GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, my Group wishes to associate itself with the other supportive remarks made following Mr Galeote Quecedo's shocking announcement of the latest murder. We are fully in sympathy with the Spanish people and very sorry to hear about it. This problem with the submarine has to be settled calmly and with full cooperation between all interested, relevant authorities. Calm cooperation is the method which our Union uses. Hence I am happy to support the call by the Commissioner for as much transparency as possible and the publication of the British Government's letter. I felt, listening to the Commissioner's excellent report, growing confidence that the matter is being handled in the proper way. The two major criteria which we have to study are the question of technical safety – a number of Members have spoken about that already – and gaining the full confidence of the public that everything is being handled in the way it should. I am a Member who once used to represent Gibraltar as well as the constituency which I was elected to. So I would like to say something about the overall problem. We are all democrats here by definition. In the Union we all try to look forward and not back to disagreements in the past. We all support the right of self-determination. I count my very dear Spanish colleagues among my best friends in Parliament. Mr Galeote Quecedo and I shared a delegation earlier this year and got on very well. So I should like to say to them that the way is open, in my opinion, for Spain to regain the sovereignty of Gibraltar if it really wishes to. All they have to do is to gain the confidence of the Gibraltarian people who live on the Rock. At some point there may be another referendum among the people on the Rock asking: 'Under whose sovereignty do you wish to live?' The key is to win their votes. The way to do it is to make the Gibraltarian people feel entirely comfortable with the idea of being part of Spain. So do not create difficulties at the frontiers and slow things down; do not create difficulties with air transportation; let there be free movement of people by road, sea and air and let us solve this problem in a calm, cooperative manner and not – as one has seen in some of the resolutions tabled by the smaller groups – in an emotive manner. I am full of confidence concerning what the Commissioner has said so far and look forward to his winding-up remarks.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, on a point of order, I wish to point out that the Council is once again conspicuous by its absence on a day when very important subjects are on the agenda for debate and votes are scheduled on important documents such as the Klamt report which is before us now and which relates to a framework decision on the elimination of trafficking in human beings. The reason I requested the floor is that the opinion of Parliament has been sought on this framework decision. The rapporteur had also received a personal assurance that the Council would not act until Parliament had delivered its opinion. It has no option in any case, because Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union states that the Council shall consult the European Parliament before adopting any measure. The Council, however, has already discussed this matter and took its decision on 28 May, reaching agreement on all but one point. So to all intents and purposes, the Council has already decided on this matter, even though we were unable to debate this issue until yesterday and although we are not yet in a position to present the Council with our decision in the form of a corrigendum. This means that it is the duty of our Parliament to protest in the strongest possible terms, which I wish to do herewith, firstly because the Council went back on its word and secondly because it infringed Article 39 of the EU Treaty, which it has done repeatedly. We in the European People’s Party reserve the right to take further action, but we expect the Council to answer our charge and explain its absolutely unacceptable behaviour, informing the European Parliament why it not only violated the Treaty but also showed contempt for the work of Parliament. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market was first and foremost concerned that the treaty provisions put into concrete terms by the Bosman judgment should also be observed in future European Union policy. We are therefore grateful to the committee responsible that it has incorporated the requests to this effect into its report. We also unreservedly support the Commission's position on this issue. This is necessary because of competition law and freedom of movement for workers. Mrs Reding has already made this point very well. I therefore regret all the more that it has become evident over the last few days that many people in positions of authority in football and other sporting associations are unable to learn lessons and enter into a dialogue. Judging by the statements made over the last few days, you cannot help feeling that the assumption that a lot of footballers' talents lie more in their legs than between their ears is quite justified. So, when we now hear calls for Heads of Government to get involved and turn European law on its head, as it were, then I feel bound to say that this demonstrates that people clearly have no idea what the legal position is. This has got nothing to do with Heads of State and Government at all. It is the European Commission that is responsible for ensuring that the Treaties are respected. And the Commission is exercising precisely that remit. I would like to say, once again, that I unreservedly support the position being taken by the Commission on this issue. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Many of the problems that affect injured parties in trade disputes, especially SMEs with limited resources, arise from the time it takes for the WTO to make its rulings – often many months, if not years. No doubt this will be the case with the new steel dispute with the Americans. But rather than granting compensation, which would probably arrive too late to prevent the business concerned from going to the wall, would it not be better for the WTO to have a system of temporary injunctions, which would require the suspension of such actions on the basis of prima facie evidence of illegal action until substantive decisions can be made? Would the Commissioner be in favour of such a system? If so, could he suggest how one might go about implementing it?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I have the justifiable suspicion that with regard to this Iraq crisis, Prime Minister Aznar has made secret commitments of a military nature to the Bush administration. I can provide the European Parliament with proof of this in the form of a series of significant public statements by Prime Minister Aznar in Spain, in which he demonstrates through the media his unconditional support for Bush, including for a unilateral attack. Does this attitude show loyalty to the European Union? Is this position which breaks European consensus loyal? Are these televised comments by Aznar in which he states that he will back Bush unconditionally in a unilateral attack loyal? Are they loyal, given that we know that that would violate international law and the United Nations Charter? I would also like to make it clear, Mr President, that not even his own country supports him in this, and that it does not support these positions. The enormous majority of Spanish society is against a unilateral attack. Spain opposed the unilateral attack on Libya and on Panama at the time and now it fully supports the common European position. Representatives of the Council and the Commission, has Prime Minister Aznar informed you of his unconditional unilateral support for Bush? With regard to Mr Galeote’s recommendations, they would be cynical if they are not first applied to Aznar.

Political group: PSE
I was impressed by the Commissioner's balanced response to this question but it does not fit particularly well with the UK Government's proposal that the secret services – MI5 and MI6 – should perform surveillance of all Internet traffic. They intend to demand the surrender of encryption codes and to penalise those who fail to surrender them even if the codes have been lost and are unobtainable. Does the Commission consider that this proposal is, firstly, consistent with civil rights, as enunciated for the Community, and, secondly, in the interests of the development of Internet use in the European Union, as rhetorically advocated by everyone, including in particular the British Prime Minister?

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioner, there are two areas that give us cause for concern. The health of consumers is, of course, one of them, but there is also the position of producers here if we are not able to ensure that what may not be used here, may not be used outside the EU either. The question is, who produces these substances and how can they get into the European Union? You have now said there are intensive controls, but – if I understood that correctly – foreign missions are unnecessary because we find bad conditions there anyway. So we do not need to go there. I have heard that today’s meeting of the Standing Committee was to have discussed removing Thailand again from the list of countries that must be subject to special inspections. On what basis was that decision to be taken? I have also heard that you have announced inspection missions to those countries for next year. What reason do you now have to assume that those missions will be worthwhile? I think that, if these countries do not meet our requirements, they should be put on the list, and then they cannot supply us until they can guarantee that the products they supply to the European Union meet our standards. There is another problem that needs to be clarified. What happens to the shrimps, poultry meat and turkey that is imported into the Union and does not meet our requirements? Is it sent back? What is done with it? As we have been saying about food waste for a long time, a ban is not enough. We saw that with the shrimps from China, which somewhere found their way into animal feed and by that route got into the food chain again. What I would therefore like is for you to put forward a clear plan that we, who have to justify ourselves as parliamentarians – including to the Commission – can stand by and say that the Commission, the European Union, is being strict enough here. We cannot have it perceived to be true that you say the Commission enters into trade relations with some countries and is less strict with them, even though doubts have arisen about that recently. I hope you will be able to clear this up in your reply.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, following that completely incomprehensible diatribe from our colleague over there, I want to make a serious contribution, although the situation with the recommendation being rejected is somewhat different. Along with my British Labour colleagues of the , I voted in favour of the underlying principles and sentiments of the Ceyhun report. In doing so, we recognised that the proposals were far from perfect but they did at least attempt to address the present situation. The European Union and individual countries must do more to address the problems and circumstances in the countries of origin that cause people to seek refuge in the European Union. Progress in this area cannot be made overnight and, in the meantime, the interests of desperate people, understandably fleeing from conflict, persecution or other hardship, are not well served by pushing them into the hands of the unscrupulous and those seeking to make money out of trafficking people. The situation of organisations who assist asylum-seekers and refugees has been raised as a contentious issue, but the report recognises that these are legally recognised organisations, responsible and established NGOs, many of whom have a strong and proud record of supporting the very people that this report seeks to assist. In voting for the Ceyhun report we recognise the complexities of this issue and will continue to work for a full and common asylum system for the European Union that has humanity and the interests of the most vulnerable at its core.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the directive we are about to vote on represents a major step forwards. The obligation to carry out an environmental impact assessment at an extremely early stage of town and country planning activities does, in fact, make it possible to incorporate environmental concerns fully right from the conception of town and country planning plans and programmes. The Union has at last realised that we can no longer restrict ourselves to merely picking up the pieces following damage caused by short-sighted planning, but that the damage must be averted as early on as possible. The amendments approved by the Committee on the Environment substantially improve the Council's common position. Firstly, it was upheld that, in order to exert any real influence over national customs, the scope of the directive must be as wide as possible. In this context, I feel that plans and projects financed from the Structural Funds must without exception be governed by the directive, seeing that, in practice, they represent all the programmes implemented, particularly in regions whose development is lagging behind. Secondly, the principle of consultation and provision of information to the public and the organisations concerned throughout the assessment process, in compliance with the Aarhus Convention, has been reestablished. I therefore feel that this is a sound text overall. I understand the concerns of the Members coming from countries organised according to a Federal State model, who fear that the local authorities will be overloaded with work, but I feel that the amendments, particularly Amendments Nos 19, 29 and 31, are sufficient to avoid an overlap between the two directives and still ensure respect for the environment.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner Barnier, I would like to thank you for your proposal. As you will understand, my question – based as it was on the moral conviction that many States, including, I am quite sure, Spain, are not observing the principle of additionality – was in part a rhetorical one designed to elicit a response from you. In any case, as it is obvious that failure to observe the principle of additionality has very serious adverse effects in countries which are less economically developed and have higher levels of unemployment, I would like to ask if you are willing to put in place new and much needed conceptual policy administration instruments which would genuinely, and with the full force of the law, prevent a practice which makes a mockery of the use of Community funds and the very objectives of social and territorial cohesion within the European Union for which you are responsible as a member of the Commission.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, a report like this, on how to deal with drug abuse, will always be controversial in this House. This is because it touches on our inability to control reality, and that is difficult for us as politicians. I therefore think that it is courageous and commendable that the rapporteur has managed to keep both feet on the ground. She says in her explanation, and I quote: ‘In an ideal world there would be no drug abuse. In the real world, drugs have always been a fact of life.’ and that is the way things are. Zero tolerance or simpler still, closing your eyes, is not a solution. The question to our politicians is therefore how can we bring about an improvement to a reality that we do not like. One such possibility is described in Amendment No 24, which encourages Member States to facilitate the testing of synthetic drugs. These are drugs that are mainly used by young people at discos, concerts and parties. A lot of young people use them, perhaps even our sons and daughters, but many of these drugs are not innocent – certainly not if they have been tampered with to increase the profit margin even further. I am in fact talking about ecstasy, the consequences of which have also just been set out by Mr Bowis. It often results in fatal accidents. Testing can reduce the health risks. It puts social workers in touch with users, and it also helps assess the dangerous substances that are available on the market. Testing can take place in testing centres throughout the country or in situ at parties or concerts. You will of course have to be careful and make sure that the approval of a pill cannot be interpreted as a statement that it is a good idea to use it, because of course it is not. Advice, the provision of information and prevention naturally remain key, but I nevertheless think that it is also extremely important for the government to try to make nightlife a little safer. The use of these pills by young people is a fact, and I think that it is important for us to prevent fatal accidents from happening in our children’s nightlife.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I want to speak about three areas: context, dialogue and democracy. Firstly, the context within which this macroeconomic dialogue is taking place. There is a huge and vitally important factor missing although it is reflected in the Treaties and I refer of course, as you would expect me to, to the environment. Article 2 refers to sustainable development as one of the objectives of the European Union, although many of us might question the methods which are set down to attain it. But certainly some of them are macroeconomic, as reflected in this debate. And sustainable development I would like to point out is not the same as sustainable growth which we have been hearing a lot about this afternoon. If growth is quantitative and not qualitative I would submit that we are actually creating instability by making money out of oil spills, clearing up after crime etc. Article VI, Title 2 of the new Treaty clearly states that environmental considerations should be integrated into all areas of European Union policy and practice and we believe that includes macroeconomic dialogue. For example, climate change, if unchecked, is certainly destabilising to anybody’s economy as the European Union’s own research shows. Our own research also shows that economic development in the conventional sense is becoming limited in some areas due to lack of fresh water and that the European Union already produces more toxic waste than it can deal with as a by-product of economic growth. The environment has therefore to be factored in and I would like to know how that is going to be done. Who is going to be represented? We would also like to ask for real dialogue within this, not just economic propaganda. It is essential that we look for new ways and the best ways to meet the objective of balanced and sustainable development in a way which meets our own needs, those of the environment and which does not have a negative impact on the living standards of those in the poor parts of the world. So how are we going to evaluate the wider effects of our own macroeconomic policy? Thirdly, I would ask for the democratic deficit in this process to be repaired, certainly at the next Intergovernmental Conference. I listened to the list of those who were going to be present and it struck me that the process is actually similar to what happens down the pub on a Friday night where you get together with your mates, then go home and tell people what happened and if you are lucky other people might hear the best stories. I want to know how, as elected Members, we are going to be involved in this process, particularly if it is going to be as closed as has been laid out for us. It appears to me that we are not being treated as parliamentarians here, as being grown-up and mature enough to participate in the process of dialogue on macroeconomic policy, and I would urge you to change that and at least open up in the meantime so that we know what is happening and can explain it to our constituents.

Political group: Verts-ALE
It is time that the EU acts in European airlines' interests since they are one of the most severely affected industries of the events of 11 September. I fully support this report, therefore, which aims to lift the financial burden for paying for increased security that airports and airlines currently face. If Europe's airlines are to stay competitive with their American counterparts, they cannot afford to shoulder the additional burden that 11 September has thrown at them. Indeed, in the present climate where American airlines enjoy massive financial handouts, tax breaks and state aid, it is grossly unfair to expect Europe's airlines to survive, let alone compete, when they are currently compelled to pay for new increased security measures. I also welcome the move to delay the entry into force of this legislation until 31 December 2003: airlines need time to carry out the necessary retraining and to purchase additional equipment. Berger report (A5-0122/2002)

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it never rains but it pours, but this especially applies to the distressed population in the east of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Not only have they suffered under conditions of war for years, resulting in numerous refugees, and occupation by neighbouring Rwanda, their plight has now also been compounded by volcanic eruptions. Recent tragic reports confirm the miserable situation the population is in. The short dry season has started and a blanket of heat has descended on the country. There is toxic dust, and toxic vapours are emerging from the lava. The population has no firewood and uses the heat of this lava stream for their cooking fires. You understand that this is a miserable situation involving a city which – at least in part – is reminiscent of Hiroshima in terms of destruction. The section of the city that was not affected by the eruption lives its normal life, insofar as this is possible under these circumstances and under the occupation. This means, therefore, that it is very difficult to distinguish the real victims from the others, and it is currently hard to tell who is suffering the most. This is a report which I have also found confirmed in a recent communication by the Bishops’ Conference which complains about the fact that the rations supplied are, in fact, insufficient, while the food supply is adequate; that a large section of the city has been razed to the ground but that it is hard to tell who are, in fact, the people who have really been hit. Surveys have been carried out, but the results of these are yet to be confirmed. Fortunately, a stream of international aid has been set in motion, and the European Union has played a prominent role in this. I feared that, in my speech here, I would have to pass on a few complaints, for they are obviously brought to my attention. For example, I hear that all aid has to go via Kigali, and that the situation is being taken advantage of there. On the other hand, I have been told that Kigali airport is the most convenient in terms of freight handling, and that aid is no longer being hindered at the moment. I know that aid has been supplied by the Democratic Republic of Congo to Bukavu and that it has to leave from there. However, that aid is labelled as aid from the Congolese population, and the occupying forces therefore do not allow the goods to be distributed. I therefore want to put your minds at rest in a way, but the measures announced by the European Parliament are absolutely vital.

Political group: Verts-ALE