GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I want to address three points. Firstly, the liberalisation of the energy market, secondly the European research area and the flanking measures which need to accompany the sixth framework programme, and thirdly, entrepreneurship. On entrepreneurship, is it not about time that we heard some of the results from the many benchmarking exercises which have been undertaken? Is it not time that we named and shamed those Member States who are not taking the actions necessary to improve entrepreneurship and competitiveness? The European Parliament's Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has voted on the liberalisation directives for gas and electricity and we have reached the conclusion that if liberalisation takes place without paying attention to the environmental, consumer and social consequences, you are embarking on a dangerous journey. We would ask, for example, that energy efficiency be used as an indicator in the Lisbon and Barcelona processes. If a Member State is so inept that it does not use energy intelligently, it will never be competitive. It is one of the best indicators of the will of that country to do well in today's world, so we ask for indicators there. And please, tell us what your many benchmarking exercises have shown.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, first of all I would say that the Commission proposal is but a small part of the current legislative vacuum on the labelling of foodstuffs which contain or are produced from genetically modified organisms. The labelling of these foodstuffs is important for two reasons. Firstly, it is not known just how dangerous foodstuffs containing genetically modified organisms or their products are to public health and so it would be well worth monitoring their progress within the market. Secondly, it is important that consumers know exactly what they are buying. Only then can we ensure the smooth operation of the market and win consumer confidence. The Commission has only really dealt with the accidental and, therefore, occasional presence of genetically modified foods and has set an arbitrary 1% tolerance level on just two products, soya and maize. Granted this may be at least some progress but the question is this: is it really possible to measure and determine precisely what compound foods such as hamburgers and chocolates, contain and secondly, is it possible to accurately measure below the 1% content level? In my opinion, the Achilles heel of this regulation, which in itself will open the floodgates to corruption, violations and distortions of the law, is that it is impossible to assess exactly what compound foods actually contain and how much is derived from a genetically modified product. We would have to think long and hard before adopting the Commission’s opinion. We expect to hear from you that through the codecision procedure you will review the proposal for a regulation as soon as possible in the light of new scientific and quantitative detection techniques so as to enable us to better address issues such as compound foods containing genetically modified organisms or their products. I would like your opinion, Commissioner, as to whether you are indeed committed to reviewing this regulation soon, within 12 months, in the light of new data. Only then will the Group of the European People’s Party be able to approve its adoption.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Swedish Social Democrats, including myself, believe that the UN conventions on drugs should form the basis of the EU’s drugs policy, and we wish this basis to remain in place. To evaluate the policy’s effectiveness is one thing, but to suggest, as this report does, that international conventions that work well should be rescinded is going too far. Nor do I see any reason for reclassifying preparations, as is also demanded by the report. We must remember that, according to the UN conventions, scientific proofs are now already required before a substance can be used lawfully for medical purposes. I am not therefore in favour of this report as it at present stands. For me, in my capacity as a representative of the people, it is important not to give way in the fight against drugs. Sometimes, it is difficult to discuss these issues because, as has been shown in today’s debate, we each have very different views concerning the way in which the available tools are to be used. Allow me to explain my approach and that of the Swedish Social Democrats. We believe that the decriminalisation or legalisation of so-called soft drugs would be downright harmful because soft drugs lead to the use of harder drugs. That is something we know from experience, and I hardly think that anyone here could contradict the fact. We support a drugs policy consisting of three parts, each of which is important: firstly, preventive work; secondly, a policy of control; and, thirdly, treatment. The first part, consisting of preventive measures, is the most important, and that is where the emphasis must be. It is therefore not acceptable to tear up our international conventions dedicated to prevention and to promoting a sensible drugs policy. The second part, relating to control, is also important, but it is only one of three parts. Treatment and rehabilitation are obvious elements of any humane and effective drugs policy aimed at ending the demand for drugs, halting their proliferation and preventing drug-related crime.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, I second all those who expressed their solidarity with the storm victims. I would just like to point again to the impact on the forestry industry throughout Europe. For the storms will have major implications for the forestry industry in all areas of Europe, and I believe we need, in the long-term, to give thought to how problems of this kind are to be dealt with in future. We certainly do not want market organisation for forests, but maybe we should set up a system, perhaps in conjunction with the private insurance sector, which will make it possible to mitigate the implications for the victims in some way. Unfortunately, we can expect there to be repeat performances of this kind of major disaster in the future. As has already been mentioned here, there are indications – no proof, but clear indications – that the increase in storms world-wide has to do with the climate catastrophe. Of course, the scientists do not all see eye to eye on this yet, but the majority of them are fairly convinced that if we continue to emit greenhouse gases as we are doing, these storms will, of course, hit us much harder still at the dawn of this new century. I believe now is the right time for us to think back once again to a proposal put forward in this Chamber by a former fellow MEP of ours, Tom Spencer. He suggested that rather than giving storms the names of men or women, we should name them after the perpetrators of the greenhouse effect – he proposed the oil companies at the time. However, an exception should certainly be made in the case of Shell and BP, for they have changed policy and do not just base their sales on fossil fuels which are damaging to the climate, rather they also invest in forms of energy that have future viability. We must be aware of this connection; I do not support those who make sweeping statements to the effect that the greenhouse effect is to blame for this storm, but one thing we can be relatively certain of is that we have reason to fear further catastrophes if we do not soon alter our course!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in all of the European Union's Equal Opportunities Action Programmes, for example the Fifth Action Programme for 2001 to 2005, great importance is attached to there being balanced representation of men and women in decision-making bodies. While good statistics are available in parliaments and national institutions, there are still not any satisfactory surveys of the social partners. In both the unions and the employers' organisations women in leadership roles are in a tiny minority. There is no doubt that this needs to be changed, but please not at a snail's pace. In the Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities, we have unanimously called on the social partners to set precise targets as soon as possible with a view to improving the quantitative and qualitative representation of women. As part of this, deadlines should be agreed for their implementation. Databases should be created so as finally to provide a precise overview of female representation in expert fora and decision-making bodies. A further long overdue measure is the creation of posts for equal opportunities officers in all of the Member States. Whenever change is initiated, however, intensive awareness-raising is required. In training courses and at conferences on gender mainstreaming, women's structures in the social partners should be visible. Positive measures need to be developed in the form of action programmes within organisations. Women's networks should be created and should communicate with each other. They should exchange experiences and pass on information about projects to each other. These projects were successful and are therefore worth replicating and the others failed and we should try to understand what we can learn from them. An important component is responsibility at executive level right up to the boardroom. There are therefore sufficient reasons for drawing up this own-initiative report. The vote in the Women's Rights Committee was unanimous and is testimony to the exemplary work of our rapporteur, Miet Smet. I too can fully endorse this assessment of her report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on Friday next week there is a vote on who will be hosting the 2008 Olympic Games. The Olympic Games are an opportunity for men and women from all around the world to come together to compete on equal terms, in a spirit of peace and cooperation between nations. That is the theory, despite the fact that a large number of participating countries are brutal dictatorships which hold both democracy and human rights in contempt. The Olympic Committee has a responsibility to promote the values which lie behind the Olympic Games. We in the Group have demanded that the International Olympic Committee set up guidelines for the countries which are to organise the Olympic Games, guidelines which include respect for human rights and democratic principles. One of the hottest tips for the Olympic Games is Beijing. Beijing is the capital of one of the world’s most hardline dictatorships. Persecution of those with opposing views, torture, censorship of the media and the Internet and more executions than all other countries put together are just a few examples of the way the Chinese regime tries to keep its population in check. The occupation of Tibet and the oppression of its people continue, and religious minorities are not allowed to practise their religion. For two years, there has been a systematic persecution of followers of the Falun Gong movement, with tens of thousands of followers being arrested and tortured, in some cases to death. In recent days, 15 women in a Chinese labour camp were tortured to death, with the authorities saying that it was suicide. Those who want Beijing to host the Olympic Games say that sport and politics should not be mixed. However, that is exactly what the Chinese regime will do. If Beijing were to host the Olympic Games, the propaganda value for the Chinese regime would be enormous, and it would reduce the pressure on the country to change its policy. In a report on Beijing’s candidature for the Olympic Games, the International Olympic Committee writes the following: ‘The overall presence of strong governmental control and support is healthy and should improve operational efficiency of the Games organisation.’ Calling the oppression ‘healthy’ is hair-raising. Human rights activists of all kinds are united in their demand not to let China organise the Olympic Games. A decision in favour of the Olympic Games in China is a breach of the whole Olympic ethos. The Group would therefore like to appeal to all members of the International Olympic Committee to vote against Beijing on Friday.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, as draftsperson of the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport on the Barcelona Process, I would like to communicate some of the concerns and suggestions which have been unanimously approved in committee. Firstly, I wish to draw attention to the need to promote cultural programmes, which I know is not what attention is usually drawn to. We know that the Euromed Heritage programme has been the most successful of all programmes for cooperation with the Mediterranean. Furthermore, we believe that culture promotes wealth. For example, where would Egypt be without its cultural tourism, which has been one of its main links with the world and one of its main sources of wealth? Culture, therefore, is one of the factors which is most easily accessible, closest to hand, most developed and which has accumulated the most experience in the field of Mediterranean development, which means that it can be closely linked to communication between people and can continue to open doors. At the same time we wish to draw attention to education. We believe that if a Mediterranean trade area does not deal with the issue of education, it will become an area of Mediterranean colonisation. Therefore, the only way that there can be a social scheme capable of being incorporated into the business world and the Western world is through education. Furthermore, we believe that that is where a genuine and indigenous scheme also can be found for establishing the pillars for future development. Furthermore, the only way in which we can spread our ideas about human rights is by creating a better trained and better educated population. We are therefore not talking about clichés, but about reality. Another point that also concerns us is the way in which the Commission adapts to the philosophy and circumstances of the countries towards which the aid is directed. I believe that a large part of the failure of the MEDA programme is due to the fact that we are applying a European-scale mentality, which suits Commission projects. What we need, however, is many small projects. We need to look to the internal social structures of the countries involved, the universities, the educational institutions, the museums, the cultural field, and society itself, so that we can rely on it for future development.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as we all know, applications for asylum are normally processed by the first country that we can describe as a ‘safe country’ with which an asylum-seeker makes contact. If this principle is indeed always adhered to, and if there are enough of what we term safe third states, then what will be achieved is the distribution of asylum seekers over many countries and, as a result, speedy decisions enabling a person to know whether or not he is actually going to receive the support due to a refugee. That is what we all want. The present situation is unsatisfactory. The Commissioner has himself presented EU statistics showing that a number of countries are at present having great problems with applications for asylum, whilst others have hardly any. Austria, with almost five applicants for asylum per thousand inhabitants, heads this statistical table, followed by Sweden and Ireland, whilst Portugal, Italy and Spain are at the bottom of the scale with 0.1 applications per thousand inhabitants. Comparison of these statistics reveals that Austria has fifty times as many applications to process as do the other states. So I ask you to understand why this initiative has been taken, and that it is to be welcomed, in that its intention is to speed up decision-making in the asylum process. The fact is that there is no stopping either time or the applications already in the pipeline. The Austrian initiative is therefore understandable, and it is also necessary. I take a favourable view of it, and the Group of the European People’s Party , too, fully supports the substance of an initiative that will give us, in future, a list of safe third states. It does for these two selfsame reasons, that we will both be speeding up procedures and, at the same time, sharing the burden. As things now stand, though, it can no longer be fitted in to its ideal slot in the timetable, and so I would welcome it if the attempt could be made – by you, too, Commissioner, I would ask you – to sort out this problem with safe third states, if at all possible, when we deal, as we shortly will, with the procedural directive. We will then not have to do it by means of a specific regulation, which would take up even more time, but would be able to achieve a quick and definite result by the end of this year. I therefore support the proposal that a better way of handling the whole thing would be for it to be incorporated in the directive, but, apart from that, I am very much in favour – and the Group of the European People’s Party also has an interest in this – of sorting out the problem of safe third states as soon as possible, something that will, in due course, benefit refugees.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, the latest findings in accident research show that 50% of fatally injured vehicle occupants do not have their seatbelts fastened. Tremendous progress has been made in road traffic safety. I come from part of a country where there were no child seats or child restraint systems at all ten years ago and retractable seat belts were a luxury. Then in 1991 I had the opportunity of being involved with devising the compulsory seat belt directive. Today we are already talking about the need to adapt that directive to scientific and technical progress. The wide-ranging findings of accident research and the modern safety restraint systems developed by the industry make the present-day situation unacceptable. It is irresponsible to allow children under three years of age to be carried on the back seats of cars without anything to hold them or in child seats on the passenger seat without switching off the airbag. It must no longer be permissible for larger children to be secured using the belt intended for adults. Exceptions from the general compulsory safety belt rule for lorry drivers, for example, must in future also be things of the past. The proposal embodied in six amendments tabled by the European Parliament to amend the directive in question will, among other things, make for technically safer solutions and above all ones that are easier for the consumer to use. The latter point in particular makes it more likely that the restraint systems fitted will actually be used. More than 50% of children still travel without using a seat belt, even where restraints are present in the vehicle. Parents seem to be unaware that the risk of their children suffering a serious or even fatal injury as a result of an accident is seven times greater if they are not wearing a seat belt. Development work is continuing. Present-day child restraint systems are evaluated on the basis of frontal crash test results and almost always get good marks. However, 70% of all fatal accidents involving children in cars are the result of side crashes. That is where these systems fail. I recommend acceptance of the amendments before us today for adapting the directive.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to thank the rapporteurs. However, I would particularly like to thank President Prodi for stating in a very wide-ranging speech a political fact: these are terrible times but the Union must press ahead with its projects and ambitions. The historical goal we are about to achieve – the enlargement of the Union – calls for total consistency in our budgetary decisions. In this regard, too, Parliament will play its part, which is not the part of a solicitor who merely writes reports and accepts the decisions of others without having any influence. There are four main European policies which will contribute to enlargement: cohesion policy, the common agricultural policy, the TENs policy and the policy for cooperation between small and medium-sized enterprises. The success of enlargement and integration will depend to a large extent on the way these policies are revised and the importance given to them in the budget. There are just two things I want to say. Firstly, I believe that we need to reconsider the funding allocated to the TENs and the Union’s contribution, simplify the procedures and reinvigorate the North-South dimension as well as the East-West dimension. Secondly, I believe we need to increase the internationalisation of small and medium-sized enterprises and their ability to form partnerships with the small and medium-sized enterprises of the candidate countries. To this end, it would be beneficial to enhance the current instruments and the current pilot project on enlargement and SMEs and take the opportunity afforded by the mid-term review of Agenda 2000 to give a clear boost to the measures facilitating the internationalisation of small and medium-sized enterprises.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, my group, the , wants to make three points, largely in the form of questions. First of all – and this point will appear in the compromise resolution which is not yet in print but it is certainly in our own resolution – my colleague, Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne, points out that the United Nations is extremely slow, or has been in the past, to respond when there are reports of breaches of use of these weapons. For example, when Saddam Hussein, in the early 90s, used these weapons in the marshes of Iraq, it took the United Nations three and a half weeks to get inspectors there, giving Saddam Hussein plenty of time to cover up the evidence of his crimes. Would the Council kindly point out to the United Nations that we need a much quicker response than three and a half weeks if such incidents happen in future, as we fear may happen. Secondly – and this appears in the 's resolution and also in the compromise resolution – the anthrax problem in the United States has drawn all our attention to the need to react quickly and to analyse what is happening. There is no European Union-wide agency looking at this although, in the USA, there is the Centre for Disease Control in Atlanta. Would the Commission be willing to undertake to propose the creation of a European Union agency, under its control, which would coordinate the work of the relevant national agencies in our Member States in the field of communicable diseases? That would speed up our reaction and help us on a Union basis. My third question is addressed to the Council. I hope it is a hypothetical question. If the investigations in the USA show that the anthrax outbreak came from Iraq and therefore American public opinion becomes overwhelmingly in favour of an attack on Iraq and – I imagine that George Bush would find it very hard to resist such overwhelming public opinion – what would be the Council's position? Would we encourage the EU to attack Iraq as well, or would we try to hold George Bush back? Has the Council considered this?

Political group: ELDR