GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I would also like to add my voice to the chorus of congratulations for Mr Schmid on his excellent report and the superb cooperation in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. In my opinion, the major problem facing the future labour market is that we realise that within quite a short while, we will have a labour shortage across the European Union. This is already the case in certain sectors. At the same time, we in the union have a large number of unemployed people who we are unable to use. This is where the local dimension comes in. We are drawing up strategies centrally which must be implemented locally if we are to be able to match labour market policy with the requirements we see before us on the labour market. We must do this in order for the central objectives to be known locally, but also so that we centrally can be aware of the problems facing those on the local labour markets. I myself come into contact with this. As chair of the EURES Cross-border Partnership for the Öresund region, I can communicate our central objectives for labour market policy, as well as listening to the problems seen in local labour markets in a cross-border region. We must achieve such a balance in the future. It goes without saying that many actors must be involved at central level, but primarily at local level. Such actors include both sides of industry, NGOs and organisations for disabled people, in order for us to be able to design programmes for vulnerable groups. We should also act via the European Social Fund, for I have seen the Social Fund in many cases playing a major role in the local labour market in terms of providing assistance for the strategies which we draw up at central level.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, once again we have on the table a measure geared towards creating an area of freedom, security and justice – a measure which attempts to respond to the day-to-day concerns of citizens. This is the great aim we have set ourselves and through which all citizens must see their integrity protected, have access to justice and see their rights ensured, regardless of where they are, and as easily as if they were in their own country. It is important to set minimum standards for state compensation, as well as better access to such compensation in cross-border situations, thereby also establishing a last-resort guarantee for victims who are unable to gain access to compensation from the offender or by other means. We know very well that victims are often not successful in obtaining full compensation from offenders, either because the latter do not have sufficient funds, or because they have disappeared or never been identified. We want to prevent the substantial differences between the various Member States from causing unjustifiable variations in the compensation to which citizens are entitled, simply as a result of their having been victims of crime in one part of the European Union rather than another. That would be incomprehensible, especially in view of the existence of a common area of freedom, security and justice. I welcome this proposal for a directive, therefore, as well as Mrs Angelilli’s report. This proposal aims not to harmonise but to introduce minimum standards, enabling those Member States which so wish to maintain or introduce provisions that are more favourable to victims of such tragedies. In the first place, the principle of territoriality should apply, so that the Member State where the crime was committed is responsible for paying compensation. At the same time, the victim should have the right to submit his or her application for compensation to an authority in his or her Member State of residence, with a view to avoiding secondary victimisation. I would emphasise that the principles of social justice should be respected, and each Member State should be called upon to provide compensation not just to its own citizens, but also to other victims of violence carried out within its borders, such as migrant workers, students, tourists and others.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, you said that recorded votes cost 4 million from Parliament’s budget. Could you ask the Committee on Rules of Procedure to look at the following point: we all respect the principles of power with responsibility and subsidiarity so every time a group asks for a recorded vote could a certain sum be debited from the budget allocated to it by Parliament?

Political group: PPE-DE
The introduction of the new financial regulation required basic instruments to be adopted for a number of grants that have been financed to date without needing their own legal basis. The purpose of this proposal for a Council and Parliament decision is to establish a Community action programme for Commission grants in the field of protecting the Community’s financial interests – the HERCULE Programme. This programme will ultimately finance specific measures and will cover grants to bodies working in this field. This report improves the proposal for a decision, and as such deserves our support. Firstly, the report is in line with the decisions of the budgetary authority agreed at the end of last year, in other words, an action programme for 2004-2006, which will be funded to the tune of some EUR 12 million. It proposes that the grants should subsequently be staggered in line with the aims (technical support, training, exchanges of specialised staff and seminars and conferences) and that reporting by OLAF, on the execution and aims of the current programme, is to be brought forward.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, I cannot agree with the aspects approved in the conciliation meeting between Parliament and the Council with regard to the Directive on the liberalisation of the port services market. I find it unthinkable that anybody should be prepared to risk security in airports by establishing private free competition and more than one service provider for air traffic control. Similarly, I believe that for reasons of port traffic safety, pilotage, towing or mooring, or even loading, must be provided by a single body, providing each service, which guarantees adequate coordination of all its staff. In this regard, it is notable that the Group of the has already approved a law in the Spanish Parliament which allows for self-handling for this type of service on the part of any shipping or brokering company and takes it for granted that this crazy liberalisation will be approved by this European Parliament. I hope this is not the case and that the Spanish legislative is more prudent in the future and does not move forward ‘like those from Pozas’, as we say in Bilbao.

Political group: Verts-ALE
First of all I want to thank both Mr Robert Evans, our rapporteur in the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, and the committee as a whole for the quality of the work they have done and for the courageous social choices they have asked us to make today. In my view, voting for this report means, above all, endorsing the ambitious approach set out by the Tampere European Council, namely not just the statement that 'in the longer term, Community rules should lead to a common asylum procedure and a uniform status for those granted asylum valid throughout the Union', but also the commitment of that same Tampere European Council to the 'full and inclusive' interpretation of the Geneva Convention. In other words, to vote for this report means to support the idea that a common asylum policy must adhere to high standards for the protection of the refugees, include a common definition of the concept of 'refugee' and give a full and inclusive interpretation of the Geneva Convention, taking account of persecution both by state and by non-state agents, as well as the asylum seekers' fear of future persecution. I therefore believe it is important to draw your attention to the fact that the common, 'full and inclusive' interpretation of the Geneva Convention must include the possibility of granting asylum in cases where the persecution is not carried out by the state. The Member States take many different views on this particular point. In other words, the further development of the common policy calls for further harmonisation of procedures throughout the Union. We must, however, note that while it is important to encourage this kind of single procedure, this must not restrict the possibilities for the individual to obtain refugee status under the terms of the Geneva Convention. In my view, voting for this report also means emphasising the fact that the use of concepts such as 'safe third countries', 'safe country of origin', 'accelerated procedures' and 'procedures for manifestly unfounded applications' must only be used where justified and include legally binding guarantees. (Explanation of vote cut short pursuant to Rule 137 of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Grossetête, I should like to make three comments on the report regarding monitoring the application of Community law, taking as my premise the fact that the proper application of Community law is not just an assessment of transposition in arithmetical terms, but also an evaluation of the practices adopted in actually applying it. Firstly, I should like to comment on the issue of a community based on law and one based on values. In my view, the community based on law and the community based on values do not stand in contradiction to one other, rather they are interdependent. Anyone who breaks the law or perverts the course of justice violates certain values. And anyone who violates these values can be judged and condemned under the law. You will understand that, in this context, what I am saying from the Austrian point of view is that, in their actions towards Austria, the 14 Member States of the European Union have infringed EU law, international law and the UN Charter, that they have defied the spirit of the European founding fathers and thus damaged the community of values. And I therefore call upon you to repair that damage. My second comment concerns the Commission as guardian of the Treaties. On 1 February 2000, the Commission issued a statement on this matter saying that it would continue to fulfil its duty as guardian of the Treaties. And with regard to Austria it said that, in this context, the Commission, in close contact with the governments of the Member States, would closely monitor the situation, maintaining its working relations with the Austrian authorities. I would stress that, as guardian of the Treaties, the Commission has been closely monitoring the situation since 1 February 2000 and, to this day, it has not found any grounds for criticism, which makes it clear that neither the community based on law nor that based on values is being violated in Austria. My third comment is that yesterday I made a mistake! I should like to say this in conclusion. I criticised my Socialist colleagues from Austria for the inconsistent way in which they voted, and I insinuated that at the end they had abstained from the vote on the Feira resolution. That is wrong; they voted in favour. This does not in any way change my critical attitude towards the double standards of the Austrian Social Democratic movement, which were also plain to see yesterday in the way its Members voted. But I must admit my mistake. It would not hurt the 14 either if, in Feira, they were to publicly retract the statement they made on 31 January 2000, contrary to the law, about one Member State, and if they were to rectify this mistake.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, in view of that decision and since Commissioner Liikanen will not be present on Thursday but could be present on Wednesday, I wonder whether it would be possible to bring Mrs Gill's report on European digital content forward from Thursday to Wednesday to fill that slot. I should be grateful if you would agree to that request.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this House has given a great deal of attention to Cambodia ever since the days of Pol Pot, the Stone Age Communist with a doctorate in philosophy from the Sorbonne. Since then, we have campaigned for the freedom of the Cambodian people, even after the Khmer Rouge had been replaced by the Vietnamese occupation, and, even when the situation appeared as hopeless as it did in the struggle against the regime imposed by the Khmer Rouge, we kept on supporting the human rights of the Cambodians. We did this in close collaboration with Son San, a grand old man of Cambodian democracy, who was a frequent visitor to this House. What is even more disturbing is that the current deterioration in the situation follows signs of hope in the shape of last year's local elections, which provided a firm basis, at least in the most general terms, for the beginnings of democracy, which can be established only from the ground upwards, that is, out of local communities, in many of which – fortunately enough – it is actually growing. What makes matters even worse is that repression from the centre outwards, that is, on the part of the government, is currently on the increase. This is linked to the regime's fear of democratic movements and of opposition; it has to do with the instability resulting from the unresolved issue of succession to the throne, and with many conflicts along ethnic and religious lines, on which point I have to say, in response to Mr Belder, that these conflicts are not just between Christians and Buddhists, but believers, Buddhist and Christian alike, are being persecuted, and we have to stand up for both of them. It is for this reason that I want to make it clear that, whilst our cooperation agreement with Cambodia was a step in the right direction, it was a pledge of our confidence, and such a pledge is justified only if the developments initiated by the United Nations, along with the rule of law and the beginnings of democracy, continue without interference. If, however, the elections on 27 July are taken as an occasion for putting leaders of the opposition in fear of their lives and limbs, and intimidating religious groups and ethnic minorities, then that is a lamentable development presaging a fearful backlash, and something that we cannot accept. So ‘yes’ to cooperation and to support for the fledgling democracy, but we also have to make it clear to our Cambodian partners that, if they jeopardise their democracy, they are also putting the European Union's cooperation at risk. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, as Chairman of the Committee on Regional Policy, transport and Tourism and as a Greek Member of Parliament, I wish to raise the subject of the sinking of the Express Samina last Tuesday. So far there are 79 dead and 2 unaccounted for. This was a truly dreadful and horrific accident in which the human factor – the negligence of the crew members – appears to have played a decisive part. Nonetheless, there are serious indications that Community law has been violated, especially as regards the registration of passengers and compliance with the safety standards set out in Community directives and I think we should therefore start by welcoming the reaction of the European Commission, which is already investigating whether or not Community law was complied with. We here in the European Parliament must undertake as quickly as possible to examine the Commission’s proposals on safety standards at sea, especially the so-called Erika package, which contains the Commission’s proposals on safety at sea following the accident last year involving this tanker. I also think that we and the Commission should look carefully to see if the timetable for Directive 98/18 on safety arrangements for ferry boat passengers can be reduced, given that some of the provisions in this directive last until 2009. In this context, there should be no derogations for Member States, such as the present derogation for Greece for ferry boats over 27 years old. I also consider that it is wrong for Greece to have a derogation as regards liberalising transport by 2004 because this erodes safety standards in Greece, in my own country, even further. I think that competition can help standards to improve. The European People’s Party has tabled a motion along these lines and I trust that all the political groups will agree to debate it, given that it concerns an extremely important matter. It concerns the death of 80 of our fellow human beings.

Political group: PPE-DE
I did not want to say anything on this point, but rather on the agenda, in order to address an appeal to the bureau and to the Conference of Presidents concerning the use we make of our sittings. On Tuesday, Mr President, Question Time was omitted because we had such a full agenda, which was actually contrary to the Treaties and to the Rules of Procedure. Yesterday, Wednesday, Questions to the Council were cut by 35 minutes because the agenda was so full up. We have had a less tight agenda today and are finishing as early as 5.36 p.m. I wish to ask that the sittings be organised better. We are no less numerous today than at the earlier part-sessions, when Thursday's sitting went on until 6.30 p.m., or fewer in number than we used to be on Fridays – or maybe perhaps we are -– and there are no fewer of us here today than there will be tomorrow, which is Friday. So I ask for better use to be made of Thursday afternoons than hitherto and for action on the principle that those who leave have only themselves to blame. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the frequency of road accidents is so tragic and so underestimated as to justify the adoption of all possible initiatives as soon as possible at all levels of government and on all aspects of the matter, including human behaviour, the infrastructure and vehicles. The only selection criteria we need – although I fear this will be difficult, given the nature of the debate thus far – is to identify the operations which would be most effective precisely because they are simple to implement. I believe that the areas of human behaviour and infrastructures are those in which we can expect the quickest results: for example, the results of making it mandatory to wear a helmet and seat belts were remarkable in Italy. Motorcyclist deaths have fallen by 45% across all the age groups since it was made mandatory to wear a helmet last year. I am aware that measures such as making it compulsory to wear seat belts and helmets can be difficult to enforce, to implement, and that if they are not implemented then they are meaningless, merely words on paper. However, this does not mean that we should disregard the drink-driving issue, and I would therefore not be against slightly higher common blood alcohol limits, even though Italy might lose out slightly.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, this excellent directive will end the dumping of old cars, encourage recycling, and above all encourage manufacturers to design cars which can easily be recycled. Now who should pay the costs? Whatever system is adopted, ultimately the cost will be passed on to the consumer. The best way of achieving our environmental objectives is to make the manufacturers our instrument both for collecting the money and for disposing and recycling of the cars. The manufacturers have tricked Mr Florenz and Mr Lange into tabling amendments here which seriously weaken these proposals. Do not be fooled by the car manufacturers! If you want the full benefits of this directive use your vote to throw out these amendments.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to devote my speech to payments within the euro zone. The introduction of the single currency was a huge success, but although the new notes and coins have brought with them widespread satisfaction, the same cannot be said of the processing of payments in the euro zone. The euro has actually been our currency since 1999. For four and a half years the euro has been the currency of 11 Member States, whose national currencies became nothing more than submultiples still in circulation. Throughout this period, however, the European banking system persistently refused to recognise this new state of affairs. There were 12 countries with the same currency, but the banks carried on operating as if each country in the zone were financially autonomous. The euro payment zone did not really exist. It was not until a year ago that electronic banking cards could be used all over the euro zone as well as in the countries in which they were actually issued. It was not until this week, moreover, that it became possible to carry out bank transfers under the same conditions as those that apply within each Member State. Furthermore, while this is an extremely beneficial step for citizens and for small and medium-sized enterprises trading in the euro zone, the limit of EUR 12 500 per transaction is ridiculous and unjustifiable. Since the technical infrastructure allowing single-currency transfers from one country to another is in place, and since the cost is negligible, this being a virtual transaction processed by computers, why has such a low limit been set? A EUR 12 500 transaction costs the same as a EUR 50 000 transaction (which will be allowed from 2006), or a transaction of EUR 100 000 or more. I would go as far as to say that forcing a company to perform 10 small transactions of EUR 12 500 in order to make up one payment of EUR 125 000 only serves to increase costs for companies and banks. To conclude, I will state my conviction that the euro zone must be made to work effectively by reducing banking commissions to the rates charged at national level. Do not forget that the euro zone is our country where currency is concerned. What does the Commission plan to do to improve the processing of payments in the euro zone?

Political group: PSE
chairman of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection. – Thank you, Commissioner, for your statement. I think the lines that you have set up regarding the Food Safety Authority are a recognition of reality. The Member States would not accept a regulatory agency, so there is not very much point in your proposing one. Some sectors of the food industry clearly need better regulation and that is clear on the issue of feed and animal feedingstuffs. However, as chairman of a committee which looks as though it will be concerning itself almost entirely with food over the next three years, I have to ask: if Europe has the safest food control system, as you have said, why do we need 24 new directives and regulations and 20 new amending directives? Secondly, will this not compound the problem of over-regulation from Brussels and under-implementation in the Member States? We look forward to a fruitful dialogue with you on this. Regarding enlargement: what plans does the Commission have to involve the applicant states in debates on these new laws, given that the Commission clearly expects the laws envisaged in the White Paper to form part of the acquis communautaire by 2003?

Political group: PPE-DE