GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like firstly, on behalf of my group, to welcome the 162 new Members of this House, and we hope that this first debate on freedom and security for citizens in the enlarged Europe and, for me, my last one as a Member of this House, will lead to some clear reflections, not only on the framework already created over more than 50 years of the European project, but also on the challenges facing us in this common future we have just begun. Freedom, security and justice. In my view, these are areas in which the urgent need to confront the profound changes which are approaching in a Europe of 450 million citizens and which, unfortunately, as we can see, sometimes moves forward as a result of such tragic events as terrorist attacks and the regrettable deaths of the victims of immigration, has been demonstrated. It is clear that the great challenge awaiting us is to organise a new geo-political and demographic space in a dynamic, changing and constantly growing Europe. I would therefore like to emphasise everything the Commissioner has just said on this point. We have worked intensively over the last five years to enshrine the guarantees and protection of the fundamental rights of our citizens, and the results can be seen, such as the approval of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the steps aimed at approving common guarantees in criminal proceedings throughout the Union and the implementation of the European arrest warrant, a guarantor for one of our principle rights, which is the right of society to pursue relentlessly those who endanger the lives and security of the citizens. Without forgetting the protection of the victims of crime and particularly the victims of terrorism. In any process, however, such as the one with which we are currently occupied, we must not forget to look forward. To this end, Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe we must change anything that is not working. It is crucial that we modify the current decision-making method, with its cases of overlapping initiatives or delays resulting from the unanimity rules as well as flagrant delays in incorporating Community legislation into that of the Member States. We must also reinforce and make progress on the achievements already made. I would therefore like to insist on the proposal I made in the annual debate on the report on the area of freedom, security and justice, such as producing a Tampere II. Finally, I believe that the new European Constitution must enshrine the hope represented by the chapter aimed at the regulation of this new area, that is, we must bring the legal instruments into line with the reality of the dangers currently threatening the freedom and security of the citizens. It only remains for me, Mr President, to thank your Presidency and the Commissioner for your invaluable contribution to the defence of the values and rights of a society such as ours which wishes to feel increasingly free within a new enlarged area, in which security and justice, in turn, also provide the guarantees for that freedom.

Political group: PPE-DE
We voted against this proposal because the Europe of which it depicts some aspects is not our Europe, does not relate to the world of work. It is the Europe of the traders, the bankers and the large industrial groups, a coalition between their respective states. This Europe, laboriously established over the past fifty years by the bourgeoisies of European countries condemned to get on if they were not to disappear from the international economic stage, and yet competing among themselves, was built purely in their interests. The difficulties it is facing in its attempts to enlarge to the countries of Eastern Europe are simply a reflection of its fundamental nature. The future certainly lies in the unification of Europe, of the whole of Europe, on the basis of total equality between its peoples and the abolition of borders. It cannot, however, be founded on an agreement between capitalist groups that are concerned solely with making profits, while totally disregarding the interests of the people. A truly unified Europe under the democratic control of its people will emerge only if profound social changes are made, which bring an end to the economic and social domination of private financial groups.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I should like to request that the following correction be made to Thursday’s agenda: under topical and urgent debate, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is correctly referred to in Greek as such, which has been the official name of this state, at least until now. However, in four languages which I have here, Italian, English, German and French – and there may be others – it is referred to as Macedonia. I think that errors such as this should not recur in our official documents and that we should use official names, at least those which still apply. I would therefore request that Thursday’s agenda be corrected and that this point be borne in mind for every document circulated officially here in the House.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to take the opportunity to thank Mrs Glase for her report, which is extremely efficient. It is a very complex report which I described in committee as cautious in parts: cautious for reasons of necessity, if we consider that employment policy concerns the Member States, and therefore does not afford the European Parliament, or, by extension, Europe, genuine, practical competence in this matter. So we are faced with a real, substantial difficulty to overcome. As Mrs Jöns has just said, what we now need to do is develop a new strategy which looks at the entire question of work and employment from a global viewpoint, and calls upon the Member States first of all to make their situation public with regard to employment and undeclared work. So far, we do not have detailed documentation for all the States; that is, we do not know the extent of the problem in all the Member States. We do not know the extent of the problem in the States which are hoping to join the European Union either. It is a complex issue: the percentage is increasing every year in line with the gross domestic product; we have a remarkably high average of 15% across the countries of the European Union. This figure should make us think. In any case, for all of us, illegal and undeclared work constitutes, by definition, an abuse of those who need to work, not least in terms of the tax burden which should ensure solidarity. This is, therefore, a crime against society, which we as legislators must address, within the limits of our direct competence in this field. However, there are specific recommendations in the report, for example specific procedures which could be implemented in order to fight the scourge of illegal or undeclared work. I tabled some amendments, which have already been accepted by the rapporteur, and I will therefore not dwell on them. I would just like to use the rest of the time available to mention an amendment which is particularly important to me and which I believe people found difficult to assess objectively: the amendment on illegal child labour, which I will summarise now. It is claimed that child labour does not exist in Europe, but that it might exist – as has been stated – in Italy and southern countries. This is not true! Child labour exists everywhere: among immigrants or third-country nationals, among all those young people who drop out of education before they reach the age of majority, who are exploited, underpaid and untrained, thereby constituting a serious problem of exploitation and undeclared work because they do not have a qualification which can be used to ensure that they are adequately paid. Lastly, the issue of illegal work also concerns children under 15 years old! So let us not pretend that this problem does not exist in Europe, because it does exist, and Parliament should speak out resolutely on this matter too, in order to confirm the social, democratic and political maturity of this House.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I do not share the enthusiasm of my colleagues for the results of this conciliation but I am equally warm in my congratulations to both rapporteurs. They won and I lost, to my regret and possibly their surprise. We all know that if the Council had not given in then Parliament itself would have conceded rather than lose either directive. So Parliament had a weak hand but both rapporteurs played it extremely well. I congratulate them for their skill. They were helped by the early climb-down of the UK Government during both conciliation processes. It was particularly ironic that the UK Minister for Europe should have come to Strasbourg last autumn – to plead with UK MEPs from all parties to vote down the whole Ghilardotti report – to find that not only were Labour MEPs positively promoting the report but the UK representative then bent over backwards to support it as well. Politics is certainly an odd business. As colleagues know, I am a fervent supporter of information and consultation but an equally fervent opponent of a one-size-fits-all straitjacket for companies of all shapes and sizes. This directive, as amended, is more likely, in my view, to be a barrier to employee involvement than a bridge. Moving to the working time directive: in my view this is bad legislation. It could have been worse had it limited night-time driving, but I was delighted that the rapporteur finally saw reason and this proposal was removed. But it is still bad legislation in its provisional extension to include the self-employed. As the Spanish representative said, when joining other countries in registering his country's dissent from the final text, it is the first time that the entrepreneurial sector has been included in any directive. I will certainly fight to make sure it is the last. We should want to see more jobs, not less. This should not and must not be seen as a precedent.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, allow me to explain my abstention on the Cocilovo report. The rapporteur took great pains to support a new approach and to pursue it boldly. I should have welcomed an even bolder line and particularly a more receptive attitude to the amendments tabled in committee and here in plenary by the various political groupings – I myself was among those who tabled them – with a view to taking more account of the needs of people in sensitive areas. This boldness was lacking at the first reading. I hope this will have been rectified by the time we next deal with the proposal. I am confident that this is the right approach, but it must be pursued more consistently and more boldly. - Report: Markov (A5-0216/2004)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Minister, we all feel a great deal of sorrow and frustration at what is happening in the Middle East. The violence and the killing must stop. Together with the United States, the EU can play an important role in the process of achieving a ceasefire, together with peace and reconciliation. Europe’s decision-makers must be able to create a broadly based confidence in the EU as a partner in the Middle East. That is not the situation at present, my friends. Up until now, a balanced approach has been demanded, able to resolve conflicts and create a climate for coexistence, not a climate of isolation or exclusion for any party. Today, more and more people, especially in this House, are talking about trade sanctions. Are trade sanctions against Israel, and thus indirectly against Palestine too, really the best way of preparing the way for peace? Is isolating Israel a fruitful path to go down if the EU is to be able to acquire a more significant role in the region? I do not think so. I also want to say that the comparison which Mr Gahrton has just made between Israel and the policy of apartheid in South Africa is appalling. Experience of previous international sanctions should give pause for reflection. Look at Cuba. Look at Iraq. Have Castro and Saddam Hussein been weakened? Hardly. Who is it who have to suffer? It is not Ariel Sharon. Instead, it is the farm workers and orchard labourers who cultivate fruit and wine. I have a few direct questions for you, Minister. I have heard that, at the last Council meeting in Luxembourg, the Swedish Foreign Minister talked in terms of the EU’s needing to prepare itself for introducing trade sanctions against Israel. Is this information correct? Which countries can conceive of trade sanctions as a method? I have also received information to suggest that the Swedish Government is preparing to introduce trade sanctions. Is the same thing happening in other countries? Finally, Minister, I want to ask what you personally think about trade sanctions and threats to isolate Israel. Is that a path which you personally believe the EU should go down? You said that all alternatives are open? What do you mean by that? Do you mean that you too are prepared to isolate Israel?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, just very quickly, can you confirm that the French football team has contracted Legionella? (Laughter)

Political group: PSE
I support this excellent report by Mr Pirker, which proposes a reshaping of the 1997 Joint Action, with a view to combating new synthetic drugs more rapidly and effectively. We face the problem of a steady increase in the manufacture and trade in synthetic drugs and rigorous and effective forms of control must be put in place as a matter of urgency. This proposal seeks both to update this Joint Action and, at the same time, to ensure greater transparency and to extend the Joint Action’s scope as regards exchanging information, risk assessment and the control of new synthetic drugs. This has been an extremely effective instrument for ensuring a rapid exchange of information and the scope is now extended to all new synthetic drugs and narcotic drugs, including those likely to be defined as medicinal products. We should also welcome the fact that the structures are to be simplified, as the rapporteur proposes, so as to ensure that information exchanges and risk assessments are carried out as simply and effectively as possible. We hope that the Joint Action does not confine itself to operating simply as a rapid-response mechanism but also serves, in future, to provide long-term monitoring of synthetic substances through a constant exchange of information between the Member States, Europol and the EMCDDA.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, firstly, I should like to ask whether the European Union is at least doing what it does everywhere else, namely working actively to fund the independent media, train politicians, support the democratic parties and promote institution building. In essence, this is what we are doing everywhere, and I would find it incomprehensible if this were not the case in Kosovo. Secondly, I should like to ask whether the Council plans to initiate direct contacts with the newly elected politicians in Kosovo after the forthcoming elections, so that the moderate forces which I believe will win are genuinely able to achieve success and there is no renewed upsurge in support for the radical forces later on?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mrs Díez, of course I would withdraw any type of insult or slur in my speech, if I could, and I would challenge you to read the verbatim report for this sitting and tell me whether it contains any insult or slur, because I will withdraw them without question. What I want to say, Mr President and Mrs Díez, is that committees of inquiry are laid down in Rule 151 of our Rules of Procedure – I would ask you to read them, please. And this request to create a committee of this type is justified by non-compliance with Community law, and it has been said here, explicitly and literally, by some of your colleagues and compatriots, that the intention through this committee is to establish the responsibilities of the Spanish Government in relation to the Prestige disaster. This has been said here, literally. What I am saying is that you cannot say in Spain that we are going together to ask for more funds and then say here that the funds should not be given because the Spanish Government is at fault. That is what I meant. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, my group believes that the issue of biotechnology – because we are not only talking about cloning – is an issue which not only concerns various Member State governments, but is one which is also of considerable concern to public opinion. This is the case not only because of the advances being made in this area, but also because of the scientific, industrial, ethical and religious consequences of this matter. We pointed out at the time in the Conference of Presidents, and we have said so publicly, that we believe that this is a debate which cannot be resolved through an urgent resolution. We believe that it requires well-considered and serious work, and proof of this can be seen in the drawing up of the directive on biotechnology which has been going on for a long time. An attempt was made to finish it, for the second time, during the previous parliamentary term, and it is yet to be finished because it is still facing certain problems. We believe that we must ensure that the work requested by Parliament of the Ethics Committee – which advises the Commission and Parliament – is speeded up and we believe, furthermore, that an issue as important as this, which involves various committees of this Parliament and which is generating enormous concern in many areas – frozen embryos, the patentability of cells which may be multiplied for the purposes of transplants etc. – requires a temporary committee. We have therefore accepted that this declaration should be made. However, we do not believe that it is appropriate at the moment to vote on a resolution, drawn up as we go along, which may create problems and be divisive.

Political group: PSE
In general terms, the report addresses the issue of the implementation of the MAGPs in a positive way. It highlights the way in which compliance varies enormously from country to country and makes the observation that maintaining the current forms of aid for the modernisation and renovation of the fleets is crucial in order to make the multiannual guidance programmes operational. Consequently, we will be able to achieve our prime objective of achieving a sustainable balance between current stocks and their exploitation. This issue is particularly important at a time when the Commission wishes to substantially reduce or even eliminate aid for the modernisation and renovation of fleets. Regrettably, however, the report does not state which countries are failing to comply with the objectives that have been set. Portugal, as everyone knows, has already exceeded the planned reduction by more than 40%, which is also regrettable, since there are countries that have not only failed to achieve reductions but have even increased their fishing capacity. It is, therefore, crucial to demand that, in future, countries are not all treated in the same way. One point with which we cannot wholeheartedly agree concerns the policy of reducing crew numbers, since what we are advocating is renovation, not reduction.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to ask you if you would be so kind as to ensure that our Amendment No 24, which has not been distributed with the other amendments to the Napolitano report, is made available to all the Members of this House for tomorrow’s vote.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I think that in today's debate on the Commission's supplementary budget, we should distinguish between three separate issues. Firstly, which short-term measures must we adopt in order to restore some measure of stability to the beef market? Secondly, what must we do in the medium term when this House debates the Agriculture Commissioner's 7-point plan? And thirdly, what must we do in the long-term? This House will also debate this issue, in connection with its review of market structures in 2002. Please, let us keep to this. For now, the immediate task is to adopt measures for the farmers throughout Europe so that the massive fall in beef prices does not put their livelihoods in even greater jeopardy than is already the case. That is the purpose of this supplementary budget, and, please, we should deal with everything else in a calm and sensible way. Let us not delude ourselves: until last autumn, there was a balance between supply and demand in the beef market, and it is important to be honest about that. There are no milk lakes or butter mountains, and, Mrs Rühle, let me make one thing quite clear, it was the government which you support which agreed eighteen months or two years ago to adopt what you now describe as a bad system, namely Agenda 2000. That should be stated clearly for once, and you might like to discuss it at some point within your own party – which includes Mrs Schreyer, the Budget Commissioner, who proposed it, and Mrs Künast, the German Agriculture Minister, who supports it – and yet you act as if you had nothing to do with the whole thing! I cannot let that pass. If anyone is able to put forward any other short-term proposals, they should table them here as proposed amendments today or tomorrow. I am prepared to go along with that, but I have yet to hear any reasonable alternatives, and we have to be honest about it. Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, that applies to you too, since you belong to this party as well. We must be honest for once, and if a strategy is pursued which allows the small farmers to go to the wall – which is the message I heard, especially on the German side, from the Agriculture Council on Monday evening – my response is that it is simply not a strategy. When I hear the German Federal Chancellor's recent assertion that it is a question of large versus small, and the German Consumer Affairs Minister's announcement today that large farms also need to be given appropriate support, which is why she does not support any upper limit on the animal premiums, I have to ask: what on earth is going on here? In the short term, we must take every possible measure to restore stability. The supplementary budget provides the right answers. We must debate the medium and long-term solutions in a calm and reasonable fashion. Ultimately, that is the only way to identify appropriate solutions.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, may I briefly put a question to Commissioner Bolkestein? On the basis of which article of the Treaty did the Commission agree, at Stockholm, to declare that it would not go against a majority opinion of the Council?

Political group: PSE
I would have liked the Commissioner to be much more willing to disburse budgetary support to a country despite it not being on track as regards certain non-core elements of the IMF/PRGF and where IMF programmes are judged to be too restrictive. The Commission has expressed concern over recent years about the IMF's macro-economic framework for low income countries. From your answer, Commissioner, I did not get the impression that you were saying you would continue to disburse budgetary support. You seemed to say that it would only be in very exceptional circumstances. How exceptional would those circumstances have to be before you would continue to disburse budgetary support?

Political group: Verts-ALE