GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I think that the awful disaster caused by Hurricane Mitch sets three main challenges for European policy. First: we must help with reconstruction in these countries. The Commission document provides a good basis for this, although some of what is written in it has yet to be implemented in practice. I think it is particularly important to use the know-how of European organisations and organisations in Member States for reconstruction and to involve non-governmental organisations and local experts. I do not think that calling for more new posts in the European Commission every time a new challenge arises is always the right response. Perhaps Commission staff could be reassigned. Secondly: we must give these ill-fated countries greater access to European markets than we have done in the past. It is paradoxical that Nicaragua and Honduras, which were two of the least developed countries even before Hurricane Mitch, fail to qualify for the same treatment as many, many others, such as the ACP countries, which we treat well, and rightly so. I cannot see why Nicaragua and Honduras still fail to qualify for the same treatment. I do not want to quote the perennial example of bananas – the report does that. I support this passage and also what Mr Kreissl-Dörfler has said. I would like to quote the example of sugar. In the case of sugar, which is an important product for Nicaragua, Nicaragua has no access of any importance to European markets. It might help if we were to facilitate its access to the European markets. The third challenge is that we need to fight the causes of these disasters. I am well aware that we cannot simply say that the increase in greenhouse gases caused Hurricane Mitch. However, there are many scientists who assume that it probably did. We just cannot say for certain. But all the scientific committees agree that the number of disasters such as this will increase significantly if we industrialised counties continue to pump out the greenhouse gases at the same rate. They will of course affect all of us, but they will always affect poor people most, which is why we must at last take more decisive action here.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the implementation of Basel II will be on the agenda in the next parliamentary term. This deals with credit rating and collateral needed for small and family-run businesses and is of course a very important issue in the enlargement phase. Since Europe is shaped by small and family-run businesses, in which two-thirds of employees work and by which 80% of taxes are paid, I would be interested to know what the Commission plans to do, in order to implement Basel II as smoothly and as well as possible, so that our companies will have a chance, in the future, to ensure wealth and job security.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am going to ask a question, do not worry. Anyway, allow me to say that Mr Fischler is neither Mediterranean nor is he from the Atlantic, and what is more we are unfortunate enough to have a Director-General for Fisheries who is from the north Atlantic and only learnt about fisheries problems when he was recently appointed to that post. Thus the question I ask the Minister is as follows: the proposal we know about from Morocco would in principle seem to entail cutting the fleet from Galicia, Andalusia, the Canaries, and also Portugal, that fishes in Moroccan waters, down to 25% at least. The agreement they propose is for two years instead of five, and in addition they want the European Union to pay them the ESP 21 billion that it is currently paying. Allow me to say that the political will shown in practice – not in theory – by the Community negotiators has been absolutely nil, or in any case inadequate. I must therefore express my scepticism about the result. I ask the Minister: do you believe it is acceptable to negotiate the cuts I have mentioned and the continuing cost to the European Union of the agreement with Morocco?

Political group: Verts-ALE
The directive proposed by the European Commission on which we have voted today aims to harmonise Member State legislation on third-country nationals with regard to migration for the purpose of employment. It therefore proposes that common definitions, criteria and procedures should be established for the entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purpose of paid employment and self-employed economic activities. The rapporteur states that ‘there is no doubt that ... halting immigration must be superseded’ on the basis, on the one hand of the ‘Treaty of Amsterdam, which confers competence on the Community in the areas of asylum and immigration’, and on the other, on what she calls ‘actual necessity’. I beg to disagree and wish to draw your attention to the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market delivered by Mr Wuermeling, which reminds us, and in my opinion quite rightly so, that the Tampere European Council of October 1999 actually called only for an ‘approximation’ of national legislation in this area, but not for national rules to be replaced by EU rules. Furthermore, Community harmonisation is contrary to the principle of subsidiarity because rules in this area do not in themselves prove any need for harmonisation. The different rules spring from different needs and traditions in the Member States. (Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the previous speaker pointed out that this report tries to reconcile the irreconcilable. I think he is right up to a point, which makes the rapporteur’s work all the more remarkable and meritorious and I thank him. Furthermore it highlights the difficult nature of the task which we will have to face. A few months ago, in this Parliament, we examined a report on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment which, in a very dramatic way, began by saying that we were discussing a world economic constitution. If that was true then, it is even more true now, given that we are going to discuss issues such as agriculture, services, intellectual property and direct investment. It is difficult when, as the rapporteur said at the beginning, it is not a question of simply opting for free trade, but rather opting for a just form of free trade. And so that this free trade may be a just free trade, it is clear that we have to reconcile trading practices with the rules regarding the environment, workers’ rights, the European agricultural model and consumer protection. To sum up, we are going to discuss practically everything, every sector and every Community policy. Therefore the important issue at the moment is the method which we must follow. And in this report the rapporteur – and I am with him – opts for a Commission which will act as a major player. We call on all the States to back the Commission, we call on the Commission to take account of the sensibilities and needs of the candidate and associated countries and we call on the Intergovernmental Conference to broaden the negotiating capacities of the Commission. But, since love is rewarded by love, all of this will only be possible if the Commission responds to Parliament by treating it as a partner and accomplice in the negotiating strategy with regard to the recommendations of the various sectors, the negotiating guidelines and the approval of the Treaties. Only in this way, Commissioner, will we be able to work together over these three years because – believe me – all of us have tables covered in documents and requests from the various sectors involved and we will only be able to satisfy them if the Commission is able to satisfy our demands. As Tenorio said “If you do it like that, may God reward you or, if not, may he punish you”.

Political group: PPE-DE
We voted for this resolution even though it is very belated and even though we distrust some of the ambiguous wording in it. We condemn the delay in the total and general ban on the production and use of meat-and-bone meal, given that we have known for ten years that it is responsible for the spread of BSE. Moreover, the ambiguous wording of Paragraph 4 is bound to raise questions about the resolve of the authorities to oppose, by all possible means, the fraud and swindling of the agri-food trusts, when it would have been so much simpler to say in a few words that the production and use of meat-and-bone meal are totally forbidden.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, if we genuinely want a knowledge-based economy there are preconditions: you need a critical mass of numerate and scientifically trained citizenry in the workplace, expenditure of at least 3% of GDP on research and development, research infrastructure and networks of expertise and a rapid system of dissemination and exploitation. These preconditions are generally not met in the EU, despite the Lisbon Declaration. First, we are very short of engineers and scientists: retraining in science is an essential part of lifelong learning. Secondly, only two Member States – Sweden, luckily, and Finland – spend more than 3% of GDP on research and they have the industrial competitiveness which accompanies that expenditure. Foresight and dissemination will, of course, be helped by the forthcoming Sixth Framework Programme and even more by the creation of the European research area, with its networking of centres of excellence. Without Member State commitment at Stockholm, the knowledge-based economy simply will not happen. So I say to Member States: 'Over to you at Stockholm. If you want it to happen, put your money where your mouth is'.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I congratulate the rapporteur, the Commission and the presidency on producing a package of compromises. It has been an issue of compromise all the way through. I understand all the hard work that has been put into it, but let us say straight away that many people have been involved, inside and outside this Chamber, perhaps more than we know. However, the people who have not been involved - as is so often the case - are the people most likely to benefit or suffer from our decisions. Compromise was very necessary. This is not a directive aimed at replacing the first pillar social security-type pension provision. In the UK, for example, people aged 16 have recently been outnumbered by people aged 60. Throughout the European Union this must leave no doubt in anybody's mind that we have an ageing society, one that will gradually cost more and must be adequately provided for so as to avoid future pensioner poverty, a very real risk. The problem is that many people, even today, do not feel obliged or encouraged to save for their retirement. Many companies are hamstrung by administrative and legal costs prohibiting the promotion of such funds across the European Union. That is a statement of fact. Even though this directive delivers a balanced view, taking into account the various factors affecting Member States, it is clear that the cross-border approach to supplementary pensions needs more in the way of liberalising articles. I hope that we will come back to this discussion at a later date. Some companies in my country which believe that they can pull out of defined benefit schemes have even looked to this particular directive as an excuse, but Brussels gives no such excuse to those companies. Lump sum payments have been dealt with in a way that pensioners in many countries will feel is a reflection of what already occurs. That is an important minimum. It is clear that the changes we have introduced on transparency and registration are improvements that everyone in this House can live with.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, first of all, I should like to express my appreciation for Mr Sturdy, for his work and for his willingness to compromise. Permitted residue levels for crop protection products differ to a considerable degree from one Member State to another, and that is why it is a good idea to lay down maximum residue levels. To us, however, the amendments to the text are essential indeed. The Commission proposal focuses far too little on the protection of consumers and far too much on that of agricultural interests. I should like to bring three things to your particular attention. First of all, maximum values for residues must be kept as low as possible. Public health and best agricultural practices should be normative in this respect. I should like to say right now, Commissioner, that non-chemical control should take precedence over chemical control. Secondly, children are particularly vulnerable because their livers are not yet fully developed. Research in the Emma Children’s Hospital in Amsterdam has shown that certain residues can seriously hamper children’s development. It is therefore of the utmost importance for children to be adequately protected, and so I would ask you all to support Amendment No 67. Thirdly, clear and strict regulations would eliminate the current distortions of competition when crop protection products are allowed to be used. That would be a welcome development.

Political group: PSE
I would like to start by stressing the need for a regular report of this kind and the importance thereof so that we can constantly improve the situation of the fundamental rights of the European citizens. It is essential that we develop strategies promoting equal access for all to fundamental rights such as education, healthcare and culture and to a permanent job and housing. Europe is more than just a geographical and historical entity with expanding borders. It is, first and foremost, a community of people bound by shared values which has been shaped over the course of time by its political, economic and spiritual history. I do not feel that the report reflects or upholds certain values of our European civilisation. I believe that imposing a particular set of moral values on the entire European Union is contrary to the principle of respect for diversity, which is, moreover, enshrined at the very heart of European integration and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Local cultures and different ways of living must not be destabilised. Each of our countries has its own history and perspective, which are, of course, different, having been shaped by countless different experiences. We owe it to ourselves to respect them, for our cultural and religious diversity enriches us. (Written declaration abbreviated in accordance with Article 120(7) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we greatly welcome the fact that the issue of animal welfare is being discussed by the Council and the Commission in the European Parliament today. The Community's obligation to take full account of animal welfare requirements within the framework of its agricultural policy is anchored in the Treaty of Amsterdam. The question which now arises in this context is whether this is sufficient for the Community or whether there should be European framework legislation on animal welfare in future. Sadly, animal welfare is not understood the same way everywhere. Laws are one thing; the actual treatment of, and attitude towards, animals are another. The responsibility for animals as living creatures falls exclusively on humans. For this reason, it is important to start teaching children how to treat animals responsibly when they are still very young. Anyone who goes on to handle animals in the course of their work, who farms them or transports them, must have a certificate proving their suitability and skills. Animal welfare also has an impact on farms' competitiveness, however. There will have to be restrictions on livestock farming for economic purposes in future too. Demands for optimum conditions, which often stem from emotional responses, cannot always be translated directly into practice. Viable solutions must be devised. The classification of animals as farm animals, breeding animals and pets is not an arbitrary one, after all. Economic considerations and global competition ultimately compel us to adopt specific conditions of animal husbandry, thus limiting the scope for truly animal-centred livestock farming. However, these farming conditions must be shaped in a way which ensures that animals have the maximum scope for natural behaviour. Political decisions on animal welfare can now be based on comprehensive scientific knowledge of the different species. The laws on animal welfare should only be developed and improved with the involvement of those concerned. In a holistic view of animal protection, the animals' natural behaviour and needs should be compatible with environmental concerns and consumer protection, but also with the expectation of profit. Our society's high standards of hygiene must also not be compromised. After all, more consumer protection ultimately leads to better conditions of animal welfare.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the increase in life expectancy that has arisen as a result of the scientific and social breakthroughs of the twentieth century must not now be considered a burden on society in the twenty-first. Elderly people have the right to live in dignity, to have access to health care and other forms of care, irrespective of their social or financial situation. This is being called into question in a number of countries, such as mine, Portugal, because of a neo-liberalism that is trying to impose itself in a wide variety of areas, including health, by prioritising competition and competitiveness, thus jeopardising quality public services and showing no respect for people or their rights. The fact that the majority of the elderly in the European Union are women – over 63% of people aged between 75 and 84, and 72% of those over 85 are women – means that they in particular will be the ones most affected by problems in health care systems and long-term care, either as carers themselves or as people in receipt of care. The persistence of inequalities in women’s wages and retirement makes them especially vulnerable to the consequences of dismantling public health services and to the shortage of care for the elderly. It should be noted that women form the majority of the 55 million people at risk of poverty in the current 15-Member European Union and of the many millions in the enlargement countries. That is why we are so strongly critical of the fact that the Member States are increasing the proportion of health costs to be borne by patients, both for prevention and for treatments, drugs, and palliative or other care. This situation is jeopardising the principle of solidarity in health systems and contributing to the growth in social exclusion of the less favoured groups in society, who are finding it increasingly difficult to access appropriate, high-quality health care. Therefore, although I believe the report has its positive aspects, I cannot agree with the insistence on creating an internal market in health services and products, since this will only benefit private organisations, particularly insurance companies, and jeopardise a high-quality, universal public service. What is needed is greater public investment in facilities and equipment and in the training of the technical and specialist workers needed, better provision of quality care and assistance for the elderly, specifically in the health services, and the setting-up of home care services, ensuring that all citizens have access to these services in all the countries of the European Union. Hence the proposals that we tabled. What is also needed is greater participation by user organisations, the health and care services themselves and their workers in the preparation and implementation of measures, so as to ensure greater democracy in the operation of these services, which must be quality services.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to use my explanation of vote to explain my voting on the Hughes report. I voted against all the amendments. In my opinion these amendments have nothing to do with safety at work, road safety or health aspects, but instead were only a question of making the position of small and medium-sized self-employed hauliers more difficult. We already have Regulation 3820/85 on driving and resting times which also regulates suitable driving and resting times for small haulage businesses. This directive talks about total working hours and I find it appalling that the European Parliament is trying to regulate the total working hours of the self-employed in their own businesses and I voted against all these amendments.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to respond to what Mrs Corbey has just said about the second reading on medicines and draw your attention to the fact that we have some very tight deadlines to respect and that the price of medicines is not taken into account in this second reading; indeed it was not in the first reading either. I do not think therefore that we should confuse all of the issues; above all, we must not fall behind schedule, given that the Italian Presidency ends in December and that our work will be completed at the end of April. I wanted to draw your attention to this point: it is essential that we have European legislation in the field of pharmaceuticals as soon as possible.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, the President of the Government of the Spanish State refuses, in a way which is arbitrary and quite contrary to the winds of history, to allow the Union’s constituent nationalities and regions to play a role in the Union, not least in the Council of Ministers, and is trying to ignore the practices already in place in Germany, Belgium, the United Kingdom and Austria. He is trying to base his approach on an absolutist concept of sovereignty, contrary to that of shared sovereignty which is, in fact, a fundamental principle of the European Union. In its folly – as illustrated by the Minister of the Presidency Mr Lucas, a minister who is very close to the President of the Spanish Government – the Spanish Government is both trying to confine the internal constitutional bodies to a consultative role in the politically useless Committee of the Regions, and also, ignoring the reality of the Union, wants to turn this body into senate, even if this means going against proposals such as the one put forward by the German Chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, who reserves this role of senate for the Council itself. They could not be making a worse decision. This is why I wish to ask the President-in-Office of the Council: why is the Government of the Spanish State insisting on maintaining such an anachronistic concept of sovereignty in the Union?

Political group: Verts-ALE