GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, working time policy – as we can see once again – is not economic policy, it is health and safety at work policy. When used preventively, it saves the state and the economy a great deal of money. I have completely failed to understand in this debate why a reasonable set of rules was not adopted back in 1993, especially as the Commission and Parliament did not want any derogations even then. Seven million workers were affected and specific sectors, such as the mobile worker sector, have been subject to ruinous competition over recent years, especially in Germany. It is therefore also a social problem and it is not enough, Mr Crowley, to use tachographs or other technical aids. One does not exclude the other. We also need a framework directive, because the employees who are affected have been working in a grey zone for a long time now. They had no rules, they were not covered by a collective agreement, they were exploited and some also engaged in self-exploitation. We know that this overload sometimes gave rise to alcohol-related problems. Parliament has shown sufficient flexibility; Mrs Smet highlighted our legislative maturity. I think, Mrs Smet, you have proven that we can also fight. The results are acceptable. I am trying to muster support, even if we have not achieved everything we wanted to. But the transition period and the graduated plan are the maximum we have allowed the Council. I hope that no government will use up the full period of time and am counting on constructive competition between the Member States to see which State will be the first to implement the proposals from Parliament and the Commission.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, allow me first of all to congratulate Greece on its extraordinary economic progress. The Commission has now concluded that Greece fulfils all the convergence criteria. I am convinced that Parliament will take the same view. It is quite an achievement to meet the convergence requirements and, at the same time, as Greece is doing now, to achieve increases in growth and employment. Europe, especially the remaining convergence countries – Sweden and Greece – are now showing that it is fully possible to fulfil the stability requirements of the convergence process and still maintain a dynamic economy with growth and falling unemployment. Against that background, I have no reservations about recommending that Greece join the euro zone as from 2001. Sweden, too, fulfils the basic economic requirements. The Swedish economy is now one of Europe’s strongest, with low inflation, high growth and a balance of payments surplus. However, Sweden still does not fulfil all of the more formal requirements. It has not joined the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) and Swedish legislation concerning the Bank of Sweden still does not completely fulfil the requirements of the Treaty. However, the Swedish Parliament has instituted a number of changes to the legislation concerning monetary policy in order to facilitate Sweden joining the euro. The remaining changes will be made when Sweden actually applies to join the euro, partly by applying to join the ERM. I am very well aware of the implications of the Treaty. But in a Euro-sceptic country like Sweden, which still feels itself to be a new Member State, there is a democratic imperative for a change as major as that of joining the euro to be preceded by a careful democratic process. At the Committee hearing, Commissioner Solbes declared that it is the individual country which applies to enter the ERM. Where Sweden’s entry is concerned, it is therefore my and, as I understand it, the Commission’s judgement that to want full status in EMU by entering the ERM is to adopt a political position. Commissioner Solbes said in the Committee that he respects the Swedish government’s desire to allow the people to decide the question in a referendum. We are therefore also grateful for the phrases in Mr Goebbels’ report in which he welcomes this democratic process. I, who am working hard in favour of Swedish ‘euro membership’, am convinced that, in a few years’ time, we shall also make the same decision for Sweden as we are now making in the case of Greece, i.e. to welcome and approve Sweden as a fully-fledged member of the Economic and Monetary Union and of the single currency. I look forward to that day.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, we already know the result of the coming vote, but we wanted to put down a marker. The basic problem our resolution addresses is going to remain with us throughout the budgetary procedure and beyond. So, if our fears are confirmed, and whatever the vote today, I just hope all Members who share our ambitions for Europe will join us in the fray.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I must declare an interest because I am a Class I soccer referee and very active in that and have been involved in football at many levels for 18 years. This resolution looks at the security and safety arrangements ahead of Euro 2000 so that decent football-loving supporters from across Europe can go to, watch and come away from football games this summer without fear or concern for their safety: a fairly apt thing to call for considering the recent events in Copenhagen. Most Members will find this motion uncontentious. However, I do understand that there are some queries about the question of the suitability of the Charleroi stadium and its ability to safely host the England versus Germany game on 17 June. These I will tackle now because I believe these points are what people want to hear about. I thank the BBC Watchdog Programme for providing me with details of the findings of a renowned British sports stadia expert, Dr Jim Dickey. He found, after just a brief examination of the temporary structure above the north stand in Charleroi, that there were too many seats in the rows, the stand is too steep, the safety barriers are too low, the exits from the stand are too narrow and the stairways at the back of the stand are too wide. This stand, like all the others, will be full to capacity on 17 June. Meanwhile, a few miles up the road, the King Baudouin stadium, Belgium's national stadium, and now probably one of the safest stadia in all of Europe, will lie empty that day. I understand the regional pride of many members from Belgium and I do not question that much time is being spent by the organisers of Euro 2000 looking into the safety and security aspects of the competition. But surely, common sense should prevail and the future of this particular fixture at its current venue should be actively re-examined. I do hope that Members will support this motion, because this is something we can actually change for the better. Why not look at an event beforehand and not worry about the consequences of the bad actions of a few violent people after such a football event.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is quite a few years since the Lisbon targets were established. Since then, many fine words have been spoken about the significance of the Lisbon process. The objective was to catch up with the United States economically by 2010. Unfortunately, this has been mostly a matter of words. I have still not seen the necessary reforms of the labour market that are a condition for growth and so also for more jobs. Nor has the equally important liberalisation of, for example, the gas and electricity markets taken place. Comparison with the United States clearly shows how far we are from achieving the targets set in Lisbon. In the United States, the economic situation is considered to be very worrying, in spite of the fact that growth is significantly higher in the US than within the EU. The Americans have made it clear that they will not just sit and watch while the economy deteriorates. They have responded with deep tax cuts. That is something which the EU Member States should also do, and as a matter of urgency. If a country like the United States, with its relatively low taxes, can reduce them further, so too in all likelihood can the EU Member States, throughout which taxes are significantly higher. An employment strategy was discussed at the European Council, but no such strategy will ever provide increased growth and lower unemployment. There are no short cuts. We do not need any more fine words or proud declarations. Action is what we need. As long as the EU just talks while the United States takes action, the economic gap will continue to widen, to America’s advantage. The year 2010 will continue to recede ever further into the future.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr Solana, I don’t want to repeat everything that has already been said here. I will confine myself to asking more questions, as you suggested we should do. I regard the Stability Pact as the best idea we have ever had. However, it must also actually be made to work in such a way that it does not just serve to create frustrations, hence my questions. Firstly: to what extent are you able to influence the professionalism of the Council’s decisions? Could you at last bring about change in this respect? Let me give you an example: there is an institution in Thessaloniki that does not actually exist at all as yet, but it has been set up, namely the Reconstruction Agency for whatever, for the whole of the Balkan region. At the same time, the Stability Pact was established here in Brussels with a single coordinator. Can you tell me how much synergy is lost here and why the Council allows something like that to happen? This is grossly unprofessional! Can you prevent this from happening in future? Secondly, when you talk to the Ministers for Home Affairs on Saturday it must not just be about the remote possibility of sending police officers. I would ask you quite specifically: the police officers in Kosovo at present number scarcely a third of those promised and who are due to travel there. KFOR could step up its presence in Mitrovica and be stationed in crisis areas of Kosovo if its current tasks were to be taken on by policemen. Thirdly, could you convince the Council of the fact that its rhetoric at summit meetings must at last be put into practice, in the form of additional financial resources? We need a special fund for crisis regions, so that we are not always taking funds away from other necessary tasks for which financial provision has already been made from other sources; in other words, so as to avoid having to reallocate this money to implement ideas that the Council has suddenly hit on. We need a crisis fund which can then be used to pay for such eventualities. Lastly, a word on the subject of Chechnya. It is all well and good, and touching, when we wring our hands over the mass graves and the refugees. Only I have to ask myself what have we actually done to try and prevent it? Why did we not send an intervention force there when all this was happening? (Heckling from Mr Cohn-Bendit) We cannot do that, my dear Daniel. Why have we not stopped sending the money that is financing the army over there? I believe that is what our task ought to have been, and you could play a part in this!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in thirty years there has been a huge increase in the number of standards relating to the environment, with more than fifty times the number of national agreements, protocols and similar instruments in this area. Within the UN we have more than five hundred of these sorts of agreements, and there are more than a hundred directives within the framework of EU Community law. In general they are flawed in that they are not sufficiently specific and their implementation has been inexcusably ineffective. In the end we need criminal sanctions and for that reason it is now important that we should lend our support to this Commission proposal for a directive. It is considerably wider in scope, more coherent and will prove more effective than the Council framework agreement, which suffers from the usual weaknesses in environmental regulation and whose legal basis is furthermore clearly flawed. The proposal for a directive, which is based on the EC Treaty and Article 175(1), is the correct instrument in this instance and, pursuant to Article 47 TEU, the Community legal instrument under the first pillar must clearly take precedence, as the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs has stated in more detail in its opinion.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner Fischler, President Prodi was decorated by the King of Morocco and at the same time signed a cooperation agreement with that country, which excluded fishing. The European fleet in the Canary-Saharan Banks has not taken to sea for a year now and thousands of workers are grounded. The Commission is not facing up to its responsibilities and is willing to sign a limited and ill-judged agreement that can only lead to the destruction of our fleet in two or three years’ time. Resolutions adopted in this Parliament are scorned, as is Parliament itself, and the Member States, Spain in particular, turn a blind eye. This is the deplorable image that shipowners, fishermen and the populations affected in Galicia, Andalusia, the Canaries and Portugal have today of the European Union. I am sorry to have to say this, Commissioner Fischler, but things could not have been handled more badly.

Political group: Verts-ALE
in writting. Mr President, colleagues, honourable Member of the Commission, the European Union and South Korea have been conducting so far fruitless negotiations in order to bring about sound competition into the world shipbuilding market. The Commission has now approved a strategy, according to which the matter will be taken to the WTO dispute settlement procedure. I support this decision and would like to thank all those Members of the Commission who actively contributed to this decision. At the same time, however, the Commission issued a proposal to the effect that operating aid could be allowed to individual shipyards temporarily during the WTO procedure. According to the Commission proposal for a regulation, any arrangements for subsidies would be exceptional and temporary measures and would concern a limited number of ship types only. At first glance the Commission proposal may seem justified, but in reality it distorts competition both in the world market and even within the EU and lacks any valid legitimate reason. The link between the subsidy mechanism and the WTO procedure is totally artificial. These matters have no natural connection and therefore these questions should be dealt with separately. All of us who are involved in politics understand this: this is politics, not a legal process. If we want to lean on the WTO, we ourselves must act according to the rules set by the WTO. By allocating subsidies, the EU itself is guilty of distorting actions of which it is now accusing Korea. This will bring discredit on us and will weaken our negotiation position within the WTO. I said that the Commission proposal distorts competition also inside the EU. Even if only certain ship types would receive subsidies, the subsidised shipyards would always benefit from subsidy monies and would therefore have an advantage over other shipyards. In particular this will impede the position of the high technology shipbuilding industry, which for very good reasons has responded to fiercening competition by concentrating especially on products representing more demanding technology. Among others my home country Finland has from the very beginning, as agreed, reduced shipyard subsidies, and we have invested strongly in the building of cruise ships and other high technology vessels. Consequently, through these actions Finnish shipyards have achieved world-wide competitiveness, which the Commission is now trying to take away from us.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like, first of all, to welcome the work of Mr Adam, our rapporteur, and to congratulate him on his desire to give some hope to sheep and goat farmers, who are, by and large, at the lower end of the scale of agricultural earnings. The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has used its vote, as you quite rightly pointed out, to confirm the principle of a basic deficiency payment, of a rural premium and of a supplementary flexibility premium based on the criteria of produce quality, the environment or financial management. It is also the case that the levels set by our committee will have to be readjusted in plenary if Parliament hopes to influence Council and, therefore, maintain credibility. The Commission recommended a maximum of EUR 28 per head but the Committee on Agriculture raised the amount to EUR 44, which far exceeds the expectations of rearers and could, furthermore, prove difficult to reconcile with the room for manoeuvre provided by the budget. On behalf of my group, I have, therefore, retabled two of the rapporteur’s amendments designed respectively to reset the basic premium at EUR 25 per head and the premium for milk herds – ewes or she-goats – at EUR 20. In the ‘meat’ sector, the maximum aid per head would therefore, be EUR 39, which would ensure equal treatment in terms of public premiums per hectare for sheep breeders and milk-cow breeders. I would say that this is a totally logical approach, because these two types of production often exist side by side in the same regions and areas and even within the same holdings. In terms of the markets, we now have two situations at variance with one another: a surplus of beef and veal and a deficit of sheepmeat. If per-hectare premiums are set at an equivalent level, this could restore the balance of production, with the choices made by producers being influenced by market conditions. Furthermore, I recommend maintaining a difference between the basic premium for the ‘meat’ sector and the premium for the milk sector because to do otherwise would leave the sheep and goat milk sectors with no future, which nobody wants to see. This is why I hope, ladies and gentlemen, that this evening you will support these amendments, which I think are both realistic and responsible.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to draw Parliament's attention to a case of blatant discrimination that is about to take place in the county of Northamptonshire, which I and my colleague, Mr Helmer, represent. The Labour-controlled county council has decided in its wisdom to cut the number of free school bus passes it gives out. However, instead of doing this fairly and across the board, it has vindictively decided to target denominational and single-sex schools. This Labour council conducted a listening consultation exercise with parents across the county and, out of over 1 120 replies, only 17 concurred with their plans. At this point, 119 parents complained that they felt this policy amounted to either religious or sexual discrimination. Many of these parents have now decided to petition this Parliament. Mr President, through you, I ask that the Committee on Petitions investigate these complaints as soon as possible, as I am sure that no one in this House would like to see such discrimination tolerated.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I would ask you to communicate to Mrs Fontaine, so that she may make the relevant representations to the competent institutions, the great concern in the Gulf of Algeciras about the presence, for more than two months now, of the British nuclear submarine, HMS Tireless, which has broken down, apparently with a very serious problem relating to its cooling system. According to the latest information, it appears that they intend to repair it there. The inhabitants of the area have expressed their complete opposition to its being repaired there, by means of a joint resolution of the political groups which has been approved today. From this House, we urgently request that the British Government immediately remove this machine from the bay and repair it in England, where we suppose that they will at least have the appropriate facilities to do so. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
British Labour MEPs are strong supporters of the Single European Sky and wish to see it implemented as soon as possible, to eliminate air traffic control delays, reduce emissions from waiting aircraft and enhance safety. However, a number of amendments seek to reopen the issue of the coordination between civil and military airspace. In particular Amendments Nos 2, 6, 16 and 18 in the Fava report and Amendments Nos 3, 21, 23, 29, 30 and 32 in the Sanders-ten Holte report. We cannot support these amendments because they undermine the compromise reached in Council to develop a Flexible Use of Airspace concept. We welcome FUA as a major step forward. Allowing civil use of military airspace when not in use. It would be a pity if, by reopening this issue, we delay achieving the one thing we all agree on: the early realisation of a Single European Sky. - Report Caveri (A5-0213/2003)

Political group: PSE
Madam President, initially we denied that the problem existed. Then gradually we moved from denying that the problem existed to playing down its importance; it varied depending on the country and the society concerned. I think that this report now presents us with a more holistic approach. I find the report positive overall, although it could certainly be improved. The analysis is very comprehensive and good. If we consider the five different levels – production, transport, marketing, consumption and consequences – we realise that as a society and as a legislator we are going to have to intervene in various different areas and sectors. Where production is concerned, I think that we need to intervene much more decisively through development aid, which is a different field, but one that is entirely relevant here. Because if we are not in a position to share of our own free will now, then we will certainly have to do so in the future. As regards transport, marketing and the criminality associated with them are concerned, I think that this is where more effort needs to be made, and it is essential that this go hand in hand with tightening up the relevant measures on prevention and care. Although this is not directly our responsibility, I do believe – indeed I am convinced – that this issue needs to be raised. Consumption is generally presented as an individual problem. But it is not just an individual problem; it is an issue not only for the individual, the family and their immediate circle, but also for the local community and society at large. The consequences, as it states in detail in the analysis contained in the report, are also a public health problem. It is then an issue for the whole of society and I believe that this phenomenon – which after being played down is now once again entering a new phase in which a holistic approach is being adopted – can only be tackled through dialogue and with the help and willingness of the entire community – the local community in particular – to provide care. I hope that society's attitude gradually changes in this regard and that people become more willing to show greater commitment here, because that is what is required if we are to be successful in combating this scourge.

Political group: PPE-DE