GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I am speaking as a result of personal comments during this debate relating to my abstention on 11 March when an oral amendment was presented proposing that 11 March be named European Day against terrorism. I must clarify that I am not against an international day against terrorism, nor a European day against terrorism. If I had been against, I would have voted against; I abstained, because in the justification of that statement a false and manipulative element was introduced, which deceived European opinion with regard to the identity of the perpetrators of those tragic and horrific attacks. It was also stated that the Basque Government has not been able to beat terrorism in twenty years. I must point out that Mr Aznar, the Popular Party Government, promised to put an end to terrorism within five years; eight years have passed and now, rather than one form of terrorism, we have two. We must begin to understand that it is not possible to beat terrorism through police and judicial measures alone. The key is that we must put an end to injustice and poverty. The key is to respect the identity, culture and religion of other people and to have equitable international legislation, that we respect everybody and not just when it suits certain interests.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, unfortunately, the Prodi Commission’s existing policy on fighting fraud can really only be described as hesitant and dilatory when it comes to the really crucial questions. And I have very little hope that this will change, especially in the matter of the European Financial Public Prosecutor. A Green Paper is all the Commission has planned for the remaining years of its term of office. Your much-vaunted Commission reform programme lacks the crucial safety net. Those who abuse their freedoms must be capable of being brought to account. Your first duty ought to have been to clear up the old cases and call those responsible to account. Instead, you are hiding behind a hesitant judiciary in Belgium and Luxembourg. To prevent this sad truth from becoming so evident, you are following a policy of concealing information from Parliament, which you now want to get expressly embodied in the Financial Regulation. You are claiming for yourself the right to decide whether informing Parliament about a procedure is in the European Union’s interest or not. I would like to have seen you when you were a member of the State Parliament in Berlin, Mrs Schreyer, if the Governing Mayor had told you it was not in the city’s interest to inform you about certain things. That is precisely how you are presuming to treat the European Parliament today and you clearly fail to appreciate that in so doing you weaken not only this Parliament but, ultimately, also the Commission of which you are part.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I shall deal specifically with the Collins report. I wish to congratulate Mr Collins on his work and also the Commission on having presented us with this report on protecting the rights of air transport passengers. This is an issue which concerns an increasing number of people, more Europeans, because the numbers of air passengers are increasing. Dissatisfaction is also growing, however, with regard to the transport available to us and with the conditions in which they are provided. The European Parliament and the Commission have the responsibility of protecting the interests of Europeans travelling via air transport. It is true that the problems faced by passengers are not entirely the fault of the airlines; they are also caused by the airports, and we must confront both of these situations. These days, airports feel like underground stations, in which the density of people is such that there is no degree of comfort and it is difficult to feel safe. With regard to transport, passengers demand safety but they also want to know in advance the conditions in which they will be travelling. I am grateful to Mr Collins for having accepted many of the amendments that we tabled to his report, because I feel it has been genuinely useful to include them. Passengers must know in advance and be able to compare the conditions that the transport offers them. Not only the prices, but also the conditions of safety, of comfort – the distances between seats, for example – and also conditions such as the air quality. One possibility that has been mentioned, admittedly, is for flights to become no smoking, but the conditions of safety against pollution have been reduced in order to reduce air transport costs. We must confront this problem vigorously and I also wish to ask Commissioner Loyola de Palácio whether she still intends to table legislation in this field by the end of the year, and, if so, what will it be?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I want to begin by thanking the rapporteur for a good report and for the sensitivity she has shown in accepting arguments from the various political groups and in listening to the organisations and the movement representing people with disabilities. She has been exemplary in the way she has attended to her task as rapporteur. People with disabilities are discriminated against today. Freedom of movement, which is basic to EU cooperation, is significantly more difficult for people with disabilities to make use of when it comes to seeking work or, in the case of young people, studying in other countries. There is clear discrimination in this area. The same applies to the labour market. Unemployment among people with disabilities is very high. They also find it more difficult to achieve the kind of access to information we often discuss nowadays. We must adopt a pro-active attitude, for all this can be prevented. Disability is not a static phenomenon. It is the environment which is at fault, and this can be changed. Nowadays, we have interpretation using sign language, for example. We can design buildings and workplaces differently, making them more accessible to people with disabilities. This is something which is possible to implement, because it is about changes to the environment. We can implement changes. The change must affect all areas of policy, moreover. Not only can social, transport or labour market policies be changed, but all policy areas. In the labour market, where unemployment is approximately three times higher for people with disabilities, it is important that, in addition to devising indicators for improving older people’s, women’s and other groups’ chances of obtaining work, we should also include people with disabilities. Many people have pointed out how important a change in social attitudes is to integration. I myself come from the world of education. It is important for people with disabilities not to be hidden away but to be included in the world of education so that everyone can obtain education and training on the same terms and so that we see how people with different qualities are able to work together. That is incredibly important if attitudes are to be changed. Finally, it is important for voluntary organisations and organisations representing people with disabilities to be integrated into this work. Let the Year of Disabled Citizens be a point of departure for an offensive in which we devise new directives and a new action programme, so that we can obtain a Europe without obstacles and with equal opportunities for all.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the own-initiative report by Mrs Avilés Perea makes us realise that the massive, ambitious and financially generous Structural Fund policy has done little to help women, despite the fact that the 1991 framework directive applicable to all the funds sets equality as one of its basic objectives. We have seen that, despite the Member States’ commitment to incorporate the objective of mainstreaming equal opportunities in the Community Support Frameworks, this commitment has not been honoured. There is a lack of specialised monitoring mechanisms, adequate information, adequate quantitative and qualitative indicators and adequate preparation and training of officials in charge, as the Commissioner mentioned. The previous speakers referred to all these shortcomings and the opportunities lost for promoting equality and creating infrastructures which will have a direct and positive impact on women’s lives. My point is that there is no public debate on this issue in the Member States; no debate about their obligations, about the need for evaluation and about the need for a policy change. It is very significant that this debate is being held at the same time as the mid-term review and we must continue and extend it to the Member States; we must help to broaden this debate, including in the new Member States and we must give them to understand that the Structural Funds and the new structural policy will give them an important tool with which to meet the challenges they face. We must also work with them to ensure that the new structural policy includes appropriate policies to plug the current gaps and an understanding and awareness of the need for the decisions made in the Member States to be put into practice.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President-in-Office of the Council, I thank you for your detailed reply, but I would like to ask a couple of supplementary questions because I put this question before the tragic events of 11 September. The Council is aware of the current security problems on our continent. So I would firstly like to ask whether the Council is aware that we have an open border across which the European Union’s security cannot be guaranteed? And in this regard, whether the Council is aware that every day hundreds, and every month thousands, of people are losing their lives as a result of maintaining this deceptively open border, because many of those who try to cross it die in the process? That is to say, what can the Council do to prevent this human tragedy from continuing and to guarantee the security of the citizens of the European Union?

Political group: PSE
I shall, of course, continue in the same vein, especially as I feel we must consider that this debate bears witness to the fact that increasing numbers of people, particularly within the European Union, are wondering about applying stricter control to financial speculation and also about the ability of the political authorities to intervene in this economic sphere and the extravagant powers of the multinationals. Further to the comment which Danielle Auroi made just now on the subject of the countries of the South, I would add that there are some expert estimates which provide some interesting figures, for instance, a range between USD 50 and 250 billion, which could be recovered by a Tobin-type tax, whereas, at the same time, the UNDP [United Nations Development Programme] amounts to USD 40 billion per annum, which would be sufficient to guarantee minimum living conditions for the hundreds of millions of deprived people in the countries of the third world. So, at a time when people feel that politics does not have the ability to intervene in the economic sphere, and also more generally in the role of European construction in order to alter its conduct of international relations, do you not think that a measure of this kind could contribute to restoring confidence in the political world’s power to act and, hence, could it not serve as a message sent out to the countries and the peoples of the South?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, on 21 September last, a farmer of the town of De Panne, which is Belgium’s westernmost point near the French border, came across 45 refugees on his land one evening, 15 of whom were children. These people were received and cared for by that town, but quite remarkably, they claimed to have been dropped across the border by the French police. The police had picked them up in Calais, taken them from Calais to the Belgian border and had no qualms about subsequently dropping them off in Belgium. A very strange business, all the more so because, according to other witness statements, it appears that this is not the first time this has happened. Fortunately, this incident has been settled at the highest level between the French and Belgian authorities, and it appears that they found a way of discussing it. However, to my great surprise, I was informed by a Belgian that it is not just the French who get up to these tricks, but also the Dutch and Germans. When I asked him if the Belgians do the same thing, he confirmed this and said, now and again. This leads me to conclude that everyone still has the standard European reflex, namely to pass on their problems to their neighbours. In my opinion, it is high time that we, as European legislator and as European Parliament, at least pressed for a European reflex. Just as Europe did too little during the oil crisis, it is also making its presence felt insufficiently with regard to this disturbing problem.

Political group: ELDR
The Seppänen report on forest-based and related industries is a step in the right direction, endeavouring as it does to overcome the confines of commercial competitiveness and create wider and deeper prospects for European forests. It is particularly important in this context to: -

Political group: GUE-NGL
Amendment No 1 having been rejected by the plenary (the Varela Amendment, adopted in the Committee on Fisheries), Article 1 of the Commission’s proposal is fully retained, which includes hake and also a precautionary biomass target of 165 000 tonnes. Taking into account that this target was questioned by the most recent scientific recommendations, reducing it to 145 000 tonnes, and that the Commission itself said in meetings of the Northern hake workshop that a target of 120 000 tonnes could be acceptable, we cannot vote in favour of a Proposal that includes hake and that sets the target at 165 000 tonnes. There is also a contradiction in the Stihler report, as in her explanatory statement the rapporteur herself recognises this quantity of 165 000 tonnes as being “too high' (Biomass Targets) and in her conclusions she says that 'a relaxation in the targets for hake [...] should be allowed'. The plenary has also adopted amendments that improve the Commission’s proposal, which we have supported, so neither can we reject those improvements which, although they are inadequate, do, however, prevent us from voting against the report, which is why we have abstained in the final vote on it. - Ayuso González report (A5-0198/2002)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, as has already been stated in this House, the harsh winter in Portugal this year has been characterised by terrible floods which have caused loss of human life and enormous suffering, high levels of material damage costing billions of escudos, the destruction or damage of homes, transport infrastructure, telecommunications networks and energy grids and considerable damage to economic sectors, particularly agriculture and trade. Now, as we all know, Portugal has one of the lowest levels of GDP per capita in the European Union and the forecast made by the Commission in its second report on economic and social cohesion estimates that last year, Portugal moved even further away from the real convergence that it had experienced since 1991. It is therefore crucial that the European Union provides exceptional aid in order to address the damage that has been done and to make its contribution to the huge effort that is currently underway. We therefore urge the Commission, together with the Portuguese Government and local authorities, to provide exceptional financial aid to complement the resources that have been made available by the Portuguese authorities in order to meet the urgent needs of the communities that have been most badly affected, and to facilitate the rebuilding of infrastructure that has been destroyed and the resumption of economic activity. A reallocation of appropriations that have already been earmarked is not enough. I repeat that what is needed is exceptional aid.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs has submitted a proposal to Parliament rejecting an initiative from the Kingdom of Denmark under the third pillar. The Commission and your rapporteur believe that this position must be adopted to ensure that Parliament clearly states its deep dissatisfaction with the situation of paralysis afflicting the third pillar, for which the Member States are responsible. Important Commission proposals both before and after 11 September 2001, primarily the package of measures to combat terrorism, remain blocked in the Council or are still awaiting transposal or ratification by the Member States. Unable to achieve the consensus necessary in the Council, or to honour their commitments in national legislation, the Member States are using and abusing their right of initiative. We have received a plethora of outlandish proposals, by which I mean proposals that do not form part of any plan and did not feature in the Commission’s ‘scoreboard’. These are arbitrary, insignificant, incoherent proposals, sometimes dictated by the national political agenda, and transform the third pillar into an ever-expanding universe, containing chaos in all directions; a bureaucratic ball of thread without ends. It is the European Parliament’s duty to condemn this smokescreen, which consists of apparent legislative hyperactivity, which contributes to disguising the Union’s lethargy in a crucial area, especially after 11 September 2001 – and the political inability of the Council and the Member States to bring a single significant measure coming from the Commission and laid out in the scoreboard into force. The gulf between the words of political leaders, not least government representatives, and their translation into concrete actions is taking on scandalous proportions in the field of combating transnational crime. We must put an end to this situation. This is the message that the European Parliament wishes to send to the Council and to the Member States. - Piétrasanta report (A5-0428/2002)

Political group: PSE
The joint text for a European Parliament and Council directive on company law concerning takeover bids is rejected by my group. The compromise approved by the Conciliation Committee is unacceptable to us. As the proverb says, ‘Time brings everything to those who wait’, and after 12 years of discussion, we could have expected that a perfect directive would be produced. Yet the opposite is the case. What are the problems? 1. There are protected companies in the Member States, either through voting restrictions, ‘golden shares’, or multiple voting rights, etc. The directive entrenches a situation in which protected companies can take over unprotected ones, yet unprotected companies cannot take over protected ones. This means that there is no equal treatment (‘level playing field’). 2. The directive fails to include principles governing the definition of the ‘equitable price’ to be offered in the case of a mandatory bid; it also contains no provisions on ‘squeeze-out’ (the right of the majority shareholder in a company to acquire the shares of minority shareholders). 3. European companies would be exposed to pressure from the major financial corporations in Europe, with wealth creation henceforth giving way to the sole aim of maximising profits. This in turn increases the danger that this type of takeover will result in large-scale job shedding. 4. The co-determination rights of workforce representatives are not sufficiently articulated. The requirement that appropriate information should be given to the representatives of the company’s employees offers no guarantee that they will be able to exert any influence on the takeover process. The Commission itself is quite aware of these problems as well, for it proposes that a group of company law experts be requested to examine the further harmonisation of company law and define a clear position on Article 9 of this directive by March 2002. What kind of logic is that? I think it would have been more sensible to convene a group of experts to present its conclusions and then produce a directive, rather than first producing a directive and then asking a group of experts to discuss the unresolved problems. Moreover, in conjunction with the directive on company law concerning takeover bids, a directive on the requirement for neutrality is urgently required. This has been available in draft form since 1972 and has still not been adopted. It is time for Mr Bolkestein and the Council to do their homework. To give them the chance to do so, we have rejected the text before us.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Solana, we are dealing here with a struggle for existence between two peoples. That is very much how it appears from their own subjective point of view. It is a struggle for existence in which neither side exactly has the benefit of good political leadership. Given that situation and the fact that emotions are running so high, it would be wrong to try and establish how one action or another started. Anyone familiar with the more modern or more ancient history of the Holy Land knows that he who cast the first stone is impossible to find! For that reason we should not be stirring up fresh emotions but rather trying to inspire trust, so that the peoples there can find some peace and thus be able to talk to each other again. So it is extraordinarily important for us not to throw oil on the fire. That is why I would like to thank you all for coming here today and for the meeting being held in Madrid tomorrow. If the European Union, the United States of America, Russia and the United Nations can reach a joint position worked out by their most high-level foreign policy representatives and jointly put this over to both parties, then for the first time there will be a chance of the seriousness of the situation being appreciated by both sides. Above all, there is a credibility factor, because just as each party has a credibility gap on one side or the other, there is a collective credibility here. We should take advantage of that. Credibility that we are in a position to give security guarantees for a state of Israel and a Palestinian state, that we are in a position to take onboard the proposals of the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, including the recognition of the state of Israel by the Arab states, and on this basis to establish the credibility of the idea that it is now time to withdraw and to refrain from terrorism, which is a condition for entering into concrete negotiations. We have got our own concrete interest here, not just a general interest in peace and human rights. Because of our close geographical proximity we are interested in the anti-terrorism coalition not collapsing and in a new fundamentalism not being used as an excuse, and we have an interest in our Mediterranean policy making successful progress under the Barcelona Process. We should therefore seek to ensure that Mr Solana, Mr Patten and the Presidency should not travel alone to Jerusalem with Vice-President Powell travelling there alone eight days later. Please try to ensure tomorrow that you will go there together. That would send a message from the world community to the warring parties as a way out of this appalling situation. I wish you all every success tomorrow.

Political group: PPE-DE