GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the fundamental aim of this directive is to create a system of cross financing that will facilitate the construction of alternative transport infrastructures in particularly sensitive areas. At the same time, it will help to improve conditions for the movement of persons and goods within the Community, it will stimulate increased competitiveness in the transport sector and it will regulate the inclusion of all external costs in the prices paid by users. I am basically in agreement with these objectives, although I would have liked to see a more ambitious text in terms of harmonisation. I nevertheless consider it vital, and I emphasised this in the opinion that I drafted, that the new charges and tolls should not lead to an increase in the aggregate tax burden. For that reason, the Member States will have to revise annual road taxes and registration fees downwards. Lastly, I have taken into consideration that the original proposal did not include any measure to allow for the specific situation of outlying countries, whose transport operators, as regards their ability to compete, will be more affected in the short to medium term than their counterparts in Member States in the centre of Europe. The approval of a new recital covering exactly this point should encourage the Commission and the Council to take this fact into account.

Political group: PSE
President, I have supported the request for specific measures against terrorism in particular because the right of judicial challenge to the European Court of Justice is enshrined in the legal base. This has been clarified by the adoption of the amendments put forward by the Green Group in order to protect human rights. Civil liberties, the infringement of which some are fearful of, should be protected as all procedures are subject to challenge at the European Court of Justice. We cannot be neutral against terror. Europe should support the US in finding and suppressing the terrorists but we should also have a long-term plan to deal with conflict resolution and to put in infrastructural support in places like Afghanistan where humanitarian aid is needed but is only a stopgap to a fully functioning society. For years the European Parliament has called for the support of the civilian population in Afghanistan which has been the subject of terrorism from the Taliban. Women in particular have suffered. There have been increasing numbers of attacks on women throughout the region and in Kashmir by Islamic extremists who have thrown acid in their faces injuring them horribly in order to make them wear the burka, a full face covering.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, since the first direct elections in 1979 I have taken part in all part-sessions of our European Parliament here in Strasbourg from Mondays to Fridays, fifteen of those years as assistant to our unforgotten colleague Otto von Habsburg and now for seven years as a Member of Parliament. Before this, I dealt with this subject as a journalist for a daily newspaper, so I think I know the subject from all three sides that are particularly involved here. I would therefore like to say that I welcome the fact that with our provisional arrangement we have found something that both preserves flexibility and affords security and that the Court of Auditors has also accepted as a sensible and workable system, although I do have a problem with changing the contract basis in mid-period. I think that should really always be settled at the start of the period. Now we are looking at the final assistants’ statute, and we naturally welcome such an assistants’ statute. But I would like to sound a warning against excessive bureaucracy and inflexibility. There are rumoured to be plans for all assistants to be subject to Belgian law. That would not only be a problem for the many staff we maintain in our constituencies, because the very purpose of that is to strengthen feedback to the constituency, but it would also fail to take account of the structure of our Parliament’s work, because following the Council’s decision this House has its seat in Strasbourg and holds its plenary sessions here. As a result, it is often more sensible for Members from southern Germany and from France, for example, to employ an assistant for Strasbourg and for their constituency than to bring the Brussels assistant to Strasbourg. Strasbourg is the seat of Parliament. There is therefore no point in making assistants who work here, for example, subject to Belgian law. Brussels is an important place of work, but it is just a place of work, like Luxembourg. I therefore believe the system must be flexible, that there must be a freedom of choice here that does justice both to Parliament’s three places of work, to the seat in Strasbourg and to the need for constituency work. I therefore believe that the Council, Commission and Parliament must find an arrangement that gives our assistants security but which, as I said, takes account of this Parliament’s specific working conditions, which it did not set for itself, and which enables Members to make arrangements under the laws of the Member State where they were elected or to use an arrangement that does equal justice to their manner, structure and style of work and to the legitimate social interests of our assistants.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, the Group of the is opposed to any move which involves relaxing safety standards and rules for passenger ships. We are also opposed to making the specific stability requirements for ro-ro ships less stringent. Instead, we would argue in favour of maintaining the standards in question as adopted under international agreements and conventions. Furthermore, we would like to draw particular attention to our support for the Commission’s proposal for an improved definition of the concept of persons with reduced mobility. We must fight against social discrimination wherever and however it manifests itself. In this connection, it is worth drawing attention to the obstacles many groups of people encounter, and the discrimination they suffer as a result. I have in mind people with sensory or intellectual impairments, wheelchair users, people with limb impairments, elderly people, pregnant women, small children, those accompanying them, and people transporting heavy luggage. It is worth remembering that the success of the policy on so-called seamlessness, aimed at promoting the use of public transport, depends on transfer from one form of transport to another not turning into an obstacle race. Furthermore, if the needs of persons with reduced mobility are taken into account when designing vessels, the vessels themselves will be safer and more user-friendly for all passengers.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I can continue where Mr Gahrton left off. I think there is a problem in maintaining that social rights must be indivisible and universal and then, at one and the same time in the section headed ‘Solidarity’, referring to national legislation and practice. In this way, it is precisely what is universal and indivisible in these areas that is weakened. It is that part of the content I have problems with. However, I also have problems with the structure we are in the process of setting up. If we really want to reinforce human rights at European level, we ought instead to employ our energy on strengthening the work of the Council of Europe and on having the EU ratify the European Convention on Human Rights and the corresponding conventions on cultural and social rights, instead of slowly developing a system to compete with the Council of Europe, as we are now in the process of doing. Indeed, the Council of Europe represents the whole of Europe, or all European States. We have only fifteen of them – as yet. Finally, there is the problem of wanting to establish a constitution without democratic backing. That will not get the voting numbers up at the next elections to the European Parliament.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, this proposal highlights the desperate state of some of our fish stocks and underlines why it is so important that the Commission and the Council get the reform of the CFP right. There must be no bowing to political pressures. They must ensure that the objective of sustainable fisheries is at the core of fisheries management. While I accept that recovery plans for hake must be specific to that fishery, I do not believe that hake should be excluded from the proposal. As to the details of the proposal, I have some concerns to highlight. Firstly, the Commission must take greater account of mixed fisheries which are impacted by recovery plans. Crucially I am not convinced that the Commission has learned the lessons from the dangers of displacing effort, as we saw in the north of Scotland last year. The Commission must ensure that scientific advice is reliable and verifiable, not just in determining what areas should be closed but determining the effect of such closures. The removal of ceilings on financial contributions under the FIFG is to be welcomed. But the Commission has failed to propose a system which ensures that there is equal treatment of fishermen subject to recovery measures and that it is not promoting unfair competition between fishermen from different Member States. I hope the Commission will heed the committee's amendment calling for Community funding which is not dependent on cofinancing to compensate fishermen under these plans. Safety is of paramount importance. While public aid for modernisation and renewal should not be a bottomless pit, it should be available for improvements to safety. A combination of ageing vessels and days-at-sea restrictions could be a lethal combination. It is vital that safety be taken into account when measuring the impact of recovery plans and, for that matter, fisheries management in general.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking Mr Färm and Mr Stenmarck for their perceptive work. As rapporteur dealing with the implementation of the 2002 budget, I would like to return briefly to the subject of the RALs. I listened to what Commissioner Barnier said to us but we must not disregard the fact that, quite apart from the seasonal factor, which might account for the current exceptionally high level, which will, we hope, fall as much as possible within the space of a few months, we have EUR 15 billion more than we had this time last year. The problem of this huge stack of unimplemented payments must be addressed. I have seen the document, the communication sent to us by Commissioner Schreyer and Commissioner Barnier – for which I thank them – and I am afraid that it may well be a little too optimistic. I feel that this subject requires specific attention because, looking at the matter objectively, we are blocking a set of resources when, really, what is absolutely essential is a spring-cleaning operation which might shed light on the matter, especially where commitments made many, many years ago are concerned. The commitments which have not been implemented must be cancelled, expenditure must be reprogrammed and the barriers removed. This may well be the most important point, for we are talking about simplifying procedures – and we have discussed this in the context of the resources to be earmarked for natural disasters too: it really is extremely difficult for our citizens, our businesses and our public administrations to use Community resources. However, Commissioner Barnier mentioned what I believe to be an extremely valid consideration, and that is the responsibility of the Council and the Member States’ governments. I will end by thanking the Minister, the Council representative, for his amenable contribution to the meetings of recent months. I fervently hope that this favourable climate will remain throughout the short-term future as well.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have been expressing our unhappiness at the lack of attention that has been paid to issues related to our external borders. These constitute one of the weakest links in the system, and this has damaging consequences, not only for effectively protecting internal security, particularly as regards the threats of terrorism, illegal immigration networks and the trafficking in human beings, but also for fully implementing the principle of freedom of movement. It is, therefore, crucial that consistent measures are adopted for border security without calling into question Member States’ own competences. A common policy must be established for controlling the current and future external borders, which will require common rules to be applied and common structures to be created, in order to ensure the integrated management of these borders. Such measures include establishing an independent Agency that guarantees a high and uniform standard of control and supervision. I therefore welcome the Commission initiative, which is broadly encouraging. Mr von Boetticher must be waiting for me to mention his excellent work and indeed, I must congratulate him and state that, like him, I deplore the fact that this initiative has not been given a more Communitarian character. This, as a matter of fact, is precisely what the European Parliament had asked for on previous occasions. We also continue to hope that a proposal will be presented on minimum standards for repatriation procedures and for the mutual recognition of repatriation orders. I am convinced, however, that this will be a positive step towards increasing mutual trust between Member States in monitoring the common external borders. This means that, if the controls one Member State has in place are weak, this will have inevitable knock-on effects on all the other Member States. This becomes all the more relevant if we bear in mind that, with enlargement, the Union will have a further ten new States that will in turn become responsible for monitoring thousands of kilometres of the Union’s external borders.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, you have in front of you a hammer for calling undisciplined Members to order, but you are lucky that it is not a jackhammer! As you know, jackhammers cause angioneurosis, a serious illness caused by vibrations affecting huge numbers of construction workers. This document, signed by Mrs Thorning-Schmidt, who succeeded in conciliation in winning greater protection for workers who use jackhammers, is acclaimed and welcomed by all the workers throughout Europe who are affected by this occupational disease. I therefore congratulate you on your good fortune in not being at risk from illnesses caused by using jackhammers and I confirm that I voted for the Thorning-Schmidt report because I feel that it is right for all workers to be protected.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, with the implementation of INTERREG III, European cooperation policy is entering a new phase. Our attention is no longer focused exclusively on internal borders but also on external ones. In the context of globalisation and cultural openness which characterise the current situation, the European Union needs instruments that will allow it to strengthen its links and communication channels with neighbouring regions, particularly in Eastern and Southern Europe. The Union’s borders must no longer be an obstacle to balanced development, but – on the contrary – an opportunity, a bridge to more fruitful cooperation. By means of amendments adopted in committee, Parliament has tried to supplement the Commission’s work, by including new elements in the list of areas targeted for aid, and in particular external border areas and maritime border areas in Southern Europe. In its draft guidelines, the Commission acknowledges that these borders require greater attention than they did in the past. This is on account of the process of enlargement to the east and that of greater integration with the Mediterranean countries. As President Prodi too mentioned when outlining the strategic objectives for the period 2000–2005, boosting the Barcelona process is a priority for the Union, and the INTERREG III initiative will be able to make its contribution to the pursuit of this strategic objective. In congratulating the rapporteur on his excellent work, we can but hope that the Commission will duly take into consideration the proposals Parliament has put forward, in accordance with the commitments made under the Code of Conduct on the implementation of structural policies, and that it will confirm, with fitting amendments, the transformation of this Community initiative from a mere instrument for internal redistribution to an opportunity to boost and enhance relations with neighbouring countries.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to endorse Mr Van Orden's statement. Yesterday, two people broke into the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Committee, interrupted the proceedings and threatened our guest, the Turkish Minister for Foreign Affairs, both verbally and physically. It was a dangerous situation. As far as I am aware, the two intruders obtained access to the House on the authority of a lady Member of Parliament. I shall give the President the name of the Member in question and ask her to investigate the matter and to take appropriate measures with a view to preventing such disruptive and aggressive individuals from entering the House. The shocking thing is that this incident took place with the aid of a Member of this House. I find it absolutely scandalous that Members of Parliament can stoop to such methods. I should like to put a second point to the Bureau. In our present situation, we shall continue to have problems with the safety of our guests. I believe that we must take action, which we certainly have not done to any extent hitherto, in order to ensure that the guests of Parliament can feel like guests in this House and that they need have no fear of being subjected to threatening behaviour. To that end, we must put the requisite organisational and security structure in place, which also means our guests being directly protected by people who are trained for that purpose, because we naturally cannot employ foreign security staff to escort our guests. I believe we face a new challenge here, to which I ask the Bureau to respond.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Portuguese Presidency and the Commission’s strategic objectives for 2000-2005 both talk of full employment for which two essential conditions are required. The first is to create new jobs for young people entering the labour market and the second is not to lose jobs. Yet the current situation in Europe provides us with clear examples of how jobs are being destroyed, particularly, and most seriously, by companies which are making huge profits. In the past, workers were asked to show their solidarity with companies in order to ensure their survival. Now the companies are making huge profits but are also making workers redundant. Examples have been given in Spain of Michelin and ABB-Alsthom and my colleagues will give examples for Italy. There is also another hidden way of making workers redundant, as practised for example in Spain by the Ericsson company under the term ‘externalising’. Note that sensitive words like ‘redundancy’ are not used. Externalising services by subcontracting these to contract companies results in stable and permanent jobs being turned into precarious jobs without union or social rights. This is just an underhand way of making workers redundant. Commissioner, if the European institutions really believe in what they say about full employment, they must take clear steps to secure this. They must revise the directives in order to guarantee the participation of workers in these negotiations. They must revise the directive on collective redundancies, reduce the working day, link European subsidies to a clear commitment to maintain employment and include social and labour clauses in the international agreements signed by the European Union.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Given that we are talking about the issue of security, I shall talk about external security. I am convinced the task that the new Member States are facing is to prove their ability to have a wider view. They must prove that they do not see European integration merely in terms of Structural Funds, the importance of which is often overestimated. They must prove that they do not perceive European integration in terms of their own problems. They must prove that they are able to understand and to take responsibility for the further development of European integration. When we talk about security, we should bear in mind that our security is influenced by our immediate surroundings, by our neighbouring countries, by North African countries and by the Middle East. These are countries with millions of inhabitants who look toward the EU as their aim and where millions of potential illegal immigrants live. These people can easily fall under the influence of fundamentalist and extremist ideology and become themselves tools of terrorism, which is today the number one threat. If the European Union wants to ensure the security of its citizens it must, amongst other things, make its closest neighbours economically and politically stable by increasing their economic growth, reduce the possibility of migration and reduce the growth of radicalism in these societies. The European Union must use a new financial framework to re-evaluate its development aid policy, and must use adequate resources to ensure that those resources are used effectively. These are real issues and real problems that must be solved. I am very worried that the abstract intellectual exercises in compiling documents, such as the European Constitution, will not help us greatly in solving these problems.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President we are at a crucial juncture, firstly because the report by Mr Gil-Robles, which I will cover in just one sentence, enables us to identify and support opportunities for closer cooperation and to dispel the risks and, from that point of view, it is a very good piece of work. Nevertheless, I would like to concentrate on the Duhamel report, to emphasise how much progress the idea of a constitution has made, including in this House. Everyone, or almost everyone, who has spoken has done so in support of this idea and we feel that this is already a huge victory. Why are all these people fighting and militating for the idea of a constitution? They are doing so in order to ensure that Europe becomes a democracy. In other words, all the decisions that are now trapped within the so-called intergovernmental debate, discussions in the corridors of power and behind-the-scenes diplomacy, all these decisions that are taken behind closed doors and shrouded in obscurity will become the business of the citizens, the general public, European public opinion. We, of course, take the view that this is the purpose of the constitution, over and above the already positive purpose of clarifying the Treaties. As a result of the Duhamel report, we finally have a credible script. Even if this two-stage process is not ideal, at least we can see where we are going. My last point is that, when it comes to drafting the Constitution for real, the key point will be to determine wherein the legitimacy of the European authority lies, and, in our opinion, it must come from the peoples, from our citizens and their representatives, the European Parliament and perhaps the national parliaments. Democracy is the power of the people.

Political group: PPE-DE