GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I am speaking as a guest speaker on behalf of the actual draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, Mr Josu Ortuondo, who is, as you know, in Spain for political reasons. The step from the European airspace to noise is naturally a simple one. If we simplify this procedure, then we should put a whole ream of conditions and measures in place. I would thank the Commission and the rapporteur, Mr Blokland, for the work they have done, but the problems are clear and evident. Also, years of work have already gone into this topic. I myself attended the debates on hush-kits in the previous session. In principle, noisy aircraft should mainly be forced to become less noisy, in other words Chapters 3 onwards should apply. This is, in fact, the object of the whole exercise, and the enforcement of this via these measures is of major importance. Needless to say, comments have been made on the Commission’s report. This should first and foremost address noise charges, the expenses involved and the relationship between the two. It is about harmonisation, and these noise charges must naturally be the result of noise classification. It is the noise charges, though, that matter most. The problem with the Commission proposal is – and this is why amendments have been tabled in a number of committees – that it remains non-mandatory up to a certain point, because there is only a tenuous link between noise pollution on the one hand and levies on the other. It is pretty well up to the Member States how they want to deal with these levies and, as Mr Blokland has already pointed out to a certain extent in his report, this can have a distorting effect on competition in practice, but mainly fails to motivate the aviation industry in the sense that I referred to previously. Also, it is very important, in my view, to stipulate – and this has been incorporated in a number of amendments – that better practices, insofar as these exist, which fall outside the scope of the directives and are simply better, should be maintained, and I therefore recommend supporting a number of amendments, mainly from the Group of the . There is too little differentiation between the levies, and the link between the noise charges and the expenses is, in my view, an ambiguous one. Allow me to make a brief comment on this. As Mr Blokland already indicated, night rest, psychological effects and some of the environmental effects are difficult to verify, and there is room for improvement in this respect. Once again, I do recommend the amendments on this point tabled by the Group of the , namely Amendments Nos 18, 19 and 20. I would state very clearly that we will certainly be retaining their amendments. I am not saying this on behalf of the Regional Policy Committee, but I would, however, recommend them warmly.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, firstly I would like to welcome the Commission's approach in general to the IGC. The fact that we are getting this rolling presentation of more detailed explanations of issues is very helpful. Secondly, I agree with the Commission that this is indeed an extremely delicate issue. Taxation and social security get to what Mrs Thatcher used to call the nooks and crannies of everyday life. It is something that affects Member States and their people in a very sensitive way and we have to be careful before the Community moves into these fields. From what I hear, the Commission has got it more or less right and I would like to put a couple of questions for the sake of clarity. It is right to say where the Member States have already accepted a Community competence, in other words where we have already passed a measure, then QMV should apply to adjust that measure. That makes absolute sense. What I was not clear about was when he talked about other measures where it was necessary to make the single market work. How will that be defined? It sounds fine but how do you define a measure that is essential to make the single market work? That is a matter of intense debate. Similarly, the issue of harmonisation against coordination: one man's coordination can be another's harmonisation and we need clear definitions of what is coordination and what is harmonisation if this is to work. I wish him well in this area because it is an area in which we need a breakthrough. But it is not going to be easy to get an agreement and I would like to see the document in detail before passing judgement on what the Commissioner said this afternoon.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, this report is chiefly concerned with providing the current situation in Kosovo with the semblance of a legal basis and pseudo-democratic backing. Parliament is invited to ratify the de facto situation created by the military attack upon Serbia and Kosovo a year ago. After expressing at the time our opposition both to Milosevic’s ethnic cleansing and to the bombing by Western forces, we refuse to sanction in any way whatsoever the situation resulting from this bombing. As for the financial aspects, we continue to maintain that it is the powers responsible for the bombing attacks who must fund the repairs to the damage caused by the war and its consequences, in both Kosovo and Serbia, and also in neighbouring countries, deducting the necessary sums from their military budget.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, we are presenting this request for two reasons: one parliamentary and one political. The parliamentary reason relates to the work of the committees in this Parliament. At the moment, the examination of all the stability and coordination plans and the substantial improvement of the broad guidelines for economic policy is being studied by this Parliament's Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, which intends, if I am not mistaken, to present its report to Parliament in April. This issue therefore interferes with the activity of this Parliament. Secondly, there is a political reason. The question tabled by the PPE was included in the Conference of Presidents dealing with Ireland. It emerged at the Conference of Presidents including France. If we add, in the crossfire of relations, parties which run governments, parties which are in opposition, and if we add all the desires of this House, on Thursday we are going to hold a debate, at a rather unfortunate time, on the 15 Member States. Please have no doubt about that. Therefore, we believe that the best thing would be for Parliament to obey its rules and to work in accordance with the method which it has conferred upon itself. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
On 1 May, when celebrations marking EU expansion were taking place throughout the whole of Europe, Lithuania also celebrated the Day of Workers’ Solidarity. To the people of the new member countries EU membership means more social justice, more civilized working conditions, and better salaries. We must not create a new Iron Curtain, fencing ourselves off from our new neighbours, the Ukraine, Moldova and, of course, Russia, countries which are actually old neighbours as far as the new Member States are concerned. Let us not take away those countries’ hopes that one day they will themselves become members of the European Union. Belarus must not be left beyond the neighbourhood’s boundaries. Lithuania, which has a five hundred and fifty kilometre external border with this State, is very concerned that economic reforms and democratic change should take place in this country. If nothing is done in this State, however, then everything will carry on as before for many years to come. Some of the new member countries have already lived with their neighbours in one union. We understand the mentality and customs of our neighbours and are ready to help export the values of the European Union to our new neighbours.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr Herzog really has had a thankless task. If there is one area in which opinion in this Assembly and general opinion throughout the EU is deeply divided, it is precisely this area. The problem is that we have legislation for the internal market that is in actual fact an invitation to unrestrained and unlimited competition where both goods and services are concerned. That is something we cannot live with. It is said that it is mainly a question of services of economic interest. Which services are not of economic interest? Is not the education sector of economic interest? Is not the health sector of economic interest? Are not all the social services of great economic interest? We are talking about welfare policy as a whole and about something that really is political dynamite. If there is a desire for balanced development and for stopping this general attack on the welfare sectors, what is to be done? Are we to pin our faith on a framework directive? I am a little unsure. In and for itself, a framework directive could place limits upon legislation governing the internal market. It would of course be good for calming things down and reducing the intensity of antagonisms. In the political climate of today and of the next few years, I am afraid, however, that such a framework directive would be heavily dominated by adherents of the market and by right wing forces. In that case, such a directive would be a step in the wrong direction and might instead become a trap. Is decentralisation a better alternative? Is it better to focus upon protecting local and regional activities? It would perhaps open up certain other possible ways of securing a type of protection and increased opportunities for conducting a local campaign to protect what we wish to preserve. Above all, however, we need time for research and discussion as a counterweight to the giant battle we face over the next few years. IN THE CHAIR: MR GERHARD SCHMIDVice-President

Political group: GUE-NGL
The report on which we voted today deals with a Commission proposal to implement Community employment incentive measures (EIM). This proposal is intended to implement the provisions of Article 129 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (the legal basis for necessary expenditure on employment) and to develop the activities highlighted by the Lisbon European Council in the context of the European Employment Strategy. The objective is to promote cooperation between Member States and support their action in the area of employment. Such measures will be funded from the Community budget to a value of EUR 55 million for the period 2001-2005 (or EUR 10 million annually, with an initial allocation of EUR 15 million in 2001). Measures focus chiefly on the development, programming, monitoring, follow-up and assessment of the European Employment Strategy, with a forward-looking emphasis. More specifically, the following actions will be covered: 1) Analysis and assessment of employment trends, general policy conditions, assessment of policy options and of the impact of Community policies; 2) Assessment of national action plans; 3) Collation and transfer of national experience as defined in the annual employment guidelines issued to Member States; 4) Technical and scientific schemes required to develop common indicators, to improve and coordinate statistics, to rate performance and exchange information according to best practices. In addition to implementing this range of measures, it is important for the Commission to take account of the statistical information, studies and actions produced by international organisations such as the OECD or the International Labour Organisation. I also consider it essential to encourage the widest possible distribution of the results of any projects completed. Parliament has also recommended that the Commission take steps to ensure that all the planned activities are consistent and complementary to other Community programmes and initiatives. The planned activities shall, moreover, be open to the participation of EEA countries and those of Central and Eastern Europe countries subject to arrangements, especially financial arrangements, to be agreed with these countries. I would also argue in favour of our Mediterranean partners being involved. The European Parliament awaits an interim report from the Commission on 31 December 2003 and a final report on 31 December 2006. While we all have in mind the preparations for the extraordinary Council meeting on employment to be held in Stockholm in March, I voted wholeheartedly in favour of these new measures to promote employment.

Political group: PSE
The members of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party in the European Parliament voted neither in favour of, nor against, the first part of Amendment No 19. The Group is in favour of an environmentally friendly plan for traffic through the Alps, but such a plan must support the development of environmentally sound transport. That is not emphasised in the proposal.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I voted for the measure on the labelling of beef. At last, we are going to be told the place of birth and residence of the cattle, and, doubtless, whether they were called Daisy or Buttercup. Likewise, however, it would be as well if everyday folk, human beings, pensioners even, were not treated as mere numbers; it would be as well if, rather than just being a file on a desk, they were to become a person with a name, a surname and a life story. All too often, the governments of our 15 States think of citizens, particularly pensioners and the elderly, as numbers, people without an identity, a life story or a date of birth. Let us place photographs of our citizens inside all the bureaucratic files with which the States fill our offices.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I asked for the floor before other Members and I wanted firstly to say that, with regard to your statement, it is not your personal position, as other Presidents have taken the same approach on previous occasions, both Mr Hänsch and I. It seems to me absolutely disgraceful that there should be a sort of police vigilance of how Members vote. That is an individual and personal right. With regard to this directive, I would like to address not only the Commission, but also the Council. It is a technically complex directive; Parliament cannot be called irresponsible for exercising its rights. We have worked on it – you yourself as rapporteur, in the past – and the lesson which the Commission and the Council must learn today is that if there is a double parliamentary reading and a conciliation, then notice must also be taken of Parliament on issues on which, although we have offered many opportunities for transaction, we have come up against a brick wall from the Council and the Commission. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Madam President, the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport takes a positive view of the Commission’s draft directive and the sensible report by Mr Harbour, whom I congratulate. Some of the amendments contained in our opinion have been incorporated into the text, as he has said. Others, however, have not been accepted, but have been accepted for voting in plenary by Mr Medina Ortega. They are intended to improve the text from the point of view of electronic communications being considered as a general interest service. The model of society developed by the Treaties has enshrined the predominance of competition and the market, but the thing that makes us proud of Europe, the thing that makes our social model unique in the world, is the compatibility of these principles with two irrefutable values or circumstances: our high degree of social protection and the strength and breadth of our general interest services. People operating a communication network or service on the market are not dealing with any old product, but with services which have a high added value from social and cultural points of view. Their universality and ease of access to them involve principles which affect democracy and human dignity. The Committee on Culture’s amendments have several objectives: to further develop the obligation to transmit to electronic communication networks, to impose information and transparency obligations on the companies providing these services, to increase the protection of disabled people, particularly the visually and hearing impaired, as users of these communications and, finally, to separate, from a legislative point of view, infrastructures and content in the audiovisual sector. I hope that the rapporteur and his group will be generous enough to accept these amendments.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, a key collective goal of the European Union has always been and will always be that of a single market. The trans-European networks are a potent symbol of that single market, creating transport links that spread evenly the length and breadth of the EU and providing calculable benefits for business and people alike. As Parliament's rapporteur, this is the core consideration I have used in developing this proposal. The Community is set for enlargement in May, bringing under its umbrella another 75 million citizens, while at the same time huge growth is predicted in our major transport networks over the next decade. This more than ever is the right time to concentrate our efforts and bring this programme to a timely conclusion. We have a great opportunity to tie up this decision quickly, a mere three months after Parliament first debated this revised document. Whilst I firmly believe that Parliament can achieve most of what it wants within the body of this proposal, there clearly remain a number of issues on which we must all exercise good judgment and flexibility. I would urge all Members to come together to successfully conclude this legislation by moving forward as quickly as possible. Europe needs improved transport links now. We have to remember that this piece of legislation is Member State driven, and the fact that the Member States have met and managed to agree a comprehensive list of projects has to be recognised positively, whilst not denying Parliament its rights under the codecision procedure. There are certain areas that still need to be addressed. In our opinion the Council's position does not go far enough in placing restrictions on state aid for some key elements. Following the Commission's decision on Charleroi, we feel this principle should be upheld in respect of the TENs and in particular the motorways of the sea element of the programme. You cannot pick and choose when to enforce state aid rules and cannot add state aid à la carte. We have also discussed the time limit for funding and I am pleased that the Commissioner referred to that in her address. I hope that both the Council and Commission will agree with Parliament on this, because in order to secure the long-term viability of the trans-European networks, it is imperative that we first ensure a commitment to act, as well as the sound management and financial probity of suitable projects. In conclusion, the TENs programme deserves implementation. It has at its core the achievement of a single market. I sincerely hope we can move forward to a sensible and above all balanced approach to Europe's infrastructure needs, which after all will help determine the future shape of transport across our continent for decades to come. I commend this report to the House.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, today the Commission is presenting a point of extraordinary political importance, as demonstrated by the tremendous controversy between the Commission and the fisheries sector. The fishermen are complaining that the Commission has not included their opinions in its proposal for a reform, nor has it included the opinions of Parliament on this matter, given in January this year. What is more, this proposal was adopted yesterday by the members of the Commission by simple majority in the absence of four Commissioners, and with no guarantee that it has the necessary qualified majority in the Council. The Commission is acting outside the sector. A French shipowner told me less than ten minutes ago that the Commission hears but does not listen. Any reform of a basic policy such as fisheries must, in order to be credible, ensure the survival of the sector and an improvement in the living and working conditions of those concerned. The Commission proposals are far from seeking a balance between conservation of stocks, the efficiency of the fleet, maintaining jobs and economic activity in fishing regions. The Commission does take account of the well-intentioned concerns of environmentalist groups, but puts them before those of the fishing world itself and shamelessly sacrifices basic principles of the European Union, such as economic and social cohesion, in regions that are heavily dependent on fishing, all of which are Objective 1 regions. We, as s, call for the sustainable management of stocks, but we believe that this can only take place if the fishermen are involved. With this plan, stocks will have been replenished within ten years so that Europeans can look at them in a display case, and we shall all be eating imported fish. The twenty-eight thousand jobs that you are already saying will be lost are only the tip of the iceberg. Fishing generates many more jobs, directly and indirectly, which are not counted in the document presented by the Commissioner. His proposal goes beyond fishing. It concerns a neoliberal reform to scrap boats, which clears the way for a CFP that is neither Community-minded, as it turns its back on European solidarity and increases the North-South divide, nor is it political, as the Commission refuses to exercise its powers, and nor does it have the interests of fisheries at heart as it condemns the sector it is meant to protect, and in particular coastal fishermen, to extinction. My group, Commissioner, will therefore work in Parliament and the Committee on Fisheries as of today, the day on which we have seen the texts, together with the sector, together with the other groups represented in Parliament, listening to anyone who wants to talk to us to work towards a reform that is gradual, that is established by consensus and that is properly financed, because we believe that a sector of the vital strategic importance of fishing in the European Union cannot be condemned to die out. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
When Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, regarding public access to information about the EU institutions, was negotiated, it was decided that the European Parliament’s access to sensitive documents should be covered by a separate Interinstitutional Agreement between Parliament and the Council to enable the European Parliament to honour its commitments under Article 21 EC of the Treaty on European Union. All the agreements which are made between the Council and Parliament must, however, observe the fundamental principles of loyalty and the obligation for the institutions to make information mutually available. In other words, it is not fair for the Council to take decisions on the internal working procedures of Parliament, thereby arranging the institutions in a clear hierarchy. There is also a risk of information being withheld from small countries and small political groups. The agreement limits the right conferred on all members – and the public – by Regulation No 1049, in that it creates a group which has special access to information. An interinstitutional agreement in this sensitive area should be combined with strict confidentiality rules (compatible with those of NATO). Rules like these could have been drawn up for documents concerning external security without this resulting in any change in the interinstitutional structure.

Political group: PPE-DE