GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, firstly I echo Mrs Dybkjær's comments and thank the Commissioner also for her work. On behalf of the Group I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on what is a very comprehensive and fair balance of criticism for the shortcomings in the Commission's work, praise for the achievements of the work programme and also constructive suggestions for work in the future. The support that the report received in committee was a reflection of this. We are only too aware, as other speakers have said, that we have a long way to go in terms of gender equality within the EU institutions, as well as in society as a whole. We could not have a clearer reflection of this than the make-up of the Convention on the future of Europe. Only 16% of the members are women on a body which is directly involved in planning the whole future of Europe. This report addresses the means of achieving gender equality in the labour market, employment, decision-making, social inclusion, lifelong learning, health and so on. The rapporteur has addressed these issues in a very focused way and gives very clear guidelines to the Commission on the kind of measures that Parliament would like to see adopted. In terms of actions for 2002, I would particularly like to welcome the Commission's commitment to providing gender-specific data, gender progress indicators and gender impact assessments in policy areas that have not yet been mainstreamed. We know that this information is essential when forming and assessing equality legislation. Time and time again in reports and opinions we have condemned the lack of appropriate data on which to base our analyses. This has to be addressed now, as other speakers have said. I would also like to mention some of the new Commission proposals noted in this report, such as the conference on rural women to be held in October. This is extremely important given the crisis that many of our rural areas have suffered, particularly in the past 18 months and the specific needs of women who live and work in rural areas. Equality in foreign policy and international relations is again a vital issue. The proposed conference could not only draw attention to this but give us a better understanding of its significance in all of our international work. As Mrs Avilés Perea said, gender should be central to the round-table discussion on social exclusion and poverty. The work programme for 2002 is more developed and ambitious than this year and hopefully on the basis of this report we can make significant progress.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, because I was looking behind me to see that everyone was voting, I failed to vote myself. I vote against. (Laughter)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, can I put this debate in context? After the Indonesian invasion in 1976 the UN did not recognise the Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor. Let us get that straight for a start. Only the Australians recognised it and even they, after a while, decided that they were wrong, so legally we did not have to ask permission to send in an international peacekeeping force. However, we did. And now, at long last, they have agreed. But when will it go in? Hopefully, by this weekend. Who will head it? Hopefully it will not be the Indonesians. I heard on the television this morning that one faction within the Indonesian army was actually saying that it wanted to lead the multinational peacekeeping force! Fortunately the foreign minister had other ideas, but obviously there is warfare between them all at the moment. But whoever leads it, it must go in now, immediately, before we see any more atrocities. They are happening on a daily basis. Churches and schools are burnt. People are hacked to death. Yesterday I heard of a nun who was told she was being rescued and she should not look at the church. She tried to see it and saw blood seeping in front of the church door, the blood of women, children and priests. What had they done? Nothing. And that was not an isolated incident. UN workers were attacked when they tried to move food and the army just stood by. If food and shelter cannot get through, there is going to be a humanitarian catastrophe, not just in East Timor, but in West Timor as well. The latest story is that refugees were put on to ships and told they were being rescued. The ships then came back a short time later with nobody on board. That is genocide in anybody’s terms. (Applause) And that is why we have to have a war crimes tribunal: to bring these people to justice. What else can be done? A military embargo yes, but it should have been done sooner. The Hawk jets from Britain should have been cancelled sooner. I am glad they have been cancelled now but it is a bit too late. The peace-keeping force must go in now. Humanitarian aid and human rights monitors for West Timor and East Timor must go in now but more importantly the Indonesian Government must be held to account.

Political group: ELDR
We have approved several points in this report that are likely to bring about an improvement in air passenger protection, but we have not voted for it in its entirety because: - it seeks to exonerate airlines from a whole range of shortcomings by shifting fault onto airports and air traffic control, yet it is the fact that all airlines operate in order to make a profit that puts passengers at risk; - the deregulation and liberalisation of the air sector, on which this report mistakenly heaps praise, have stepped up this quest for profit and, as a consequence, have multiplied the problems arising from such an approach, for both passengers and airline workers. It shows utter disregard for everyone involved to believe, as stated in the report, that passenger safety can be improved without affecting competition and to count on the voluntary commitment of the airline companies.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I abstained from the vote on the amended proposal for the regulation on Community design, not because I am against having a Community system for drawings and designs. On the contrary, it is urgently needed. I abstained because I am disappointed that the Design Office is to come under the Trade Mark Office, and that we are not going to take advantage of the opportunity to devise a different language regime. The language regime of the Trade Mark Office was explicitly chosen in the old 1993 proposal for a regulation. It has been done very much on the quiet in the proposal we are dealing with now. I hope that the members of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy are fully aware of this, as well as all the others who are prepared to take this aspect of the regulation on board without demur. Naturally the office must be able to operate efficiently and cost-effectively. Rapid decision-making is a legitimate aim. There is no need to translate every last piece of paper. However, it is not asking too much to want the conciliation procedure and correspondence with the Office, as well as the application for registration, to take place in the citizen’s own language. When the Trade Mark Office was first set up, a discriminatory language regime was adopted under the guise of a technical solution. Now we are repeating past bad practice. What then, is the point of having an article in a Treaty that entitles the citizen to use their own language when in contact with this institution? As far as I am concerned, that is good reason to make a stand against this sequence of events.

Political group: PPE-DE
The common fisheries policy and the Union’s development cooperation policies, through their consistency, complementarity and coordination, must respect the principles of sustainable development while unfailingly contributing to poverty reduction in the countries concerned. Traditional fishing by local communities in coastal areas must be protected and preserved because it is essential to the process of harmonious development, while helping to encourage other activities such as tourism and employment.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, at this moment in time millions of small and medium-sized enterprises are watching us and the eyes of even more millions of workers in the European Union are turned anxiously towards us. We are being called upon to deal with a most serious matter. I too should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Murphy, for the excellent spirit of cooperation which we had and to congratulate the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy for its full and unanimous support for our joint effort. We must all, Parliament, Commission and Council, reflect on the responsibilities which face us. We must bear in mind that one in four SMEs which goes bankrupt does so because of late payments. We must be aware of the fact that 450 000 workers have lost their jobs at a time when the main problem facing the European Union is how to combat unemployment. We must bear in mind that every citizen in the European Union owes 65 euros due to late payments. We must bear in mind that we owe it to this society and to the entrepreneurial spirit of the European Union to give them the chance to develop on a sound basis. We must also understand that we cannot permit the unfair practice whereby companies or even the public sector, which is the worst payer there is in the European Union, are financed free of charge, thereby condemning thousands of enterprises to death, stagnation or entrepreneurial castration. What we are now being called upon to do is to restore conditions of healthy competition. We do not intend to protect anyone. However, we do intend to set up a framework of fair practices, to try and lay down rules of healthy competition so that we can all use our abilities and skills to face the future with better prospects. I want us all to understand that several more thousand jobs are at stake if we back-pedal on this report which we are being called to vote upon. I received a call today from an organisation representing thousands of small and medium-sized enterprises to say that they wished to congratulate the European Parliament on behalf of European business people. That is precisely what we are waiting for here. That is precisely what we are attempting to do and I call on the European Parliament, where we have the honour of sitting, to vote by a large majority in favour of the text tomorrow, I call on the Commission to do justice to the text which we give it during its evaluation and, above all, I call on the Council to understand that we cannot proclaim left, right and centre that we are above the law, that we cannot proclaim left, right and centre that we are sensitive to the issue of job creation, that we cannot proclaim left, right and centre that small and medium-sized enterprises are the backbone of the economy and, at the same time, refuse to vote in favour of and adopt the positions of this European Parliament.

Political group: PPE-DE
Whilst Conservative MEPs support anything which enhances cooperation between Member States' law enforcement agencies, we cannot support any prescriptive European measures such as those proposed in this Report. Such matters should be dealt with internally by the individual Member States.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner Fischler, Commissioner Schreyer, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by expressing my warm thanks to the rapporteur who dealt with the issue of Parliament's preliminary estimates for 2005 with his customary flair. I wish to thank him particularly for his efforts, from the outset, to achieve a consensus across the groups. It is very important that on the one hand, we jointly contribute to ensuring that in terms of its administration, the European Parliament is able to master the challenges of enlargement fully. After all, we are the institution which is most affected, because all the languages must be available from 1 May and we have very different working methods from the Commission, the Council, the Court of Justice or the Court of Auditors. On the other hand, we must also make a contribution to strengthening the European Parliament itself, and the public's 'ownership' of it, on a long-term basis. To this end, the rapporteur has put forward a number of sound proposals – he has just outlined the various points – and I would like to thank him particularly for that. Mr Kuckelkorn, as regards Mr Balfe, I would point out that the amendment concerned was not tabled by the group, which is why the group is unable to take any action here. The amendment comes from at least 32 Members – I am not sure of the precise number of signatures – who have tabled this motion. That is permissible under the Rules of Procedure and I would ask you to respect that. Let me, however, also make it clear that I am one of the Members who has opposed Mr Balfe's proposals most vigorously. Let me be blunt: it is not the European Parliament's task, faced with a situation in which healthcare in some Member States – I shall phrase it very carefully – is not entirely satisfactory and legal restrictions apply, to solve problems in this area for a few specific and privileged Members at the European taxpayer's expense. I say this quite frankly, and I have said the same thing to Mr Balfe himself. At the moment, we are being bombarded with e-mails explaining why we should definitely vote in favour of this amendment. Members from three Member States are involved. What these Members should be doing, quite simply, is helping to ensure that the health system in their own countries functions effectively, then they would not need any over-provision at European level. Let me be blunt about that too. I hope, Mr Kuckelkorn, that after the European elections – I am assuming that the voters will be merciful and draw the line at number 30 on your party list so we still have the pleasure of your company, whereas I am in a position where I can be rather more confident – we will be able to adopt this budget jointly, for it is extremely important that in our capacity as the representatives of Europe's citizens, we address this task very seriously and thus help ensure that Europe does not drift away from its citizens. That is this Parliament's honourable task. We are committed to it, and we intend to remain committed to it after 13 June as well.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the tobacco directive addresses two points that are very dear to my group’s heart: the harmonisation of the internal market and public health. Health organisations are justifiably calling for more protection for public health. Hence, we are all in favour of the directive and of reducing tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide yields. That is also why we approve of increasing the size of the warnings, in accordance with the common position, and why, as per the common position, we favour short, pithy warnings on cigarette packets and support a ban on the use of misleading words such as ‘mild’, ‘light’, and ‘ultra-light’. Only where these terms are part of registered trademarks which are already marketed could consideration be given to granting derogations. The industry complains about the inequality and inefficiency of the present legislation. The inequality concerns the permitted ingredients, for example. We readily support the proposal to produce a list of permitted ingredients. The testing procedure is inefficient. As matters stand, each product has to be re-tested in each country. We are in favour of devising a standardised testing method recognised by all EU Member States, to be implemented by an approved testing laboratory. We would also like a test of this kind, carried out in a laboratory recognised by a Member State, to be valid in all EU Member States, as is customary in the field of medicine, so as to cut down on the number of tests performed on animals, for example. We would ask that special consideration be given to the position of SMEs. This is hit disproportionately hard by the directive in some cases, specifically by Article 6(1). We will therefore vote in favour of the amendment that does request information on the ingredients used, but which proposes a more realistic working method than is outlined at present in the common position. I have the following to say about the legal basis. The directive builds on three existing directives on the same subject which have the same legal basis. These have never caused problems with regard to the legal basis hitherto. The legal services of the EU institutions do not foresee any problems in this area. We will certainly assume the legal basis to be valid once Article 133 has been added. Naturally, we want to follow correct legal procedures and it would, of course, be regrettable if the Court were ultimately to reject the position of our legal services, but we cannot afford to discard the directive because then we would have nothing, all the work would have been for nothing and we might as well start all over again with the same old work and the same texts. As far as Parliament is concerned, the important thing now is to show political courage and produce a directive which improves the functioning of the internal market and provides maximum protection in the field of public health.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we should remind colleagues who may not be here for the formal sitting that the vote on the calendar for next year takes place at 12.30 p.m., so everybody should be back and not caught offside.

Political group: PPE-DE
I declare an interest in the matter of copyright. I am advised by a legal advisor that I do however have the right to vote as an individual author. I am not a paid lobbyist.

Political group: PPE-DE
On behalf of the British Labour Delegation, I would like to explain that with regard to the proposals in the Grossetête report concerning veterinary medicines, we believe that the Commission should accept the current practice in the United Kingdom and Ireland. This allows registered personnel to administer a range of animal medicines without a veterinary prescription in cases where veterinary involvement is not considered necessary for safe and effective use. This has worked effectively for many years and has not led to any safety concerns in relation to consumers or users of such medicines. We also believe that the re-validation of all such medicines should be set at five-yearly intervals, rather than given indefinite authorisation. We do not support the Commission's view that all new active substances for veterinary medicinal products should be authorised under the centralised procedure. This would significantly impact on the development of new products for localised species/conditions and would exacerbate problems of availability of such medicines. Flexibility must therefore be maintained. - Duff report (A5-0332/2002) President. – Mr Fatuzzo, I am anxious to hear what the pensioners think of the Duff report.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner Bolkenstein, the report that has been drafted with such professional skill by my colleague, Mrs Peijs, and which is now the subject of our discussion, is very important for consumers in the euro area and for confidence in the euro as a whole. Rarely in this House has there been such strong consensus on how important the report we are dealing with is. I share the concerns of those of my colleagues who have already spoken and agree with what they have said. This morning the euro sank to an all-time low. It was quoted at 0.8240 against the US dollar. That is a new record. We therefore have much to do in this area but the political resources and remedies politicians possess to deal with that are fewer than those we are able to employ to resolve this problem of Internal Market payments. I also wish to thank the Commission for the fact that you have taken legal action against one hundred and twenty banks and banking associations as a result of suspicions over a cartel relating to payments charged for currency exchange in the euro area exchange rate. This is excellent work on the part of the Commission. On the other hand, I do also understand the point of view of the banks to some extent. Although we in the European Parliament now criticise the banks we have to understand that cross-border payments account for only a six-percent slice of all payment transactions, so development of this area is an expensive investment in the eyes of the banks in relation to the benefits gained, from the point of view of the banks at least. On the other hand, the largest item of expenditure in cross-border credit transfers is manual handling, and a decision should be taken quickly to dispense with that. Just as Mrs Randzio-Plath said, we cannot order banks to reduce charges as a result of political decisions. What we can do is compel or put pressure on the European Central Bank to invite banks to attend immediately a meeting of a working party on standardisation at which decisions could be taken regarding the technical circumstances under which costs could be reduced. We cannot force banks to engage in unprofitable business, but, as politicians, what we can do is support the amendment tabled by Mr Radwan and Mrs Peijs, on behalf of the Group, which calls for measures to be implemented before the end of next year, and, preferably, for these standards to be in place when the euro coins and notes come into circulation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I am one hundred percent behind the basic views expressed in this report by the rapporteur, Mr Sacconi, on voluntary agreements, and especially the notion that the basic assumption behind such voluntary agreements must be that they act as a supplement to existing legislation. It is as if their role is to find a path to improved legislation. Perhaps when the results of voluntary agreements are analysed, they will lead to new laws that will go further with regard to environmental issues than is presently the case. Operators that are prepared to participate in these voluntary agreements may be regarded as pilots of a sort. At the level of business this will also mean that when there is the willingness to start looking for better applications, companies can then take advantage of this in their own marketing strategies, which hopefully will lead to a situation where consumers will also start demanding these better applications on a wider scale. Taking everything into consideration, however, we have to ensure that these voluntary agreements actually yield results and do not just remain a pious hope. For that reason, we really have to make sure that we can measure the results precisely and that there are certain deadlines by which time results must have been achieved. There are many operators at regional and local level, besides companies, that have been interested in concluding voluntary agreements. In this connection, we have to make sure that if the party to an agreement operates at regional level, then central level is also informed about what is taking place, in order to avoid overlapping and so that we can ensure as far as possible that the benefits are realised, and also answer questions on financing. On the whole I think these voluntary agreements provide added value, but with the provisos that are also linked to the Commission proposal, that is to say, we have to improve legislation, not replace it.

Political group: PSE