GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, as you know, I live in Bilbao, a city in the Basque country which, like other European cities, is very densely populated. Our airport is very close to housing and, like 20% of Europe’s citizens, we suffer levels of noise from aircraft which health experts consider to be unacceptable. On 29 April 1999, the European Union adopted a Council regulation with a view to controlling and reducing the noise produced by subsonic aircraft engines, limiting in due course the use of silencers, which do not resolve the problem completely, and helping airlines to update their fleets with new generation aircraft which create less pollution. This has pleased the powerful American firms, as aircraft manufacturers, but at the same time harms them because they are also owner-investors in thousands of leased aircraft in all the countries of the world. Since these aircraft are antiquated, it would be difficult for them to operate in Europe. Neither has the European Regulation been popular with the American manufacturers of aircraft engine silencers known as ‘hushkits’ and, therefore, the United States has announced commercial, financial etc. measures against the European Union unless we delay the entry into force of our regulation. I understand that we must not be inflexible. We must offer an opportunity for dialogue and understanding, but in order for this to happen, the United States must agree to adopt certain approaches. At the next assembly of the ICAO, the United States must commit itself to the adoption of a new and more restrictive standard for aircraft noise, as well as to withdrawing its complaints and coercive measures. Only under these circumstances could we accept a delay in our regulation for third countries.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, on a point of order, Mr Heaton-Harris' speech was printed in The Times this morning, which is helpful because this means that I can respond to it now. I have checked his information with the Commission. In an administrative note dated 29 July 2002 the Commission reports that since 1998 there have been 49 – not 50 – disciplinary cases. Of these, nine resulted in dismissal – not one. One was for professional incompetence, eight for serious disciplinary offences and 32 other cases attracted a range of penalties. Only eight out of 49 cases did not lead to a conviction. Therefore Mr Heaton-Harris got his facts wrong. I know we have a difference on certain issues relating to Commission reform but we should be able to conduct a discussion based on facts not fiction. (Applause from the left)

Political group: PSE
The Portuguese MEPs voted for the Duhamel report on the constitutionalisation of the Treaties essentially because they agree with the need for the European Union to simplify and organise the fundamental texts that govern it, which today have become virtually unreadable on account of the complexity introduced by the successive accumulation of Treaties. To this end, it is essential that the European Union should move towards a Constitution that incorporates the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The experience of a full democracy in the European Union has everything to gain from the approval of a Constitution that is clear, simple, readable and a source of reference for all citizens. The Portuguese MEPs do not, however, agree that ratification of this ‘Constitution’ should necessarily be carried out by means of a referendum. One must not infer from this position that we are against the use of the referendum as an institution or that the achievement of greater political depth in the European Union should occur without the Portuguese people being consulted. This choice should be made independently and freely and should not have to depend on an imposed measure that might clash with the constitutional practice of an individual country. That is why the Portuguese MEPs voted against the proposal of their own political group, which indicated a uniform referendum model for all the Member States of the European Union. To achieve the desirable objective of a European Constitution it is inadvisable to impose rigid patterns and methods, which would inevitably lead to failure. In such a sensitive matter, boldness and prudence should go hand in hand.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, first of all, I welcome the rapporteur’s laudable efforts in such a difficult area. It is true that we need peace right away – it is urgent – it is true that we need to show the prospect, as has been said, and that we need to re-humanise this debate and avoid turning the parties into monsters. That was said with a great deal of humanity just now. I would, however, like to make a few brief comments on this report, but first to add my voice to the protests that have been raised against the Malaysian Prime Minister’s racist remarks. I want our Assembly to note that and take strong initiatives in this regard. (Applause) I would also like to express my strongest indignation at what Mr Gahrton said just now in justification of terrorist violence and to say that while the occupation must be condemned – it is questionable and I have many criticisms of Israeli policy in that respect – it does not justify terrorism and never will. Terrorism is a crime against humanity, it is absolutely evil, without equivalent, and must be condemned. I really would like to know what the connection is between young people who blow themselves up in discos or people who are murdered in restaurants and the occupation. I think the comparison is absolutely outrageous. Personally, it makes me want to throw up. Coming back to the three things I want to say about this report, first of all, as I said, terrorism really cannot be put on the same plane as the criticisms that might legitimately be made of Israeli policy. They are two different things, different in the moral hierarchy and in the hierarchy of evil. Then I would like to mention sanctions, in particular the breaking off of the association agreement. Breaking off that agreement is a sanction against a people, and since our Assembly called for the embargo against Iraq to be lifted on the grounds that a people should not be punished for the acts of its leaders, I do not think we should punish the people of Israel, especially when we have just voted for an association agreement with Lebanon, which can tell us a lot about occupation, being a country that is occupied, annexed by Syria, whether we condemn it or not. Finally, my third comment is about the international mandate, which takes us back 50 years. I would like to point out, however, that what was passionately refused yesterday is being demanded passionately today: the 1967 borders, the division of Palestine into two or the Clinton criteria. That is what is being called for today after overturning the table.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as you see, people are starting to copy Mr Fatuzzo’s explanations of vote. I am pleased that they are following my example because they are calling for the European Parliament to have a single seat: not a seat in Brussels, one in Strasbourg and one in Luxembourg but a single seat. I support that demand, Mr President, and I put this question to you: what costs more, the few minutes Mr Fatuzzo spends delivering explanations of vote or having three seats for the European Parliament (Applause) with three buildings, and three offices for each Member and each employee. If we succeed in having a single seat for the European Parliament, I would be willing to stop delivering explanations of vote in celebration of the major saving made. That is where the saving needs to be made, not on Mr Fatuzzo’s minute-long speeches.

Political group: PPE-DE
I have voted in favour of the report and especially of Amendment No 1 from Mr van Dam. It is important for the European Parliament to strongly criticise the anti-Semitic statements in teaching resources for Palestinian schools and for Parliament to call upon the Commission to ensure that the aid given to Palestinian education does not, either directly or indirectly, finance racial hatred. Instead, the EU’s contribution to the Palestinian education system should instead promote peace and reconciliation in the Middle East. EU aid must, as far as possible, be designed to bring about peace and reconciliation in the Middle East. The EU is, among other things, providing aid to the Palestinian education system. It is profoundly unfortunate and offensive that Palestinian school books should contain anti-Semitic statements and describe Israel – the only democracy in the Middle East – in terms as abominable as those of Nazism.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr President of the Commission, Commissioner, I would like firstly to congratulate Mr von Wogau on the wonderful work he has done on this report. This report and the statements made about it by both the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, and Commissioner Bolkestein, free up a process which has really prevented the speed that we would have liked in the negotiation of projects and the proposals for the creation of an internal market in the financial sector. In the little time remaining for me, I would like to focus on two aspects. Firstly, once we have freed up the process by means of the agreement that today’s debate represents, what we have to do is get to work. That is to say, we have to make the 42 directives envisaged a reality, by 2003 in the case of the capital market and by 2005 in the case of financial services. Secondly, I would like to point out that the European Parliament has never created obstacles when it has been asked for speed, urgency and cooperation in the implementation of projects and issues of such importance as the implementation of the euro or the European internal market itself, which are two very important successes of European construction. The Commission has not normally created obstacles, nor has Parliament, and if we have ever been faced with obstacles, it has been in the Council. In other words, everybody must fulfil their responsibilities.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, first of all let me say that I am in full support of a statute for assistants. Yesterday when I arrived in Parliament I was handed a document relating to a proposed demonstration by the assistants outside the doors of Parliament. As all colleagues will know – and many of you have approached me over the last six months – all exhibitions and such like are filtered first of all through the Comart committee of Parliament. To give a non-contentious example, no commercial exhibitions can be held here in Parliament for obvious reasons. Following a letter I received yesterday, I immediately informed the assistants that we would propose that they be allowed to hold a meeting or demonstration, probably in the near future and possibly in the next month. But all exhibitions must be carried out in a way that do not interfere with the orderly running of Parliament. I signed a letter yesterday afternoon, in the meeting of the Bureau of Parliament, in which the assistants were informed of this. But I am also told that they were informed verbally of this decision by the Committee of Chairmen of Groups last Thursday, so they were fully aware of the decision. There is no problem with them telling us the way they feel, there is no problem with a possible meeting during Parliament's next part-session. But there was some misunderstanding, for they did receive a letter from somebody else that they felt gave them permission. But all exhibitions are in fact looked at first by the so-called Comart committee. As you can see we have many exhibitions around Parliament, whether they be about different countries or whatever. This is not an attempt to either censor or go against the very real and justifiable principle that we should have a statute for assistants.

Political group: PPE-DE
In fact, I had not intended to rise, but I must respond to what Mr Watson, the Chairman of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, has just said. He urges our group to withdraw its amendments. Let me point out to Mr Watson that there are 338 amendments, 157 of which have been tabled by our group. That means that 181 come from other groups. It is unfair to imply that our group is solely responsible for all the amendments. A great many Members are unsatisfied with this report, and that is why 181 amendments have been tabled by other groups. I would urge you, Mr President, to ensure that speakers do not only refer to amendments from our group.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too think it good that we obtain clearer rules and that the regulation be revised in such a way as to take account of the changes that have occurred in the transport sector over the last 15 years. I think it important, however, that, in connection with regulating the safety of road transport, we obtain a clear definition of the rules relating to driving time and rest periods, viewed partly in relation to features supplementary to these rules, such as the rules governing drivers’ working time, as well as checks that the rules governing driving time and rest periods are being complied with. My country’s geographical situation is such that it is particularly important for us that transport be efficient at the same time as being safe. It is therefore important that the concept of driving time be defined as the period during which the vehicle’s wheels are turning and that there be no confusion with the rules governing drivers’ working time. I want to warn against the proposals to change the present rules so as to extend rest periods because such changes could entail major expenditure without providing drivers with greater safety or better conditions. That is because the quality of a rest is not necessarily directly proportional to its length, and it is also important that drivers themselves be able to organise their rest periods and choose where they are going to rest. Everyone may agree that there are problems with the safety of transport on our highways, but that is not necessarily always because of unduly lax rules but, rather, because of inadequate checks and insufficient efforts to ensure that the rules are being complied with in practice. That is something we must do something about. I should like to add that I very much agree with my fellow MEP, Mr Blak, that we must also look at another problem for drivers. It is important that they be safer when they take their breaks. It is disgraceful that drivers should live in fear of assault and robbery. The Council has accepted that countries must make efforts in this area, and I am looking forward to seeing some practical initiatives soon.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner Reding, I would like to congratulate Mrs de Sarnez on her excellent report and thank her once again for her cooperation. The Erasmus Mundus Programme can only be passionately supported. On the one hand, the programme’s added value consists in the possibility of mobility, in the learning of foreign languages as well as in intercultural exchanges. On the other hand, Erasmus Mundus accepts, in a pro-active and constructive way, the educational challenges of globalisation. It is precisely because the programme is open to students from third countries that Europe can distinguish itself further in the field of higher education. In an age of globalisation, there is competition for the best products, the best ideas and last but not least, for the best brains. It is for this reason that Europe must make itself more attractive and competitive as a place of study and education. As draftsman for the opinion of the Committee on Budgets for the first reading of the report in April 2003, I too am particularly pleased today to see that Parliament has notched up one significant success. With EUR 230 million instead of the proposed EUR 180 million, Erasmus Mundus will have a sound financial basis. After all, what can sensible programmes achieve if they are not adequately funded? What we have achieved is creditable, but the current commitments and the new initiatives are altogether inadequate when set against the Lisbon objectives. When money is tight and budgetary resources limited, we cannot expect to reach dizzy heights, but nor should money being tight and limited budgetary resources be excuses for preventing us from making farsighted political commitments. Ladies and gentlemen, education is the number one investment in the future. Do we want to have the most dynamic and most competitive economic area in the world by 2010? If so, then we have to get our priorities right by investing in research and training, and Erasmus Mundus is a step in the right direction.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too would like to express my deepest condolences to the family of those killed tragically in this ferry disaster, but also pay tribute to those involved in the rescue effort, not least of course, the Royal Navy. On behalf of the Socialist transport team, I regret the fact that this debate is taking place as an urgency. It could be more properly debated in committee next week, but that was the decision of the House which, of course, I respect. What we certainly do not need today, or indeed next week, or in the future, is a point-scoring exercise between our Greek colleagues in the run-up to the general election in Greece. That serves no one's interest. This is not a concern solely for Greece. It is a matter for Europe as a whole. This was an accident waiting to happen. Some of us have worked on the issue of ferry safety for many years, not least because other ferries in other parts of Europe have also sunk with a tragic loss of life, be it the Herald of Free Enterprise, the Scandinavian Star or, of course, most notoriously of all, the Estonia in the 1990s. All these demonstrate that ferries are not safe enough. In our view, this tragedy could well happen again. Not because we have too few laws in Europe, but because the laws are not properly enforced. It is not just Greece. There are other Member States that do not comply with maritime safety laws and if I may, I will name some: Italy, Belgium, Denmark, Ireland and the Presidency, France, are all failing to implement the port-state control directive. I hope today, and in the coming days and weeks, we will hear from the Commission on what action they propose to take against these Member States that do not take maritime safety seriously.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I should like to thank Mr Trakatellis very warmly for his excellent report. But thanks are also due to the committee responsible, which accepted all 16 amendments proposed by the Committee on Women's Rights. This shows that once again, this House is much further ahead than some Member States with their national health policies. Although we women constitute the majority of the population, and although the double and triple burden of work, family and caring for relatives are shown to take a greater toll on our health, women-specific aspects do not always receive the attention they deserve in health policy. Our health systems are usually gender-blind. National reports rarely include a breakdown by gender. Yet it is telling that in Europe and beyond, the majority of people who are dependent on medication are women. In Germany, the figure is 70%. So we urgently need more solid data, and above all, a holistic approach to health throughout Europe. Gender policies must also be granted a central role in health policy in future: in research, prevention and treatment. The new Public Health Action Programme can pave the way in this regard. Every 20 minutes, a woman dies of breast cancer in Europe. It affects one woman in nine. The probability of contracting this disease increases from year to year. Yet if it is detected in time and properly treated, breast cancer is curable. So here too, best practice is imperative. We must ensure that it is not only in early detection that breakthroughs are widely promoted throughout the EU. After the adoption of the European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Mammography Screening, the task now is to research and promote best practice for treatment as well.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, my assessment is a rather critical one. The future of Europe depends on two major issues: democracy and employment. Democracy: the Intergovernmental Conference does not appear to resolve the issue of the alleged democratic deficit, and so-called closer cooperation on its own will not suffice. Greater democracy means guaranteeing full authority to adopt legislation and initiatives to the peoples’ elected representatives. It means independence for Europe from the United States and therefore greater autonomy for NATO. Greater democracy means political control of the economy and its institutions, starting with the Central Bank, and not the reverse. Employment: the e-Europe action plan may serve to prepare the citizens to become Internet shoppers but it will certainly not create jobs. Employment policy is short-sighted and biased towards the market. A completely absurd ideological process is currently developing in which the State is replaced by the market, and it is absolutely clear to us Communists that the Union must change direction completely.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, today we must assess what this report is about, which is the safe transportation of radioactive materials. It is a response to the Commission's communication on recent changes to the International Atomic Energy Agency's transport regulations. I say that because there were times during the debate in the committee when the central issue of transportation of radioactive material seemed to get lost in the wider debate between the pro- and anti-nuclear lobbies. We should, however, thank Mrs Isler Béguin for starting the work, and certainly our chairman Mr Hatzidakis for finishing it, so we can have that debate here today. The Commission takes the view that the risk associated with transportation of radioactive material is low but that efforts should be made to inform the public and the emergency services of the safety of the transportation process. A multi-annual plan should also be adopted by the Community. We broadly support this view. Sadly, in the former rapporteur's report, she took a position which included all dangerous inherent radioactivity, went against reprocessing of radioactive material and recommended that the Euratom Treaty be withdrawn and the nuclear sector be covered by a chapter about energy in the Treaty. We in the felt, as I said earlier, that this was a report on the transportation of radioactive material and had nothing to do with the merits or demerits of the nuclear industry. That is why we made compromises and I feel at the moment that we have a balanced report we can all support. On behalf of the , therefore, I can say that we will support the two amendments that we tabled down in the plenary but reject the majority of amendments which either defend the nuclear industry as if no problem exists, or damn it as some form of devil-incarnate industry. My group believes that the report as it stands, while not perfect, is at least balanced, realistic, objective and addresses the issues that it is supposed to address, namely the transportation of radioactive material.

Political group: PSE