GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, whether or not this or that piece of legislation has been breached, I think it is appropriate to express our solidarity with the people who are being hit by Ford’s decisions, first of all, of course, the workers of Ford Genk, but also the people who work in the supplying companies and in other companies that have been affected. The Commission has told this House that it will carry out a study into the future of the sector. Even though, of course, studies have already been carried out and their results have been made available, I am surprised that the Commission has announced that it still intends to go ahead with this. In Belgium, however, there are economists who claim that employment in the western European car assembly sector is set to halve within the foreseeable future, because the potential market is unable to follow increased productivity. Similar predictions are being made for other sectors in industry. Assuming that the Commission has collated some research material of its own, I should like to ask it whether it shares these gloomy expectations. I hope that they are a little less gloomy, but industry is in any case facing a few changes. I should like to ask the Commissioner whether it is not necessary after all for the government to provide some support while industry is going through this transition. The social partners should definitely be involved as well. In my view, however, the government has a role to play here, as do the European authorities, which certainly have a coordinating task. I have another two specific questions. Reference has been made to the Structural Funds, and to the fact that they will be subject to a review in 2006. The current programming periods are still running. I have asked the Commission what scope the Structural Funds could offer Limburg at this stage. I was told that there is still a percentage of 4% in reserve that can be tapped into at any time. My question is whether, further to the problems at Ford Genk, the Flemish Government has asked the Commission to tap into those 4% or whether it has been silent on that score. Finally, I should like to say the following. This issue has naturally been discussed in the Belgian Parliament, and the Finance Minister has stated there that he would contact the European authorities to see whether it would be possible to join forces again with 'conversion partnerships'. These are partnerships that receive certain fiscal benefits during a certain period of time. On that front too, I should like to find out from the Commission whether or not the Belgian Government has been in touch to date.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, we need the Constitution, and we need it for twenty-five of us. All this talk about ‘core Europe’, centres of gravity and multiple speeds is no substitute for the constitution; on the contrary, it leads us astray, into a patchwork Europe of plots and counter-plots, and that we must avoid above all else. Secondly, we need the constitution before the elections, as we have to send out a signal to the voters throughout Europe, who are increasingly impatient for this constitution to be adopted, for we know that nothing will be any easier in the autumn or next year; indeed, everything to do with the constitution will become more difficult. Thirdly, we know perfectly well that we must not have another failed Intergovernmental Conference. It is vital that we succeed this time round, and I support the Irish presidency’s desire to clarify in advance whether we can achieve a positive outcome. Let us, fourthly, stop putting question marks against what came out of Naples. We have traded arguments; we are where we did not always want to be, but this is where we must start from if we are to progress further. I know that most of the Member States are willing to accept Naples in terms of the consensus that the Italian presidency presented. Apart from that, there is one point on which I differ slightly from Mr Brok. Although it is certain that effectiveness is the benchmark, the yardstick of democratic legitimacy must also be applied to the decision-making processes in the European Union. I do think, though, that we will draw a bit closer together on this point in the course of the coming weeks. We will support the Irish presidency with all our might, not only as regards the methods by which it endeavours to achieve consensus, but also in terms of its goal of presenting, in March, a sketch of potential outcomes rather than merely a timetable. Let me conclude with words of hope. After this Monday’s informal meeting there is a little light peeping over the horizon; may it become, under this presidency, a European dawn! (Applause)

Political group: PSE
In congratulating Mr Menrad on his report I want to concentrate on progress or the lack of it in achieving employment guideline 9, promoting a labour market open to all. It is precisely at a time when prosperity is returning to Member States across this European Union that those marginalised from the world of work can and must be helped. If that is not achieved now, these victims of social exclusion will be left out altogether for all time. The European Commission is quite right in its report to criticise lack of progress on employment for these disadvantaged groups within the Member States and to call for greater mainstreaming in our employment programmes linked to measures to combat discrimination. This European Parliament is right in our Amendment No 13 to support the holistic approach and for the development of comparable targets, which I will refer to in a moment and which I call on all in this Parliament to support. I welcome the examples in the report, in particular concerning employment of people with disabilities. On this morning, when welfare benefits for disabled people are causing great public debate in my own country, the United Kingdom, I welcome our example of the new deal for disabled people which has sought to break down the barriers by providing personal advisers at the local level through what is known as a single gateway to use flexibly both employment and social security budgets with unemployed disabled people to genuinely find the measures which will assist them into work. But here, at the European level, we can do more. If it has been possible to secure performance targets from Member States in relation to both youth and long-term unemployed people, why do we not seek a similar target to improve the employment of disabled unemployed people too. And, if it is the absence of reliable statistics cited as the problem, urgent action for adequate definitions of the information should be called for. If we do not do this, perhaps the Commissioner could explain how we can possibly evaluate the success of our policies and how disabled, unemployed people can be helped back into work.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I want to move an oral amendment, with the agreement of the rapporteur, to tidy up Amendment No 3 so that it now reads: '...calls for a commitment by the world leaders gathered at the WTO to coordinate measures to help developing countries tackle the impediments to growth...', etc.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, our group, too, thanks you for your statement, and we are right alongside you as regards a peace settlement, or the attempt at one, in the Middle East. This debate is not about the Middle East, as we want to discuss enlargement, but it is our profound conviction that we will be successful in the fight against terrorism only if we, that is the United States of America and the European Union, support the peace process between Israel and Palestine with equal determination and in the same way, something on which there could be stronger signals from the West, to which we belong. I am much obliged to you for your initiative. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, there is something I would like to have done in this House. I noticed today that there are banners hanging in the Parliament's courtyard. I do not want to discuss what is on these banners, but it has no place in this honourable House. If this precedent is followed, Parliament will soon end up looking like an advertising pillar or a hoarding full of posters, and that would be detrimental to the honour of the House. I therefore ask that these banners be removed. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
This report falls in line with the strategy of those who are relying on the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference to provide a further qualitative and meaningful leap in the federalist integration of the EU, under the control of the great powers which will, out of necessity, undermine the sovereignty of countries such as Portugal. It insists on speeding up preparations for a new Treaty, which will extend federalist integration, ‘forgetting’ the lessons and the political consequences of the Irish people’s rejection of the Treaty of Nice. Among countless other aspects of which I am critical, the report advocates the creation of a ‘convention’ – that some people envisage as a form of ‘constituent assembly’ that it sees as an instrument for imposing conditions on the exercise of the exclusive competence of national governments and parliaments with regard to revising the Treaties, which in terms of its membership, only guarantees the participation of the largest national parties, thereby diminishing the participation of parties with different political positions on Europe, and thereby undermining the pluralism and the genuinely independent and democratic participation of national parliaments. I therefore voted against the report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioners, having observed a minute’s silence, it is sad to have to speak about a piece of legislation that is actually calculated to bring the people of Europe together, to endow them with rights that carry weight throughout Europe, and to open up to them the chance of seeing Europe as providing employment prospects and as providing a labour market. This legislation has been in place for over 30 years, and, as has already been said by others, we reform it every year in order to incorporate the latest changes to national laws, and also to take account of the most recent rulings by the European Court of Justice. I think the Commission proposal makes sense, as do Commissioner Solbes’ suggestions relating to the amendments. I see it as regrettable that the Group of the European People’s Party seeks to use this report as a means of engineering changes that belong in the main reform and not here. In fact, it might seem somewhat confusing that we should today be discussing the revision of Regulation No 1408, for, over recent months, during the last few weeks, and in the last meeting of the Committee, we have been having very in-depth discussions about the major and imminent reform, which has been in progress alongside this, in which, too, we have made definite improvements for the benefit of the European public, and which is, to all intents and purposes, about to be completed. All this, though, has to be said with the small reservation that the great reform will enter into force only in 2007, and that is why adjustments are needed right now. Let me extend my group’s thanks to the rapporteur, Mrs Gillig, who has produced a creditable and responsible report; she could, of course, have yielded to the temptation to introduce lots of nice amendments, but either the Commission or the Council would have ended up preventing us from putting them into effect. That is what makes this report so responsible. One problem, of course, still remains, one that my two lady colleagues from the Netherlands and Belgium will address, namely the situation of those who commute across borders; this will no doubt give rise to more major difficulties in all the Member States and will probably still be doing so after enlargement. We have, however, managed to find a balance between, on the one hand, enabling citizens to enjoy the social security benefits of a particular state, and, on the other, preventing national social security systems from being overloaded. It is a balanced report and a realistic one, and what I would say to the Members from the Group of the European People’s Party is that we should not weigh it down with amendments that are actually ill-advised at the present time.

Political group: PSE
A universal moratorium is called for here on a regular basis, but when will this actually be implemented? Good will on the part of Europe is no longer enough. Abolishing the death penalty must be seen as a crucial aspect of the EU’s relations with third countries. Throughout the world countries continue to perpetrate this State crime. This barbaric practice still takes place in particular in Japan, China, the United States, Saudi Arabia, and in Iran, where executions are still carried out. What is worse, between 2001 and 2002, the number of executions increased. It has become impossible to remain silent about this ‘administrative murder’, especially when it is carried out by the most powerful country in the world, which is attempting to impose its order and its values on the rest of the world. We cannot accept that the only solution to crime and violence is crime and violence itself. Like the newly created World Association of Parliamentarians against the Death Penalty and in line with the worldwide call for abolition, the European Union must exert all necessary pressure to ensure that the United Nations adopts a moratorium that would have lead rapidly to the abolition of the death penalty. Men and women are left to rot on death row and Mumia Abu-Jamal is one of these. Preventing the irreparable must be done as a matter of urgency. IN THE CHAIR: MR PUERTAVice-President

Political group: GUE-NGL
I greatly welcome the decision to include the autobahn through the Fichtelgebirge in the Trans-European Networks. Eastward enlargement, from which the border regions can derive great benefit, must not be allowed to be held up by traffic jams. At the same time, there is a need to create an efficient road transport infrastructure to avoid the strain imposed by slow traffic. The doubling of cross-border journeys is still something we have to reckon with. – Cerdeira Morterero report (A5-0168/2002)

Political group: PPE-DE
I have supported, and voted in favour of, this report which acknowledges the efforts made by a number of European states to ensure that Europe now has policies concerned with space. The results obtained are impressive. For all that, if, now, there is a desire to avoid serious difficulties and a situation in which, in the end, only the law of the strongest continues to apply, rapid progress needs to be made towards a controlled communitisation, as is being done in the field of research. It is not a question of ‘doing in place of’, but of enabling European added value to be brought to bear. Space will be ever more present in all aspects of people’s daily lives. Europe needs to be in space. Space will always be an engine of industrial innovation. Europe’s industrial future also depends, therefore, upon our investment in space. Those are just a few of the reasons why I have supported this report and voted in favour of it.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I will try to make up for the time which Mr García-Margallo has used. I would simply like, on behalf of my group, to express our support for the proposals of Mr Olle Schmidt, and I congratulate him on his arduous work as rapporteur for the European Parliament. We support the two amendments he has tabled. I have personally, along with some other fellow Members, tabled another amendment. We are, in all likelihood, going to withdraw that agreement, depending on the replies which Commissioner Bolkestein is soon to give us. We believe – and there are many of us; I believe I can speak for Mr García-Margallo and others – that the balance between the Council and the European Parliament as co-legislators was upset at Stockholm. The Commission must re-establish that balance. We await concrete proposals from the Commissioner.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it does not seem to me to be a good idea to stop elections from being held. That would naturally make a very odd impression. I understand the ’ argument, though. The opposition parties are of course currently not yet ready for the elections and could be manipulated. My group would only be in favour of them if the words ‘without delay’ could be scrapped. We would then vote in favour of them. If matters proceed as formulated by the spokesman, we will vote against them.

Political group: ELDR
In today’s vote, I gave my support to a crucial strengthening of the European Ombudsman’s position. The proposal is aimed at amending Article 3 of the Ombudsman’s statute so that the Ombudsman also has access to classified documents within the EU. It is also proposed that all officials of the EU should be instructed to give full evidence in accordance with the truth and that their duty of loyalty towards their employer should cease. Officials are thus obliged to defend the truth and their fellow citizens rather than to protect their own institutions. This is a crucial improvement in terms of transparency and democratic control in the EU.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, two days ago, Médecins du monde alerted us in the towns of France as we in the European Parliament seek to inform public opinion on Afghanistan. Médecins du monde added that the European Community budget given to NGOs in Afghanistan was in sharp decline. I ask myself how we can receive representatives of the Afghan resistance, how we can support Afghan women – which I feel is a very positive thing – without going further and without having the means to express our indignation. I think that that is the purpose of this resolution, which is much better than the one we drafted two months ago, which I found rather weak, especially with regard to discrimination against women. Now, we seem able to talk about crime, about rape, about apartheid, about everything which reflects the situation of women nowadays. The current situation is difficult. It has perhaps been made worse by our support for Commander Massud, Afghan women and many others, as well as the entire Afghan population, which is dying of hunger. If, in future, however, the effect of our support were to worsen sanctions, to prohibit women from driving for the NGOs working on behalf of women and to close bread shops which enable women to work, to feed themselves and to feed others, we must do more. And to do more, as has already been said, is to call the countries supporting the Taliban to account. I believe that the European Community, the European Union, must not only give more money, it must know how to politically call to account those who support this regime and who allow this regime to survive. This is the logical outcome of our indignation and our support and it is also our responsibility. It is my hope that we stop confining ourselves to drafting resolutions which, even though each one is better than the last, are still too timid in relation to what we have to do for this suffering population. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, the Erika sank near my home and is still there, with 20 000 tonnes in its hold, the fate of which we are waiting to discover. It could have sunk anywhere. It happened to sink there, and Brittany, where I come from, should not apologise for the fact that geography has made it a peninsula, and the result is that it is often forced to clear up after shipwrecks. My first thoughts are for the 26 Indian sailors, who were saved but of whom nothing has been said. There could have been deaths in this disaster and safety at sea means, above all, men’s lives. By now they are far away. It is a miracle that they were saved. So we are now experiencing the same thing that happened 20 years ago with the Amoco Cadiz; a wreck on the North coast, a wreck on the South coast, a wreck on the West coast. Things could well continue in the same way. Commissioner, as time is very short, I would like to pick out the seven points which we feel, and you have already mentioned some of them, are essential to work on: double-hulled vessels in our waters as soon as possible and the strictest possible state control of ports. In particular, we must ensure that classification societies are compelled to make their reports public, as currently, we do not have access to them. Then, sanctions must be harmonised between the 15 Member States; they should not be different, but the same throughout the Union. We must be tougher on vessels flying flags of convenience, not because they are necessarily bad boats, but because amongst these boats there are many bad ones. We must improve information on all of the world’s ships, but provision has already been made for this. We must also target those responsible and take a tougher line with them. With regard to this matter, I would like to know who owns the Erika, because the idea of a legal person under our law is one thing, but there are always real shareholders in the background. Where are the Erika’s owners? Perhaps they are in lovely villas by lovely beaches, getting a nice tan. We would like to know their names and their faces. Finally, there must be improvements in the training of crews. In our society there is no such thing as zero-risk, but we must at least ensure the greatest possible levels of safety.

Political group: PSE
The human rights issue in Egypt, notably the recent witch-hunt against homosexuals and the curtailing of the freedom of women, necessitates us to look at this issue carefully in the relationship between Egypt and the EU. The Council and the Commission are not doing enough, if anything at all. That is why I will vote against this report.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I just want to say that, after 11 years as an MEP, I am familiar with the French airline concerned. For that reason, I chose another and arrived on time.

Political group: PSE