GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I also wish to endorse and praise the work of Mrs Roth-Behrendt and Mr Böge on this issue and the initial proposals from the Commission. Safety must be a priority and we all understand that if we are to have equal precautions throughout the Member States, we need a variety of measures in place which have not so far been instituted. Commissioner Byrne is to be congratulated on moving that closer. These proposals take us a good deal further down the line in the field of diagnostic testing, in a more sceptical attitude to animals which ought to have been under suspicion but in some Member States were not, and in terms of the general prospect of fallen stock being tested for the possibility of BSE. I want to say something, however, coming from the Member State which first suffered the full rigours of BSE and which has also, as a result of that, been in the vanguard of cleaning up this problem. We have now had for a considerable period of time in the United Kingdom an over-30-month cull of all animals which have been taken out of the food chain. We have been able to tackle the problem of the possibility of maternal transmission by also taking out those animals that might be at risk because of their ancestry. From our position, given the measures we take, we do not see any reason at all why we would need to introduce, additionally, whole-herd slaughter of the kind done in some other countries. We are being asked not just for a belt-and-braces policy but also to buy a new pair of trousers just in case. This would cost a great deal of money. It would not remove a single additional suspect case of BSE. I would remind those present that, with our additional safety measures, we in the UK are only exporting to the Community de-boned carcasses which have gone through maximum checks and security. In the circumstances, therefore, there are a number of amendments tabled by a variety of Members in the United Kingdom which I would commend in this debate. I should be very glad to hear whether the Commissioner feels he can accept that in some circumstances – particularly in view of the over-30-month cull in the United Kingdom – for those countries which are admittedly very high risk but also with a very high level of precaution now in place a certain number of derogations are necessary and would be satisfactory to him. I sincerely hope so.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, you have called for serenity in these debates, but bombs do not create a feeling of serenity. I condemn the desecration of the cemeteries in England, which I consider deplorable. Today, however, in the face of war, my feelings of horror do not stem from this, but from the thousands of Iraqi deaths and the intensive bombing that is spreading terror in Baghdad and Basra and killing men, women, children and old people. It also stems from the water shortage, which might lead to epidemics. I have noticed that the indignation of some Members of this House is selective. I personally condemn this war, the oil trusts and other trusts linked to the UK and US Governments, which are terrorising an entire nation and already sharing out the profits of reconstruction.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, if you are going to refer this matter to the Rules of Procedure, could you also ask them to consider the sense of drawing up a resolution weeks before we have the debate with the Commissioner and then voting on it after the Commissioner has made a response which more than overtakes the whole purpose of the resolution. *** Motion for a resolution (B5-0227/2000) by Mrs Jackson, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on Structural Fund programmes in the Member States and national implementation of EU environmental laws (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Joint motion for a resolution(2) on support for the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 and international humanitarian law (Parliament adopted the joint resolution) *** Annual report (A5-0060/2000) by Mrs Malmström, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, on International Human Rights and European Union Human Rights Policy, 1999 (11350/1999 – C5-0256/1999 – 1999/2002(INI)) (Parliament adopted the resolution) ***

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, like the rapporteur and the previous speaker I think we urgently need to take the appropriate measures to tackle and eventually put a stop to the constant increase in delays in European air traffic. The discussion in committee and again here in plenary today keeps centring on the best ways and means of changing air traffic management. Sir Robert Atkins, for whose expertise I have enormous regard, and a majority in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism believe the prime way to achieve this objective is through liberalisation measures. Liberalisation will without doubt increase the number of providers, but it will not resolve certain problems and will even create new ones. Firstly, so long as the Member States give precedence to their justified national interests over the general European interest in regard to the coordination and use of European airspace, we will see no radical changes. Secondly, that is another reason for Eurocontrol’s poor efficiency. No matter whether the regulatory and control bodies are separated or not, whether you liberalise or privatise, so long as there is no political will to accept that European airspace issues can only be approached on a pan-European basis, another ten reports will not help either! Thirdly, priority must be given to the civil use of airspace. In a peaceful and united Europe there is not one logical reason for reserving a large part of airspace for the military. Fourthly, do you not agree that if we make a kind of fetish out of liberalisation, it is highly likely that there will be fewer and fewer service providers for less lucrative routes and that there cannot be fair competition unless we lay down binding, uniform, social and security standards? Fifthly, we do not need the Commission to use its influence on national governments in the event of domestic industrial disputes, as called for in paragraph 14 of the report; we need a smoothly running social dialogue between all the players involved in air traffic!

Political group: GUE-NGL
The Schengen Information System is an electronic system for recording, identifying and monitoring suspects and is used purely for policing and repressive purposes. It is applied with a great deal of enthusiasm in order to suppress the burgeoning grass-roots movement opposed to European Union policy and to ensure that Fortress Europe keeps out immigrants. Even though a great many complaints have been made, including by advocates of the SIS, about its lack of transparency and threat to human rights, the European Parliament assented last year to a new, second-generation system, on the pretext of fighting terrorism. We would remind the House that the Schengen Information System started up in 1995, well before 11 September 2001. The Spanish initiative, which the Coelho report endorses despite its rhetoric on protection of civil rights, proposes that all the repressive agencies of the ΕU (Europol, Eurojust etc.) should have access to the system and that it should extend to new data categories. The proposal to collect and exchange information on foreigners applying for residence permits, using the fight against terrorism as an excuse, is in keeping with the racist and xenophobic attitude of the rulers of the ΕU. This is an anti-democratic initiative and the grass-roots movement is fighting to reject both it and the Schengen Information System itself.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, you are right that we must investigate transparency and accountability. Could we also investigate whether we are within the law with regard to employment? I have been continually concerned at the lack of an assistants' statute. Does this not give us an opportunity to check and confirm that we are within the employment legislation?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, as Mr Poignant points out quite rightly in his report, back in 1989 the Commission presented its proposal for a European register of ships, known as ‘Euros’, and the European Parliament recently approved the Sterckx report resulting from the Prestige accident, calling for this possibility to be examined again. Being aware that the Member States do not currently want to surrender their identity at sea, but also of the advantages of all our ships displaying a European symbol, I proposed the idea of the symbol of the European Union appearing in one of the corners of the flags, the ring of stars on a blue background. I believe that my British colleagues in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism were offended by this. I would like to clarify to them that my idea does not violate their Union Jack. A flag has four corners and theirs has three available. I believe it is very positive and it has great synergy for all of us that European Union ships should be identifiable in all the seas of the world. (Applause from certain quarters)

Political group: Verts-ALE
The European Parliament has been asked to give its assent to this agreement between the European Union and the United States of America in the field of higher education and vocational education and training. As rapporteur for the European Parliament I gave my support to this agreement as cooperation of this kind is essential in today's global society. I believe that there is a great deal to be gained on both sides with this agreement. European skills in business and technology can be enhanced both by learning from American teachers and with American students. The same model could be reversed to help improve American knowledge of language teaching methods and working in multi-cultural contexts. This is borne out by the agreement itself, which was inspired in the United States by their observation and admiration of the ERASMUS programme. I am sure that the European Parliament would welcome a greater involvement in the discussions for this agreement, and hope that MEPs are consulted at an earlier stage of the proceedings than for this set of negotiations. The Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport was notified of the agreement only a few weeks before the negotiations with the American authorities. The agreement is to receive EUR 8.6 million for its five-year duration. I would propose that research be carried out from next year into how private funding can be used to supplement this figure. Discussions with the Commission and the American authorities have shown enthusiasm for the idea, and I hope it is one that the European Parliament, European Commission and US Administration can cooperate on. As I set out in my explanatory statement, the programme would also benefit from being given a name that would help raise its profile among students, universities and the general public. Part of the reasoning behind the programme is to serve as a symbol of cross-Atlantic cooperation, and so it needs to be as widely known as possible. In this, too, I have received positive feedback from the other concerned parties, and I trust that it is one that can be discussed in greater length in time for the next agreement in 2005. I personally think we should consider the following names of statesmen associated with US-European relations: Churchill, Eisenhower or Lafayette, any of whom in my opinion would be an appropriate name for this programme. - Bowe report (A5-0032/2001)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I, like you, welcome the decision that was taken yesterday in the Social Affairs and Employment Council to finally adopt this draft directive on information and consultation. It is a great result for the Swedish Presidency. There is still, however, a crucial problem which, in my view, is not simply a trifling detail and this is the problem of sanctions. Yet, it turns out that the Council did not support the proposal made by the Commission and by Mrs Diamantopoulou, to provide for, in the form of sanctions, the overturning of decisions taken on mass redundancies, which could arise from a breach of the procedure on information and consultation and, therefore, as a result, to provide for the possibility of re-establishing the contracts of employment of employees who would have been made redundant, in breach of the European directive. Are you willing, would the Council be willing, to re-introduce this point in the text if, at second reading, Parliament again adopts the proposal which was put forward by the Commission? A directive without genuine sanctions that work as a deterrent would be totally ineffective and would not protect workers.

Political group: PSE
Thank you, Mr President. I will not be repeating what my fellow MEPs, Mrs van der Laan and Mrs Maij-Weggen, have said. It does, however, seem to me to be extremely important that we should not postpone Parliament’s reaction until the next part-session, for example. I would therefore suggest to the fellow MEPs and the President that this should be added to the resolution on the Seville Summit. It seems to me to be extremely important to broach this decision in that forum too, and, as far as I am concerned, to reject it. I would therefore suggest to the fellow MEPs who are involved in the negotiations about this resolution to include this as part of the resolution and then to hold a regular plenary debate about this extremely serious matter at the earliest opportunity.

Political group: Verts-ALE
We are very much in favour of strengthening the position of victims of crime and therefore welcome in principle the draft framework decision presented by Portugal. Above all, we are in favour of setting up, at European level, principles for how the victims of crime are to be treated. Nonetheless, the Member States ought themselves to be responsible for working out the details. We believe, however, that a couple of questions need to be analysed more thoroughly and would present the following points of view. Freedom of association is of fundamental importance in a democratic constitutional State, which is why we oppose a demand for non-profit-making organisations to be approved by the State before they are allowed to offer support to victims of crime. We also believe that transparency is a prerequisite if authorities and courts are to inspire confidence in citizens, which is why we oppose general rules limiting the press’s ability to write about what has come to light in the course of a public trial. Only in a few clearly defined cases (relating, for example, to sexual crimes and crimes involving child pornography, where secrecy is required) may there be exemptions from holding open proceedings in court. Finally, we think it may be a good idea for there to be video conferencing and other such facilities if there is reason for thinking that a witness or plaintiff might, out of fear or for some other reason, not speak the truth freely in the presence of the defendant.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, Parliament has reason today to be rather self-critical. As early as 11 April 2000, the Commission submitted its communication on Internet policy 1998 – 2000 and we know that the ICANN meeting in Melbourne was concluded yesterday. Mr Paasilinna, the Commissioner and I have had the privilege of being able to read newspapers which have reported something of what has supposedly taken place in Melbourne. If you log on to ICANN's own home page, you find only scanty details of what has actually happened. Has the putting of the domain names .bytes, .info and .pro into use been delayed? Is it true that a Norwegian company has got the top domain name? How are the negotiations going for the EU regarding our own top domain name? Many such questions remain unanswered, and it is amazing that there is nothing to read on the matter on the net. The Commission and the rapporteur correctly stress that openness is required in the administration. Even Mr Paasilinna said that there could be cause for criticism in this area. I also wonder what allies the Commission had in Melbourne. Did we have any representatives at the meeting? How representative can ICANN be considered to be? The same question was asked by Mr Paasilinna. I think that Parliament needs to take considerably greater advantage of the fact that the former Swedish Prime Minister, Carl Bildt, has been appointed to head a panel for the administration of ICANN. We therefore have good reason to be self-critical. We have reason to consider how, for one year, we have been able to delay the handling of this matter. We need to work more quickly. The report raises many other important issues, including those that were debated in preparation for the summit in Stockholm. Here, I would like to express my agreement with the words of praise directed at the Commissioner for pointing out how to launch the e-Europe programme, while at the same time the Finance Ministers are snatching away the basis for the same programme. I am extremely grateful that the Commission and other Member States want to raise this serious issue in Stockholm.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would like to start by expressing my heartfelt thanks – not just a routine thank-you – to Mr Manders, the rapporteur, and to Mrs Niebler for the enormous amount of work they have done. I would then like to make two points: one specific and the other general. The specific point is also a response to some of the previous speeches. If I am not mistaken, the farming world welcomed the proposal for a directive on environmental liability, particularly because the Commission had opted for a horizontal approach. During the work in Parliament other viewpoints emerged in committee and, as a result, it is now very difficult to accept the idea of farmers being liable for environmental damage the causes of which are beyond their control. In this regard, any extension of the directive’s scope – a compulsory financial guarantee, reversing the burden of proof and, most importantly, excluding some means of exemption – would make it extremely difficult for farmers to manage their activities. In practical terms, a farmer might be forced to pay compensation for environmental damage caused by an activity, even though he has been issued with a permit to perform that activity and has observed all the relevant legal provisions. I am sure that farmers are willing to shoulder their responsibilities, but not when they have no control over the cause of the damage. This is the reasoning underlying our work in the Committee on Legal Affairs, and we have adopted this approach, developing a line which will not have serious consequences for the farming world or for the rural environment in general. I hope that the rapporteur will agree with this position and that the European Parliament will endorse it. As regards the general point, it too reflects a fear. Extending the directive’s scope beyond that of the Commission’s original proposal would, as I see it, be likely to jeopardise the certainty of the legal framework proposed and the resulting insurance guarantees, thus making it difficult to enforce a principle useful to European society in general.

Political group: PPE-DE
I have voted against the report in order to protest at the violations of human rights in Egypt suffered by various groups for reasons of belief, political persuasion, cultural origin and sexual orientation, as demonstrated recently by the judgment against dozens of people in Cairo.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, last Thursday, I was taking part in a television programme in Milan. The Cardinal of Milan, His Excellency Dionigi Tettamanzi, from the city of Genoa, had stated the day before that we must open our arms to the immigrants who come to Europe, particularly, to Milan, and I am afraid that he received abusive telephone calls during the programme from disgruntled people who did not agree with this recommendation. Therefore, voting for better immigration, I thought of what Mr Vatanen said to me, personally, a few days ago: ‘What if we had been born in Senegal? What if we had been born in one of the countries from which these people are forced to emigrate to come to Europe and make a living?’.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we are just about to start the vote on the Mann report and I want to draw your attention to the fact that there appears to be a translation problem in Amendment No 63 from the TDI Group. I note there it was submitted in Italian but in the English language it says that 'discrimination which requires men to wear a tie should be outlawed'. This must be a translation problem because I am certain that the TDI Group would not want to trivialise such an important piece of legislation on equal rights by introducing such a frivolous and unnecessary amendment. Perhaps you could get your services to check this. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
As we take stock, five years after the European employment strategy was implemented, and before the 2003 guidelines on employment are finally adopted, it is important to reiterate that unemployment is still a scourge, and that it is the main cause of social exclusion. That is why several things must be done: we must call on the Commission to analyse the causes of the weak economic growth in the Union and to put forward proposals with a view to encouraging genuine and meaningful growth in order to increase the number of jobs. Regarding the method, we must strengthen the role of the national parliaments in the drafting of national action plans; we must give the European Parliament a role, as part of the co-decision process, on questions relating to employment under the open coordination method, and we must also involve the social partners more closely. Regarding the substance, we should emphasise the development of local and regional labour markets in order to boost initiatives designed to attract productive investments and to encourage economic balance, social cohesion and job creation in the least-developed areas and regions. We must also consider how to improve the integration of legal immigrants in the labour market.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I would like to say that, in order to judge from afar, it is often necessary to understand the reality. In the countries of the Southern Mediterranean, and specifically in the region of Murcia, they have, in recent years, stopped managing unemployment and started to manage employment. They have moved from an extraordinary and terrifying level of unemployment, originating in the great state industries whose economic model was unsustainable, through a crisis and then to a situation involving the growth of small businesses (SMBs) and economic incentives which have generated a new and vibrant model. However, it is clear that accidents in the workplace – which I am now talking about – are a problem of education and mutual responsibility on the part of businessmen, the state, public administration and, of course, trade unions. Unless they all work in unison, they will not achieve this objective. In Spain, back in 1995, a law was adopted in this respect, and they are trying to comply with it, but this cannot be achieved in a day. Therefore, Commissioner, firstly, what active policies and which economic sectors do you intend to bring into play in order to achieve better education in this particular area, so that a sense of responsibility may be developed? Secondly and very specifically: is there any programme to educate immigrants in the language of their host country, so that we can educate them to understand the minimum safety standards in this region which is host to many immigrants who do not speak our language?

Political group: PPE-DE