording for the purposes of clarification. The words ‘within the euro zone countries’ should follow ‘Stability Pact’. (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** (The sitting was suspended at 12 noon for the formal sitting, and resumed at 12.55 p.m.) IN THE CHAIR: MR PROVANVice-President

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, although the Copenhagen decision is indeed of historical significance, this is only one stage in the development of the European Union. It has been said quite rightly today that enlargement of this Union must go ahead. On the one hand, a number of countries – I am thinking here of the Balkan countries – await membership at a later date, and on the other, there are other countries with a well-founded claim to close partnership and equal status, by which I mean Russia and also the states bordering the Mediterranean. An enlarged EU must, though, strike a new balance between flexible and efficient decision-making and the aspects of the decision-making structures that have to do with democratic policy-making. Together with the representatives of the Council Presidency – I see that Mr Haarder is present – Parliament, the Council and the Commission are engaged in the search for a common basis for dialogue on better forms of governance. Mr Haarder has gone to a great deal of trouble to provide a number of contributions. Even though he is now the representative of a government and no longer a member of this House, a certain awareness may be at work here. The main thing, though, is that there are a number of governments that are far more restrictive than he wishes to be. I see that as highly problematic, as not enough governments have made public commitments to transparency and public access, especially as regards their decision-making structures. I would particularly like to thank President Prodi for the way in which the Commission has again presented a range of proposals that point a way forward to possibly better and, at the same time, more democratic ways of governing, principally indicating how the Council and Parliament can participate in lawmaking with equal rights. Not all of the Commissioners have realised, however, that when this House delegates and cedes the power to make laws, we can, of course, do so only on certain conditions and in conjunction with a right of recall. I hope, though, that the next conversations, which we will be having at the beginning of the Greek Presidency, will bring us a result. I appreciate it when the Commission and the Council keep on reiterating their obligation to insist on adherence to the Treaties, but I ask them to acknowledge that we in this House have to insist on the principles of democracy being guaranteed by the legislators' participation in the process of drafting laws. We will be having elections in 2004, which we will not win against each other; we can win them only with each other and only when we make it our real concern that there should be greater flexibility, greater efficiency, and also more democracy in the European Union. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am requesting the floor for a few minutes to ask for the assistance of the Presidency and to explain the clearly irregular situation which has arisen in this report. An amendment by my group, voted for by the immense majority of the committee, has surprisingly disappeared from the text being voted on today. That amendment called for the recognition of the right to asylum for women who suffer serious persecution and violations of their human rights. For this reason, Mr President, and on behalf of my group, I would ask that we postpone the vote on the Smet report until the services of the House clarify this situation, which we believe to be immensely serious. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
I am always polite. That means that I am always sitting in this Chamber to hear the answers of the Commissioner. If the Commissioner does not give me an answer regarding homeopathic medicine, then I will convince him tomorrow, when a large part of this House will vote against some compromises because we did not get an answer.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, the Commission proposal for a directive on the right of citizens to move freely is, without doubt, an important step in removing the unjustified technical obstacles that persist even in united Europe. The proposed amendments submitted by the European Parliament have of course improved the Commission’s proposal significantly. The amendments submitted by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities aim to bring about a number of improvements to reinforce the free movement of women, taking account of the specific problems faced by women and the principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of gender. Unfortunately, Commissioner, your ambition to allow European citizens to exercise their right of residence freely and without impediment has not resulted in a text that is gender neutral and takes account of the specific problems faced by women. The main problem concerns women who are economically dependent on their husbands and who, in the event of death or separation, have no prospects of extending their right or continuing to reside in another European country. In other words, they are automatically deprived of any legal rights derived from their residing in another Member State of the Union. We feel this needs correcting. The Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities also emphasises the importance of protecting all interpersonal relations by giving live-in partners of either sex the same rights as a spouse. More and more Member States are finding ways of recognising couples who live together without officially getting married. Most countries now allow partners to be officially registered and this category therefore needs to be included in the definition of family members.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we – myself included – support the report by Mrs Lienemann, the targets it sets and the directive under discussion. However, we should look a little more closely at some points. For example, a major problem in my country is the diversion of rivers and the consumption of water from lakes, which people try to justify by pseudo-developmental arguments, and which, of course, are a great risk to ground waters, water tables and surface waters. I therefore think that regardless of whether we finally conclude who should decide whether such diversions take place, the specifications common to us all must be very stringent. But the key issue is, in my opinion, planning how to restore water tables, the natural flow of rivers and the natural content of lakes, which must be carried out within the ten year period we have in mind. I think such projects ought to be eligible for funding, because, at the end of the day, that restoration may well prove to be a first-rate development policy.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, I wish to congratulate Mr Nisticò on his excellent work and say that, throughout Europe, the issue in question is to resolve the extraordinarily difficult situation involving blood. The European public feels that the discrepancies between the Member States’ legislation provide no guarantees of safety given the increasing circulation and import of blood products, on the one hand; on the other, they feel equally unsafe due to the events that have taken place in various countries in recent years. What we are dealing with here, therefore, is not so much the issue of price, of whether or not donations of blood should be remunerated. It is rather a question of whether we can guarantee levels of safety and of not forgetting the importance of the issue of blood for Europe’s citizens. Various leaks have taken place recently at the heart of this debate and I am sorry that the issue of whether or not donations of blood should be remunerated has been given centre stage. With regard to this issue, I would say that the rapporteur is right and that we should stick to the common position since, on the one hand, it does not ban remuneration, which is essential in some cases in order to overcome shortages, but, on the other, encourages voluntary donations and even allows some Member States to go further by defining more rigid rules that could even prevent the import of blood products that do not adhere to these rules. However, once again, Mr President, what is at stake is safety and finding a solution to the problem of blood shortages.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I would like to make you aware of something very inconvenient which happened to me which, in my opinion, undermines the dignity of the Members of this Parliament. On Tuesday afternoon, I went to Poland to take part in an international conference. At the Görlitz border post, as can happen, the German police expressed doubts as to my identity. In order to convince the police and improve the situation I produced my European Parliament pass. At this point, the German police thought that the document was a fake and detained me for eight hours until, after intense discussion, the necessary clarification had been obtained. I had to spend eight hours under surveillance in a room and I was not allowed to use a telephone. It was only after the intervention of the Polish authorities, who, moreover, recognised the validity of the document – and this bodes well for enlargement – that I was allowed to continue my journey. I will submit a more detailed description of the incident shortly, but, for the time being, I would be very grateful if you could make the German authorities aware of the problem. Border police need to be aware of the existence and function of this document. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
This report is deeply contradictory in its assessment of various aspects of the CAP. For example, the approach adopted in its reflects exclusively budgetary concerns, for example, when the report expresses satisfaction at the reform reducing institutional prices and surplus produce, and insists on a greater reduction of compensation payments, without even mentioning the consequences this will have for farmers’ incomes. Furthermore, together with the principle of cofinancing, it advocates the renationalisation of CAP costs. This is a principle that we reject. The report also expresses satisfaction at the Commission’s decision to carry out a thorough assessment of the COM in milk, which closely reflects a Court of Auditors' opinion questioning the system of milk quotas and increases in these laid down in Agenda 2000, forgetting that, despite some unfairness in the allocation of quotas, such as that suffered by Portugal, this system still manages to guarantee a degree of protection as regards prices and incomes. With regard to the pig sector and animal epidemics, the report concludes by considering and supporting the proposal to establish funds with contributions from the producers themselves or other types of insurance schemes, which is a step backwards in relation to the opinion that has already been expressed in the Garot report, which argued in favour of such Community-cofinanced funds. Nevertheless, I agree with the rapporteur when he raises a very important issue affecting the system of arable crops, which is the concentration of aid amongst major producers and in the most prosperous regions. What is needed is an improvement in the situation of small producers, differentiating support according to the size of the farm. It is hard to understand how the rapporteur proposes to support small farmers through the measures that he is recommending. - Staes report (A5-0389/2000) President. – Mr Fatuzzo, if you want to remain standing we will just keep going as you are the only speaker left.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, as you might have noticed, the Italian Members of the European Parliament on this side of the House have until now avoided intervening on the issues related to Mr Berlusconi's and Mr Dell'Utri's parliamentary immunity. The reason is quite obvious. The situation in my country is very delicate. The question is very complex. We are but a few weeks, or even a few days, away from Italian national elections. But with due respect to the high functions and duties and role you are discharging, and after listening to all my honourable colleagues, particularly Richard Corbett, and to you, let me say that the situation is perceived outside this House as becoming more unbearable, more unacceptable by the day. I am raising my voice therefore not as an Italian politician, but as a European Member of this House, to urge you to put an end to all the ambiguities and delays and specious protocol formalities, and to communicate to all of us, as Mr Corbett has suggested, a precise date, a deadline immediately after May 13, the national election day in my country, by which we intend to pursue a definite legal and procedural solution of the affair. This is a matter that goes far beyond political partisanship, and concerns, or should concern, all members of this House, for it concerns the dignity and functioning of our institution.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission recommended on 12 March 2002 that the energy networks should be included in this amendment to the Regulation. What lies behind this is the proposal to amend the guidelines on the trans-European energy networks, on which Mr Beysen is the rapporteur in the Industry Committee. The Commission is proposing an increase in the maximum rate from 10% to 20%. Investments are to ensure a high degree of security in energy supply, which is to be accomplished by an increase in investment, which is meant to resolve the many and varied problems occurring in the planning and realisation of infrastructure development. The aim is to create a real internal market in energy, including those regions that are not at present included and covering strategies that have not yet been implemented. These include the candidate countries. The Committee agrees to the Regulation with, inter alia, a number of additions, which I will enumerate as follows. The investments envisaged should be made in projects that are necessary for the EU's economy and that are commercially profitable. Competition must not be distorted. The possibility of any increase in the Community funding allocated to energy networks in the Financial Perspective for 2002 to 2006 must be excluded, and the Commission is to produce a regular report for Parliament, detailing those projects whose completion can be expected to be speedy by reason of the increase from 10% to 20%. I would like to thank the rapporteur most warmly for his ability to take on board the Industry Committee's proposals with only slight variations. I would like especially to thank Mr Beysen, Mr Mombaur and Mr Turmes, who put a great deal of dedication into completing the report, sometimes by their amendments and suggestions. I would also like to thank the bureau and, most especially, the Commission.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I just want to clarify that the bomb attack against Mr Anastasiadis was not carried out for political motives but because of comments he made after a football game.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, in recent days, I have made one last attempt to achieve compromises, and I have offered a package deal to this end. Unfortunately, that was not successful, despite every effort on the part of the shadow rapporteurs, and for this I should like to thank them nevertheless. At all events, we can say that, whatever happens, today is a real ‘E-day’, an ‘environment day’, because now, for the first time in the history of the European Union, we are adopting legislation that gives us a legal basis for making polluters pay for the damage they cause. I think that that is one point we have scored. (The President declared the common position approved as amended) *** Recommendation for second reading (A5-0425/2003) from the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the Council common position with a view to a European Parliament and Council regulation laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (10949/2/2003 – C5-0463/2003 – 2001/0252(COD)) (Rapporteur: Rosemarie Müller) Before the vote:

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the proposals by the European Commission on working time obey the demands of the employers for flexible working time. They increase the level of exploitation of the working class and maximise the profits of big business. According to these proposals, workers will be at the immediate disposal of employers whenever, when and for as long as the employer wants, without overtime pay, a fact which the European Court of Justice itself has condemned. Thus they abolish basic rights of the workers, such as a set working day, eight hours or seven hours, five days a week. Collective working agreements are being cast aside and fixed term contracts are being extended. The right to insurance and normal leave is being violated, while greater flexibility in employment relations is being promoted. Any positive arrangements are gainsaid by the planned derogations and the application of the 'opting-out' clause imposed by the United Kingdom and also used by other countries. In it, the workers are dragged under the pressure of securing a job. It is a form of modern paid slavery, which forces a large percentage of the workforce to work an average of between 48 and 70 hours a week, with deteriorating health and safety conditions and very serious repercussions on the mental and physical health of workers. We support the reduction in working time, the introduction of a genuine 35-hour week of seven set working hours a day, five days a week, an increase in wages and full insurance and employment rights which will apply universally to all workers and all enterprises. We are fighting together with the workers to overturn the current anti-labour framework and flexible forms of employment.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, a hearing with the president or a governor of the Central Bank always leaves much to be desired, as this person has to be extremely careful in public on account of his position. For the rest, I enjoyed his expertise. Based on the response to the questionnaire drawn up by ECON, I have come to the conclusion that Mr Trichet is like a clone of Mr Duisenberg. I think it will be excellent if this comparison continues to be true in the long-term. The difference between the two was the use of language. You see, psychology is important in monetary policy. Mr Duisenberg never spoke Dutch because English is the main language of the ECB, and as far as I was concerned, Mr Trichet spoke French too much during the hearing. I hope that this does not mean that he will still be a little bit French from a functional point of view, because one would want him to defend the case of the euro in clear language in Paris. The euro will only exist if the people have faith in their currency. For this to happen, we need to have strict enforcement of the rules of the Growth and Stability Pact. I am extremely pleased that Mr Trichet is also of this opinion and is continuing Mr Duisenberg’s policy. It is of the greatest importance that we adhere to the rules of the Stability Pact without political games and without interpreting the rules to promote our own interests. Those who argue for a flexible approach to the rules in order to stimulate growth – I am thinking here of Prime Minister Raffarin, for example, deny or do not understand, or even more seriously, do not want to understand, that the percentages mentioned in the pact already have a structural component which operates within all movements of the economy. I expect Mr Trichet to continue to follow this line in the future and to be consistent when it comes to the execution of the rules and to speak out clearly on this matter in Paris too. I expect the European Commission to do the same and if necessary to impose sanctions on Member States that do not abide by the rules. A tight policy promotes the credibility of monetary union and faith in our euro. According to the classical economy, die Massengewohnheit der Annahme [the mass custom of acceptance] is the basis for the functioning of money. Our willingness to use the euro in the European Union must be confirmed and increased every day.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too would like to thank Mr Blokland for his report which strives to improve the Commission's proposal, and the authors of the other amendments which do so as well. But incineration has to be considered as a last resort and – as has been said already – waste reduction, re-use and recycling are the main things we should be striving for. I just wonder about Mr Bowe's statement about the need to reduce, recycle and re-use waste. Will his position remain the same when he is debating the packaging directive? It will be interesting to see if he sticks to his principles there. The only thing incineration does, as Mrs Evans has said, is to encourage the need for more waste. It will not be economically viable if you do not have enough waste to keep the incinerators going. We also must remember that waste does not disappear. It is turned into dioxins and also toxic ash – what will you do with that? In Ireland, some operators are proposing using it in building materials. What will be the long-term consequences of that? In Ireland, regardless of what my colleague Mr Hyland said, we have an appalling record on waste management. We have one of the highest landfill records in Europe. Now it seems the government are moving from landfill to incineration and it is being presented as the green option. They say: 'We are turning waste into energy – isn't that wonderful?' when in actual fact they are trying to hoodwink the public into believing that this is something that is ecologically sound. The recent court case in Ireland which decided against the siting of an incinerator in an agricultural area was extremely important. It is very important that we get our act right, that we look first and foremost at waste management. For any government to propose that incineration should be introduced instead of landfill is completely misguided. We have to look at the root causes of why the waste is there in the first place.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, 25 years ago, the Islamic Republic of Iran was founded, leading to the violent infringement of human rights and, in particular, the violation of women’s rights. The question is, whether we are now seeing the start of a similar development in occupied Iraq. On 29 December, a number of rulings concerning divorces, marriages and children etc. were replaced by Sharia law in the otherwise secular state of Iraq. Now, I hear that the leader of the Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq is under violent attack from Islamic groups. Her name is Yamha Mohammed. I should very much like to ask you to protest, on behalf of Parliament, against the attacks on women’s rights that are now gathering speed in Iraq, and also to protest to the occupying forces, that is to say the alliance of so-called volunteers, against this development.

Political group: GUE-NGL