GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, this is a great piece of work, and I would like to thank Mr Caudron most warmly, as well as Mr Busquin, who has left his mark on this programme with new ideas. I wish him great success in implementing this programme. It will not be easy to manage and implement such a large programme, with not only the fifteen Member States, but also other states taking part in it. We wish you good luck on the way ahead, in any case. I note with great satisfaction that two issues which I have put forward again and again have been included, the first of these being research into improved methods of clearing away anti-personnel mines. I would ask the Commission to keep these efforts under one roof if at all possible. The second is the issue of disarmament, a contribution towards the abolition of nuclear, bacteriological and chemical weapons, a technical contribution to their destruction. Open today's newspapers and you read about how the two former superpowers are disposing of the heritage of the Cold War, that is, they want to disarm on a really massive scale. If the European Union were to join them in this, that would be a noble endeavour. We have achieved a compromise on the ethics issue. The Commission has issued a statement which corresponds in essence to what Parliament resolved at first reading. I would ask that we bring forward discourse on the finality of science, and also on ethics in Europe. The actual problem is not with the Council, Parliament, or the Commission, but with different publicly-expressed opinions. Playing a part in bringing forward the broadest possible public debate on the purpose, content, and finality of science and technology in Europe would be important and should become fundamental as the Sixth Framework Programme progresses. In saying this, I would like to give you an assurance that Parliament is interested in this. Being myself a co-founder of STOA, I am aware of the importance of the task of technological assessment, and hope that we will work well with the Commission.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, President Prodi, I endorse the call for specific answers. The political unity of Europe made no headway whatsoever in Nice. On the contrary, Nice was a renationalisation-fest. What came unstuck there, President Prodi – and I think it is important that we recognise this – was Council's presumption that it is Europe's legislator. That is by definition what parliaments are for. President Prodi, the Commission's attitude is unclear and extremely vague, especially on the question of the post-Nice process. You have criticised the Treaty, but I hear that the Commission is starting a huge run of newspaper advertisements hailing the Treaty of Nice as an historic breakthrough and success. You find reason to criticise, but your Commissioner Barnier is outlining a mere forum for debate, rather than a constitutional process and a convention. Mr President of the Commission, I call on you to give a straight answer to a straight question: are you on Parliament's side when it comes to demanding a constitutional process and a convention and for decisive democratic principles, such as the division of power, checks and balances, public legislating and so forth, to be added to the list of Nice leftovers?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, with telegraphic brevity then, first of all congratulations to Mr Wynn on his report. On behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, I have four points to make. The first point is that we fear that too restrictive a budget may actually prevent the European Union from playing its part on the international stage. The second point is that while we supported a transparent, flexible and simplified budget, we also very much want the European Parliament to retain control of it before any decision is taken. So far as external relations are concerned, we therefore call for a budget breakdown that is both thematic and geographical. The third point is the fight against poverty. It seems to us that one of the ways, albeit not the only way, of preventing terrorism in the world today is to eradicate poverty. That is therefore one of our priorities. The fourth point is that, with enlargement, we want our relations with the Arab world to be maintained and expanded and the Barcelona process and neighbourhood policy to be relaunched. That is also our last priority.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it seems clear to me, as it does to the rapporteur and to the Commission, that we cannot approach cohesion policies and Structural Funds in an ideological way. What is needed is a very pragmatic approach, as taken by the rapporteur and, undoubtedly, by the Commissioner, too, in his work. The future of the European Union is firmly linked to the quality and future of cohesion policies. Only if we do not have a three-speed Europe, which is the risk we are running, will we genuinely be able to talk about a process of political integration. For this to happen, certain conditions have to be met: it is essential that we confirm our unequivocal rejection of any renationalisation of regional policies. As many colleagues have said, it is essential to make the 0.45% threshold a minimum threshold, in the sense that the European Union’s commitment in cohesion policies cannot fall below this percentage, and it is good that, given the decisions facing the European Union on the eve of enlargement, this is being established as a political principle and not merely as an arithmetic one. As other colleagues have said and as I would like to reiterate, we need to avoid some regions suddenly finding themselves classed as rich because of the impact on the statistics. Therefore, better phasing-out needs to be devised for Objective 1 regions, which will be excluded following enlargement, and, above all, the permanent geographical handicap of many regions needs to be taken into account. To this end, I believe that these permanent geographical handicaps and the need for a Community strategy which can overcome them need to be recognised in the next Constitutional Treaty. The declaration annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam on the structural disadvantages of islands has never been converted into specific measures. I would also like to urge the Commission to make greater endeavours to simplify the regional policy implementation rules and to ensure clearer distribution of responsibilities and competences between all those involved in cohesion policy. I would also like to call upon the Commission to continue with the endeavour that has been made thus far to lay down some priorities in cohesion policies. Consider how important it is today to invest in the quality of knowledge, in the quality of innovation, in technological research and immaterial infrastructure. We believe that the future of Europe should be viewed less in terms of concrete construction and much more in terms of the quality of knowledge we can offer. In Europe, Mr President, the wealthy regions are not in danger of becoming poor. Quite the opposite: there is the danger that some poor regions will remain as such in the long term. We want to avoid this.

Political group: PSE
I should very much like to support what Mr Pirker has just said. As a past Minister for Immigration and Asylum in the United Kingdom, I am well aware that the confusion with regard to determining which country should deal with any particular application has been an immense problem and one that has created a considerable level of friction between Members of the European Union. Unless it is tackled urgently, it will continue to be an area of friction as we look at the enlargement process. The Dublin Convention in itself has always been important but it is the flaws in the Dublin Convention and our failure to administer the Dublin Convention properly, which has caused issues to arise which could even threaten the human rights of some of the applicants and individuals concerned. All the countries that are signatories to the United Nations Convention of 1951 are well aware of the criteria for determining whether someone should be granted the extremely valuable and significant status of a refugee and I hope that nothing we ever do here would affect the right to make an application within those criteria. However – with new technology, with new travelling arrangements, and indeed with people who want to abuse the system using that technology – it has become more and more difficult for the authorities to treat people in an appropriate and fair manner in handling their cases. Eurodac has to run hand in hand with the reform of the Dublin Convention and I am somewhat concerned at the attitude that the Council has adopted in the past. Mr Pirker has spoken of the delays that have occurred and the numerous times that this vital issue has been reconsidered. My feelings are clear: if the Council wishes to reserve powers to itself when the information from Eurodac should be available to this democratic body, Parliament, then that is unacceptable. That is all the more reason why we need to treat this matter with urgency, why we need to resolve it, and why Parliament should continue to play a strong role in the future in the superintendence and monitoring of vital issues relating to the granting refugee status to those who might apply. I fully support Mr Pirker and I hope we make strong moves now to conclude this matter in the interests of everybody.

Political group: PPE-DE
Thank you, Madam President, and congratulations to Commissioner Reding on the result of this protracted football match. This is something we can certainly all be satisfied with. I can think of just one moot point which I should like to ask the Commission to explain. Do the new rules result in the same legal status for players under 23 years of age, as was applicable before the Bosman verdict, should a dispute arise between clubs about an amount by way of compensation? Might players be in danger of not being able to change clubs, even if the contract has expired? What legal protection do players have in such a situation? Are they in danger of being tied for a period during such a legal dispute?

Political group: ELDR
I congratulate Mr Bradbourn on the excellent report he has produced on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on the granting of Community financial assistance to improve the environmental performance of the freight transport system (‘Marco Polo Programme’). I support this report, and especially the rapporteur’s belief that the programme should approve the implementation of innovative projects proposed principally by a consortium of small and medium-sized enterprises. I would also like to emphasise that the project’s goals of ‘enhancing intermodal transport and reducing congestion in road transport’ should indeed be clearly reflected in the text of the regulation, as the rapporteur suggests. - Report Ghilardotti (A5-0214/2003)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, allow me if you will another brief supplementary question. The Commissioner said that the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has been informed. That is correct. She said that Parliament will be informed. This too has been promised. But we do not want to be informed, Commissioner, once you have made your decision; we want to be included in the decision-making process. Our complaint is that this is to be regulated in the form of a technical annex. We feel that this is a core amendment to the directive and we want to be included in the decision-making process. I would be grateful if you could comment on this or if you could at least pass this on to the Commission as a whole.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to point out that the compensation scheme for additional costs incurred by outermost regions in the marketing of certain fishery products – incorrectly referred to as the ‘Fish POSEIDOM’ – is based on a simple principle, namely to support the marketing of species that are most commonly sold outside the European Union, in conditions similar to those in which the economic agents in Europe operate. I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on his work, which meets the expectations of the representatives of the European Union’s outermost regions. However, as shadow rapporteur, I would like to make two additional comments. In the comprehensive list of disadvantages facing the outermost regions, the rapporteur has failed to mention a difficulty which, in my opinion, is of utmost importance, namely the problems of reaching these areas as a result of the transport links between the regions and the continent and the prices charged for this travel. And for us in the far-flung regions, this problem can increase prices by around 30%. I also note that the rapporteur bases his report – and this is obviously something that I welcome – on Article 299(2) of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which recommends that the special characteristics of outermost regions be taken into account in each of the European Union’s policies, especially in the case of fisheries. I think, however, that it would have been more logical to refer in full to Article 37 of the Treaty, which represents the very foundation of the fisheries and agricultural policies, had this Article not proved lacking as regards the EU’s outermost regions. It turns out that it is totally inappropriate in its current form since it takes into account continental fishing conditions only and fails to consider situations related to remoteness. Lastly, I fully support the rapporteur’s proposal which calls on the Commission to forward to the European Parliament a copy of the report carried out for the Commission by external consultants on the impact of all Community measures adopted to date in the fisheries sector for the outermost regions. If we were familiar with the content of this document, it would certainly give us more accurate information to consider when taking into account the specific problems of the outermost regions of the EU.

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, the subject under discussion today is difficult, even painful, not just for women but often for entire families as well. Indeed, the statistics just quoted – one women in ten is or will suffer from this disease – show that it is the most frequent cause of death for women aged between 35 and 55, and that we might have been able to prevent the deaths of 75 000 women per year if we had set up a much earlier prevention programme. Therefore, this scourge cannot but become one of our most important targets over the next few years. I am keen, then, to thank Mrs Jöns for her report and, above all, for the perseverance she has shown as well as the quality of the work she has produced. It is essential, then, to promote and encourage preventive screening methods, to inform women and aim prevention campaigns at them. However, my practical experience in this sector suggests to me that there are other obstacles, sometimes socioeconomic and often cultural. We know that early diagnosis is still the best method of improving prognosis and treatment, and that early detection will make breast cancer easier to cure and less traumatic for the patient. Subsequently, it is important to help women suffering from the disease. That being the case, networks of multidisciplinary treatment centres offering women medical care and psychological and social advice are utterly fundamental to the plan. Finally, I would point out that today’s debate cannot be closed. The fight against breast cancer must be part of a large-scale programme and continue to be a subject of research. That is why I feel that it should indeed be linked with the Sixth Framework Programme for research and the EUR 400 million dedicated to cancer research. It seems to me that the report on breast implants, approved in February of this year, is a positive and high-quality contribution to this aspect of women’s health. Furthermore, the proposed Commission recommendation to the Member States for better cancer detection will provide an opportunity to continue the debate on this subject, which is so important for women, and, I would add, for society as a whole.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I think that there are some positive elements in the statements by the President of the Council and the President of the Commission, in particular when Mr Persson spoke firmly about the position of the United States regarding the Kyoto Protocol, and when Mr Prodi reminded us of what is really at stake in the Lisbon process, namely an integrated strategy which is economic, social and environmental at the same time. Having said that, it is very rare, in Parliament, for the plenary session to have in front of it, as it has now, a joint resolution signed by the European Socialists, the ecologists and the as well. The significance of this resolution is a clear political signal to both the Council and the Commission. It is based, Messrs Persson and Prodi, on the established fact that although the European economy is undoubtedly competitive, at the moment it is neither sustainable, nor does it have sufficient solidarity. This is not a statement before the event: a number of indicators are already set to red, whether in the field of sustainable development, in transport, in energy – not to mention the common agricultural policy – or in employment, where most of the new jobs being created are vulnerable, and where not enough of the added value is accounted for by wages. You only have to read the latest report from the European Environment Agency. We therefore need to change direction on development, so as to make it more sustainable and give it more solidarity. This is the real challenge of the twenty-first century, and it is on this subject that I should like, briefly, to make a few proposals. Mr Bolkestein, what are we doing about company tax and the Primarolo group? There must be limits, Mr Persson, to increasing competitiveness: we must not forget our public service obligations. Mr Solbes Mira, substantial public investment is necessary to meet the Lisbon objectives, particularly on education and training, but also, for example, on transport and the rational use of energy. Mrs Diamantopoulou, if the social dialogue founders on the issue of temporary work, it is the Commission’s responsibility to propose legislation that will allow people to live their lives with dignity on what they earn. I heard a woman – a worker at a Danone factory – call for solidarity by saying ‘people should boycott Danone’s products’. I think it would be more reasonable for the European Union to adopt legislation imposing social and ecological obligations on companies. Our future depends on it too.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I should like to begin by saying that this Commission proposal is most welcome. Indeed, it addresses a long-standing concern of Parliament, which has at times, in 1997 and 1999, asked for a review of current legislation on the marketing of compound feedingstuffs. We all agree that there is a need for compulsory labelling that clearly indicates the various components of compound feedingstuffs and their nature. We shall not, of course, complicate matters and demand unnecessary details on the labels, but we shall demand everything that is essential, such as an explicit, open declaration strictly indicating the percentage of each component and its intrinsic nature. As we all know, these measures are fundamental for increasing consumer confidence. There is in fact a general lack of confidence, which is particularly marked in relation to intensive production processes, not only in meat production but also in fish farming. It is possible, through clear, transparent and responsible labelling, to give consumers this confidence. This subject was in fact discussed during the Portuguese Presidency of the European Union, and the conclusion was that the Council’s position was unfortunately rather timid in this respect, rather fainthearted, showing that ultimately the ministers had not learnt much from the past. It is essential that the Commission and the Council should fight for these same rules to apply to all partners worldwide, especially in the framework of the World Trade Organisation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I wish to thank the rapporteur for her considerable work on this issue and to say that my Group will support this report. The point has already been made – not least by the Commissioner – that there is an issue here about balancing security and civil liberties. It is our job as parliamentarians to scrutinise proposed agreements and to hold the line in terms of civil liberties. My Group believes that the balance is wrong in this agreement, because there is a lack of certainty on the protection of information. It seems, in many respects, to be a fishing policy – a wide trawl with the hope of catching something, and who cares about the by-catch, as it were. We have already heard about the question of those refused boarding. What happens to them? What happens to their employment prospects if they cannot get into the United States because some of their details do not look right? The issues of appeal and redress are crucial in any legal situation. We are already aware that certain European Union airlines have been fined considerable sums of money by the United States for not supplying full data. Certainly the attitude that we have heard from them is that they are quite willing to see the American Government in court over these particular fines. This also raises the issue of whether our own institutions, despite the difficult situation, have the right effectively to override our own data-protection rules and controls in an international context. Lastly, on the issue of passenger consent: it becomes totally meaningless if it has no result but to sign away rights that you were never sure you had in the first place. So we shall support the report.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Commissioner, Mr President, rapporteurs, ladies and gentlemen, I should first of all like to thank the rapporteurs, both Mrs Damião and Mr Meijer, for yet another important building block that has been added to the edifice of – in this case – legislation concerning conditions at work at European level. In my view, this will be a constant process, and so it should be. I will return to this point in a moment. Prevention is what is desperately needed in activities of this kind, and we are all too aware of this. In the past, I too handled asbestos when making and connecting pipes and tubing. In retrospect, I probably consumed incredible amounts of fibres, and I am unsure of the end result, but I must stress at this point that it was in the context of DIY. And this is exactly where the problem lies for, at the moment, we can ascertain quite clearly that, although we are drafting decisions on behalf of workers, we are doing too little for all kinds of related factors: subcontracting has been mentioned, DIY is a factor, and there is the problem of people living in the vicinity of asbestos. I would therefore call on the Commission, possibly via the Environment Commissioner, to lay down additional legislation which we could use. I will overlook for a moment all the other elements which demonstrate the importance of this legislation, including these half million people, for everyone has mentioned them. I would like to return to what Mrs Lynne mentioned a moment ago, namely the aspects relating to asbestos cement and air-placed asbestos. These have, in fact, been mentioned by Mrs Smet in the past. I have noted that what is important here is the handling of asbestos, air-placed asbestos or asbestos cement, the processes they undergo and the amount of fibres released per cubic centimetre. This must be measured, and certain substances should not be excluded for no apparent reason.

Political group: Verts-ALE