GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Evans has just said everything I wanted to say, and given the late hour, we should perhaps depart from the noble principle that everything has already been said, but not by everyone, so I will refrain from repeating everything all over again. Let me just make two brief comments in addition to what the rapporteur has said. Firstly, many thanks to the Commission and the Commissioner. The conciliation procedure was a real pleasure. We were very pleased to note, in our group, how much effort was made to make concessions to Parliament here, and since we have often said unflattering things about the Council and the Commission yesterday and today, I would like to take this opportunity to express my warm thanks for this truly outstanding conciliation procedure. Secondly, I would like to say something in the interests of the dogs themselves. I have a dog myself, and he has told me that he does not want a microchip or a tattoo. It is no fun at all for dogs to be dragged about the place. You see these poor dogs on aeroplanes, barking, whining and whimpering, stuck in those awful cages and having to endure a long flight, and I really do think that anyone who gets a dog or cat should realise that they have acquired a living creature, and if they are not prepared to take proper account of its needs, they should not get an animal in the first place.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in my speech I simply ran out of time before I could wish colleagues a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I should like to do so now. The second point that I wanted to make is that despite the critical remarks which, as you know, I also made clearly in my speech, we are glad that this report has been adopted and that the Commission is getting this scheme off the ground. Because it is actually true that it is certainly necessary, but also right, to promote the European model of agriculture. All those who say that you can still tuck in in style in Europe are right. And people should do so on special occasions. But this does not in any way change what I said clearly just now, that we also need to pay attention to the small details, that we must not forget the superior culture of a European agricultural policy which is geared towards social and ecological concerns, and that we should always check measures to ensure that they are also having the desired effect. I should like to follow up on one further point. To return to set-aside, if you looked, you would be able to see that, in practice, set-aside is not caused by crop rotation, but that farms are leasing poor land to use as permanent set-aside and are farming the other crops in the rotation even more intensively and with even greater use of chemicals. This means that the whole point of set-aside, which was originally intended in 1992 to make crop rotation more environmentally friendly, is turned completely on its head. Here we can see how small changes can yield considerable results in practice. That was my petition this morning. I wanted to point this out. Now that we are all convinced that we need to reach a turning point in agricultural policy, I hope that we will also sit down together and do our homework so as to put right these small details, something which is urgently necessary. Season's greetings to you all!

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, it is incredibly sad and, in fact, humiliating for us all that, in the year 2000, there are still children who do not receive any basic education or schooling at all and that there are still adults – almost a billion of them – who cannot read or write and who are thus also prevented from participating in the political and democratic life of their society. It is, of course, also a waste of human resources that this is the way things are. Unfortunately, it is also those countries which most need educated people to participate in the democratic development of civil society which lack resources for education. As has been mentioned, the world’s governments agreed in 1990 that steps should be taken to ensure that everyone received a basic education by no later than the year 2000. At the Copenhagen Summit, the deadline was changed to 2015. Now, a new summit looms, namely the World Education Forum in Dakar, Senegal in April. We know that education is the key to combating poverty, promoting respect for human rights etc. We cannot accept a situation in which the deadline by which everyone is to receive a basic education is moved forward once again. I am pleased with this resolution. I hope that the decision will be a unanimous one and that the clear message will be: ensure you establish a specific framework for a global action plan for prioritising educational needs in the world. Make resources available. This is also our message to the Commission.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I am pleased to support this report and the IPP Communication, which seeks to support sustainable development by reducing resource use and the negative impact of waste disposal, and by reducing the environmental impact from products throughout their life-cycle. The Commission puts a lot of emphasis on 'working with the market'. Such an approach has clear merits, but will only be successful in an environment where 'green products' are priced favourably compared to other products. The application of the Polluter Pays Principle would be a key step in this direction. I hope that the Commission will respond to this report and take urgent steps to present a framework directive for IPP based on clearly defined principles and objectives and including the specific demands included in this report.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, on a point of order. You will be aware from the press and television that there have been a number of bomb explosions and killings in Sri Lanka. One of the people assassinated very recently in Sri Lanka was Mr Kumar Ponnambalam, who had visited the European Parliament just a few months ago. Would it be appropriate for you, Madam President, to write a letter to the Sri Lankan President expressing Parliament's regret at his and the other violent deaths in Sri Lanka and urging her to do everything she possibly can to seek a peaceful reconciliation to a very difficult situation?

Political group: PSE
We believe that family policy must be characterised by freedom of choice. It must be possible for both parents to combine working life with responsibility for their family. The Moderate family policy envisages highly flexible child care. We are, in principle, able to support quite a few of the proposals presented in the report. We note that, in its explanatory statement, the report emphasises that family policy does not come within the competence of the EU. We agree with that and have therefore chosen to vote against the report as a whole.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the proposal for a directive dealt with in this report seeks, as we know, to harmonise conditions for the provision of services by professional pension management institutions and their investment rules but, in a broader sense, seeks to create a single market for supplementary pensions, placing it in the context of actions of financial services towards the greater liberalisation of the movement of capital. Consequently, we disagree not only with the proposal for a directive but also with the report itself, which seeks to reduce to a minimum the prudential rules liberalising the procedures and the investments of funds in more volatile financial instruments, thereby supporting risk capital, which, in the current climate of financial speculation, is a serious risk for workers’ rights. This situation is particularly serious for Portugal because it could undermine the Portuguese prudential rules, specifically the mandatory investment of 50% of professional pension funds in public stocks, as well as putting unacceptable pressure on the capitalisation funds of the public social security system.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, following Mr Wynn's observation about the number of amendments my committee might or might not have tabled, it is fair to point out that this is part of the democratic process and if we are not here to question and raise points, then what are we here for?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to join in thanking the rapporteur, Mr Karas, which I think is only fair. I have been a privileged witness of the ferocity of the bulls he has had to fight: the Council – which is very divided – the Commission, the other groups in this House and in particular my own group, which has given him more headaches than all the other groups together. Secondly, I would like to stress the generosity of the European Parliament. It is true that we have managed to have many of the amendments we presented at first reading accepted, but it is also the case that we have sacrificed legitimate, well-founded and well-argued aspirations in order to achieve a text which can be accepted by the Council. We have sacrificed these positions, however, because we have always been aware that this directive was essential, at least for three reasons. Firstly, to make the freedoms enshrined in the Treaty more effective and more real, particularly the mobility of workers. Secondly, in order to supplement the public social security systems at a time – as has been said - when the challenge we must face in the coming years is a demographic one, the ageing of the population and the sustainability of public finances. These professional systems of a supplementary nature – I would insist on this aspect – will serve to maintain the future incomes of workers. This is a social approach which my group applauds. And, thirdly, because it will help to increase European saving, to increase the depth of the European financial market, which is the global objective of the financial services action plan. That saving will allow us to fund – and this ties in with what I said in the previous report – the investments we need in order to grow, in order to increase our employment and our productivity. Mr Karas has highlighted many of the amendments which have enriched the original text of the Commission and the Council. I would like to stress the increase in transparency due to the information obligations required of the providers of these services, of the people who provide and guarantee these pensions, both with regard to the authorities and the participants. Secondly, and contrary to what somebody said from the benches of the left, because it incorporates social orientations which are very dear to those of us who advocate a social market economy. And thirdly because it increases the coordination of the supervision authorities and promotes the possibility of cross-border activities. I would like to end, Commissioner, by stressing some of the deficiencies pointed out by the rapporteur. It will be necessary to make progress on tax harmonisation – I pointed this out in the previous report – if we want these cross-border activities to genuinely be expanded and freedom of choice to be real.

Political group: PPE-DE
With regard to the resolution that has been adopted today on the ‘external relations’ of the Stockholm Summit, against which I voted, I must mention some aspects in a explanation of vote that I am obliged to keep short. First of all, where the Balkans are concerned, I must criticise an unacceptable and flagrant example of interference and blackmail towards the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia by the USA, which is trying to whitewash and cover up the responsibilities of NATO and all those who waged a war against Yugoslavia, in blatant breach of the UN Charter and from within the Security Council itself. This was a war in which arms containing depleted uranium were used, the chemical and radiological effects of which on the population and on the environment have still not been fully assessed. The causes of the current situation in the Balkans are complex and deep-seated, but I must highlight the interfering role of the USA and the EU, which have significantly and, at times decisively, contributed to undermining a process whose consequences for the situation throughout the region are far from resolved. A strategy of selectively and arbitrarily criminalising certain political leaders is therefore unacceptable. Secondly, and bearing in mind the extremely serious situation in the Palestinian territories, I consider the resolution’s provisions to be quite inadequate. The resolution does not clearly and explicitly condemn the escalation of aggression by Israel, the bombings and the repression by the Israeli army against the Palestinian population or the intensification of the blockade imposed on the Palestinian territories. Thirdly, we must be extremely concerned about the absence of criticism of the current militarisation of the EU, which has the instrument of the common defence policy, as the European pillar of NATO, and the absence of criticism of the North-American anti-missile shield project (AMS) whose completion would contribute to relaunching the arms race and to greater insecurity throughout the world.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the majority of British Labour Members, myself included, have abstained on the Santini report. Although we support its fundamental objectives, which serve a sound purpose, we are concerned that, as the report stands, the provisions designed to reach this valuable goal do not include sufficient guarantees against potential exploitation by criminal gangs and those seeking to enter the EU illegally. We do not, for example, accept the need to do away with documentary evidence proving family relationship. Furthermore, whilst we wish to protect the rights of unmarried and same-sex partners, we cannot allow a situation to arise where the unmarried partners of EU nationals could have greater rights to enter a Member State than the nationals of that country. Moreover, there must be safeguards to ensure that we do not encourage the use of marriage as an avenue to gain illegal entry. The provisions which seek to soften the economic conditions attached to residence in exceptional circumstances need more work and clarification before a further reading. Finally, we do not accept the provision in Article 26(2) which would prevent Member States from expelling permanent residents in exceptional circumstances. This power is rarely used, but we must reserve the right to use it for serious breaches of public security.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I ought to have expressed my admiration at the time, when BSE was on the agenda and the rapporteur was starting out on his lonely journey. It has taken a long time for responsibility to be accepted and also acted on. The instructions and legislation in force today bear this out. I also want, and feel compelled, to express my admiration of our rapporteur, Gabriele Stauner. With her sharp legal mind, and the courage of her convictions, she concentrated on the facts of the matter, helped to shed light on errors and gave us all – and by that I mean all the EU institutions involved – time to reflect, at last opening the eyes of those who had persisted in their blindness. Personnel were reorganised and many initially invisible doors were opened. I too had many discussions on behalf of the research sphere. The storm gradually died down. At first, we approached each other cautiously, but watchfully, then we began to work constructively together. In fact the media and the public should be made aware of this, because at the end of the day, we are all in the same boat. I would therefore like to thank all our opposite numbers, be they from the Commission, the Court of Auditors or the European Parliament. That said, I was disappointed at first, because some of my proposed amendments were defeated 10 to 10. But it was still a good outcome. Everyone should know by now what is going to matter most in the future. It is all about the credibility of the EU, and in my research area it is about the pure necessity of regarding research as a great asset which lends enormous European added value, and about dealing with it in a suitably careful manner in future, so that we are in a position to grant discharge to the Commission with a truly cheerful heart for once. We have long memories though!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the development of European public law, from the Treaties of Westphalia to the Treaty establishing the European Community, allows us to today accept an innovative idea, once unimaginable, of a constitutional Treaty that brings together characteristics of a Treaty in some parts and those of a constitution in other parts. The draft that we are examining today represents a great step forwards, in particular, in the field of constructing a single European area of freedom, security and justice. It is a step forwards because the Community method is, for the most part, used in this area, a method which should be the only decision-making method in a federal Europe since it respects the values of democracy and the rule of law, both founded on the principle that laws must be approved by representatives of the people, and, consequently, that European laws must be approved by the European Parliament. Furthermore, it respects the criterion that decisions must be taken by qualified majority voting, which enhances unity, whilst unanimity breeds particularism and divisions: where this method is adopted Europe moves towards the future; where the exclusive power of governments remains, Europe returns to its past, its tragic past.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I do not need to ask any supplementary question. I simply wish to thank the Commissioner for his comments and make it very clear that, naturally, the question referred to Catholic priests, but this affects all non-orthodox Christian denominations given that there is still a certain tradition (if I may put it that way) of territorial monopoly which is not compatible with the right to religious freedom. I would like to thank the Commissioner once again and wish him every success in his efforts.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I want to thank Mr Gallagher for his report and to say that I agree completely with him when he makes the point that we have to accept the scientific information that is provided to us, and that it is on the basis of scientific information rather than political expediency that we must make decisions relating to conservation. We should remember that we have evidence to suggest that if conservation measures are properly carried out and control is exercised we can increase the take for European fishermen by something like EUR 5,000 million worth of product a year. At least that would go some distance to compensate fishermen for the loss and fishing areas for the loss of jobs they have experienced. I want to thank Carmen Fraga for her report: a very comprehensive statement and advice to the Commission and Council on the whole business of marketing. One of the extraordinary things about fish is that while fisherman have been finding it difficult and jobs have been reduced, the price of fish, almost alone as a food product, has been increasing continually over the years to the consumer in Europe. At the same time, margins have been squeezed for fishermen. So, we have to recognise that in the whole area of marketing and processing, there is an important job to be done. I do not think that the annual allocation is sufficient to undertake that task. Fishing is very different from other occupations. Nobody produces fish. The fish are there. They are a public resource. Why should we over-fish and at the same time contribute to withdrawals from the market? Why should we over-fish and, at the same time, import a product which creates a price that is unacceptable? The herring sector referred to by Mr Gallagher is worthy of special consideration at the moment. Herring is being sold at 20% lower prices than last year. It is about or less than 20% of the price that we consider the minimum price for beef in the European Union; a high-value product, immensely valuable for health and normal maintenance of human life. Why should such a product be taken out of the seas and then given away? It is a mistake for the Commission to propose that they should readjust the regulation to further exacerbate that particular problem.

Political group: PPE-DE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. – Madam President, the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy welcomes this directive. It will completely overhaul and modernise legislation concerning detergents. It is an advance for producers and consumers, as well as for the environment. We did, however, in our consideration of it, identify certain shortcomings which, I am glad to say, will be rectified by many of the proposed amendments in Mr Nobilia's report. The Commission proposal does not differentiate between, for example, a laundry product made and marketed by an international company in large quantities for a mass consumer market, and on the other hand a niche product made in small quantities often by SMEs for specialised applications. Examples of the latter are cleaning equipment for dairies, or for operating theatres. The former can readily follow the provisions of the draft directive with its testing processes and derogation procedures, and there are always ample alternatives, but for the smaller specialised product this can be a brick wall which eliminates a useful, even a central, product. I am pleased therefore that the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection has accepted the gist of our proposal for a tiered derogation procedure which such producers can invoke. We also proposed a sunset clause so that the comitology procedure will automatically la after eight years and be renewed only if appropriate at that time. This is based on the procedure first introduced in the financial services area in order for Parliament to keep some measure of control over the burgeoning comitology systems which are developing in the European Union. On behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy I am pleased to recommend support for Mr Nobilia's report but would suggest that Amendments 5, 15, 20, 33 and 40 unduly overlap with other relevant legislation and should be rejected. Nor can we support the amendments lodged by the Group at the last minute. Otherwise we can wholeheartedly support Mr Nobilia's report.

Political group: PPE-DE