GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, outdoor public areas used to be, above all, the domain of pedestrians and children playing. Since then, the car has claimed a large proportion of these for driving and parking. This represents a great danger in populous urban areas, in particular, but also on narrow country roads with ribbon development. That danger is further increased if cars also have decorative fittings at the front or rear. The use of sharp decorative fittings was banned at national level as many as 40 years ago, but there are still manufacturers and drivers who consider outward appearance more important than other people's safety. That problem cannot be solved on a voluntary basis; this particularly applies to the attachment of bull bars to energy-guzzling jeeps weighing up to 3.5 tonnes. I have been pressing for legislation against the trend – still predominant at that time – for a long time in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism and in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. In plenary conclusions a year ago, Parliament demanded a framework directive in addition to the voluntary agreements with European and Asian automobile manufacturers. Today, I am arguing in favour of the amendments to it that afford maximum protection to non-motorists, instead of continuing to place our hope in motorists switching on their headlights in daylight, for example.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I had forgotten to thank all my colleagues for an enjoyable collaboration, but Commissioner Busquin has also forgotten something. Mrs Quisthoudt-Rowohl asked very clearly what the criteria are for prioritisation. This is not the first time we have asked this; we put the same question at the two previous meetings of the Industry Committee. We do not want to be told that they are general criteria. We asked for a clear description of the criteria for research priorities. We as a committee would very much like an answer.

Political group: ELDR
It should be noted that what is known as the Lamfalussy process for adopting legislation on the financial markets was accepted by the European Parliament, which meant that the basic political choices involved in the process would be taken by codecision and that the technical measures for implementing them would be adopted by the Commission. The main aim of this process is to speed up the implementation of the financial services action plan, in order to create a single market, as an integrated capitals market, by 2005. This process would benefit the main market operators because it would give them substantial influence over lawmaking and would liberalise the movement of capital and financial instruments in order to feed speculators’ greed. The European Parliament accepted this process because it agreed with its aims, thereby placing its legislative power in the hands of others. We cannot, therefore, complain or call this process a simple comitology procedure. By establishing a new organisational structure for committees responsible for financial services, the European Commission is attempting to apply the Lamfalussy process to the banking sector, to insurance and to collective investment undertakings. The European Parliament is once again critical, but once again approves the process because, once again, it agrees with the stated aims. This is a good lesson for those who are such vocal advocates of codecision. - Obiols i Germà report (A5-0120/2004)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, following a point of order made by Mr Corbett, entirely correctly referring to the Rules on this, I should like to draw to the attention of the House that on the previous vote of the Bowe report, if everybody in this House who had an interest in pharmaceutical companies through shareholdings had declared an interest, we probably would not have arrived at the majority required. It is therefore important that Members do not need to abstain on the vote. They need only to make a declaration of interest in committee or in Parliament if they speak on the matter. Otherwise we shall find we are short of majorities on a number of votes where people legitimately have interests. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I very much welcome the establishment of the second phase of Socrates and thank Mrs Pack for her excellent work. We have undoubtedly seen increased cooperation in the field of European education combined with a new commitment to life-long learning and that is heartening. In Wales, my own nation, and indeed the whole of the UK, there is a problem in encouraging the acquisition of language skills across the board. ERASMUS has gone a long way to improving this and I would like to see an increase in the figure of 460 000 participating students a year. Such exchanges make a distinct commitment to better linguistic skills, but also promote cultural cooperation. The Commission must continue to do its utmost to ensure that the application procedure is more user-friendly and I agree with comments by other speakers that at the moment the administrative side of the programme makes it difficult for participants. There has been a real administrative burden on the applicants throughout this programme, particularly under the COMENIUS scheme which needs to be addressed urgently. Regardless of how successful this programme is, it must always be as open as possible for those wishing to participate.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would say that although emotions are running high everywhere here, trafficking has claimed 2,000 casualties over the past five years. What I do see, however, is that the OSCE, the IOM, the Council of Europe, the Commission and Parliament are all coming up with sound proposals. We talk and talk, draft and produce texts and can be very low, very pessimistic, but it is the first time that we are talking at global level and that something is being done to solve the problem. I am always a little hopeful, yet realistic on two counts. Realistic in the sense that practice and theory are two different things. For example, when we repatriate people, for example when we send illegal Poles from Germany back to Poland, you need to realise that, some of them have train tickets, obtained from their illegal employer, to return to Germany, within two hours of their arrival, because that is where they work, where they have their jobs and where they are able to earn money. Secondly, we should not overlook the role of the victims. This entails reception and a document entitling them to walk around freely. And the Chinese must be able to speak out. I have experienced this first hand. Chinese girls, and women, in particular, are more communicative than men, because I have the impression that women are less fearful when it comes to this kind of thing. I know of Chinese girls whose faces have been slashed with knives. They are scarred for life. If they return, if they are repatriated to their countries of origin, the scars will still be visible. They cannot go back. You need to realise that we need to be able to repatriate people of their own free will, but I do not believe in this free will. I think that for certain people, the situation is more complex than that. There are some who are very hopeful and want to go back, but you need to think of the role of the victims. In Great Britain, for example, in Dover, in the UK in general, there are no shelters for victims of trafficking in human beings. There is not even any sound legislation concerning this issue. Accordingly, Europe is responsible for its own legislation, for what we can do ourselves. And we can do this, we are in this fortunate position, unlike countries in the Balkans, the Ukraine, Lithuania, all these countries which are lacking money and resources, where the NGOs are embroiled in a lopsided power struggle. I would like to finish off with a comment on the police forces. I call on you to provide them with the necessary resources for they are fighting a one-sided war.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Mr President of the Court of Auditors, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to focus, in this debate, on the Court of Auditors’ special report on export refunds. This is yet another important contribution to our understanding of the vital need to promote a thorough reform of the CAP in areas such as the funding of exports of agricultural products. Until today, I had never read, in one publication, such a devastating set of facts on the misuse of public funds by the European institutions, some of which are worth highlighting. EUR 80 million from the Community budget were used to fund supplies to Iraq, in breach of the embargo imposed by the United Nations. Little or none of this money has to date been recovered. According to statements made by the Russian customs authorities themselves in August 2000, almost 80% of Community subsidies for exports to that country, currently being examined by OLAF, have proved to be fraudulent. It should be remembered that Russia is the main destination for subsidised European exports. The Community has set up free import agreements with candidate countries, but is still subsidising the export of dairy products to these countries. As a result, we have the classic roundabout scenario already seen in Estonia, in which the Community subsidised butter exports, which were then imported free from customs duties. The number of supposedly pure-bred cattle whose export the Community has already funded would be enough to give some importer countries, with Mediterranean or desert climates, huge reserves of pure-bred European cattle. The system of control and monitoring bodies, designed to ensure the veracity of export statements has proved to be a complete fiasco. The Commission assured us, even in the context of the last budgetary discharge and on the Fléchard procedure, that exports to Russia in particular, were now being properly monitored. This report by the Court of Auditors categorically disproves the Commission’s words.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the debate on a joint European security strategy, which was proposed at Rhodes, and whose end-result is to be a strategy on the agenda at Thessaloniki, is very ambitious, but I detect a certain scepticism in Mr Solana’s remarks, as well as in yours, Mr Patten. It will not be the first strategy, or first draft of a strategy, to be presented, and it will certainly not be the last. Unlike Mr Cohn-Bendit, I take the view that the weak point of this strategy is in fact the point in time at which it is being presented. The impression is given that it is a counter-strategy in response to the USA. The European Union and its security strategy would, I think, have been important enough, without being made to be that sort of initiative. What is true is that the scenario in which we are now living is a new one, characterised by insecurity brought on by regional crisis situations making themselves manifest in international terrorist networks and acts of terrorism, to which they are also exposed. It is also true, though, that the USA and the EU take a different view of this threat, and respond to it in different ways. The USA sees itself as being at war with international terrorism and claim that this entitles them to launch pre-emptive strikes. That is what they did in Afghanistan and in Iraq, putting their trust in their military strength, which nothing in the European Union can match. The European presence and the definition of its tasks are quite different under such circumstances. Up to now, Europeans have been neither able nor willing to open up military fronts in dealing with international threats. I therefore regard their involvement in crisis situations – whether in Afghanistan, from which I returned only yesterday, or in the Congo, as is now being planned – as something to be honoured, but too symbolic and too inconsistent. Simply showing the flag is far from enough. Important though they may be, presences of this sort therefore expose themselves to security risks that are hard to calculate and often call forth expectations that we cannot fulfil. For as long as the Member States of the European Union are not prepared to top up their defence budgets too and make the necessary funds and manpower available, all these doctrines and strategies will seem like empty forms of words. In view of the opposing views within the EU, the attempt at a common strategy seems more like an attempt at concealing differences of opinion rather than removing them, and that is something of which we should beware. The devising of strategies and the creation of joint roles such as that of a European Foreign Minister – which I essentially welcome – do nothing to make up for the lack of the political will to give life to a common European policy and security strategy. The problem of a dualism between the USA and the European Union, and of their mutual alienation, can only adversely affect the quest for a common European security strategy.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, fortunately, what we have just heard is absolutely a minority opinion in this House, and I think we are all delighted about that. I would like to begin by congratulating our rapporteur, Mr Gallagher, on the diligence and efficiency with which he has done his work. He well understood that this was an urgent report, given the situation of the fleet affected by the non-renewal of the fisheries agreement with Morocco. A part of that fleet can now be included in the agreement with Mauritania, which will help to relieve the difficult situation which had been created. The European Parliament is thereby giving its opinion on the Gallagher report on this agreement, which is essential to the European Union, in record time. I also think it is fair to congratulate the Commission on having reached this agreement, which breaks the curse of the failure of the negotiations with Morocco. Secondly, I would like to point out – because there has been false and ill-intentioned information on this agreement – that the agreement with Mauritania is very beneficial for both parties. I insist; for both parties, and that is why it has been reached. Furthermore, I would like to acknowledge that there is no better defender in the world of cooperation development or of the conservation of resources than the European Union. Therefore, neither private agreements nor public agreements with States other than the European Union, above all Asian States, can in any way be compared with the control and rigour applied by the European Union in these international agreements. I would also like to take this opportunity, Commissioner, to condemn the recent seizure of a ship, the Lameiro Uno, which, while sailing towards Mauritanian waters, was seized by Morocco, accused of fishing, when this was not the case. Commissioner, I hope that this intolerable practice by Morocco will not be repeated in the future, since it would jeopardise the achievements of the fisheries agreement with Mauritania. I would ask you to take good note of this, in order to prevent any repetition of these practices, since vessels obviously have to pass through Morocco’s economic zone in order to reach Mauritania.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on Monday and following long negotiations, the Council reached agreement on the statute for European political parties. We therefore have a major opportunity today of passing, at first reading, this law that is so important for democracy and transparency in Europe. If that is to be possible, we must, in the course of the codecision procedure, make the Council and Parliament texts compatible. All the compromise amendments before you fulfil this objective. Whoever, therefore, wants us today to take the momentous step of deciding upon this party statute must vote in favour of the compromise amendments and reject all the others. The translations had to be carried out very quickly between Monday and Wednesday. I would therefore ask Parliament’s language service to check the text for compatibility with the Council’s text, especially where the numbering is concerned, and also to add paragraph 3 of the Council’s text, which we ourselves forgot about, to Amendment No 55.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, even in common parlance the word 'mine' indicates danger, and if an Italian describes someone as 'una mina' they are calling that person a loose canon. The European Union must be united in its action and ensure that the production of landmines is stopped, that all stockpiles are destroyed and that the ground is cleared of mines, and that assistance and means of social and economic inclusion is provided for their victims, who include many children, while safeguarding the development of the community affected. In this sense, there must be a sharp focus on the issue and actions must be undertaken to further raise awareness in order to prevent the matter fading into obscurity. Both the report and the opinions of the Committees, which we are presenting today, stress the driving role played by Parliament and the European Union in the abolition of landmines and in the provision of financial aid to the UN. As Mrs Bonino said, very clearly and explicitly, the Commission's proposal for a regulation is a further step forward. We have tabled several amendments intended to achieve greater clarity and transparency and to consolidate and rationalise the budget lines and our endeavours in the areas of mine clearance and stockpile destruction. These endeavours are carried out in conjunction with many NGOs, to whom all credit is due for convincing people that it is impossible to defer the issue any more. The Union does, however, have a weak point – a number of weak points – namely that we need to put pressure on Finland, which has not yet signed the Ottawa Convention, and on Greece, which has not ratified it, or Europe will lack credibility when it promotes the adherence of all countries to the Convention and raises the question – which we have also raised in the oral question which we are going to put to the Commission – of whether the candidate countries have to sign the Ottawa Convention before they become Members of the Union. The Unmine Monitor report for 2000 clearly shows the progress achieved through the Ottawa Convention. There has certainly been a reduction on a world-wide scale in terms of production and trade and stockpiles etc., with a fall in the number of victims, although the figures are still too high. A great many issues remain unresolved, especially since countries such as the United States have not yet signed the Convention and countries such as China and Russia hold enormous stockpiles. Europe must find a way to ensure that these stockpiles are eliminated from history but linger in our memories as a reminder that we must stop killing people with our lethal products.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I should like to start by congratulating Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca for his usual, very cooperative and consensual approach. I know that Mrs Zrihen, our shadow, who unfortunately cannot be here this evening, appreciated the way in which he worked. This directive, part of a package of measures aimed at making our use of energy more intelligent, should disseminate the existing good practice of some Member States right across the EU, and will also be very important in improving the situation in applicant countries where energy-efficient buildings could do much to help their economies as well as protecting the environment. We as s are very supportive of the amendments put forward by Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca and others. The rapid growth of air conditioning needs to be taken into account more, the possibilities open to Member States in the form of inducements should be clarified, and many of the definitions need to be tightened. One point that Mrs Zrihen wanted to make was that the surface area definitions must be re-examined over the next four years. It could well be that this directive is insufficiently ambitious and that it should also apply to much smaller surface areas. We ask the Commission to prepare for a reduction if that proves necessary. In conclusion, may I once again thank Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca and the Commission. We look forward to more directives as promised by the Commissioner in this important area of energy efficiency, of energy intelligence.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I did not want to disturb you a minute ago during the vote. But I did notice a drop in alertness and when we debated the amendments of our Group of the , you mentioned the on their own in every instance. We are a group of unity in diversity. We want to bring this across in Parliament. I would ask you to use the full name of our Group.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, you are absolutely right, that is the correct procedure. But if we plan to do that and if it is certain that, let us say, Mr Swoboda or I or others move this proposal, it would be only fair to inform the rapporteurs of this possibility.

Political group: PSE
I congratulate the rapporteur on his excellent work. I am opposed to the amendment which aims to increase the maximum boiling point for a volatile organic compound from 250°C to 280°C. Since this has practically no environmental benefits, and since it is even doubtful whether it complies with the eco-labelling rules, this amendment may have highly negative repercussions for paint-manufacturing SMEs.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we understand the reasons why Commissioners Lamy and Fischler cannot be with us this afternoon. Could you confirm, however, that there will be an opportunity for those two commissioners to report to us on the important negotiations at Doha and whether the EU's views were accepted or not.

Political group: PSE