GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. – Mr President, firstly, I too should like to thank Mrs Frahm for her work and willingness to support a number of amendments, both from the committee and from myself. This has all too often been a very rushed process which has not allowed those of us involved to collaborate as we would have wished to find the best solutions to certain problems. I would particularly cite the example of the allocation of the funding which does not even meet the Commission's intention to give particular consideration to the Cohesion Fund countries. So the proposed review process becomes essential. Asylum-seekers are not a burden but a responsibility. The European Union Member States are the chosen destination of comparatively few, compared with the world's poor countries such as those in Africa. A proposed amendment from our committee requires that all measures under this fund should be based on an approach designed to prevent any outbreak of xenophobia, racism, discrimination or inequality. That is particularly important, especially given recent criticism by the UNHCR of certain parties in my own Member State for their encouragement of such negative views or their failure to challenge them – criticism which is fully justified in my view. A change to the funding proposed by our committee aims to give a minimum to each state, which could be used to promote public awareness. My committee feels that the money, inadequate at the moment, should be used to improve the facilities and services offered, which is why we also want to see an overall strategy for the development of services, with a view to refugees and displaced persons being able to play a fully active role in society as equals. Not to take such an approach would be short-sighted, as others have already pointed out. The committee also proposed that there should be greater partnership at Member State level in determining and evaluating how the money should be used, including the involvement of refugee organisations themselves. We also want it to be a duty for the committee assisting the Commission to consult with other organisations. How we deal with the dispossessed is an issue for society as a whole, not just for governments.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, at the Brussels part-session two weeks ago we voted on the ‘railways package’ and agreed that this was a great achievement for Parliament and for rail freight in the European Community. Tomorrow we will be voting on the Savary report at second reading on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system. Approximation of technical standards is an essential and important step if we are to facilitate safe cross-border rail freight. At first reading, all sides put a lot of hard work and effort into this very technical Commission proposal, and I would sincerely like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Savary, today. All that effort has paid off, as, with just a few exceptions, the Council has accepted all Parliament's amendments. The Group of the is pleased to see its views largely reflected in the amendments accepted by the Council, which also explains why we are not tabling any further amendments now, at second reading. I did, in fact, table one amendment in committee that was adopted by Parliament at first reading but not subsequently accepted by the Council. It was three votes short of being adopted. This was the stipulation that maintenance and approval of warning systems should be carried out by external and independent certification bodies. Apart from quite understandable economic interests in many Member States, this amendment has to be seen against the background of the many serious rail incidents which may have been caused by inadequate checks. These approvals and checks were in the past and to some extent continue to be carried out by the rail operators themselves, rather than by independent third parties. When this was discussed in committee all sides, including the Commission, showed great understanding on this point. The wording that has now been adopted for Article 18 and Annex VII to some extent takes account of our concerns, but we are not completely happy with this as things stand. The Commission's undertaking to include proper independent approval and maintenance of rail systems in the railways package is sufficient for us to speed this otherwise excellent compromise on its way without tabling any further amendments in the plenary session. Nevertheless, when we examine future rail dossiers we will be watching very carefully to see if the Commission has honoured its promises.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, the constitutional questions we are debating today are highly controversial, as the vote in committee clearly shows. In fact 12 Members voted for and 12 voted against. Of the latter, 8 voted against and 4 abstained. That is not something to be proud of. But I find it reassuring that so many Members agreed that the length of the shopping list of proposals contained in the report’s 52 paragraphs and 58 sub-paragraphs is exaggerated and that, as things stand, there is a risk that the Intergovernmental Conference will not take it seriously. But unlike Talleyrand, I cannot console myself with the idea that what is exaggerated is by the same token insignificant. I want to dissociate myself from demands such as that we should cut my country’s delegation in the European Parliament by one third. I know that by head of population the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has more representatives here than the large countries, but that is a primitive and premature method of calculation. With 6 Members it is materially impossible to follow up all the dossiers that are crucial to our country. Moreover, we cannot sit on all the committees. It is easier to divide up the work and to specialise in a large delegation: even if the largest delegation, comprising 99 Members, was reduced by a third, they would still be able to share out the work. For the time being, it is enough to propose that the seats in the European Parliament should be allotted on the basis of a degressive proportional system, with a minimum number of seats per Member State, while of course respecting Article 190 of the Treaty. The idea of European lists is premature, if not hare-brained. There can be no question of a majority of MEPs deciding the location of the seat of this Parliament here, against the views of the others: we must respect the Edinburgh compromise. In the case of a qualified-majority Council decision, it is inconceivable to provide for a simple majority of Member States. We must have a majority of two thirds of the Member States, even if that means providing at the same time for a simple majority of Member States representing a majority of the total EU population. There can be no question of restricting unanimous Council voting to decisions of a constitutional nature. We must also retain majority voting for fundamental questions, such as own resources, taxation and so forth. I hope the idea of not allocating one Commissioner to each Member State is well and truly dead. Finally, if we really need closer cooperation, it must involve at least half of the Member States, otherwise we risk ending up with something like the French Directory. This document contains other incongruities too, especially in relation to the budget, which fortunately have no chance of success in the Council and even less chance of being ratified by national parliaments that have any self-respect. I will not vote for this shopping list unless it is amended along the lines I have just set out.

Political group: PPE-DE
We chose to vote in favour of compromise Amendments Nos 22 to 33 in the report concerning monitoring of forests and environmental interactions in the Community (Forest Focus). We are extremely hesitant about increasing the contribution of Community policy to forestry. We believe that the basic conditions within the EU are so different that it is questionable what added value such a Community policy would have. Nor should we ideally like to see fire prevention measures mentioned at all in this regulation, since such measures are out of place in this environmental monitoring programme. Moreover, they would be in danger of stealing a lot of resources from other monitoring areas. Fire prevention is instead a part of the EU regulation on rural development and should remain so in the future.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am aware that I am going to repeat what the previous speaker said, because it is the same old story. Here we are again discussing shipbuilding and the unfair practices of South Korea in the sector. I have no doubt that while we are here splitting hairs, Korean shipyards will be working at full capacity. I would also like to point out that this discussion on the unfair practices of this Asian country began in 1998 and so far no action has been taken against the Republic of South Korea, but rather we spend time discussing whether or not it is a good idea to include one category or another in the defence mechanism, which the European Commission designed nearly two years ago. I do not think I am wrong in saying that at this rate we will end up including pleasure boats. I would also like to point out that in November 2001 in this House we approved the inclusion of gas carriers, ferries and boats for the transport of motor vehicles, which is part of the complaint to the WTO, but they were not included in the defence mechanism. Surprisingly, that proposal did not receive the necessary support from the Council, so the whole matter is still on hold, which is truly shameful. I would like to call for solidarity between the countries of the European Union, the same solidarity on which we have built this community of Europe and which in recent times appears to have faded, because without it, European shipbuilders will soon have disappeared, and we will be accountable to thousands of families.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have taken the floor to explain the reasons why I am going to vote against the motion and my concern over two issues, which were included in the resolution at the request of some Members, who, I feel, are trying to exploit the credibility of the European Parliament in order to further their own interests, which conflict with the general interests of the Community as a whole and Italy in particular. I refer, Mr President, to point 38 and points 41 and 42 of the Haarder report. Point 38, which was amended for the worse by Amendment No 22, cited again today in the Chamber, imposes on Italy – and who knows why Italy should be singled out – in order to guarantee the impartiality of judges, not the separation of judicial and political authorities, as advocated by Montesquieu, but the separation, within the judiciary, of the careers of judges responsible for giving rulings and investigating magistrates. The consequence of this absurd step is that, as is the case in Italy, anyone who is part of the judiciary as an investigating magistrate will become dependent upon the decision-making authorities, with the genuine risk that it will not be possible to conduct inquiries into corruption and the abuse of political power without fear of political pressure. With reference to points 41 and 42, I appreciate the fact that no citizen, not even a male descendent of a former ruler, can be deprived of the freedom to enter the country of which he is a national, but I do not understand why this only applies to Italy and Austria: there are other Community States which have rulers and sons of rulers living abroad. In particular, with regard to Italy, to lay down a period of not more than six months within which to apply the sanctions would be against the Italian Constitution, which, in fact, provides for the adoption of a constitutional resolution.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, we are discussing a report on a very technical subject, but it is of immense importance, both for energy conservation and, furthermore, for employment in Europe. The rapporteur has worked hard to discover the effects of energy policies in the report but, at the same time, has paid insufficient attention to the fact that if the recommendations in the report were adopted the result for Europe would be unemployment, mostly in Germany, but also in Finland, Austria, Italy and Spain. Fluorescent lighting uses two types of reactor, which have an effect on energy efficiency. Magnetic reactors produce a lot of light and heat. In northern countries this heat conserves heat energy and is not just wasted. Electronic reactors produce more light and less heat, and they are clearly superior to magnetic reactors from the point of view of energy efficiency. Theirs will be the future if they can be made as economically competitive as magnetic reactors. Philips has certainly quite rightly invested in this sort of technology. Its products, however, should not be the only ones to be recognised as European standards through political pressure. Mr Turmes in his report proposes banning magnetic reactors in fluorescent lighting, unlike the Commission or the Council. If the report were adopted, Parliament’s position would destroy the industry as far as Europe is concerned. Elsewhere in the world they would certainly manufacture and use magnetic reactors, which are necessary in the sort of natural environment that I come from. Only magnetic reactors can be used in the cold and damp. The production of magnetic reactors would move from Europe to the developing countries, as a result of the ban. The USA has already experienced this. If we want to keep jobs in Europe, Mr Turmes’ report cannot be adopted with regard to the amendments made by Mr Westendorp y Cabeza. The production costs relating to electronic reactors are many times those of the magnetic ones, and the conservation of nature should also be examined from the point of view of the use and recycling of materials.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, in this debate in which we are discussing all the problems in the world and in which everyone speaks on whatever subject they like, I have taken the floor to speak about Afghanistan. I would like to start by expressing my satisfaction at the fact that my amendment, which seeks to highlight the total failure of the United Nations drug control programme in Afghanistan, was adopted in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, and that it is now part of the text which is to be put to the vote tomorrow. Millions of dollars were promised and then given to the Taliban to enable them to remove, to pull up their opium crops: they pocketed the money and then promptly more than doubled their drugs production. The fault lies with the person who appropriated the funds, who should not have been so naive – and in this regard I am sorry to say that the programme and the agency were headed by an Italian – but also with the Taliban for their irresponsibility, and it is therefore right to condemn them, as the resolution indeed does. However, I wonder whether it would not have been possible to be harder and harsher in our criticism and even threaten to impose sanctions on the country which gives the regime the greatest support, support without which the Taliban regime would crumble, namely Pakistan. Why is Pakistan supporting the Taliban? For various reasons, not least in order to unleash them on Kashmir once they have conquered the whole of Afghanistan, so that they will create anti-Indian hostility there once again. Well then, in my opinion, it is extremely important to break this vicious circle, and we can only hope that the resolution will contribute to doing so.

Political group: PPE-DE
We have just voted in favour of an association agreement with Lebanon. Less than a year ago, this Parliament asked for an association agreement between Europe and Israel to be broken. What are the principles according to which what was valid yesterday in the case of Israel is apparently not valid today in the case of Lebanon? I think it should be borne in mind that this country is not a democracy, that it is not a country governed by the rule of law, that the fundamental rights and principles we hold so dear are trampled underfoot there every day, that Lebanon continues to harbour terrorist organisations, in particular Hezbollah, and that it is occupied and ‘annexed’ by another country, Syria. Yet, there we go, reaching out to Lebanon. I believe that a balanced European policy would, of course, be a policy which was open to the countries of the Middle East, indeed to all the countries in the region, but which should obviously begin by maintaining that association agreement with Israel which is visibly threatened every day by a variety of initiatives, in particular by those initiatives to impose a scientific boycott which are shameful and must be condemned. I believe that a sound European policy is one which is open to Lebanon, certainly, but that, at the end of the day, Europe’s place is beside Israel.

Political group: PSE
I welcome this report by my colleague Carmen Cerdiera. The report aims to ensure that all victims of crime in any EU Member State should receive the same minimum treatment. Appropriate measures should be taken to provide crime victims with the following rights: to provide and receive information; communications facilities; participation in the procedure and access to free legal aid; a suitable level of protection and privacy; the possibility to seek compensation under criminal procedure and to dispute settlement through mediation. The victim must be treated as a person in a particular situation of disorientation and distress – factors that are likely to be all the more acute if the crime happens to the victim in a Member State other than his/her own.

Political group: PSE
The vote on the Sandbaek report today was a clear endorsement of the need for an urgent response at first reading from the European Parliament to the Regulation on Reproductive and Sexual Health and Rights in Developing Countries. By supporting this Resolution, we have cleared the way for the Commission to fund operations and agencies which focus on the need to reduce infant, child and maternal mortality. We have acknowledged the right which all people have to care and services, and to choose how many children to have and when to have them. We have voted to renew and increase funding to EUR 74.95m. The Commissioner emphasised he could not formally commit the Commission to that figure, but made it clear that this should not deter us from having an agreement at first reading, saying he was confident we would find a solution. We rejected new amendments designed to distort the focus and substance of the Regulation. The Development Committee and Parliament have agreed a text which does no more and no less than was agreed in the Programme for Action of the International Conference on Population and Development held in Cairo in 1994 and the Kay Actions adopted in 1999.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, I wish to emphasise the child’s and children’s need for community. It is family and relatives who, in the most basic way, can give children the home, and the childhood and adolescence, which they naturally require. I therefore wish also to emphasise how important it is for the amendments tabled by the Group of the European People’s Party and to be adopted in the European Parliament. With reference to a resolution from 5 July 2001, we would emphasise that children are the first victims of the breakdown of family life. We would also point to UNICEF’s splendid draft final document emphasising that the family is the basic unit of society and bears the main responsibility for the protection, upbringing and development of children. We also want to underline what we said in the European Parliament last year, namely that a world fit for children must also be a world fit for the family. The breakdown of the family and of family life are among the greatest and most serious challenges and threats faced by Europe. In my own country, Sweden, a leader of the country’s third largest political party openly pronounced the words, ‘Death to the family’ to the Swedish general public. The European Parliament has a quite different view and instead emphasises the family as the basic unit for providing love and care to the next generation. As we did in 2001, we can highlight these values. It is a message to the world that even so-called modern Europe still realises that the family is the basic unit in which love is given to the next generation. More than ever, we need the family and the appreciation of its importance.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to praise Commissioner Fischler for his insightful comments when introducing this debate, for we know that the environmental situation faces catastrophe when it comes to fishing and sustainability. This does not just apply to cod and white fish. All the scientists are afraid that we are fishing most of our fish species to extinction. We have to remember that, without fish, there would be no fishermen, there would be no economy and there would be no fisheries policy. What we are also in the process of losing is a very important coastal and fishing culture in almost all European countries, which is possibly the worst catastrophe as far as we are concerned. We cannot continue fishing in this way, however. We bear responsibility not only for those living today but also for the future of our children and our grandchildren. In its decision, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy also addressed the fact that we rich Europeans buy – for considerable sums it is true, but still for small change – fishing rights from poorer countries. What are we really doing there? What are our plans for sustainability? What readiness is there to help the poor coastal fishermen on Africa’s coastline? Do we have the right to behave as colonially as we are actually doing when it comes to fishing agreements with developing countries? There are a lot of pretty words on paper, but what does it look like in reality? We have fished ourselves into a catastrophe. For God’s sake, do not let us also fish the poor to the brink of catastrophe too. (The sitting was suspended at 8.05 p.m. and resumed at 9 p.m.) IN THE CHAIR: MR VIDAL-QUADRAS ROCAVice-President

Political group: ELDR
Could the President-in-Office agree that there can be substantial benefits for the environment, human health, developing countries and European science and business from GMO crops? Is there a risk that Europe could miss out on the benefits if we respond to hysteria rather than to scientific fact? The Lisbon Summit declared that the European Union was to be the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy in the world. Is the Council prepared to give a lead by championing the biotech industry with a faster rate of field trials and product approvals by the Member States?

Political group: PPE-DE