GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I totally agree with Mr Watts: we deserve more than a biscuit and a glass of water. In the last 30 years I have been flying round the world an average of twice a week, which is perhaps more than many others here in this House. I cannot in general agree with the statement made by many of my fellow Members that air passengers are being treated badly. We deserve rights but should we cram as many Christmas presents as possible into this package? Because, ladies and gentlemen, what do the airlines do for money? They operate using the money they receive from us, the passengers. Would it not be better to solve these problem situations through greater competition, broken monopolies and reduced regulation? We cannot provide passengers with better service by increasing legislation and putting a strain on the airlines, because even today’s system works excellently in the countries which apply it. We live in a world of open competition and this will only mean that third countries will have the competitive edge. The European consumer deserves as many options as possible and the cheapest tickets possible. More red tape of this sort will not help the situation. With regard to interlining, I would say that if a British Airways flight from Tokyo arrives at Helsinki and Finnair goes on from there to Oulu and this onward flight is cancelled due to bad weather, it is unfair if Finnair has to pay the whole cost of the ticket. I truly believe that an air passenger’s rights must be protected, but air passengers and airlines go hand in hand and, at the end of the day, their interests cannot be separated. Increased fares may easily be awaiting us at the end of the runway. IN THE CHAIR: MR PUERTAVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the debate currently taking place, including the debate in this Chamber, is proof – if proof were still needed – of how different and divergent the proposals that have been made are. The sad conclusion we must draw is that there is currently no possibility of stopping the war in the Middle East. In any case, in the Middle East, two men – Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat – are continuing to jeopardise the stability of the world today, and although they talk of peace they do not genuinely desire it, they are shying away from it, avoiding it, for neither of them want peace: both hope, or believe they will win the war, one with superior military force and the other with suicide bomb attacks. The effects of this crisis in the Middle East are starting to impact on our countries too, as Mr Pasqua said just now. Racism is on the increase and is attacking the rest of the world, Europe and the United States, leading to dangerous misunderstandings and differences of opinion between these two continents, between Europe and the United States. It is difficult to envisage any sort of solution but, as Mr Solana said just now, we need to establish a political perspective for the future, and I feel that the idea of a sort of international Marshall plan aimed at resolving at least a small part of the problems of the Palestinians could be a useful contribution. The Italian Government has developed an initiative of this kind, an initiative to support the economy in the Middle East and, in particular, the Palestinian economy, an initiative which Mr Berlusconi recently proposed to all his European colleagues. I feel that all those who are calling and hoping for genuine peace in the Middle East must support this proposal.

Political group: PPE-DE
This non-legislative report is brimming with fine things and statements of the obvious. Of course, more women must be able to find work in knowledge-intensive sectors, such as information and communication technology. In addition, it sounds good that a ‘Statute for European Employees’ should be drafted, a European system of labour legislation and social security for mobile employees. This fits in with the questions I am asking the Commission today about the Polish construction workers who work without collective labour agreements. However, the gist of the proposal is about adapting people to suit the work, rather than adapting the work to suit the people. It provides recipes for the way in which a labour market can function more effectively by better tailoring education to work. It intends to make it easier for people to move thousands of kilometres to regions with a different language and a different culture, where the scope for employment happens to be greater. If people really want to move, it is self-evidently a good thing that their qualifications should be valid even far away from home and that they should be able to take their pension rights with them. Most people, however, do not want this, with good reason. Europe is not America, where, out of financial necessity, people are forced to move such distances, which cuts them off from their families and friends. Let things stay that way.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to start with the observation that we have six reports, all of which recommend discharge – with the exception of one part in Mrs Morgan's report, which we have already discussed. I think that is something we have not seen for a long time. I want to congratulate the rapporteurs most warmly, but would also like to mention that the highest levels of the Commission were represented in many of our meetings, and this made management easier – something mentioned by you, Mrs Schreyer. To give or withhold discharge is actually the greatest power Parliament possesses, in which Parliament is superior to the Council, and that is why it is a highly political instrument. Let me emphasise that again. This time, the judgment on the way that the Budget was managed in 2000 was indeed lenient, especially, too, in the report on the Commission. So I would just like to mention three points, and briefly. One is the issue of the large surplus that remains. I am less concerned about whether this money reverts to the Member States or is set off, than that it should not be used to achieve political objectives, especially in the areas of structural policy and enlargement, and that makes me very vigilant. There is room for improvement here, and another surplus of this sort for 2001 will not be acceptable. The second point is the Statement of Assurance that the Court of Auditors did not grant. This instrument is evidently not that fully applicable. It is very difficult for us, in the absence of percentages of errors, to judge whether errors have been committed, and how many. The third issue I wish to address is that of monitoring, in which field the Commission, being responsible for the Member States and also, already now, for the candidate countries – one can take Chapter 28 as an example – must take great care that the European Union's financial interests are effectively safeguarded. I therefore see the Green Paper on the creation of a European public prosecutor as showing the way ahead.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the Stability and Growth Pact was adopted in 1997 as an extension to the excessive deficit procedure, the Maastricht Treaty having famously required that Member States had to remain below the excessive deficit limit in order to join the single currency. Consequently, in spirit – not in letter but in spirit – the Stability and Growth Pact can be no better or worse than the Maastricht requirement in question. Many people perhaps consider that the introduction and success of the euro are ex-post vindication of the inflation and excessive deficit limits, those all too restrictive limits. They are wrong! The strict limits imposed in Maastricht certainly succeeded in keeping prices under control, but they exacerbated unemployment in the European economy. Unemployment and recession have not strengthened the value of the euro, they have undermined it, witness the fact that the euro fell by nearly 20% against the dollar when it was introduced, at a time when budgetary deficits were under better control than they are now, while now that deficits are supposedly getting out of control, the euro is almost on a one-to-one parity with the dollar. Witness also the fact that every time the European Central Bank has raised interest rates, that is, every time it has tightened monetary policy, the value of the euro has fallen rather than risen, contrary to the expectations of those who decided to raise interest rates. The money markets will supposedly punish Europe for its governments' lack of budgetary discipline by depressing the value of the euro. Wrong! The money markets know full well how important economic activity is to the value of a currency and appear to have no intention of punishing a reasonable relaxation in this restrictive policy – reasonable of course in that no one is talking about excesses or irresponsibility – at a time when we are on the brink of another major recession. I think that this analysis justifies President Prodi's choice of words and analysis.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I was very young, I must have been ten or eleven, when someone gave me a beautifully illustrated Walt Disney book. Its title was ‘Our friend the atom’, and it was illustrated in that marvellous way that Walt Disney used to illustrate his universally famous works, as we might call them. I was fascinated by that science book, which was so well explained to a young person like me. Since then I have been in favour of nuclear energy and so I have voted for this document, especially because it promotes study and research into the nuclear sector in Europe, which, in my view, we should increase further.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, my Group intends to request that, in the debate on monetary policy, a Commission statement on the information policy that it is planning on the euro be added. I would like to point out that we must not be influenced by information which is not only alarmist, but sometimes hasty, with regard to the euro, and that we must not focus solely on the progress of the euro’s parity with other currencies, such as the dollar. We must take account of the state of the European economy and also the possibilities created by the euro. It seems to me that in this respect we should be as aggressive in our defence of the euro as our counterparts in the United States Congress are in defence of the dollar.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the era of the railway in Europe is underway, and not before time. It certainly is high time that we developed Europe’s railways properly and, more importantly, allocated resources to this task. At last, we can be confident, we can meet the expectations of all citizens and believe that the shift from road to rail is underway. The conciliation on what is called the ‘railway package’ will have allowed us to lay the foundation stone. At the moment, we have to provide substantial investment for railways to meet our expectations and be recognised as the means of transport that produces the least pollution and helps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I shall continue to remind you of the worrying predictions made by scientists regarding the climate change that is, to a great extent, caused by road transport. Glaciers are being melted at a faster rate than steel rails are hardening in the mould. Although we welcome the decision made at the France-Italy Summit to build a new railway between Lyons and Turin, the European Union should be far bolder in its infrastructure plans. In some cases, the question still arises as to whether it is better to build a new motorway rather than considering rail. I am thinking specifically about the Moselle valley freight tunnel, the so-called ‘A32’ project. The European Union must lead the way to ensure that rail becomes the preferred means of transport for all citizens as well as the natural and even the only means of transporting goods.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Commissioner, I have listened to you answer this question on a number of occasions. I have known you for some 20 years now and I know you to be a man of honour who has always been opposed to terrorism. Let me ask you two questions: do you not get frustrated that, when you give such a clear and unequivocal answer, Members do not accept your word? Secondly, would you not also agree that our aid to Palestine in fact contributes to eliminating the sort of conditions in which terrorism thrives?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Vande Lanotte, I would like to draw your attention to the three amendments tabled by Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs. The aim of these amendments is to enhance the information given to citizens and to stimulate the debate on issues relating to the future of the European Union, pursuant to Declaration 23 of the Treaty of Nice. The aim of Amendment No 223 is to restore the commitment appropriations granted to the Prince-Programme, as proposed by the Commission in its preliminary draft budget. The increase in these appropriations has, in fact, been reduced by the Council. We feel it is inconceivable not to support strong investment to provide more information for the public on the euro, enlargement, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and, of course, on measures in the area of justice and home affairs. All these subjects are extremely topical. I would also like to reiterate that we are already involved in a period of reflection and consultation on the future of the European Union. We also believe that it would be counter-productive to enter, as suggested by the Committee on Budgets, a part of these appropriations into a reserve. We know that using the appropriations entered in the reserve is a much more complicated procedure, and we see no reason why the Commission’s room for manoeuvre should be hampered in this area. I would add that, in any case, monitoring is undertaken by Parliament by means of its presence within the inter-institutional working party on general and specific information. Lastly, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs has also expressed its support for maintaining, and even increasing the financial support given to the European Movement. We know that this Movement’s actions are effective, and it would be surprising if the European Union withdraws its support for the European Movement at a time when we need, more than ever, to encourage dialogue with the citizens. Furthermore, all Member States should support European Union day, which is organised for 9 May, as this would greatly contribute to developing the rapport with the public that is severely lacking.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I have on my desk a document which was presented to one of my constituents in Longuenesse jail in the north of France three months after his first detention there on suspicion of a drugs offence. It is in French – no translation or interpretation was provided to the person in question. He has now been in detention five months. I have a letter from the sister of another constituent of mine who draws to my attention that he has been in prison since 28 March 2000 on similar suspicion. No opportunity is given to such prisoners to choose their own lawyer. They are given a defence lawyer. The defence lawyer takes few opportunities to visit the persons or to explain the charges. These are citizens from Scotland where after 110 days of detention any person charged with an offence must either be brought to trial or released and never again charged with that offence. We do not have common standards of justice in the European Union and while we have such divergent standards and such total failure to meet the standards of Article 6 of the Convention on Human Rights, it is unacceptable to press ahead with the proposals of the Council.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Breast cancer and cancer in general are a scourge which is not, in my opinion, inciting Europe and its Member States to take sufficient action in terms of research, prevention and quality of care, but also in terms of psychological monitoring of patients, who are often left alone to face this cruel illness. I therefore support everything that is done to remedy that situation, and I would like to highlight the funding that I succeeded in having adopted by the European Parliament and the Council when I drew up a report on the sixth framework programme for research and development. I therefore do of course support the excellent and relevant report by our colleague, Mrs Jöns, and her constant efforts in this respect.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I am just taking over the minute allotted to my colleague Mrs Ahern, who has unfortunately been unable to get here on time. I have to ask you again, Commissioner, whether it is true, as we have been informed, that this has to do with only nine of the 15 000 projects forming part of the Biomed programme? If this is just about these few projects that we are discussing with such passion, then I cannot repress the suspicion that this is an un-called for attempt at making embryo research respectable in the EU. All the Member States that want to engage in this sort of research, and which has passed legislation permitting it, can do so, but without funding from the European Union. I get the impression that your concern is with something else, that this is about preparing to breach an ethical dam and open the door to research on embryos. If this is just about these few projects, then I ask myself why you are doing this and thereby needlessly bringing discredit on the Research Programme as a whole? I can tell you right now that, although I hope it will not happen, if a majority in this House supports research involving the destruction of human embryos, then that will have to be tested against European and constitutional law. In Member States such as Austria and Ireland, it is a criminal offence, and it is not acceptable for something punishable within the European Union to receive funding from it. This amounts to a major problem for European and constitutional law. A few final words on stem cell research. Why the dates? What matters to us – if this fallback position ... (The President cut off the speaker) (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, first of all, I should like to express thanks on behalf of our group to you – and also to Mr Patten, who cannot be here today, and his staff – for the great readiness you have shown in the past, and are also showing today, to enter into discussion with Parliament regarding the serious problem of torture. You yourself pointed out the important distinction that is currently being made between rehabilitation of the victims on the one hand, and prevention on the other. It is extremely important that we continue to take the rehabilitation of the victims to heart; yet we have reduced the appropriations for this by 45%. We should like to ask you, however, whether you can assure us that we can continue to count on the funds that are currently available. If not, we shall find ourselves in the unpleasant situation in which those involved in rehabilitation have to compete for budget resources with those working on prevention, when of course prevention, too, is an absolute necessity. Systematic rape as a weapon in warfare is, sadly, a widespread practice. Also, it seems that the situation in which the police consider it normal to torture in order to extract certain information is still the order of the day, even in countries which are applying to join the European Union such as Turkey. It is unacceptable that the police consider torture a normal means to an end. I think that it is particularly good that we are also devoting attention to educating the police in this sense. Good methods, in which humanity is the primary consideration, must be our guiding principle at all times. I should also like to draw attention to the fact that children are being used as weapons against their parents. I am talking here about the appalling problem of child soldiers, where a child is taken away from home in order to be subsequently used as a means of oppression, as a weapon against its own mother and father. Commissioner, we want to work together to prevent this kind of abomination. While this is an important tool in conflict prevention, we also want to continue to urge you not to let us lose sight of the rehabilitation of victims.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I should like to say thank you to the rapporteur and to those who have planned this Assembly, for it is the first time in a long time that this House is being given permission to debate at a reasonable hour an important subject concerned with the working environment. We are used to meeting close to midnight, so it is splendid to be here today and see everyone awake. We all know that asbestos is one of the greatest threats to workers’ health in the EU. It is estimated that, over the next 35 years, up to 500 000 deaths will be directly related to the serious illnesses caused by asbestos. I think that experience with asbestos and the debate in Parliament and elsewhere show very clearly how incredibly important it is that we take the precautionary principle very seriously. For many years, this principle was not taken seriously, and we can see the consequences today. I am therefore also pleased that all the groups in Parliament have chosen to support this directive. I cannot refrain from saying today that I should also like to see Liberals also being supportive in connection with other problems concerned with the working environment and showing a desire, which they have not always displayed, to take other problems in this area just as seriously as they have shown they take those arising from asbestos. Overall, the present proposal provides workers with better protection, and I am pleased that many of Parliament’s proposals have been approved by the Council. It is now proposed that employers should provide education programmes so that workers are clearer as to how they can protect themselves, and it is great progress that employers’ responsibility for this area has been made so very clear. I would also now call upon the Member States to go still further than the directive, and I believe that the three amendments adopted by the committee will improve the directive still further. It would, of course, also be splendid if the Council could express a positive attitude today, for it would mean that, quickly and within the coming week, we could bring our reading of this directive to a close, something which I would call upon us to do. There are many things we could have done better but, if we conclude the procedure now, it could save a number of workers from these very serious illnesses. I therefore hope that the Council will approve the amendments and that we can obtain a directive as quickly as possible.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, one cannot but agree with the general principles expounded by the President-in-Office and the Commissioner, but what matters is how we apply them and I have three comments to make here. First, we should not be mild-mannered psychotherapists in one country and unrelenting public prosecutors in another. The criteria applied to Turkey should also apply to Iran and the criteria applied to Iran should also apply to Turkey. And while we are on the subject of Turkey, it is about time that Leyla Zana, the woman awarded the Sakharov prize, saw the light of day. And it would be an important achievement if that were to happen under the Greek Presidency. Secondly, the United States. In addition to what the Commissioner said, there is the question of the death penalty in the United States and we need to address this issue in the same way as we have addressed it in other countries. And while we are on the subject of crossed swords between the European Union and the United States, I think it is perhaps about time we awarded a Sakharov prize to an American in 2003, the outgoing governor of Illinois, who has pardoned 150 people on death row. Thirdly, we must look at new rights being violated by measures against terrorism.

Political group: GUE-NGL