GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Thank you, Commissioner, for this new information on the trans-European networks. I should like to mention one issue, and at the same time take the opportunity to say that I welcome the fact that it has been included, and that is the crossing of the Pyrenees. It is an issue that has received much less media attention than the Alps, but it is probably a more critical one. Even now, the number of heavyweight vehicles which cross the Pyrenees every day between the Iberian peninsula and France is greater than the number crossing the Alps. We shall therefore be faced with the development of a very critical situation, because infrastructures on the Atlantic side are lagging behind. As for the actual crossing, or central railway tunnel, I believe that this is a very good thing, but we must not forget that this tunnel will certainly not be constructed in the short term, since the Lyon-Turin tunnel and the Brenner tunnel have to be built first. I would like to make a personal plea – and I would like to hear your opinions on the subject – for emergency structures at either end of the Pyrenees, particular between the Basque Country and the Atlantic coast. It seems to me that it is there, first of all, because that is where the people and the activities are, that we shall free the bottleneck in the road and rail routes leading to the Iberian peninsula.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, let me start by saying something to my friend and colleague Mr Désir, who spoke before me because he had a plane to catch. Much as I respect him, the great majority of our group backs this resolution, this compromise that we have reached. I might add that we also take the view that this directive safeguards the service publique or – as we would say – services of general interest. Indeed, what results from it is a new legal certainty. Services of general interest are compatible with competition, and, should the public interest so require it, the Member States will also be able to decide on derogations from the law on competition. What the French may, however, find painful is the fact that péréquation will come to an end, so that prices will not be the same everywhere, but I wonder what disadvantage is involved in the possibility of prices falling in one part of a country? That is precisely the effect we intend competition to have. I would remind you, by the way, that one of the reasons why we started this debate on the liberalisation of energy markets at the beginning of the 1990s was that prices in Europe were very high, so that it was not only the companies, but also we ourselves, who were complaining that we were at a competitive disadvantage against the USA, our main competitor. These directives, in fact, represent the end of a long process. Having been in this House for a long time, let me point out that this process actually began at the end of the 1980s – with the absurd variation, incidentally, that the White Paper on the internal market made no mention of energy – and that, at that time, it was by way of the European Court of Justice that the attempt was made to open up the internal market. We said at the time that we did not want to leave the opening-up of the market to judges, but wanted to make it a political process, and that political process has now been concluded at European level by the resolution on these directives. What comes next? That is the question. Transposing this directive into law will not be straightforward. It will affect the companies, and – as national enterprises become European enterprises – the work of trade unions as well. This liberalisation will entail new legislative tasks, especially as regards our obligations in the areas of environmental and climate policy. We will also have the important task of introducing elements of these into liberalisation, in that it will be a new task to make climate policy compatible with competition policy as embodied in these two directives. It will, not least, be important to involve the candidate countries in this process. I too would like to end by thanking all those who have played their part in this. Let me say this: it is not often that we work together in such a collegial fashion!

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I have to say that what Mr Vattimo said is not a true representation of the facts. The President of this Parliament only stated the outcome of a vote in this House on a European Parliament resolution which called on all the Member States to respect the commitment to equality of school qualifications, i.e. to facilitate scholastic equality. No position was taken: she only spoke of what was happening. However, I think that this attempt to exploit, even in this House, a political battle that the left is fighting in Italy against equality of school qualifications is absurd and not relevant to this Parliament’s work.

Political group: PPE-DE
We can all agree on one thing: farmers everywhere in the European Union certainly did not need this disease to come upon them at this moment in time, and certainly the farmers in the United Kingdom did not need it at all. But it is at a time like this that you realise how mobile animals are. You need only look at the map and see the distances they travel. Mrs Doyle referred to the scare in my home county in my constituency in Northern Ireland. We had hoped that we would get away with it unscathed but it shows just how dangerous and highly contagious this disease is, through the way animals move. At this time those animals have all been tested. I have been in touch with my local veterinary department. There is cooperation with the government of the Republic of Ireland and indeed a perimeter has been set which happens to straddle the border between the two areas. I should like to ask the Commissioner one question. He referred to intensive farming. Would he not agree with me that the hype being put forward in the media about intensive farming/factory farming has nothing to do with all this? In fact in 1967 when the last outbreak occurred, the type of farming we have now did not exist. Would he not agree with me that this is the case?

Political group: PPE-DE
I have a comment and a specific question: would it not be better for the Council to give more specific answers when it asks for specific questions? That was my comment. Now, the question: if the pre-accession process for Turkey were to last twenty years, would all those who are imprisoned today have to wait those twenty years for the European Union to express interest? Secondly, would the Council be prepared, in this whole process, to suspend or cancel obligations of the European Union relating to the pre-accession process as long as the people we are talking about remain in prison? And finally, could some action ever be demanded from Turkey which would help resolve the Cyprus issue, granted that this is one of the issues which should be addressed as part of the pre-accession process?

Political group: GUE-NGL
This proposal is part of an ongoing review of the legislation to prevent and combat future outbreaks of Foot-and-Mouth Disease and Classical Swine Fever. It updates Directive 90/426/EEC on the import of equidae and Directive 92/65/EEC on animal health requirements governing trade in imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos. It aims to rationalise, strengthen and update the legislation governing the importation into the Community of wild and domestic animals susceptible to either FMD or CSF. For the purposes of the Directive, ungulates are those animals listed in Annex I. Many of these species are not indigenous and are likely to be passing through the Community as part of circuses or zoo exchanges. To take account of this, I have added a clarification to include transit whenever importation is mentioned in the Directive. I welcome the flexibility provided for in the derogations. However, derogations should only be made on a case-by-case basis so the risk of importing diseases is not increased. Given the vital importance of proper information sources to facilitate a rapid response to any outbreak of a disease in the crucial early stages, I propose an amendment to Directive 90/426 on equidae which would arm us for such a coherent response by providing for the establishment of a Community Reference Laboratory for equine diseases. Effective coordination requires a reliable and comprehensive store of knowledge on diagnosis and treatment of infectious equine diseases.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I am sure it will come as no surprise to you if I talk about citizens’ freedoms and rights and justice in relation to this fascinating report, whose two rapporteurs I congratulate. It is the view of this Committee that the construction of this area of justice is important and, to this end, a reform of the Court of Justice is necessary. In order to reform the Court it will be necessary to amend the Treaty, so that the Statute and the Regulations of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance become operative. None of them is currently operative. Our first demand is therefore that qualified majority be established with the assent of the European Parliament. With regard to the Court, Parliament also asks to be able to participate in the process of selecting judges as already happens with the posts in the constitutional courts in our states. On the other hand, with regard to freedoms and rights, we want citizens to be provided with full rights to appeal so that they can be assured that Community legislation will be enforced in the event of violations of fundamental rights. This is not currently the case. We want to see a reform of Articles 230 and 300 of the Treaty so that Parliament is on an equal footing with the Commission and the Council as far as appeals are concerned. Lastly, Madam President, we want to see a reform of the Treaty so that Parliament, in relation to the third pillar, also has full access to justice by means of repeal in the event of regulations and acts which do not conform.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to thank the minister for his reply; I naturally endorse the fact that the importance and value of the social partners in shaping a new model are much greater than anyone can imagine. But what I should like to ask is this: when a tripartite dialogue takes place between the two sides of industry and the national government, how far can the national government ignore what was jointly agreed and proposed by the social partners? Or, taken the other way, how binding on a government are proposals decided jointly by the social partners, who know better than anyone what the problems of society and the causes of unemployment are and what problems need to be solved in order to deal with unemployment, or how binding should they be on any national government?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as someone who suffers from a neurological complaint, to wit Parkinson's disease, I am naturally biased in this matter, but I am a little shocked by the frequent use of terms like ‘unacceptable’ and ‘dignity’ applied to people who wish to find a solution through medical research to the terrible problems facing those who suffer from neurological disease, such as Alzheimer's, motor neurone and Parkinson's. There is no dignity in dying of motor neurone disease and there is precious little dignity in suffering from Parkinson's either. So I want to commend to the House the view of the sufferer as well as the view – if there is to be one – of the person who is concerned above all about preserving the embryo. If I thought that an embryo had the same human rights as a child or an adult human being, I would not, of course, not be in favour of anything that meant the destruction of human life. But the laws of our Member States by and large accept that there is a difference between an embryo, a fertilised egg and an adult or child who is already a human being. The human rights of the one are not quite the same as the human rights of the other. That is what the law says in most of our Member States. I do not believe that the founder of the Christian religion, who set great store by healing the sick, would inhibit those who simply want to cure sick people. I cannot believe that this is the intention of the Christian ethic. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I wish to begin by thanking my colleague, Mrs Ahern, for raising this very important issue. No one in this House could have been anything but appalled at the recent events linked to Sellafield, with the falsification of MOX fuel data and the Nuclear Installation Inspectorate's report on the low level of safety procedures at the plant. Following the initial defensive response by BNFL, it was only when that report was published that the real scale of the problem emerged, that the falsification of figures had apparently been going on secretly since 1996. Wales, like Ireland, has suffered from the radioactive contamination in the Irish Sea, due essentially to Sellafield. There has been a theory about a link between a high incidence of childhood leukaemia, for example, and proximity to the Welsh coastline. Now, added to that, we have a situation where any confidence the public had in the safety of the plant, and therefore their own health and safety, has been destroyed. It is this crisis of credibility in the management of British Nuclear Fuels which may actually bring about the end of reprocessing. BNFL was determined to press ahead with the Sellafield MOX plant to keep reprocessing going. But one of the reasons why British Energy, which accounted for a third of Sellafield's reprocessing work, decided to shift from that to waste storage was on economic grounds. It was cheaper for them to store waste, and evidence published recently by the nuclear-free local authorities confirms this view. So, with the problems of the environmental pollution and the effects on health, as well as the issue of cost and the debate about the cost, what justification is left for nuclear processing? It is not worth the risks associated with it and, as the resolution states, the Council, the Commission and Parliament must reconsider this whole issue, including the production of MOX fuel, in the light of recent events and in the interests not only of people in Ireland and Wales but also in the whole of Europe. British Nuclear Fuels has an obligation to deal with the levels of waste that Mrs Ahern mentioned earlier in the safest way possible. That issue too is one of great concern to me because an area of Wales has been mentioned as a possible site for storing low-level radioactive waste. This is unacceptable. A strategic approach is needed. The nuclear industry has caused enormous damage already and we have to be certain that more and more communities and people's lives are not blighted by its legacy in future.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, your answer is in line with that given by your predecessor from the Spanish Presidency – I asked the question to which he answered no. According to information provided by armed troops on duty during the war in Afghanistan last year, depleted uranium munitions or weapons were not used. All the information – both military and technical – that we have at our disposal, however, points to the fact that, in any case, a very dense metal was used, either uranium or tungsten. This is not, to any degree, an insignificant question because, if it is uranium, whether depleted or otherwise, certain sites in Afghanistan will have inevitably been badly contaminated, sites where not only military personnel are currently based, but also NGOs, humanitarian organisations and, of course, local people. It seems to me that you have given a cautious response. Personally speaking, I am not convinced that you are well informed. That is why I believe that it would be worthwhile to carry out an inquiry on the ground, in order to verify whether or not the area has been contaminated by radioactivity which may cause considerable harm to the civilian population, NGOs as well as military personnel.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we should not actually have been discussing nuclear safety, but the sworn opponents of nuclear power have changed the report’s course. The Group of the do not want to understand the undeniable environmental advantages of nuclear power. What a paradox! It is obvious, too, that the Group of the ’ position on nuclear power is based on the ideology of 1968, and they still refuse to engage in frank and honest discussion on the topic. Their opinions seem to be fixed beforehand, and the facts have no effect on them. The first version of the report was used as a chance for them to get on their hobbyhorse and oppose nuclear energy. What is remarkable is that there was no mention, whatsoever, in the report of the Commission’s action programme, which contains many sensible initiatives. Fortunately, after the amendments tabled in the committee, we have managed to return from a myopic position to one that goes to the core of the matter. The transport of radioactive material is in compliance with the regulations of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The Commission has consulted a working party made up of experts – not politicians, note – from Member States. The working party considers that the modified regulations will give a considerable amount of additional protection, although the original ones were not regarded as in any way inadequate. The risks are considered to be small and, thanks to the stringent regulations in force, accidents have been avoided for almost half a century. This is so despite the fact that certain, though by no means all, opponents of nuclear power try, irresponsibly, to sabotage the transport operation, for example, by loosening rails. This makes one wonder who is responsible and who is putting public safety at risk. I urge everyone to keep to the facts. The Commission’s remark that the public ought to be told how good the situation is in the final analysis, is, therefore, more than justified. Because nuclear power increases prosperity and makes for a cleaner environment, it is an inevitable solution to the energy question. If the nuclear power plants in France were closed down right now, there would be a rush in this Chamber to look for candles.

Political group: PPE-DE
Yes, Commissioner, it is a draft document, and you know that it will soon be going through the Spanish Parliament. Considering that this draft, as presented, infringes specific European directives, both the habitats directive and the wild birds directive, and also the objectives of the water framework directive, my question is this: if the final law still infringes these directives, if it is harmful to the environment, will it receive the announced EUR 1 300 billion in resources from Community funds?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to begin by saying that all Members of this House care deeply about the environment despite the fact that the rapporteur and members of the would have you believe otherwise. Environmental concerns must, however, be balanced against the needs of the aviation industry to ensure its success in the future. I was disappointed with the report from the Commission, not least because it was so negative towards aviation. Unfortunately this has been built upon by the rapporteur. I would like to assist honourable Members by pointing out the following information: air transport is responsible for generating 25 million direct jobs world-wide. In the United Kingdom alone aviation is responsible for supporting nearly 500 000 jobs. The United Kingdom transports GBP 35 billion worth of exports, maintaining unrivalled access to global markets and contributes around GBP 3 billion per annum to the exchequer. If multiplied by the number of countries in the European Union one can see and understand just how important this industry is to our economies. In terms of environmental impact, aviation uses less than 8% of the land required for rail and less than 1% required for road use. In practical terms, aside from maritime transport, aviation is the only form of international transport now transporting a third of all goods world-wide. Over the past 15 years CO2 emissions have declined by 70% and unburned hydrocarbons by 85%. Aviation is responsible for just 2.5% of CO2 emissions. Short-term measures are available, such as tackling the 44% air traffic flow management delays and 30 bottlenecks which take place over France, Italy, Spain and parts of Germany. National governments must take action now. They should also tackle land planning around existing airports and take responsibility for their decisions in the past. To suggest that either a tax on kerosene, which is internationally exempt from tax for the aviation industry, or VAT on tickets or aircraft purchases is the answer is incorrect. The industry already pays all its infrastructure charges, some of which go towards environmental improvements. It is not subsidised. Finally, if Mrs Lucas' proposals were passed, they would decimate the aviation industry: aviation, tourism, businesses and the aerospace industry. Their supporters would love to abolish cheap flights. In short, they would make Europe uncompetitive and give Americans and overseas carriers an unfair advantage. I would hope in future the proposals from the Commission are thought through more carefully. Otherwise its members may find that flying to or from Brussels or Strasbourg or on holiday, for that matter, with a European carrier may not be an option.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this Parliament has been a consistent critic of the Mugabe dictatorship in Zimbabwe, a country which, 20 years ago, was deemed to be a model for a prosperous, multi-racial African democracy. However, after the slaughter of thousands in Matabeleland the ZANU-PF Government has brought the country to the verge of economic collapse and starvation. The March presidential elections were a travesty of democracy, with repression of a free press and the MDC opposition leader now on trial for treason. Mugabe has rewarded his cronies – or so-called ‘veterans’ – with confiscated white farmers' land. The Land Acquisition Act is even now preventing the harvesting of the crops to feed the hungry. The EU sanctions have been poorly applied, with the Minster of Police recently attending an Interpol function in Spain and Mugabe attending a hunger conference in Rome, which is a clear affront to world opinion. Children of the regime's leaders are allegedly attending expensive British boarding schools. the New Partnership for African Development and the EU Troika have been supine in galvanising regional – particularly South African and Nigerian – opinion against the president. Although Zimbabwe faces expulsion from the Commonwealth on 25 July, the government seems more concerned with prosecuting a disastrous war in the Democratic Republic of Congo in order to safeguard Mugabe's cronies' diamond mining interests. I strongly urge the General Affairs Council, on 22 July, to beef up the sanctions and to allow no excuses from Member States that their multilateral treaty obligations override the sanction restrictions. I also call on the Commonwealth to suspend Zimbabwe from the forthcoming Commonwealth Games on 25 July in Manchester. Ordinary people can rest assured that the EU will continue to provide emergency humanitarian aid in order to prevent undue suffering and a total breakdown in civil society.

Political group: PPE-DE