GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, I want to say that I am speaking as much as a Finn as in my capacity as a representative of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party. I would thank the rapporteur and the draftsperson of the opinion for the frank, direct and sincere words they have written about Finland’s initiative. The report states that the initiative was poorly planned, that it contains no justification section, that it was prepared without organisations such as ECRE or UNHCR being consulted and that the relationship between the principles of readmission between the Member States and the principles of readmission to third countries is not made clear. Furthermore, the report states that there is a lack of strategic vision, something which the rapporteur also said. No distinction is made between those who do not fulfil and those who no longer fulfil the conditions in force for residence here. It is all too reminiscent of Austria’s initiative on that famous first day of Austria’s Presidency. There are also no procedural safeguards, which does not surprise me because, less than two months ago, the same Ministry of the Interior which is behind the present initiative proposed that Finnish immigration law be changed to include rapid repatriation. My party, the Swedish People’s Party, voted against this initiative, really for the same reasons that Finland’s constitutional committee had when it considered that the same proposal was unconstitutional because, in the case of rapid repatriation, no one has the right to be heard. It would be wisest, therefore, if Finland were to comply with Parliament’s proposal and withdraw the proposal, as both the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs propose. I would point out that, of all the members of the Committees, only two supported this initiative. I regret that the Council’s and Parliament’s time has been used in this way. I think, like Mrs Berger said, that it could have been used for other things, for example, purely administrative procedures. The issue of women as asylum seekers might also have been reflected upon, because we need to look at the Tampere decision in its entirety with a view to improving the asylum process. I would emphasise that I am speaking as a Finn and as a representative of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I should like to make a correction to what Mrs Banotti has just said because we will be dealing with spamming and unsolicited commercial e-mails at a later plenary. What we are being targeted with is not spam. Spam is untargeted. We are quite clearly being targeted in this particular case.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, first of all I would like to thank the rapporteur, not least for being willing to include in the report the suggestions we made. Mr President, Commissioner, the guidelines are intended to help steer the Member States towards achieving the reform objectives contained in the programmes. However, contrary to their claim to provide guidance, the Commission’s proposals in this respect are reminiscent to a far greater extent of a catalogue of possible measures within the scope of the various policy areas. Nonetheless, their true purpose is to give direction and to set priorities. I agree with the rapporteur that unfortunately the Commission document contains too little in the way of recommendations to the Member States on simplifying administration, and I support the calls for negotiations to concentrate on promoting a favourable climate for labour-intensive, small and medium-sized enterprises, on setting clear objectives for alternative sources of financing including provisions for risk capital and private financing, and on start-up help for companies including new information technologies and investment in innovative fields. I am particularly in favour of a proposed amendment tabled by my Group to paragraph 10, to ensure an appropriate level of private sector involvement in the planning and implementation of the projects. I should be very grateful, Mrs Schroedter, if you would actually include this proposed amendment in the part relating to subsidiarity in your positive deliberations.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Irish Presidency marks the start of a new, more liberal period after the South European presidential term. The northernmost Member States have been genuinely in favour of both the Internal Market and enlargement. Sometimes it seems that the further we move away from the EU’s heartland towards its geographical outer periphery the more sincere the Community spirit and greater the imagination for building a common Europe. Promoting economic growth and keeping on top of the Lisbon Agenda will be the most important issues during Ireland’s presidential term. Year in year out, the European Union continues to lag far behind the United States of America. America’s figure for growth in GNP for this year is very much in a class of is own: 3.9%. The objectives of the Lisbon Agenda are slipping away and I believe that the entire strategy for competition is petering out. All the projects agreed at EU level are ready, but the Member States have still not internalised the need for the structural changes the strategy calls for. The Stability and Growth Pact is beginning to creak. It is especially important to enhance the work of the Competitiveness Council. It must become more active, taking greater responsibility for the basic question that has been put to it: what is each legislative project’s impact on EU competitiveness? For example, how significant will the EU chemicals package and the reappraisal of Kyoto be for EU competitiveness? With these projects the EU is very much in danger of sawing off the branch it is sitting on and risking its competitiveness and prosperity. If the country holding the presidency had difficulties finding points to get to grips with in the Competitiveness Council earlier on, here they are now on a plate.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just one point will suffice to make clear to you my committee’s disappointment. I represent fisheries policy. This is one of the few European policies, however, that lie in the sole competence of the Community. As a result, all the legislation coming out of Brussels in this sector affects the Union’s citizens directly. The democratic deficit of which we rightly complain is all the more obvious to all concerned. We, Parliament, the only institution legitimised by popular vote, continue to be denied any real involvement in making those laws. I am referring to the codecision procedure, which, despite our demands, has still not been opened up for fisheries policy. The future of Europe’s fisheries from 2003 is being rewritten at this very moment. I therefore particularly want to reiterate, indeed to emphasise, our pre-Nice position today in the post-Nice era. A mere consultation of Parliament is not enough. We want to be really involved in defining the most important themes. We therefore emphatically call for the codecision rules to be taken into Articles 32 to 38 of the EC Treaty and ask for your support! I find there continues to be a further deficit in Parliament’s involvement in fisheries matters when it comes to concluding international agreements. We demand that the European Parliament’s assent be made mandatory for international agreements negotiated by the Commission, which do after all have an impact on the budget. Finally, we want our own title in the EC Treaty, all that, dear Elmar, in addition to agricultural policy. It is only logical. Only then will we be able to keep up with all the rules and regulations of that now highly developed European policy! (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Treaty of Amsterdam has set an important objective for the Union. This is a task which all MEPs, the Council and the Commission must take on during this legislature: the creation, as has been said already, of an area of freedom, security and justice. The Tampere Council, the motor and architect of this objective, has proposed certain goals, but five years, the time scale laid down for the implementation of Chapter IV of the Treaty, is too long to wait for the urgent solution which some problems require. My first point is that Parliament must not be excluded from the important decisions to be taken in this area and that its participation in the decision-making process must be guaranteed, especially with regard to this project which affects the citizens, as the Commissioner has explained very well. My second point is that we must make rapid progress in the adoption of a common asylum system, adopting common procedural rules and, above all, putting an end to the current confusion between migration for political reasons and migration for economic reasons. The recent laws on aliens adopted in my country, Spain, and in Belgium, are a reminder that there is an urgent need for the communitisation of immigration policy. My third and final point relates to the external activities of the Union in the field of immigration and asylum. We must not and cannot give the impression that the Union exclusively wishes to defend itself from an avalanche of refugees and economic migrants. We must opt for a policy of cooperating in the development of our neighbouring countries in the East and the Mediterranean area, but we must do so with rigour, with economic means and in close collaboration with public institutions, which must cooperate in the protection of those citizens whose most basic rights are violated or who wish to emigrate in order to meet their most essential needs. Finally, in relation to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the citizens of Europe need to have a vision of citizenship. The Euro, employment, even security, are not enough. They need a ‘European soul’, as a distinguished Spanish professor once said.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I should first of all like to thank Mr Nobilia for the excellent cooperation. As I only have one minute, I shall have to be brief. There is, in fact, only one major problem left, namely that of phosphates. Phosphate-free detergents are compulsory in a number of countries; this may be on the basis of a voluntary agreement with the producers, or, sometimes on the basis of legislation. However, in some countries of the old Fifteen, such as Spain, there are still detergents available that contain phosphates. In a whole host of new countries that are soon to join, sometimes two-thirds of the detergents still contain them. It would be very simple to replace these, and this is, in actual fact, what the Commission should have suggested a long time ago. I also understand that the Commission has prepared a proposal to that effect. What, then, is stopping the Commission from producing this proposal now rather than waiting for three years? I also have a question for the Commission. Is it true that one country, namely France, has blocked the compromise? Had it not done so, this entire sitting would have been unnecessary and we would have reached a compromise a long time ago. I should like to have an answer to this question. Is it only France that has blocked the compromise?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, on a point of order. I was simply making a protest about the electronics here. I was unable to receive interpretation, and I am sure that certain other Members were having difficulty with interpretation earlier. I think I was getting Swedish at one point and I could not hear Mr Blak at all. I just wanted to point that out. I think Mrs Banotti referred to it but as I could not hear her, because I was getting Swedish at the time, I do not really know what she said.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all aware that the peoples of united Europe are waiting for a grand design. Our fellow citizens often experience Europe only through the distorting mirror of standards, rules and constraints, and we must make space exploration one of the top ambitions of European integration, an ambition that would bring our fellow citizens both pride and definite benefits in their everyday lives, like the Galileo project. Pursuing a grand design requires resources, however. And today there is not sufficient political will to give European space policy the credits it needs. The Commission has tried, as the White Paper shows. An extra 4.6% increase in space expenditure every year is good, but it is a minimum. The Union’s Heads of State must understand that when President Bush is ordering flights to Mars and China is successfully launching its first manned spacecraft, Europe can no longer allow itself to lag behind. The time has come to change gear and give a real boost to space expenditure. To do that, we must look to the states, through the ESA and the large national agencies, which, like the DLR in Germany or the CNES in France, have irreplaceable experience. But we should also go beyond the intergovernmental level. The draft Constitution for Europe provides for the beginnings of a Community space policy. I am pleased about that, provided that in return for these new prerogatives the Union becomes a new source of funding for space. We cannot demand new competences without assuming the cost. And we must at the same time continue to seek external funding. The cooperation with India and China through the Galileo project is an example to be followed and built upon as the opportunities arise, with the Russian Federation, for example, like France has just done with the plan to establish a Soyuz launch pad in Kourou. I will finish by saying that if we really do not want Europe to be excluded from the conquest of space, funding cannot remain public. We must lift the taboos and say clearly, as the resolution invites us to do, that the funding of space policy must be opened up to private industry.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on a point of order, there was no announcement just now, but as the written declaration on the rights of deaf-blind people has reached the required number of signatures, namely, 320, I would just like to thank everyone here for signing that resolution, of which I was co-author. It is great news for deaf-blind people. We are not asking for more rights for deaf-blind people in the European Union, but for the same rights as other European citizens have.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, today in Iran the conflict between conservatives and reformists threatens once again to throw an entire nation of this great Middle East into obscurantism and fundamentalism, into a pernicious and despairing arbitrariness. More than ever, therefore, and certainly more than in the past, our Community institutions must make their presence and influence felt among the conflicting forces in the Iranian Parliament, in President Khatami’s Participation Front and in Ayatollah Khamenei’s Guardian Council, in order to defend the universality of the values of the rule of law, democracy and human rights. These fundamentals should serve as a basis for negotiations and exchanges between the two factions, without which there is a risk of ending up with a State in which there is no rule of law, and to push that State or to push the cohesion of Iranian society and the geopolitics of this tormented region towards even worse scenarios. The time has come to defuse the Council of Guardian’s attempts to disqualify reformist parliamentary candidates in the forthcoming general elections. In effect, the acknowledged absence of democratic rules and procedural transparency will end up discrediting the political rulers and encouraging their rejection. Those rulers have already succumbed to the suppression of freedoms, including freedom of expression, and they are the cause of the failure of economic and social development. To suppress all the democratic aspirations of the people of Iran, who are already worn down by years of war and revolution, would be to snuff out their last hopes and ideals, leaving the way open to despairing ideologies and extremisms. The mobilisation of the European Union must be a matter of priority and it must be committed and pro-active, and must engage decision makers and all social categories or categories of activity. Any withdrawal, any ostracism on the part of foreign diplomats, would strengthen the retrograde and destabilising forces in a region of the Middle East which is as far from us in geographical terms as it is geo-politically sensitive in our view. Any argument in favour of severing cultural links between Europe and the Middle East should also be rejected. The creation of a special parliamentary delegation to Iran proves this, the signing of the additional protocol on safety controls for nuclear materials confirms it, and the preliminary discussions between the European Union and Iran on human rights should convince us of it. These first signs must support and encourage the European Union’s approach to the Iranian authorities with a view to sending, right now, a party of observers to examine the electoral process and cooperating, right now, in judicial reforms and in the control of drug trafficking. At the present time, history is being made in Iran, and Brussels has learned enough from Munich in the past to be aware that it cannot refuse to make its voice heard now in Tehran. IN THE CHAIR: MR ONESTAVice-President

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, happy birthday Dalai Lama! But I am not sure that today is such a happy day for him, because after all, the most valuable contribution which the EU can make to the world is standing up for human rights and democracy, and these are still being flouted in Tibet. In the light of this, I would like to make the following observations. First of all, why is it that there is still no real dialogue at official level between the Chinese Government and the Tibetan Government in exile? All manner of so-called indirect contacts have led to nothing. The European Parliament should adopt a harder line in order to support the principle of non-violence. This is why this resolution is necessary. Secondly, how can a renowned institution such as the World Bank be on the brink of financing a Chinese programme which is tantamount to a common or garden colonisation of Tibet? This has to be prevented and hence this resolution. Thirdly, how can the European Union possibly be one to let economic interests prevail in its relations with China? Surely we cannot offer the Tibetan population attention only when it suits us? In sum, Madam President, I would urge you to ensure that a real dialogue is established according to the Dalai Lama’s five-point peace plan; it will then be a happy day for Tibet’s entire population.

Political group: ELDR
Thank you for your answer. I want to say that I welcome your answer clarifying that there is to be a fifth action programme. There is one small quibble, namely the question of adequate funding through the budget. I would therefore hope that the Council will ensure that there are in fact adequate funds (because, without money, nothing can be achieved) as well as make sure that there is a fixed timetable. Integration within all policy areas is very important indeed for equality, but it is necessary to have a two-pronged approach and therefore also to come up with special measures designed for specific purposes. It is important, then, that specific goals should be set for what one wants to achieve. That is why I want to ask again: in what way are you, on the part of the Council, prepared to establish specific and measurable goals for equality for the coming five-year period?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, although the BSE crisis was of an epidemiological nature and the dioxin crisis of a toxic nature, they share worryingly similar characteristics. Both crises were caused by the addition to animal feedingstuffs of raw materials derived from recycling and both caused serious problems for consumer health. These practices inevitably lead to the concentration and accumulation of elements which are either infectious or toxic. The dioxin crisis has also coincided with the scandal of the use of sewage sludge in the manufacture of feedingstuffs. In this case, the risk arises from the accumulation of heavy metals. But although we cannot go into a schematic analysis here, I must make a comment in this context: the Common Agricultural Policy and the World Trade Organisation are increasingly promoting the search for aggressive competitiveness as a fundamental principle, which worries me greatly because this type of official approval of competitiveness, above all else, will surely lead to practices presenting risks, such as the use of hormones or antibiotics for example, amongst the raw materials used in animal feedingstuffs. For the European Union, the precautionary principle in defence of consumer health should take precedence in these cases. One serious problem in this area concerns the insufficient regulations on the manufacture of feedingstuffs and the lack of a food policy in the European Union. Let me remind you of the fact that Community institutions have not taken heed of the recommendations and demands of the Parliament, which requested the prohibition of meat and bone meal in animal feedingstuffs. Nevertheless, the most serious problem arises from the fact that any ingredient which has not been expressly prohibited in the manufacture of feedingstuffs is implicitly authorised. Therefore, the Commission must draw up and formulate proposals for the creation of a positive list of raw materials authorised for use in animal feedingstuffs, together with a study of the incidence of production costs for cattle feedingstuffs in order to prevent incompatibilities with the CAP. Lastly, Mr President, I would like to remind the Commission that it must immediately formulate a food policy, in implementation of the Green Paper which was produced two years ago, and I would like to express my agreement with the comments of Mrs Roth-Behrendt with regard to the independent Food Agency.

Political group: GUE-NGL
On Amendments No 15 and No 41, the delegation of the Austrian People's Party voted in favour of an exemption for SMEs and in favour of a collective system. A great deal of bureaucracy is to be expected at the introductory stage. SMEs should be able to find and choose a functioning market. - Report Florenz (A5-0097/2002)

Political group: PPE-DE