GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, we have all of us said today that there is a sound basis for revising Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71. We all know people who have run into difficulties because they have taken up work in two different countries, and it is therefore crucial to emphasise that people have not, as a matter of simple fact, been given the right promised to them since the Common Market was founded. It is therefore quite natural that we should break down the barriers that exist. On the other hand, we must also acknowledge that there is probably no regulation that has been more demonised than this one. Over the years, opponents of the EU in my own, and other, countries have used it to give people the impression that our social security would be harmonised, that we should be forced to change our social security systems or even that our national pension schemes would be abolished. I must of course deplore the fact that these people have not appeared in the House today to engage in this debate. I should like to emphasise today that the Danish Social Democrats are not, in general, afraid of freedom of movement, and I certainly do not think that freedom of movement would undermine national social security arrangements, even if these would then apply to a wider circle of people. Neither practical experience nor calculations show that there would be hordes of people suddenly wanting to migrate. On the other hand, I also think it important for us to understand that, if unintended consequences arise – if, for example, too many contributions leave the country or if social security arrangements are shamelessly exploited – then we should definitely not look passively on but take action straight away. This is emphasised by Amendments Nos 10 and 52, in which we say that our countries can establish bilateral contacts – of the kind with which we are already familiar – and that we must talk to each other if someone runs into difficulties. That would, of course, also prevent all forms of fraud. It is important for the Commissioners also today to emphasise at least three things in addition to what has been said in the House: firstly, that there is no question of harmonisation; secondly, that we shall not accept any form of deterioration whatsoever and shall step in if we see the systems weakened; and, thirdly, that we shall not accept unintended consequences and fraud. A fourth thing also to emphasise, of course, is that we cannot accept, as a result of this proposal, any impairment of the schemes we already have. I think that is very important. I do not myself believe that this will happen. I do not for a moment believe that migration will be on a sufficiently large scale. I do, however, believe it important for people to have this emphasised to them by the Commissioner responsible, and I should be delighted, Commissioner, if you could do this for us today.

Political group: PSE
The accession of the Republic of Cyprus to the European Union is clearly a very different issue from the accession of the countries of Eastern Europe. The accession of Cyprus carries far more weight and is far more important because it could be used as a lever for finding a fair solution to the Cyprus question based on UN resolutions and for defusing political tensions in the eastern Mediterranean, especially following the invasion of the northern part of the island by Turkish forces, which have persisted in their barbaric occupation for more than a quarter of a century now. Accession will not disadvantage any of the communities on the island and it is interesting that, despite opposition from Turkey and the Denktash regime, the majority of Turkish Cypriots, 90% according to a recent article in the Turkish newspaper Radikal, are in favour of the accession of the Republic of Cyprus to the European Union. Mr Ρoos’ motion for a resolution is correct, balanced and well pitched politically. If the Council takes its cue from the European Parliament, instead of constantly giving in to pressure from Turkey, we would have positive and quick results both for the Republic of Cyprus and for the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities. - Poos report (A5-0261/2001)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, I think that the three directives under discussion today are a step forward as far as maritime safety is concerned, although I think that things would be even better if the Council took less time and was more efficient in taking decisions and we did not end up debating the Erika II package before we have even completed the Erika I package. In all events, I think that two points need to be highlighted in Mr Sterckx's report. The first is that his proposals give us a more substantial and more positive measure as regards ports of refuge, places where ships can shelter in the event of danger, and I think that, thanks to Mr Sterckx's proposals, we now have more specific and more substantial measures. The second point is that, when a ship departs under normal circumstances, we have stipulated that the principal responsibility lies with the master and that it only lies with the port authorities in exceptional circumstances, because the master in fact knows better than the port authorities in such cases. As far as Mr Esclopé's report is concerned, I should like to say that he has done a good job in introducing international arrangements here, as it is an international problem which requires an international solution. Of course, the proposal before us can – and should – act as a catalyst and encourage the relevant international agencies to take swift action on the problem in question. Now, as regards the report by my fellow countryman, Mr Mastorakis, whom I should like to congratulate on his report, obviously we need a flexible and efficient agency and I think that, as they stand, Parliament's proposals on this Maritime Safety Agency reinforce the efforts being made and I think – and Mr Mastorakis himself believes – that, if it were to be based in Piraeus, this would reinforce these efforts still further. Now we obviously need to take further action, especially as regards the application of Community legislation, and we need to highlight the human factor, the number of inspectors and surveyors needed to apply the legislation, inspector training, staff and crew training etc. But I assume that the Commission will consider this at a later date and notify us accordingly.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have had heated discussions about this directive in the committees. The question remains as to whether this proposal should be viewed as a health policy initiative. For the fact is that it will mean a massive tightening up of provisions, not based on internal market criteria. Obstacles to trade will not be dismantled, which is what the main aim of the legal act should be, rather they will actually be preordained for when the directive comes into force. The directive would weaken the position of EU manufacturers on third country markets. That would lead to manufacturers pulling out of the European Union. We must make a clear assessment of the consequences. We cannot afford to lose jobs and tax revenue. The small and medium-sized companies acting as suppliers would also experience considerable difficulties. However, I would also like to raise the issue of tobacco cultivation in the EU. The subsidies for this are part of structural aid. They should be cancelled without offering the farmers an alternative. Even now, 80% of the tobacco requirement is imported. Therefore, if we are talking about scrapping subsidies then we are going to have to think in global terms, otherwise our tobacco farmers in the EU will be the only ones to suffer. Jobs will be lost and cultural landscapes will decline. Yet this will not mean a decrease in smoking. We must strive for international regulations here. The consumers are not innocents abroad. They are aware of the risks of smoking. Even reducing the maximum tar content will not give us healthy cigarettes. Putting health warnings resembling obituary notices on the packet instead of factual information – which I am emphatically in favour of – is intended to have an impact on people’s emotions. Consumers will have no truck with that, for that is not far short of discriminatory authoritarian control. Public health is an issue of major concern to us all. That is why we need unambiguous and reasonable conditions and laws that tie in with the objectives of the health authorities and create stable framework conditions at the same time. When I think of the science fiction film ‘The Year 2036’ that was shown on Sunday evening – cigarettes are prohibited, as are meat, chocolate, sweets and wine of course – I ask myself if this is the shape of things to come.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, first of all I would be grateful if Commissioner Diamantopoulou would convey to Commissioner de Palacio my personal thanks for the work that I know the Commissioner has already undertaken in this regard. Coming from one of the more remote parts of Europe, namely Scotland, it is so important for us to be connected with the centre. The problems we face at the moment are acute. I refer to exports and the logistical problems that are being created, as well as the problems for the rail freight companies generally. What is an acute problem could, if matters are not dealt with properly, become a chronic one. Commissioner Diamantopoulou has already referred to the fact that what is happening with the Channel Tunnel is counterproductive to the policy which we all want to see pursued, namely that of getting freight on to the railways and off the roads. Given the present situation within the United Kingdom, the difficulties that it has in exporting and the railways there, and looking to the future of the whole transport policy of the European Union, I sincerely hope that as much pressure as possible can be brought to bear from all quarters to get this problem resolved as quickly as possible.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, may I start by congratulating you and wishing you all the best for your term in office. May I also congratulate Mr Gahrton on a job very well done and on the skill he demonstrated in reconciling the basic positions of the various political groups on the individual issues and setting them out in his report. It was a painstaking task but it has brought about a well-turned, balanced text which, with the members' additional amendments, is a realistic and objective summary of the current situation in the South Caucasus, the problems and the prospects outlined and the various dimensions and parameters which colour relations between third countries in the region and the European Union. Given the generally-accepted view that the region of the South Caucasus is especially important to Europe and the fact that the European Union has taken various political and economic steps to express its desire to support the process of safeguarding reform and political stability and establishing the rule of law in these countries, I think it is worth pointing out the advisability of reinforcing the role of the European Union in formulating a strategy to resolve the problems in the region, while taking account of the specific national and historical sensibilities of these nations and encouraging neighbouring countries, especially Russia, Iran and Turkey, to make a constructive contribution towards the peace process in the South Caucasus. The report rightly calls in this context for Turkey, which has a partnership agreement with the European Union, to prove itself worthy of its European ambitions by terminating the blockade of Armenia and creating a basis for reconciliation with it in line with the compromise set out in paragraph 15 of the report, which I urge the House to adopt. Russia is called upon to play an equally important and pivotal role in averting conflict in the South Caucasus and resolving the highly sensitive energy question, with the countries in the region involved either as power producers or consumers. I should like to close by stressing that the European Union's interests in the South Caucasus have to be maintained and stated consistently, with active support for the desire expressed by these countries to belong to Europe and with close collaboration between them and the European Union and its institutions in all sectors.

Political group: PPE-DE
It is good that the Commissioner is concerned over the high incidence of salmonella in meat preparations imported into Sweden. We now know that there was an oversight in our accession negotiations. What we are now discussing is not related to heat-treated products. We know that salmonella disappears in such products and only new contamination will reintroduce salmonella into them. In this case, it is about the fact that anyone can put a chicken in a bag with a few grams of salt and claim that it is a preparation. That is the main problem. It is slightly absurd that I am Parliament’s rapporteur in the case of a directive aimed at creating salmonella controls across the whole of the EU which look very much like the Scandinavian controls. As such, it is a little odd that a quick decision cannot be taken on having a salmonella guarantee for preparations which are not heat treated. If we are to achieve salmonella control across the whole of Europe, we need salmonella-free areas, wherever they may be, to be able to protect themselves while others catch up.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Madam Vice-President, the Erika disaster led to a wave of indignation amongst the European public at the deficient measures in force and our incapacity to prevent such a huge catastrophe. This accident demonstrated the limitations of a political approach which tried to deal with maritime safety exclusively within the framework of international organisations such as the IMO. The very extensive international safety legislation which now regulates maritime transport has made it possible to drastically reduce accidents and pollution. The measures we are discussing today and those which we discussed just a month ago, Erika I, demonstrate the commitment of our institutions to strengthening the safety of ships and the protection of the marine environment. However, as in all human activities, it is practically impossible to guarantee complete safety. It is therefore inevitable that there should be sporadic maritime accidents or pollution incidents and that, being spectacular, they should receive wide media coverage. This does not alter the fact that the immense majority of journeys take place safely, effectively and in a way which respects the environment. I congratulate the rapporteurs, Mr Sterckx, Mr Esclopé and Mr Mastorakis, on their excellent work on the safety of maritime traffic, the compensation of oil pollution and the creation of a European Maritime Safety Agency. I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Commission and, in particular, the Vice-President, Mrs de Palacio, on her magnificent work, since in one year she has presented six proposals aimed at improving maritime safety. As alternative rapporteur, I will focus on the third proposal, by the rapporteur Mr Mastorakis, on the creation of the European Maritime Safety Agency. I personally believe that the creation of this Agency will demonstrate to the public our institutions’ great interest in preventing future accidents and pollution, as well the need to raise levels of safety on our seas. Both the rapporteur, Mr Mastorakis, and others of us have presented a series of amendments aimed at improving the organisation of the Agency. I would like to mention one, which relates to the composition of the Agency’s board, in which we propose that Parliament be removed from that composition. The reason is clear: we believe that Parliament is an organ for controlling management, never for participating in management. For that we have the Commission, the Council and a whole range of organisations. I therefore simply wish to thank the Commissioner for her work and ask her to present the Erika III package shortly, so that we can continue working on maritime safety.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, little new action on immigration and asylum will emerge from Seville. The Tampere agenda had three elements: control, harmonisation and integration. The Council has eagerly legislated on the first with half a dozen laws and a thirty-page action plan on illegal immigration, but it has lagged on harmonisation for a common asylum system and integration of minorities and migrants. That is where leaders need to give ministers a big kick but instead all they will really do is ratchet up the rhetoric of repression and hostility of fortress Europe. The most despicable and stupid proposal is the denial of development aid to countries which fail to stem migration, thereby making them even poorer and generating a new exodus of desperate people. The reality is that far from promoting the greater security Europe needs, the illiberal Blair-Aznar-Berlusconi trio risks creating greater threats for European citizens by their hysterical, populist and macho responses to current challenges. By their abusive hysteria about illegal immigrants and asylum seekers they demonise foreigners and generate more race tensions and suspicions. By their big brother extension of powers for police and security services to monitor people's email, Internet and telephone records they menace individual privacy. By banning organisations like the Kurdish PKK and Batasuna they remove political outlets for dissent as an alternative to terrorism. Accession countries are encouraged to seek EU membership as a beacon of democracy, liberty and tolerance but the Blair-Aznar-Berlusconi trio are making a mockery of that.

Political group: ELDR
I congratulate Mr Mantovani on his excellent and timely report on the Communication from the Commission on Equal Opportunities for people with disabilities: A European Action Plan. I wholeheartedly endorse this report, particularly as regards the need to give continuity to actions aimed at combating discrimination against people with disabilities. I also strongly agree with Mr Mantovani’s call for a timetable for the submission of a directive to combat discrimination based on those areas not covered by Directive 200/78/EC.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I endorse the statements made by the rapporteur and Mr Kindermann and there is no need for me to repeat them. I would like to express my satisfaction at having reached the point where, after years of discussion, we can consider the matter closed. I should like to stress once again that we must be very careful when it comes to using genetically engineered drugs for preventative purposes. Unlike in the health sector, no side effects can be tolerated in agricultural applications. I should like to make another point as chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. We have agreed on Amendment No 3. There was also an oral proposal for an amendment which was agreed with the Commission. I will not go into the details, but it was not included in the report. I should like my request for this to be clarified, entered in the Minutes and for us to have the version that we have in fact agreed upon at tomorrow’s vote. As I have said, it was agreed with the Commission.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am able to say, speaking on behalf of my group, that we strongly support this initiative, and I wish, through you, to extend warm thanks to the Commission, which evidently takes the same view. The fact is that it is only together that we can reach the goal that is set before us – that of more protection for the rights of audiovisual artists. I regret the fact that we did not have time to discuss these issues in committee, but time is pressing upon us, 18 June is getting closer, and it is right that we should today send a strong signal of our resolve to see the WIPO Treaties supplemented as soon as possible in order to bridge this gap and finally bring about the legal protection that audiovisual artists need. I would like, therefore, to suggest that the Commission should forward to us, not only here in plenary in good time before the conference, but also after it in the relevant specialist committee, a report on the outcome of the negotiations and on the progress that – it is to be hoped – will have been achieved. Should you come up against serious difficulties in preparing for the conference, I would say that we needed, as soon as the next meeting of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, to receive a report on the subject from the Commission, that is to say, one with comprehensive information before and after the deliberations, so that we can in fact take this matter forward. Please allow me to draw your attention to a point that I regard as crucial, but which does not put a question mark against our fundamental support. I refer to the issue of the relationship of artists to those who play the most important part in transmitting their artistic performances, that is, the radio and television stations. It is, I think, something of an over-simplification to say that the radio and television stations do not create works, but do nothing more than consume them. What I would like to make clear in this regard is that what is at issue here is exclusivity. This is, of course, primarily about artists and the protection of their work, and it is precisely that loophole that the law has to close, but I do think that it is also important that we should find a way of bringing on board potentially competing interests, so that they do not, overtly or covertly, tend to prevent us from finding a solution to the problems. So we wish you good luck with the negotiations, and ask that you keep Parliament informed about what comes out of them.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank all the rapporteurs warmly for their commendable reports, but also my fellow MEPs for the excellent collaboration in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. Mr President, the liberalisation of telecommunications has created a new market environment with more competition and lower prices for companies and consumers. Nevertheless there is still no single internal telecom market. The fifteen fragmented, liberalised markets must be merged into a single transparent market, and the legislation now before us must create the framework for this. The NRAs have an important part to play in this, but in the view of my group the final responsibility should remain with the Commission. My second point, Mr President, concerns licences for radio frequencies. At this moment there is no question in the Member States of the European Union of a consistent policy on the granting of licences. Think, for example of the UMTS auctions. As a result, the Union is threatening to lose its leading position in the field of mobile telephone communications. In the dividing up of the radio spectrum the licence procedures should be subject to the same conditions in all Member States, because for optimum development of the radio and television market we should aim for a better balance in occupation of frequencies between public service providers on the one hand and commercial providers on the other. I would ask the Commissioner to take a more active role in future in formulating the conditions and in relation to the way in which frequencies are distributed. I believe there is also a job here for Commissioner Monti. Finally, Mr President, the revenue that comes from the allocation of wavebands, such as the UMTS auction, should be channelled back to the ICT sector. Mr van Velzen has already pointed this out. It also concurs with the agreements at the Lisbon Summit. Auctions should be avoided wherever possible. Consequently, it is to be welcomed that the Dutch Government decided last week not to hold an auction. In addition, the proceeds of the wavebands should never be seen as a stealth tax.

Political group: ELDR