GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the proposal for a Council regulation on assistance to Turkey under the pre-accession strategy and the report by Mr Swoboda mark yet another significant step towards achieving a great historical objective. As a matter of fact, Turkey’s economic involvement with the European Union is already high, since more than half of Turkey’s imports come from the Union and more than half of its exports are destined for the European Union. Furthermore, Turkey is a member of NATO, which has a tradition of mutual recognition towards European countries that are members of the alliance. In addition to other aspects, particularly cultural ones, there are therefore bases on which progress can be made towards Turkey’s future membership of the European Union. This proposal for a regulation will now enable us to create the necessary legal basis to establish an Accession Partnership, in order to help Turkey fulfil the Copenhagen criteria. It will do so not only by intensifying the Customs Union, but also by promoting economic and social development, which are essential aspects of an effective partnership. We therefore support the rapporteur’s proposals that complement the spirit of the Commission’s initiative, particularly those that are designed to ensure that Turkey will benefit from the support provided by the Pre-Accession Structural Instrument and from the Special Programme for Agricultural and Rural Development. Nevertheless, within the development strategy that we are advocating, the path towards economic and social development must go hand in hand with political development, in other words, the exercise of democracy and human rights. It is in this context that we wish to emphasise and support the content of Article 4 of the proposal for a regulation. We also feel that by playing a more effective role in this process, the European Parliament can make a contribution and provide certain guarantees.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, a moment ago you quite rightly asked where the Council was. The Council ought to be delivering an opinion. I find it unacceptable that the Council is not represented here, and we should voice our protest to the Council. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
In principle, I regard the Commission's proposal for a regulation as something to be welcomed. Most of Parliament's amendments complement it well, but I regard the following points as problematic in view of current Community rules and practices: – a new and higher standard through substituting ‘significant material injury’ for ‘material injury’ in the area of goods, resulting in uncertainty due to the new definition, as well as the potential weakening of our negotiating position on this point at the Doha follow-up negotiations, and discrimination in favour of the service sector to the detriment of the manufacturing sector (Amendments Nos 9, 25, 26, 38); – the lack of any scope for legal action afforded to ‘allied enterprises’, these being defined by the existence of an alliance agreement, which, in practice, because of the worldwide network of alliances, results in marked reduction in the scope for legal action (Amendment No 39); – the need for Amendment No 60 to be clarified to ascertain whether it is to be read as meaning that a decision by the Commission shall be regarded as confirmed if no agreement on it can be reached in Council. In any case, Amendment No 62 (qualified majority in the Council) sets a higher standard for the imposition of measures in the area of services than in that of goods. When determining where the Community interest lies, there is a departure from the original assumption that the imposition of measures is in principle in the Community interest, unless the opposite is established to be the case, in the sense that measures are imposed only when their application is in the Community interest. I hope that these points can be examined closely during the remainder of the proceedings. - Carlotti report (A5-0433/2002)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am very grateful to the President-in-Office of the Council for that very good and clear reply. I would like to put just two supplementary questions. Firstly, the Charter of Fundamental Rights refers merely to ‘reproductive’ rather than to ‘therapeutic’ cloning, although the two are one and the same thing. Germany, France and other countries are trying to get the United Nations to ban all types of cloning throughout the world. I just wanted to ask if the Presidency of the Council might also take some action along these lines. Secondly, you are right, with regard to this issue, to invoke the subsidiarity principle, but is there not the danger that, in such areas as that of embryo research, the European Union might modify or undermine many Member States’ more stringent provisions on the protection of embryos?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I can assure Mr Poos that we understand perfectly what he is proposing and it is the inclusion of the second part of Amendment No 9 that we specifically object to.

Political group: ELDR
This report and proposal for a directive constitute an important step towards giving practical shape to a basic feature of European citizenship, that of people’s effective freedom of movement within the European Union. I should like nonetheless to put forward a criticism concerned with an aspect that, unfortunately, has not been taken into account. In fact, inequality still exists between those resident in a Member State of which they are nationals and those from another Member State whose residence in the former is on a long-term basis but who apparently enjoy a permanent right of residence, confirmed by the issue of a residence permit. These people will continue to be at a disadvantage in relation to nationals as soon as they want to cross internal borders of the European Union, for they will then have to be furnished with passports or identity cards issued by the states from which they derive their nationality, all of which implies additional administration and costs. It is a pity that the opportunity has not been seized to put an end to this injustice, either by providing for a system of European identity cards or by arranging for the permanent residence permit to be considered equivalent to an identity card when it comes to crossing the European Union’s internal borders.

Political group: PSE
I wholeheartedly support this report by my Socialist colleague which will endow Europe with an independent technology which can be widely used for several practical purposes, including transport and telecommunications. It is increasingly vital that the EU should develop an independent technology from the only two which exist in Russia and the United States. Presently, we have a precarious situation whereby the EU is reliant on these two countries' systems which could potentially be called into use for military purposes at any point. Financing for this project has always been a contentious issue: its financial underpinning must inevitably come from the private sector, but the ensuing relationship between the Joint Undertaking and the private sector must be carefully defined. This will preclude any conflict of interests or awkward ambiguity between the partners of this project. In light of this, it is a sound proposal to establish a development company which would effectively act as an arbiter between the partners of this project. Lastly, a monitoring committee which would observe the project throughout its creation will ensure that the project is as transparent and accountable as is necessary. - Joint motion for a resolution on the Middle East (B5-0101/2002)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, your priorities for the Presidency do not deal with, or at least place very much in second place, certain policies which, since they are fundamental to the Union and also for Spain and my nation, must be dealt with in 2002: the CAP, the common fisheries policy and the future of the Structural Funds. On the contrary, you intend to use your Presidency to indulge your authoritarian obsession against European diversity, denying a presence in the Council to nationalities and regions of the Spanish States, employing a notion of sovereignty which is now anti-historical and anachronistic in the Union. If your approach were correct, Mr Aznar, we would have to concluded that you are appearing here today as a President of a foreign institution. We do not think like that. I represent my nation and I am also a citizen of the Spanish State and of the Union, and there is no contradiction here. You are mixed up in an authoritarian manner in something which is resolved in the Treaties and in practice, while ignoring the fact that in the future, if we do not deal with the problem of sovereignty, not to mention separatism, we will ask ourselves not only why Slovakia can chair a Fisheries Council while Galicia, Andalusia or the Canaries cannot attend it, but also why the historic national status of the Malta or Luxembourg is rightly recognised, while that of Galicia, the Basque country, Catalonia, Scotland, Wales or Flanders is not.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to congratulate Commissioner Vitorino on his initiative, although I know that his hands are tied as a result of a lack of budget and because it is not so easy to introduce anything new in the European Union. I would also like to congratulate Mr Bayona de Perogordo because he has listened, he has taken account of many opinions and, in fact, the final document is a document of consensus, enriched by Parliament, which has many new figures and many new initiatives, and I believe that that is the way to work in terms of institutional cooperation. I believe we still have to take a further step, because the model in force, with the offices and the current system for disseminating parliamentary policy, is essentially a bureaucratic model. I believe we must change to a model of open and direct communication. Another point which I believe to be extremely important, and which I believe must also be revised, and in relation to which this document introduces a very clear request, is the issue of languages. Parliament’s reform policy on languages reduces the equality between them, it creates differences between some languages and others, and, in particular, in terms of translation, there is a difference between the dates for the delivery of documents. What does this mean? That in terms of communication, we are moving backwards, because some citizens will receive the information first and others later. And given the speed of many processes, there will be some citizens who do not receive the documents in their language and will hardly have the opportunity to present amendments on time. I therefore believe that the guarantee of the maintenance of languages is an essential point, particularly in view of the fact that the new technologies allow for much more direct dissemination. I therefore support an improvement in terms of the issue of interpreting. Another issue in this document which I believe to be essential, and which must be taken into account, is something which a previous speaker mentioned: there can be no communication without participation. And in view of the new technologies and the current capacity for communication, the citizens will not feel connected with these institutions unless they can participate in dialogue. And I believe that Parliament and the Commission must establish communication departments which, as in the case of other national parliaments, allow for an open system by means of which there can be access to what we are doing from any place and in any language. The new technologies make this effort and this investment possible. And I am surprised that, in the reform, including of buildings, there has been no intention to broaden languages and communication, but rather a reductionist spirit has prevailed. I would therefore call for equality between all citizens to be respected and for the reform of communication to be dealt with from a more modern point of view.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the events of yesterday morning have, unfortunately, plunged us once again into the Mont-Blanc tunnel disaster and this debate that we are having today has become more topical than ever. I totally agree with Mr Santini when he says that closing a link such as a tunnel beneath the Alps causes real economic problems, and I fully understand this, but nor do I feel that we can call for it to be reopened unless all safety guarantees are met. Furthermore, even today we still do not know the real causes of the accidents that take place in these tunnels, any more than we know what guarantees we may be given that they will not happen again. I am sorry first of all that the Council is not present to hear this debate, even though the Commissioner made it quite clear that this concerns a principle of subsidiarity. I am sorry that the Council is not here to say what it intends to do within the framework of a land-use planning policy. We are never given answers to our questions on the real trans-European networks, be they railways or roads. Incidentally, Mr President, Commissioner, I should like us to jointly put pressure on the Council to give us answers. We cannot keep on asking the same questions, when terrible accidents unfortunately occur, which are still unanswered two or three years later. I would, therefore, say that it is now crucial that we question the Council and that we should have a real land-use planning policy that takes account of the railways and which plans the trans-European road networks so that such disasters cannot happen again.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am the rapporteur for this part. I would like to point out that this was originally drafted in English, and that the German translation by no means does justice to the English text. That is no doubt the reason why there is now an attempt to have a separate vote. I would just like to say once again that the English version is the only correct one.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to intervene to say that the television system here still does not receive images or sound from Finland. Since the beginning of September, we have intervened in this matter on four separate occasions: first orally, then by e-mail, following which all the Finnish Members signed and dispatched a letter to the Quaestors on 2 October; finally, I raised the matter once again during the first session in October. None of these requests has obtained any response whatsoever. We may as well be talking to Siberia. Finland is, technologically, at the top of the league; and we are ashamed of such behaviour. I am asking you to intervene promptly in this matter, since so much is going on in the world that this sole Member State which is left outside the information loop needs to be included without delay.

Political group: PSE
Strengthening small and medium-sized enterprises and favouring measures which will contribute to improving their competitiveness has been one of the objectives of this Parliament, because of the fundamental role they play in the creation of jobs and because any actions aimed at small and medium-sized economic operators promote European economic growth in general and provide a safe path towards achieving economic and social cohesion in the Community. The proposal for a directive combating late payments in commercial transactions is, in this sense, an effective instrument in terms of ending the excessive and often abusive time limits for payment which are used in certain fundamental sectors and which are the main cause of bankruptcy and financial and investment difficulties which SMEs have to face. This is why I have a very positive view of the Murphy report and have voted in favour of it, since it reintroduces aspects which the Council had eliminated in drawing up the common position, but which are of unquestionable benefit to SMEs, in particular the obligation to legislate for the establishment of standardised payment terms in commercial transactions and for this obligation to also be incumbent upon public entities. Let us hope that the Council listens to Parliament and that we can at last lay down harmonised contract rules at a European level, which will put an end to late payment and the dominant position of some creditors with regard to payment terms, and thereby improve the competitiveness of SMEs.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would also like to thank the rapporteur for an excellent report. Experiences from last Monday reconfirm that this is a very important report indeed. Many Members of Parliament had a journey here to Strasbourg of up to fifteen hours. Flights were cancelled, and many were severely delayed. This situation is absolutely intolerable. Airspace is badly congested, flights are continually late and the rights of air passengers are totally non-existent. The report proposes relevant action that must be put into effect right away. However, I do not believe that it will be sufficient, as air traffic is expected to double over the next ten years. Short flight routes must be withdrawn in favour of rail, leaving room for longer flights, as there are simply no alternatives to these. Reports aimed at improving the competitiveness of rail transport are, from this point of view, very important. Environmental levies, which are being planned for air traffic, should not constrict long flights unfairly, but should work as an incentive to withdraw short flights in favour of rail.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, like most of the other speakers here, I see absolutely no reason at all for any kind of immediate suspension, or urgent suspension, of the hushkit regulations. There are regulations, we put them in place. I was here at the first reading in the Parliament in Strasbourg. There were not very many of us here, a lot fewer than there are today, when we introduced these regulations in the first instance. They are good regulations. There are going to be useful regulations and they are going to bring positive benefit to the people of Europe. That does not mean though that you should not negotiate. I was fortunate to have an opportunity to talk with Under-Secretary Slater yesterday along with a number of my other colleagues. They seem to be reasonable people who would be willing to talk reasonably with you about a better, long-term solution. We know there are better long-term solutions because we know our regulation applies only in Europe. Although it may have some spillover effect in the not too far distant future to third countries, we are not having a world-wide effect. Your objective, Madame Palacio, is to get that world-wide effect. Your objective is to make absolutely sure that whatever agreement you come up with with the Americans secures new controls on aircraft noise world-wide out of ICAO in a clear timescale. It is not just a question of agreeing to the controls and the levels but also a timetable for implementation that makes us happy and satisfied in this Parliament. That is the mandate we are giving you here today. That is what we would like to see you come back with at some time in the future. In the meantime though, enforce and implement the regulations as we expect them to be enforced and implemented. Tell the Americans that if they want to talk in an atmosphere of confidence and trust and goodwill, the first thing they can do is to suspend their Article 84 complaint in ICAO. They do not have to withdraw it, they do not have to take it away, they just have to make sure it does not go on the agenda of the next meeting. Suggest that to them, Madame Palacio. Start the negotiations and then come back to us with a reasonable compromise.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that in Macedonia's case it is particularly important to consider how the support that we provide can most effectively bring stability to this region. Small and medium-sized enterprises obviously play a pivotal role here. That is why I would be interested to know whether within this support programme that you mentioned, which will provide EUR 135 million for the period from 2000 to 2004, funds are also available to promote small and medium-sized enterprises.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I regret the Commissioner has had to leave for another meeting and is not present at this discussion within Parliament’s most important body – the plenary. I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Oostlander, because I believe he has produced a good report. Progress has been made in Turkey, but there remain many shortcomings, above all with regard to the role of the military and respect for the minorities living in that country. The European Union must move forward and deepen, which I believe is seen as a risk by those people who want the European Union to be nothing more than a union for free trade and who see enlargement and the incorporation of other countries as way of ensuring that the European Union does not progress towards political union. I believe that Turkey must be required to comply fully with the Copenhagen criteria and make progress towards a more democratic society which treats its minorities with greater respect.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for her very bold replies. Mr President, I would like to refer back to the questions. Regarding the demarcation which the Commissioner would like to introduce between civil and military aviation, could she manage this before the coming holiday season? My second question concerns the proposals of the high level group, could this be possible in the short term? Could a date be indicated for this, if possible?

Political group: PPE-DE