GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
The passage of freight transport by road through the Alps is a bone of contention that recurs time and again both within and outside parliamentary debate. I have participated in that debate or given explanations of vote on 15 December 1999, 14 December 2000, 4 September 2001, and 11 and 12 February 2003. Germany and Italy want free passage through Austria and Switzerland, but the latter two countries want to protect their valleys against those flows of heavy goods vehicles, and want to transfer transport quickly over to the railways. I support the efforts of those two countries in that regard. Switzerland keeps up with the EU legislation and participates in the European Economic Area, but it does not make financial contributions or participate in voting. This also means that it cannot be outvoted by others. Austria, however, unlike Switzerland, has the misfortune to be a member of the EU, of eight years' standing. Others think that this entitles them to enforce their will on this Member State. They even want to completely abolish distribution through ecopoints in the long run. It is better if we build the Brenner Base Tunnel for electric rail transport under Austria, then Germany and Italy will in practice border on each other, without inconveniencing any little intervening country. This time, as on the previous occasions, I shall be using my vote to once more support the Austrian Members, because they are defending their quality of life against large-scale short-sightedness. - Report Lisi (A5-0221/2003)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, this report claims to promote core labour standards, to improve social governance, and even to create a better framework for globalisation. So exactly how much progress has been made with your social governance here, in the rich and supposedly civilised countries of Europe? Europe is not even capable of giving its citizens the basic right of being able to work and earn a salary to allow them to have a decent standard of living. In the last few days alone, a long list of redundancy plans has been announced by some of the most powerful companies in the world, including Alcatel, Hewlett Packard and Vivendi, that former future capitalist flagship, which has been ruined by its own financial speculation, and by the erratic workings of your economy. More to the point, how can you claim that your form of social governance benefits poor countries which are constantly plundered by industrial and financial companies, when you do not do anything to stop these companies doing this? Child labour, which you condemn, exists – as you are well aware – since a number of large corporations practice this through third party sub-contractors, in their factories that have been relocated to poor countries where women and children are horrifically exploited in return for a meagre wage. In reality, you do not govern very much at all. Those who govern are the large financial corporations, which not only make fun of your recommendations, but go as far as giving you orders. We will not therefore approve this web of hypocrisy and impotence.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The European Strategy for sustainable development adopted at the Gothenburg summit must involve Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Companies have obligations above and beyond the legitimate aim of maximising profits. Today, SMEs and large multinationals must realise that their success depends on responsible behaviour, in terms of the environment and respect for fundamental rights and in terms of promoting social cohesion. It is an accepted fact that social and environmental responsibility increase competitiveness. Consequently, Corporate Social Responsibility must be supported and encouraged and good practices must be disseminated, involving companies, social partners and educational and training establishments. I wish to highlight the importance: -

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this debate on the future of the common fisheries policy is the culmination of a major undertaking by the rapporteur, Mrs Miguélez Ramos, and by the Committee on Fisheries, which includes a visit to Portugal and a debate in Lisbon, in which I also had the opportunity to participate, with representatives of the various parties involved in this sector of strategic economic importance to the European Union. Of the preparatory work, I would also highlight the welcome given to some of the proposals that I tabled on this sector, which is crucial to food supply and essential for employment and for the economic and social cohesion of the Union’s outermost and coastal regions. I would highlight, in particular, the position of rejecting any proposal to introduce a system of individual quotas or individual transferable quotas at EU level, which would amount to the privatisation of fishery resources and to the concentration/verticalisation of catches, which would have negative consequences at the socio-economic and environmental level, and I hope that Parliament will not change this decision. I would also highlight the rejection of the Commission’s intention substantially to reduce structural aid in the fishing industry, bearing in mind the socio-economic difficulties facing the industry, and the idea that, in the light of past results, structural aid should be redistributed on a more equitable basis. I also wish to refer to the approval of the proposal to set up a specific Community programme to support small-scale coastal fishing and artisanal fishing, and to the need to ensure that the principle of Community preference is respected. I must also highlight the need to improve working conditions and the participation of fishermen in management and the need to maintain the existing system of exclusive access to the 6-12 mile coastal zone, which, nevertheless, I would like to see extended to 24 miles and, in the case of the outermost regions, to at least 50 miles. These are proposals which, regrettably, have not been adopted, which was also the fate of compensation for the canning industry and of flexibility with regard to annual revision of the multiannual TACs. In any event, Mr President, despite the contradictions and some negative aspects, I feel that the report is generally to be welcomed and I wish to thank Mrs Miguélez Ramos for all her commitment to this work.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the rapporteur and all the other Members who have spoken in this Chamber have quite rightly stressed that more efficient risk capital markets have an important role to play in supporting economic growth, creating new and long-lasting jobs and promoting a European knowledge society. This of course also applies to encouraging SMEs and promoting entrepreneurialism. These are objectives that are repeatedly highlighted as being cornerstones, not only of our economic policy guidelines, but also of our employment policy guidelines. The proposed implementation of the action plan is the right way to go and is part of the structural reforms still needed in Europe despite all the progress made in implementing structural reforms in the markets for products, capital and services. But there is more to be done here. It is a good thing that this clearly emerged at both the Lisbon Summit and the employment forum. Above all it has also become apparent that the European Investment Bank will play an additional positive role. Mr Skinner was right to draw attention to that. Furthermore, the Commission communication also indicates, and this was also quite rightly taken on board in the report, that we have still not made sufficient progress in building an integrated pan-European risk capital market, and that this is a weak area for the EU. The figures speak for themselves. Risk capital investment in Europe has more than doubled over the last four years, but only EUR 7 billion was invested in Europe, compared with EUR 12 billion in the USA. If we compare investment during the start-up period of companies, the picture is even clearer, with EUR 1.6 billion in Europe against EUR 4.5 billion in the USA. Europe's equity markets for high-growth companies may have grown significantly, but in comparison with the US NASDAQ we are just dwarfs. We are all aware of the problems involved, but we are faced with obstacles that seriously stand in the way of our taking a risk-based and entrepreneurial approach. I have in mind not only cultural barriers, but also red tape, approval and licensing procedures, difficulties for SMEs in simply filing patent applications and having patents granted, not to mention the cost of maintaining patents, and also uncoordinated tax systems. An entrepreneurial Europe needs rewards and opportunities which benefit everyone. So we must fully support the demands that have been made. There is also room for even more commitment. I would like to mention that expert networks also have an important and positive role to play. The provision of risk capital is an important area, but it is not the only issue in business start-ups and expansions: there is also the question of what working capital is available. Lastly, I would like to stress that this is an area where women entrepreneurs should benefit from special support, and I wish to emphasise that we, the European Parliament, should be calling on the Commission to monitor progress in this field by means of benchmarking and a scoreboard process.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I welcome Mr Martin's report on aquaculture which has the potential to provide a safe, relatively cheap source of good protein as well as to create jobs in the European Union. However as the rapporteur himself points out, more research is necessary in tackling the environmental problems which fish farming creates, particularly the disposal of waste – an average sized fish farm can produce as much waste as a small town. We also need to deal with the food hygiene aspects of fish farming, particularly the use of antibiotics, and to pursue further research into the damage that escapes from fish farms can do in terms of damaging the stocks of wild fish. Finally we have to examine the welfare of the fish actually farmed in the fish farms. If those issues are tackled, aquaculture can provide, as I said earlier, a good source of good food for our population as well as creating jobs.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, I share your belief that this is a problem which must be handled extremely carefully. You rightly stated that we must take scientific opinions seriously and I assume that British farmers wish to sell safe beef as soon as possible and not wait two years until they can do so. For this reason, no one in this House, nor indeed anyone at all, can really want to see treaty infringement proceedings which will take two to three years and create nothing but uncertainty in the European Union during this time. Mr Byrne, can you tell me how you will be able to ensure that objections at a scientific level are investigated in the shortest possible time so that Member States are not able to repeatedly raise objections and to apply laws without needing to prove their case? Can you also tell me that you will make clear to Germany that you are expecting constitutional barriers, such as a resolution of the Bundesrat at the earliest possible opportunity? Mr Byrne, finally I would like to ask one more question which I have already asked in Brussels. Would you please be a little clearer about the issue of testing? When will you present the House with a proposal to prescribe BSE testing as compulsory in the European Union?

Political group: PSE
We have voted in favour of the report in view of the importance it attaches to transparency and environmental considerations. We would nonetheless make it clear that we are opposed to Paragraph 22, designed to make the ECB the EIB’s supervisory authority. Report Von Wogau (A5-0011/2002)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, Afghanistan is currently going through a time of uncertainty that will prove crucial for the future. The end of the Taliban dictatorship opens the door to a process of democratic reconstruction, which, however, is still far from a foregone conclusion. We will probably see Islamist guerrilla warfare on the Algerian model, against which massive bombing is pointless and will have to be halted. The European Union must adopt a strong and clear stance for, as Mrs Emma Bonino and Mr Francis Wurtz said, Afghan women must not be sacrificed in the process of political reconstruction. The participation of women is the key to the lasting reconstruction of Afghanistan. They will have to be present as from the first negotiations and will have to participate in a new government as from the first day. That is the only solution that can guarantee the protection and respect for the rights of women and all human rights. The European Union could not endorse a proposed government that did not take account of this crucial dimension. The integration of women is also a first step towards democracy. Unfortunately, this democracy cannot accommodate warlords who have proved guilty of repeated human rights abuses, a wide range of acts of violence and who, whatever side they are on, are more concerned with defending their ethnic group than with the future of their country. We must put an end to the reign of impunity. The Afghans must be represented by a mixed, democratic government that represents all the ethnic groups and respects human rights.

Political group: Verts-ALE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport. – Mr President, culture is certainly not a high priority for Parliament or the Commission. We are very fortunate to get something like half of 1% of the budget and I only get one minute to present our concerns. It is tremendously important that the very little amount of money we have should be spent efficiently and effectively. Fortunately we tend not to suffer from the allegations of fraud and mismanagement that one sees elsewhere but we do have a problem about the very worthy organisations that want support from Parliament actually receiving the money. Just to give three examples for the 1999 financial year we are looking at: the European Youth Orchestra, the European Youth Parliament, the Yehudi Menuhin Foundation only received their grant from the European Commission in the last days of the year. This causes real problems for those organisations. We accepted it for 1999, but I hope it will not recur in the year 2000. I would say to the Commissioner: please ensure that if we are going to give money, we do it efficiently and effectively so that it does good rather than damage to the European cause.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to convey the grateful thanks of the entire political world, as a representative of Cyprus and the Republic of Cyprus, and of its entire people for your positive contribution, so that my country could become part of enlarged Europe. We assure you today that we shall repay it with the positive role of our contribution and our consistency towards what we call a Europe of all the peoples, a strong, powerful Europe, a Europe of prosperity, security and stability. Cyprus today forms the south-easternmost edge of the European Union and the crossroads of the three continents. Cyprus has and can play a role for the European Union and can act as the gateway to these three continents and, at the same time, the point of peace, stability and prosperity in the entire area. Our people believed in European values and the European vision, they believed in everything that today governs the European Union, and one important reason why they took this particular decision, which was not a decision not to resolve the Cyprus question, was because principles and values which have to do with the guarantee and the security of the island could not create this feeling in the people themselves. They could not create this feeling, if you think – and you must understand us – that our people, in their course through history, were only without an occupying army, without foreign troops, without suffering invasion and abuse of their human rights, from 1960 to 1974. I believe today that Cyprus can constitute a major positive challenge for Europe, a positive challenge in which it will be able to prove and gainsay all those who think that it is only a commercial and financial union, proving that it is also a political union. Today I convey to you the historic will of our people to achieve a solution to our problem, in a place where equal rights for Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots are already being applied, and I assure you of this. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this is the longest speech I have made as a MEP. I have never had three minutes’ speaking time, and now I – the representative of the Italian Pensioners’ Party – have been given this length of time to speak on a report that concerns young people. I support and agree with the report on the participation and information of young people. A short while ago, however, when I was listening to my fellow Members speaking about the reports on the budget and other subjects – I do apologise – but I nodded off. In my state of drowsiness two questions popped into my head: Are young people really different to the elderly? Are the elderly really different to young people? It is said that young people want love, but old people also want and need love. Young people want to have money, but old people also want to have and need to have money. Young people want to travel and dance, but old people also want to travel and dance. No, there must be some difference! In 45 years of working for the elderly, I have heard them say many times – and I regret this – that growing old is terrible. As a result, I am sure that the European Parliament has not just thought about young people but also about elderly people and has prepared several different reports and communications for them. I will have to listen to them all in the final months of this parliamentary term because I am sorry to say that, to date, very few have been presented. I have also been thinking about other matters. Is it right to get young people more involved in political life and in the decisions that affect them? Is it right that young people are the best placed to draw up regulations and laws that concern them? Are women the best placed to take decisions concerning their problems? Are old people the best placed to take decisions concerning their problems? I do not think so, Mr President. The answer that I came up with will surprise you. I agree that young people must take decisions and have power over everyone and over everyone’s lives. How else could I justify the fact my daughter Elisabetta Fatuzzo, at 32 years old, is at this very moment preparing to give a speech on Lombardy television, on the subject of pensioners and the elderly? This would not be possible if we thought that old people were better at talking about old people than young people are, and vice versa. I therefore call on the Commission to make every effort to ensure that Europe continues to help young people and draw them closer to Europe so that they are also in a position where they have more say in matters concerning men and women of all ages.

Political group: PPE-DE
Very briefly, the question which I had on the Order Paper today has been dealt with by Mr de Miguel in an extremely courteous, helpful and kind letter to me, which I received this afternoon. I would like to thank him very much for that and say how much my constituent will appreciate the point.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I have to depart a little bit from what I intended to say. I have some sympathy with the last speaker: sometimes the Committee on Budgetary Control gets so involved with the important work they are doing, that they are unable to see the wood for the trees. I also welcome the presentation on behalf of the Legal Affairs Committee and the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee which took a balanced approach to the major and indeed legitimate concerns of the Committee on Budgetary Control about fraud. I heard Mr van Hulten's reference to the fact that OLAF should have the right to investigate Members of Parliament. He has a point and a minority of people in this Parliament agree with that. But before we embark on such a radical decision, we should look at the history, particularly in the United States, of the relationship between security authorities and public figures and recognise that we could overstep the mark by giving such powers to OLAF. In the end, OLAF might have the political leverage and power to demand as much money and staff as it wanted. We should not throw staff, money or powers at an organisation just because problems exist. Those problems exist and we have dealt with the solution to the problem. Mr Bösch has rightly dealt with the problem of identifying and prosecuting fraud when it occurs. I do not agree with all of his report. There are a number of paragraphs I have doubts about – 14, 15 and 16 for example, regarding the legal basis and whether it is necessary to involve both national and European responsibility to resolve problems of fraud that affect national states more than they do the European Union. I have run out of time without saying what I wanted to say but I wanted to respond to some of the points already made.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, as far as the budget is concerned, it is becoming increasingly essential that we bring the Treaty up to date with the procedures. The integration of the financial perspectives into the Treaty will thereby be a medium-term financial plan which will be agreed between Parliament and the Council. This integration will create much more stability, as well as the legal certainty which Mr Colom i Naval, the permanent rapporteur for the financial perspectives, spoke of this morning. Let us remember that the financial perspectives procedure has brought budgetary stability to the European Union. Nevertheless, Parliament believes that the integration of the financial perspectives into the Treaty will mean that, as well as stability, there will be sufficient flexibility to allow for a review of those perspectives when necessary. If we do not do this, we will run the risk of confusing the financial perspectives with the annual budgets. This confusion will lead to conflict year after year. With regard to the classification of expenditure, which this House has also long wanted to see, we must find an institutional point of balance which combines the European Parliament’s requests for a greater degree of codecision in budgetary matters with the defence of the privileged nature of certain expenditure which forms the basis of the European Union’s economic and social cohesion. The European Parliament wants the Community budget to be financed by own resources rather than by contributions from the Member States. The fiscal and budgetary autonomy of the European Union rests on this, as does, to a certain extent, its political autonomy. However, let us remember that, if what we want is an autonomous financial system for the Union, we must at the same time create a fair tax system. Progressiveness cannot only be based on expenditure. Sooner or later we will have to be sufficiently progressive in terms of own resources as a basis for this fair tax system.

Political group: PPE-DE