GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, let me begin by praising the efforts of the European Union, the Council and the Commission up to now. We have spoken with one voice, unlike on other occasions when we debated the Balkans, and a powerful moderating influence was quite rightly exercised upon the use of violence, with the emphasis placed on finding a political solution. Nevertheless, I have two concerns. One of them relates to the link between EU aid and the parties’ playing a constructive role. This is a very tricky business. Of course, aid is not automatic. But – and this is a question to the Commission – do we withdraw our aid to the Albanian Language University in Tetovo if we do not like the attitude of the Albanian parties in the government, or do we halt the construction of small-scale infrastructure if we do not like the compromises of the Macedonian parties? I would be very careful about this. I am in favour of exercising pressure, I am in favour of the involvement of the EU, but I am against vague threats. My concrete question to the Commission is therefore about whether that link applies to the new aid, as seems to be implied in the words of the Commissioner, or whether it also applies to existing aid. In other words, will there be a moment at which the European Commission says to the parties, ‘we do not like your attitude, and so we are discontinuing all aid or part of the aid’? My second concern relates to the reaching of an agreement. It has been said that military involvement will only come when there is an agreement within the government and an agreement with the rebels, and it is with this last point that, in my view, the problem lies. That is because the special representative, Mr Léotard, whom Mr Swoboda has already said, even before he was on the scene, that it would be necessary to negotiate with the rebels. The world was too small. Mr Léotard was almost not allowed into Macedonia. But if the government refuses to negotiate with the rebels, who will negotiate with them? Is the Commission involved behind the scenes, or has it been party to negotiations? Is the Council involved? Someone will have to make the link between the governmental agreement and the rebels. I have no sympathy at all for the rebels and believe they should put an end to their violence but, whether we like it or not, an agreement which does not include an agreement with the rebels is not worthy of the name. The governmental agreement therefore needs to be linked to an agreement with the rebels. My question to the Council and the Commission is: who is prepared to make that link?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to request that the vote on the Damião report on asbestos be added to the voting list today. It is a matter of urgency. We have only the three amendments before us that were voted in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. No new amendments have been tabled here in plenary. Those amendments have been available for over two weeks in translation. If we can vote today, the college of Commissioners, as I understand it, could consider the matter this afternoon. It can then be taken at Council on Friday of this week under the Danish Presidency. The Danish Presidency has worked very hard to agree these amendments with us, and this would allow us to close the dossier at second reading without going into conciliation. I hope it can be added to the voting list today.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Leila Zana, winner of the Sakharov prize, at a time when her case is being reviewed due to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, has just called on the European Union to encourage reform by instigating accession negotiations with Turkey without delay. She claimed that this would speed up the democratisation process in Turkey. Indeed, when will the Turkish powers finally embark on that path instead of continuing to harass democratic militants, as was still the case with the arbitrary requisitioning of the premises of the Turkish Human Rights Association, an association which already suffers frequent threats and intimidation? The recent ban last March of the ADEP party is also unacceptable, given that this party clearly rejects any link with armed combat. The Constitutional Court of Ankara is thus adding to the very long list of penalties imposed on those who fight for the recognition of the Kurdish people’s rights. The Turkish powers are keeping rigidly to a way of thinking which not only harms the direct victims of oppression but also Turkish society as a whole and the image of the country abroad. Almost exactly a year ago, on 10 May 2002, the ad hoc delegation from Parliament considered that the ban on the ADEP would constitute a substantial step backwards for Turkish democracy. Sadly, that is now the case. What conclusions can we draw from this? We must avoid falling into the trap of the conservatives and other extremists here in Europe, who automatically exclude the Turkish people from the Christian club that the European Union would be. It would be criminal to stigmatise and isolate this nation by closing the doors to the Union in its face. That is why I would like to reiterate here my full support for the activities of those in Turkey who are demonstrating in favour of human rights, sometimes risking their lives. The democratic forces need to know that we are by their side to ensure that the day when it is possible to live and speak freely in Turkey comes as soon as possible. The Council and the Commission therefore need to make a greater effort to ensure that the Turkish Government observes the Copenhagen criteria, in other words, that it promotes human rights and the rule of law. This commitment should be shown by commensurate financial support for the activities of associations working for democracy. Lastly, following the reopening of the Leila Zana case and those of three of her colleagues a few days ago, I would like to express my hope that the European Parliament will be able to present Mrs Zana with her prize here in this hemicycle as soon as possible.

Political group: GUE-NGL
As the last speaker, Commissioner, I can either repeat the comments of those who have already spoken or oppose them. I will try to make one or two additional points. In my view, if the European Constitution does not include a substantial chapter or article on public services, its authors will be in danger of playing into the hands of those who want it to be rejected. They must take heed, for the Constitution is to be ratified by referendum! My second point is as follows. If the concept of public services is not present, our citizens will stop believing in a European social model and see it as devoid of sense. This concept must therefore be introduced. Lastly, Commissioner, beware of ideologies! Just because the communist system of ‘all state’ did not work in the twentieth century, that does not mean that the capitalist system has necessarily got it right. Do not fall into the trap of jumping from ideology of ‘all state’ to the ideology of ‘all market’. The god of competition does not need a monument.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have expressed our complete and categorical opposition to the liberalisation of energy being promoted by the European Union on numerous occasions in the past. The proposed restructuring only benefits the strong monopoly groups and has adverse repercussions on the cost to the average family, national energy planning and the position of the workers in this specific sector. The Communist Party of Greece considers that energy is not simply a consumer product, but a sector of strategic importance to development and, as such, it cannot be the object of business activity and speculation, but should belong to the public sector. Consequently, we refuse to discuss the details, the terms and the speeding up of liberalisation and the relevant rules of competition; instead we shall support the proposals for overall rejection tabled by our political group. Allow me, however, a few comments on the regulation for the networks, which is being used to promote increased exports from strong Community monopolies which will benefit from the reduction in actual transportation costs. At the same time, it safeguards high profitability by passing the new financial burdens on to the average family, while the increase in exports will limit the development of generating stations in the weaker Member States in order to make use of domestic energy sources. In addition, control of national grids is being shifted from the Member States to the Commission, thereby cutting the potential for national energy planning in order to reduce energy dependency and ensure the needs of each Member State are satisfied. Cross-border exchanges in electricity can be used to reduce energy dependency, safeguard cheap energy and make use of domestic sources. However, the precondition for this is a policy of mutually beneficial cooperation between countries, quite unlike that being promoted by the regulation and the policy of the European Union in general.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, as Commissioner Fischler is going to have to speak immediately, perhaps I could ask him to pay attention to me so that he can prepare his speech. I would like to congratulate you and thank you for the Commission’s interest in the outermost regions and express the general satisfaction of the Members of this House. I would also like to thank Mr Martínez Martínez and congratulate him on his work. Above all, however, I want to point out three or four amendments to Mr Fischler that are of particular importance. I am referring to Regulation (EEC) No 1601/92, concerning specific measures for the Canary Islands and, specifically to Amendments Nos 29 and 34, aimed at including aid for non-municipal public forests, and Amendment No 158, also concerning aid for non-municipal forests. I think that the Spanish authorities were mistaken in not requesting this aid at the time and now they must do so. I am also referring to Amendments Nos 126 and 127, which aim to protect local industry in the Canary Islands and, finally, the amendments aimed at protecting the Canarian tomato, which could encounter serious difficulties in the new phase of drawing up a Community policy that applies in Mediterranean countries. Also the proposed measures to support wine but to remove aid for imports to the Canary Islands of table wine and liquid milk, which could enter into competition with Canarian products. In short, I think that we have a good proposal from the Commission and some good reports by Mr Martínez Martínez. The European Parliament should adopt these proposals, which, incidentally, have not been amended at all in Parliament, as I think that the majority of Members consider that the text adopted by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development is a positive one. I hope that the Commission will be able to take into account at least some of the main amendments, which I have just pointed out.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, looking around the Chamber at this moment I think it is obvious that after yesterday's vote when we abolished Fridays, the abolition of Thursday has already begun. (Applause) I hope colleagues will take note of this and try to revise that unwise decision as soon as possible. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, all of us who have participated in the work of the committee know that this has been a difficult and controversial debate which has even, at times, caused tension in Parliament. I would like to make several things clear: firstly, this is a good proposed directive by the Commission. I repeat: I believe that it is a good proposal, and this has been reflected in the vote in committee. I believe that it is a positive regulation and is very important if the European Union is to have efficient maritime and port services. We must not forget that 80% of the European Union’s trade is carried out by sea. And this liberalisation proposed by the Commission will no doubt benefit short sea shipping. Furthermore, there is clearly a need for Community regulation of these services in accordance with the liberalising approach established at the Lisbon Council and which has already been applied in other sectors of services. The proposal we are dealing with today includes technical-nautical services (pilotage and mooring) and cargo-handling services. There are no reasons, on the grounds of safety, training or anything else, to justify their exclusion from the scope of the directive. We must clearly take account of the particular nature of ports and the fact that there are services whose provision begins or ends outside the physical area of the port. Another essential element of the system proposed by the Commission is the concept of self-handling, which is already laid down in Directive 96/67/EC on access to the groundhandling market at Community airports. I would like to briefly mention certain other elements of the port package. We are talking about public funding of ports and the need for great transparency in the financial relations between public authorities and ports and State aid. I agree with certain amendments which try to describe this aspect. But with regard to State aid, it seems clear that this directive is not the right place to discuss this issue. Lastly, I would like to thank the rapporteur, although we have disagreed on certain points, for the enormous amount of work he has done and the huge effort he has made to try to reconcile all the proposals.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I have a technical amendment to make concerning the wording of Amendment No 3 and also the original text to which this amendment applies. It reads as follows: 'that the common agricultural policy's share of total compulsory expenditure is ...'. It should be changed to 'that the compulsory part of the common agricultural policy's share of total ...'. It is about compulsory agricultural expenditure.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, firstly I would like to thank Mrs Laura González Álvarez and also the Spanish speaker who is coming after me. Without them, one might have assumed that this is a Northern European debate. This is not the case, as this is an issue which concerns us all. On climate change itself, I would like to express my fear that this issue is being continually pushed into the background, as something which is of less and less interest to the public and to politicians. Finally we have professed our beliefs and that appears to be enough for most people. That would be extraordinarily dangerous! Therefore, I would like to suggest two things: firstly, we should endorse Mr Lange’s call to reach agreement on the emissions trade with the close involvement of Parliament, because such a powerful intervention in trade policy would be very difficult to carry out against Parliament’s wishes. Secondly, I suggest that we establish a binding timetable, one with real sanctions against any EU State that deviates from the targets for reduction. The model I recommend is the concerted reduction of debt, which has now made the Euro possible.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in June 2003 Parliament adopted, by a large majority, a report by Mr Belder, in which we called for there to be no more ad hoc Parliament approval on urgent macro-financial assistance and for this no longer to be allowed. The Group of the can only be amazed that, this morning, we did exactly the opposite in a report by the same Mr Belder.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to make a few remarks in response to Mr Hughes' observations. I would agree, as I hope all sides of the House would agree, that harassment is a serious problem wherever it occurs. It may only occur on some occasions, in some companies, with some people, but whenever it does occur it is a serious problem for those people and must be deplored and indeed addressed. By harassment at the 'workplace' we do not just mean at the traditional workplace, between employee and employee, or employer and employee, but also at places such as schools, between pupils and teachers, where cases of harassment and bullying are increasingly common. However, in all those circumstances I fundamentally disagree with Mr Hughes on his key point that wherever there is a problem the solution always has to be legislation, and that wherever there has to be legislation the solution is always legislation at EU level. We need better management and we need to pay closer attention to the issue, but that does not mean we need a legalistic approach. We need a commonsense approach rather than EU law. I agree with the Commissioner and think she is right to reject the criticism that was made of her and should continue to do so. It is true, as Mr Hughes said, that some officials in DG-Employment take a different view. There are many people and, I hope, an increasingly large group of people who will take a different view. Finally, and perhaps in a lighter vein, Mr Hughes talks about psychological harassment at the workplace. I face constant psychological harassment at my workplace, which is the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, mainly because I constantly have to address reports by Mr Hughes. I suspect that legislation is not going to stop that from occurring!

Political group: PPE-DE
In a world of increasingly open borders, the flood of refugees is not about to dry up. Those who welcome the progress of globalisation but wish to add a social dimension to its economic component must not forget that the movement of goods also means the movement of people. The arrival on the French coast on 19 January of a group of 910 Kurdish refugees clearly illustrates the growing involvement of networks of organised crime in illegal immigration. Above all, however, this massive influx of refugees quite plainly raises the question of the right to seek asylum on European soil today. It highlights the existence right inside our borders of real trafficking in human beings, which, according to some experts, is approaching the scale of the traffic in drugs. This can be discouraged only by the establishment of genuine channels of legal access to immigration. The organisation of legal immigration channels in Europe would tangibly reduce the pressure put on the right of asylum by the fact that it is really the only one that exists, together with the right of persons persecuted in their country of origin to be reunited with their family. Under the 1951 Geneva Convention, the right to seek asylum is indeed a fundamental and inalienable individual right that needs to be strengthened and protected from any political considerations. It needs to be strengthened because refugees face more than just state persecution and because very often it is not just individuals who are targeted but whole families. The proposal before us today seems to tend broadly in that direction, yet the measures it advocates are very limited in terms of achieving the objectives involved in implementing a genuine common European asylum system. It is time Europe considered establishing a legal status of temporary protection for people who flee their country because of war or other crises. It must be a status that does not bar them from access to an asylum procedure and a status that maintains due regard for the principle of non-refoulement enshrined in the Geneva Convention, under which refugees may not be sent back to their country of origin. It is time for the European Union to genuinely overhaul the right of asylum without further delay, for the situations in which the displaced people find themselves are too urgent and serious to allow time for institutional discussions.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Thank you, Commissioner, for such a detailed reply, full of dates and numbers. The only question which remains is, when will the provisions of the directive and the law which you mentioned to us start being applied? I am asking because there has been very heavy rainfall in Athens over the past two days, coupled with a strike by refuse collectors, and the huge volume of rubbish to which this directive applies has blocked all the drains and the town has flooded. Can you tell me what is being planned apart from formally introducing this law? I think that there are deadlines. Can you tell me what your views are? When, roughly, will the volume of rubbish start decreasing and a different sort of policy – a recycling and recovery policy – be introduced?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, we are now discussing animal diseases, but Commissioner, humans too still face tragic diseases. For example, the spreading of apparently inexplicable diseases in people can be traced back to explainable causes, such as uranium, which is depleted or not, as the case may be, and diseases of the immune system which are said to be caused by substances in the environment. Could you give us a reassurance that you will be devoting the necessary attention to research in this field? I should like to ask you in more general terms whether Europe’s shortfall, compared to the United States, will ever take an end? Europe is lagging behind in areas such as spending of resources. Could the Commissioner assure us that more resources will be made available, both by the Community and by the Member States? The Commissioner has told us time and again that it is not so relevant to keep alluding to the discrepancy between fundamental and applied research. Could we, despite this, assume that fundamental research in Europe will not lag behind?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, since 7 November the SNCF has suspended all cross-Channel rail freight services because of fears for the safety of its staff at Calais following threats from those seeking to enter the UK illegally. As a result, Channel Tunnel freight services are now in a state of deep crisis. However, we are pleased today that both French MEPs and British Labour MEPs have pushed for a debate, and indeed that the Group has joined us in calling this debate this afternoon. We need cooperation, not conflict, to resolve this particular problem. No more naming and shaming, no more buck-passing; we need the British government, the French government, the SNCF, Eurotunnel, EWS and others to start working together more effectively. A lot has been done, but there is a lot to do. Added to my list is the European Commission. Articles 28 to 30 of the Treaty and Regulation 2679/98 guarantee the free movement of goods. That means free movement through the Channel Tunnel. I thank the Commissioner for intervening in this particular crisis and for responding positively to requests from myself and others. In the past few days a security fence has been built and we welcome that. But policing is still only between the hours of 9 p.m. and 3 a.m. We hope to be able to persuade our French colleagues of the need for 24-hour policing and adequate police numbers. We need the SNCF to resume services as soon as possible and we need urgent modifications to locomotives to ensure they do not need to stop at Calais purely for technical reasons. These are practical measures that will make a big difference in the short term. We hope you, Commissioner, will continue to act to ensure that this vital link in the single market is restored.

Political group: PSE