GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I tabled this question not out of concerns about health or trading issues but out of concern for the credibility of the European Commission. I was in this Parliament when the ban was introduced originally and I voted for a minority report that was proposed by Professor Tom Raftery, an expert on all these matters. He firmly believed that the motivation behind the proposal to ban these products was political. As a German Member of Parliament told me: 'Professor Raftery is right, but there is a wave of hysteria in Germany so I must vote against him'. I do not think that a wave of hysteria is sufficient grounds for legislation by the European Commission. My understanding is that the Commission's position is not supported by the best scientific evidence from the United Nations, the United States, Canada, New Zealand or Australia. These people are not noted for putting the health of their own citizens at risk, and they too base their policies on what they regard as sound scientific advice. I want to ask the Commission if it agrees with me that in the present climate, when the European Commission is being put into a position of banning so many products and processes – even research itself in some instances – it is extremely important that what we do is seen to be soundly based and reliable. To do anything else will undermine the long-term credibility of the European Commission. I believe that we are doing that in this case.

Political group: PPE-DE
This report deals with a problem of the greatest importance for the future well-being of workers in the European Union, for whom it is necessary to guarantee safe and sustainable pension systems for the long term. Now as is well known, there has been no lack of catastrophic visions for the future of social protection, based on the ageing of the population and increased life expectancy. Although the report does not distance itself enough from the more negative positions of the Commission, particularly when it refers to the need for greater flexibility in pension systems, it does highlight the importance of the rise in the employment rate and of public systems based on intergenerational solidarity, and a fair balance between proportional contributions and benefits, on the one hand, and the principle of solidarity, on the other, in order to prevent poverty and social exclusion. It also takes up the 1992 recommendation concerning the minimum income to be guaranteed by the social protection systems, by supporting initiatives for its implementation. However, the report does not go far enough regarding what needs to be put into practice in terms of economic and social policies so as to effectively ensure that public systems are sound enough and guarantee worthwhile pensions. For that reason, I abstained.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I am amazed and saddened that this matter should be back up for discussion. In November 2001, the developing countries were rejoicing in the Doha Declaration, which authorised them to have recourse to compulsory licences for public health reasons. There is just one cloud on the horizon: countries with no production capacity must have the medicines they need manufactured in another country and a company may only manufacture a medicine if 51% of its production is intended for the national market. This problem in paragraph 6 should have been solved before the end of 2002. It has still not been solved. In the meantime, the American pharmaceutical laboratories, who are the main financial backers for the Bush campaign, have returned to the attack. The proposals made by the United States or the European Union, which are each more restrictive than the last, have resulted in failure. Today, the Trips Council is proposing to return to the previous wording allowing recourse to compulsory licences in urgent cases, a solution that proved inapplicable and led to the Doha Declaration. The objective of paragraph 6 must be to ensure that countries with no production capacity can genuinely use compulsory licences. On the contrary, however, some proposals create discrimination between first-class countries with a production capacity and second-class countries with no production capacity, which are, in fact, the poorest countries. The former will be able to use compulsory licences to manufacture any medicine that responds to a public health problem that they themselves have identified, whereas the latter will have to prove that they are experiencing a national situation of urgency. Although, in theory, all countries may have recourse to compulsory licences, in practice, the poorest countries will have to fight to have urgent situations recognised, obtain their licence and have their medicines manufactured. This proposal is unacceptable and I would ask you, Mr Lamy, to propose a solution that is genuinely beneficial to developing countries so that health takes precedence over profit, as you yourself said so well.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, as our friend Mr Oostlander said: by adopting the report by Baroness Nicholson a fortnight ago, we chose to express Parliament’s concern at the attitude of the Romanian authorities in the previous and current phases of the negotiations. The concern was such that we doubted whether the negotiations could be concluded by the end of the year and therefore whether Romania could join us by 2007. This strong message has today been taken on board at the highest level by Romania and we warmly welcome the personal commitments from the Prime Minister, Adrian Nastase, especially as they were accompanied by very concrete initial measures, which will certainly speed up the reforms that are still needed in order for the country to conform to the Copenhagen criteria. We should not forget that, to date, the Commission has been able to close twenty-two of the thirty-one chapters that it had to examine and that considerable progress in the fundamental areas of reform of the judicial system and in combating corruption should follow very quickly after the major cabinet reshuffle under way. The repeal announced of the current provisions of the criminal code, which is capable of limiting the freedom of the press, and, most importantly, the swift adoption of legislative provisions aimed at better protection of children, will be further tangible proof to us of the will of the Romanian authorities. To conclude, we welcome these encouraging signs and hope that they will enable the Commission to guarantee, in good time, that the accession of Romania will take place on the planned date, in circumstances that will ensure the good functioning of a further enlarged Union.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, the role played by innovation in achieving the ambitious objectives set by the European Union in Lisbon has been mentioned by the rapporteur, whom I congratulate on his detailed report, and by previous speakers. However, the importance of innovation to our economic and social development needs to be appreciated more both by the Member States and by the European Commission itself. Delays in implementing innovative measures under the Structural Funds and the cancellation of resources are sad proof of the fact that innovation often gets no further than the drawing board. So we need a decisive and coordinated policy which ensures that innovation penetrates our entire economic and social fabric and that our citizens' creative powers are give free rein. That is why I should like to highlight the fact that this policy needs to be driven by the principle of equal opportunities. For a start, I do not believe that innovation is the duty or preserve of the young, I believe it should affect all ages with lifelong learning and the other methods mentioned by previous speakers. I would like to point out that we need to encourage women in their individual and collective efforts, such as setting up companies, and we need to encourage women's non-governmental organisations to take an innovative approach to social activities which have a positive impact on social cohesion and job creation. Equal opportunities should also apply geographically, given the huge discrepancies between the regions of the European Union when it comes to innovation. Both the European Union and the Member States should pay special attention to disadvantaged regions, which are usually the mountain and island areas of the Union. With the lack of innovation in Europe compared with the United States and Japan, we need to get moving and mobilise our forces. This means that the spirit of innovation must also drive the European Union's innovation management policy. Special units, such as the unit set up to manage innovative measures under Article 6 of the European Social Fund, are a step in the right direction, they just need to be adequately staffed to make them effective. The European Commission must also focus on disseminating the results of best practices, which is why pioneering methods need to be found, with much better penetration and efficiency than those available under past policies and both the Member States of the European Union and candidate countries must work with the European Union and take appropriate steps to disseminate best practices and adopt all the new models which account for the performance of the best countries.

Political group: PPE-DE
I voted against the compromise resolution on Iraq because it goes back on the position taken up by Parliament on 30 January last. The new resolution does not condemn this unilateral military intervention, which has taken place without the backing of the UN, which I consider to be essential. Some Members appear to be more susceptible to the language of force and the fait accompli of this war than to international law and public opinion as expressed in street demonstrations. The European Parliament, while bombs are destroying Baghdad and international law is being disregarded, is content to bemoan the war, regret the fact that inspections did not continue and ask the belligerents not to use weapons of mass destruction. This would undoubtedly have been a cause for concern for our citizens. No resolution at all would be better than this lame compromise.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I just want to avoid any confusion. As we have already accepted the compromise, I recommend that the House vote against Amendment No 22. That will keep us in line with the compromise with the Council. Apart from that, thank you all for your support. (The President declared the amended Common Position approved) *** Report (A5-0356/2000) by Mrs Honeyball on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on summer-time arrangements [COM(2000) 302 – C5-0322/2000 – 2000/0140(COD)]

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, my sincere thanks to the rapporteur and the others who have contributed to this report. I believe that it is very significant that we have concluded that further research is needed. I think it a shame in itself that this further research was not carried out in parallel with the discussions that were held with the Member States, because that might have saved some time. Now that it is like this, however, I do think that Mrs Glase is quite right when she says that that is not to be expected with the proposed amendment. Therefore, I think that it is simply not possible. What we are dealing with here is a very important directive. Why is it so important? We must look into the past to find the answer to this question. There have been two important periods. There was the period in which a good few people from the United Kingdom, in particular, came to work on the continent; and there was the period in which a good few people, chiefly from Eastern Europe, came here to work. Both periods gave rise to a good few problems. At that time, Germany still had a genuine social policy. I have the impression that that has now been somewhat diluted, but at that time it was still being conducted. It was then that the legislation on posted workers was conceived, and this matter at European level evolved from that. I agree that the practical implementation is far from ideal, but we must recognise that this is ultimately a matter for national governments. We can urge them to do much better – and it is also my opinion that the priority accorded to this matter is completely inadequate – but I should also like to sound a note of caution. Recently, I happened to be on a mission in the east of the Netherlands, and we saw that the new enlargement will cause new problems there, to which implementation of the idea and principles of this Directive would present an eminently suitable solution. If we fail to implement these, we can indeed expect a problem or two; not because people want that, but because there are always people who are on the lookout for loopholes in legislation and perhaps go on to exploit these, and that then produces all manner of undesirable repercussions. I think, therefore, that we have to be extremely careful over the next two years. I think that the Member States must improve the practical implementation of the existing Directive, but I also think that the Commission – and we, too – must advocate that this matter be well organised, because otherwise we shall endanger the actual, practical implementation of enlargement in the sphere of labour markets. We must not forget this, because it is a serious risk. This problem is being grossly underestimated, and that worries me. The failure to implement these types of rule is not considered terribly important in the long term, but it leads to the decline of social systems. It also results in a general waning of respect for the law, because people will think that if it is possible to make a mockery of the rules in this sphere, this can be done elsewhere, too. This is dangerous ground, therefore, and it is clear that we must pursue this topic.

Political group: PPE-DE
Ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I find it disappointing that yet another report on gender mainstreaming has to come before the European Parliament, a policy that was approved years ago and should have already been implemented. This is to not to detract in any way from Mrs Gröner's efforts in this excellent and very full report. When I dream of mainstreaming and the resulting equality between men and women in this institution, I also see the first female secretary-general and a 50/50 division between men and women in all grades. Half of the people working part time would be men and in the late afternoon there would be children running around who had been collected from a crèche for which there was no waiting list, and which had been provided by Parliament. This House would also be run by both sexes in an innovative, progressive way that would result from the differences between the sexes. This is, however, a dream. I therefore see a the gender mainstreaming report as a missed opportunity to fully integrate the acquis communautaire in respect of equality, including the Hautala directive adopted by the Council not so long ago, into the statute of public servants and the personnel policy of the European Parliament. I find it unacceptable that the Member States introduce equality legislation while the European Parliament fails to do the same. During school holidays or an unforeseen strike at school we see many children running around in this House. They are children of assistants, staff members or of the members themselves. They are not always of an age that they can go to the crèche, assuming that, as in my dream, there is no waiting list. Where in this huge building is there a small play area with toys, paintbrushes, and so on, where we can leave a child safely for a few hours? This would therefore be in keeping with the policy that is aimed at the reconciliation of social, family and working life with one another. Fellow members, unfortunately I have to inform you that my contribution so far has been based on an argument that I articulated in this House on 8 March 2002 to add lustre to International Women’s Day. Still nothing has changed. It is unbelievable. I would like to conclude by saying that our Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities is going to have a major part to play in verifying the implementation of Mrs Gröner’s report.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I would like to congratulate Mrs Bastos on this exhaustive report on a subject – mobility – which is so important, so crucial for a Europe which is hoping to achieve greater competitiveness through the creation of new, higher-quality jobs. I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome the Commission’s Action Plan, which contains practical measures for creating a more favourable environment for the European labour market by 2005, making it more open and accessible for all. I am pleased to find included a number of recommendations which I and Mr Evans made two years ago in our report on mobility within the Community, in particular the mobility of students, people undergoing training and people doing voluntary work as well as teachers and researchers. Then, last but certainly not least, there is a special section which deals with the mobility of people with disabilities. We need to go further, however. If, indeed, we want a Europe with more and higher-quality jobs, with greater social cohesion – in other words, if we want to achieve the ambitious but necessary Lisbon objectives – it is essential that we continue to concentrate on eliminating once and for all those barriers which still exist, restricting the professional and geographical mobility of the European citizens and, indeed, limiting their potential. We cannot afford to let this absurd situation continue any longer. It is easier for money, goods and services to move within the European Union than the European citizens themselves. Consider the strategic role of the local authorities, the opportunities provided by teleworking and the need to modernise and fully exploit the potential of the Eures system. This is something I stressed in my report on the Sixth Framework-Programme for Research too. We therefore need to update and simplify coordination of social security once and for all, speed up revision of Regulation No 1408/71 and address and resolve together the complex issue of supplementary pensions. A key issue, then, which Mr Zappalà is currently addressing in committee, is that of academic and vocational qualifications and the mutual recognition thereof. We must, at last, achieve that European area of qualifications which will complete the reform of the internal market, increasing mobility between the different Member States of the Union considerably.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to make four proposals to help the IGC reach a successful conclusion. Firstly, as regards the qualified majority formula, we need to raise the number of states needed to form a majority, while at the same time raising the population threshold needed to form a blocking minority. That should please the smaller states and not frighten those larger states which are genuinely committed to making it simpler for the Council to reach a decision. The sensible equation which seems to be commanding greater support is 55-55. Secondly, the IGC needs to drop from the constitution a specific number for the size of the Commission, a college which needs to grow and shrink according to supply and demand like any national administration. We should also drop the principle of equal rotation. Frankly, having a Commission without a representative from France would be fairly implausible. Mr Giscard d'Estaing himself concedes that the Convention's formula for the Commission was not the most glorious of our many achievements, and Commissioner Kinnock agrees. Thirdly, the IGC should be convened at summit level, preferably before 1 May, to enable a genuine political debate with a European dimension to be held. So far, unfortunately, this has simply not taken place. Fourthly and finally, our leaders need to find the moral courage to shape Europe politically. If they fail to do so they will be consigned to history as foolish cowards.

Political group: ELDR
Immediate, radical measures are urgently needed in order to protect the environment from the adverse impact of the ever increasing use of air transport. However, the Commission proposal approaches the problem from the angle of competition and the profits of the aviation industry and the airlines. As a result, it fails to deal with immediate priorities and, more importantly, only addresses in vague and general terms the problem of permissible limits on emissions of greenhouse gases and the definition of new, or at least improved, standards and rules which need to be applied at local and regional level and promoted at international level. Similarly, it only contains vague, unsatisfactory proposals on reducing permissible noise levels, especially in the vicinity of airports during the day and, more importantly, at night. A whole series of basic issues, such as land use around airports, improving air traffic etc. has been ignored, issues which are important factors in dealing with the environmental impact of air transport. The Commission proposal is mainly money-driven. Instead of forcing aerospace companies to develop research and apply newer, more environmentally-friendly technologies, it backs measures to boost revenue by introducing new taxes on aircraft purchases or changing the VAT arrangements for airline companies or the tax on kerosene, all of which can easily be passed on to the final consumer. Attempts to reduce the number and times of flights by increasing the price of tickets, in conjunction with constant efforts to erode labour costs and safety specifications, are merely ways of maintaining, if not increasing the profits of the aviation industry, not measures to reduce the adverse environmental impact of air transport. Typically, no mention is made of liberalising the air transport market, which is exacerbating not only the environmental impact, due to restricted controls on old, inadequately maintained aeroplanes, but the very safety of flights and passengers. - Zabell report (A5-0203/2000)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we are in favour of this debate being dealt with on a European as well as an international level, because we think that the Ustica question, with its fatalities and the controversy left in its wake, which are still an issue in our country, deserves to be clarified, and must be clarified. If we all want to be European citizens, if we want a shared destiny, we must not regard this as just an Italian matter but as a matter for the international community, and it must be investigated and resolved at this level. We are asking for military activities to be definitively and transparently coordinated with civilian activities. This is the transparency that citizens are asking for, this is the justice we want, this is the sense of justice that is being requested by the citizens, by the people who have suffered this grave loss as well as by the entire international community. We are asking, therefore, for serious cooperation between political and military activities. We are asking for justice to be done. Just as Cermis was not only an Italian matter and was dealt with at an international level, so Ustica deserves to be discussed here. It deserves to be clarified and it deserves our respect, as does the work of the magistracy, which must get to the heart of the matter, clarify blame and charge those responsible.

Political group: ELDR