GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
The Danish Social Democrats in the European Parliament have today voted in favour of Mr Evans’s and Mr Pirker’s reports. We agree that, in the longer term, the EU should develop a common asylum procedure and a uniform status for persons granted asylum. Moreover, the EU’s immigration policy should be adapted to developments in the world. We are nonetheless alert to the fact that the communications relate to an area covered by Title IV of the Treaty Establishing the European Community and do not apply to Denmark, cf. the protocol on Denmark’s position.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to express my agreement with Mr Katiforis. This is a really bad case of an unjustifiable seizure of a person outside the territory to which he was then taken and in which he has been illegally detained since 13 December last year. We want to take account of the fact, do we not, that Turkey has advanced towards candidate status for membership of the Union and that so long as we have sores of this kind weeping in the corner of the Mediterranean and problems of this sort, Turkey puts itself outside of reasonable consideration. This is a grievous attack on human rights, it is a totally unacceptable insult to a human being and we call for the President to let us put this resolution forward with the support of the whole of Parliament.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the slaughter unleashed by the Sharon government on the Palestinian people leaves no room whatsoever for optimism as to the outcome of this conflict. The purpose of Israel's escalating its attacks appears to be to overturn all previous agreements between Israel and Palestine and wipe out the Palestinian authority and its leader. Last week was the bloodiest since the second intifada began. The dead number over one hundred Palestinians and thirty-five Israelis. The climax to the bloodshed came during the last twenty-four hours; Israel did not let up in its merciless attack from the air, sea and land, flattening the headquarters of Yasser Arafat. Palestine is on fire from one end to the other, blood is flowing and there is no end to the mourning. We call for international protection for the Palestinian people, for the genocide to stop at once and for the UN resolutions and the agreements on creating an independent Palestinian state to be respected.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, here, at last, is a measure – fortunately not the only one – which is a credit to the European Union. I am totally in favour of this measure, for it is a precise declaration to the Commission that the burden of providing asylum for those who are forced to abandon their own territory, their home, family, friends and all they have in the world must be shared equally between all 15 Member States of the European Union. This is a completely new principle, a fact – and we hope that a directive will be produced to enshrine that principle – which makes of the European Union something tangible, something real. This is a decisive factor and it particularly influenced my decision to vote for the motion. Furthermore, I consider that it would be appropriate for the Commission to apply this decision retroactively and share the burden borne by those who accepted Kosovar refugees between the Member States of the European Union.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I have here in front of me a magazine, or at least a newspaper article, which reads as follows : ‘I do not approve of the Anti-Slavery Conference in Durban. It promotes the feeling of victimisation in people who already have the sense that they are victims. I do not feel happy about the entire Conference in Durban, irrespective of the way in which the Middle East was presented there. The fact that someone like Castro was cheered, is proof that this was an anti-Western meeting’. These are not my words but the words of a Member of the European Commission. In a moment, we will be listening to a statement by the European Commission and by the Council on Durban. I would invite the Commission to tell us whether it backs the statements by Mr Bolkestein in the Volkskrant in the Netherlands or not, as the case may be.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, permit me to address two comments to the Commission. Firstly, the Commissioner said: in view of the “high prices of basic agricultural products in the Union”. Perhaps the Commission could get used to the following version: in view of the “low world market prices caused by dumping”, because otherwise we risk creating the impression that the agricultural pricing system within the EU is pitched too high. No, it is too low on the world market because farmers cannot produce at this price. Secondly, this is a report according to Article 37. We reserve the right – I will discuss this with the other groups – to refer this back to committee, because what you have said, your assumptions that is, will of course put paid to the efforts made by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. It is then highly likely that we will enter negotiations. I am just saying this now to give you food for thought. The honourable Members here will then be able to make their feelings known in the discussions. I just wanted to give you advance notice. Mr President, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to do so.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, it is extremely important that we have a legally-binding convention on the issue of people with disabilities. Legislation is necessary which not only protects the rights of people with disabilities but also ensures that people with disabilities are provided with support and structures that will allow them to participate on an equal footing in all aspects of life. The best-placed people to do this and present what is needed are people with disabilities themselves. We have to be very careful about telling people with disabilities what they need and what we can do for them. Unless you are a person with a disability, you do not know what is necessary to allow you to participate in society on an equal footing. It is very good to see people here tonight providing sign language. This should not only be for tonight: it should be looked at on an ongoing basis. We also need to look at how people are educated. We need to ensure that education is fully integrated and allows people with disabilities not to be segregated, but to be educated along with everyone else. There is a tendency when we speak about disability to provide certain services for people with disabilities, but to segregate them. We should look at sign language, at Braille, at all these things that are necessary and allow them to be part of the educational curriculum in all the Member States. People should not have to go to special places to be educated or to participate. This is extremely important. Mr Howitt mentioned the Commission and its commitment to bringing forward a directive by the end of the year. In the year of disabilities, it is not enough to say we are going to do a lot and then at the end of this year forget all about it and go along as normal. We need to have something at the end that we can be proud of, to allow people to participate in society. We need a broad perspective, not one which focuses only on accessibility in education. This needs to be done in relation to disabled people themselves. On that final point, I would like to say that the Centre for Independent Living, which is based in Ireland, is bringing a delegation from all over Europe for the second part-session here in September. There is going to be a special intergroup which will be meeting with people with disabilities. They will be telling us exactly what they want and what they would like to see brought forward. This will be a great opportunity. Everybody interested in the issue should come along and listen to people outlining what they want. They are the people who are best-placed to do so. We have to listen and allow them to make the decisions, we should not make decisions for them.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, after discussing all these terrible events in the world, it is certainly refreshing to consider other problems even though, on reflection, these also involve images which cannot be tolerated. I do not believe, however, that the motion before us deals with the problem correctly. For example, paragraph 2 of the motion is wrong. In this paragraph Parliament expresses its concern about the fact that the Charleroi stadium, which is to host several games, in particular the England versus Germany match, does not meet the relevant Belgian safety standards. This is wrong for several reasons. The first is that the organisers of any game in Belgium and the promoters of any stadium must sign a public-law agreement with the municipality in which the stadium is situated. This agreement engages the personal responsibility of the burgomaster. Our fellow Member has spoken of regional pride. Belgians are aware of the good and bad sides of regional pride and, as a result, the use of a stadium requires not only the signature of the burgomaster but also that of the Minister of the Interior. It is therefore completely wrong to talk of regional rivalries. Furthermore, everyone knows or should know that it is not the inhabitants of Charleroi who chose this game any more than the others. Finally, in the context of Euro 2000, there is an additional requirement that the stadium must be approved by the European Union and UEFA. For all the stadiums which have been converted to accommodate an adequate number of visitors, UEFA has not only given its final authorisation to the process but has also been involved in the practical organisation of the stadium reviews. I know something about this as I have worked, in my capacity as burgomaster of the town of Liege, on the preparation of a similar stadium. To conclude, I regret to say that our colleagues are using arguments which are inaccurate and which can therefore only lead to wrong conclusions. I am not the only one to think this as Mr Desama would have said the same if he had been able to speak. Our Dutch colleague, Mr van den Berg, also agrees as he asked me to say that in this case he has witnessed, in addition to a responsible attitude from the Belgians,... (EN) ... very close cooperation with the Dutch government and it started at the very beginning and we extended this cooperation with France on account of the lessons of the World Cup and a host of other countries, 14, I believe, including the United Kingdom, of course, because we wanted to have contacts with the countries which might send teams to Belgium. Mr President, I will conclude by saying that the third and last point is that I think Parliament should make rules and not bother about taking chances. Are we going to deal tomorrow or next week with the trains leaving Paddington Station?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to start by thanking Mr Viceconte for his report, which has drawn our attention to a sector which is all too often underestimated. Tourism is a social, economic and cultural phenomenon which affects most European citizens, either as the recipients or the providers of a wide variety of services. Every year, nearly 200 million Europeans leave their homes for a short time in order to travel, usually to other countries in Europe. Moreover, Europe is still the main destination for tourists from third countries, even though it faces increasingly stiff competition and an increasingly diversified and attractive range of products. Since the Treaties contain no specific legal basis for a real Community tourism policy, the European Union must help to improve and encourage cooperation in this sector, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, in order to take practical advantage of the potential which tourism offers in terms of employment. Vocational training and a mobile workforce are important tools in the strategy to fight unemployment in Europe especially, as far as tourist service providers are concerned, in meeting multicultural demands and ensuring that services are tailored to customers. Employment in the tourism sector is often highly seasonal and precarious, thereby hampering its sustainable development. It is therefore even more urgent that we acquire and disseminate managerial and technological skills in order to promote new means of production and a supply of tourism which reflects market developments as closely as possible. As the report notes, the adoption by the Member States of tax incentives for SMEs in order to reduce labour costs would be an excellent way of promoting growth in employment in labour-intensive sectors and, consequently, in the tourism sector. This sector of activity is also a deciding factor in the economic and social development of less favoured regions, especially the most remote and island regions, which have undisputed assets in this area. Let us not forget that, in the most remote regions, tourism is the most important industry in terms of income. The income and employment generated by tourism help enormously in reducing imbalances and encouraging their economies to converge with the average rate of growth in the Community. In addition, tourism can promote a certain cultural and economic rapprochement, insofar as it makes us more aware of other European cultures and thus helps respect for European ways of life to develop. It goes without saying, therefore, that tourism, developed rationally in the long term, should represent a sustainable source of income for local economies, while safeguarding and enhancing the value of the rural, cultural, historical and environmental heritage. I should like to close by stressing the essential role which the European Union should play in promoting new forms of tourism in new places which will allow continental Europeans to discover the most far-flung destinations in Europe, namely the most remote regions.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, during our debate on 27 October on the Michelin affair, I reminded all those present that Parliament had amended the directive on informing and consulting workers and that we were still waiting for the Commission to adopt these amendments. The two main amendments – I shall remind you of them – covered two points: firstly, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs wanted the directive to apply to companies with twenty or more employees, and Parliament to companies of fifty employees or more, whereas the Commission is proposing the figure of one hundred or more, if I am not mistaken. On the other hand, the second major amendment stated that any withholding of information from the employees’ representatives by a company’s management should be penalised, and not only the withholding of information that the management considers important (far too vague an idea). What does the Commission have to say today about these two points? Nothing new, and we will get back to that in the year 2000. Frankly, Commissioner, I do not think that we can do things this way. This wait-and-see policy is completely turning its back on the way society is waiting for an answer. We should not only listen to the message that was sent to us in the last elections, and adopt these two amendments, but I have also put forward additional proposals which strike me as being crucial today. I proposed the introduction of a waiting period of six months for any restructuring plan in order to allow an independent trade union review to take place, and I also proposed that if the company had received public subsidies but is not complying with the rules which have been laid down, it should pay back the subsidies it had received. I think that, now, you should present an amended draft directive, incorporating these further measures, this waiting period, and use your role to put pressure on the Council rather than falling in line as a measure of precaution with the lowest common denominator in our respective governments. I also expect, Commissioner, that Mr Prodi will include these references too in the programme that he will be presenting to us.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, naturally, the question of employment also plays a decisive part during budgetary discussions in the Committee on Fisheries. Healthy growth and low unemployment are what we all want. Europe needs to set the framework, which is one of the reasons it created the Treaty of Amsterdam. But the real responsibility for employment, and this is not the first time that I have stressed this, lies with the Member States. A greencard alone, such as that for which provision has been made in Germany, is not a practice which makes perfect. It is in practice that a Member State demonstrates at home if it is being innovative or if it is hiding with an innocent expression behind the EU. That would be cheap and it would not be right. We need to manage a plethora of international fisheries agreements and conventions over the coming year, all of which have budgetary implications, because if we want to keep our products on the global market, we need raw materials and imports and they do not come cheap. However, we in the Committee on Fisheries cannot really go to town, Commissioner, because you have still not provided us with the long-promised cost-benefit analyses on our fisheries agreements. How can we stand up to the Committee on Budgets’ demand for rigour in these circumstances? The EU will have a new fisheries policy from 2002, a huge, fascinating venture with a global dimension. We are already making the necessary preparations, which is why we also need the strong guidelines planned by the main rapporteur in the fisheries sector. Later we will need the commensurate funds.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there is a saying that what is good is worth waiting for, and Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, the rapporteur, has referred clearly to the never-ending story of the matter under discussion. It is specifically with reference to co-decision that it has at last been made clear that Parliament keeps on coming up with good ideas that find their way into work like this report on the never-ending story about the declaration of compound feedingstuffs. We must be clear in our own minds that we are dealing here with large quantities, and therefore with a lot of money – not the European Union's money, but that of our partners in the market. We are dealing with a volume of some 400 million tonnes of feedingstuffs, and it will help us to grasp how much we are talking about if we note that half, about 200 million tonnes, is made up of commercial feedingstuffs, and compound feedingstuffs make up two-thirds of that, some 115 million tonnes. As Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf pointed out, the conciliation procedure eventually achieved a satisfactory result on the most important points at third reading stage by involving all interested parties – something which I should like very much to commend. As Parliament demanded, there is now open quantitative declaration, and, although the 15% is in my opinion at the upper edge of the margin, consensus has nonetheless been reached. It was also clearly stated that the producer, must however, and I see the 'must however' as very important here, state the exact percentages involved at the customer’s request. Thirdly, there is the positive list. About 20 000 components have been mentioned, and the drawing up of this positive list may well be a difficult task, but it will, I think, be an interesting and important one. More time has been conceded, and even more for formulation following the directive's implementation, but it is, I think, important that it should happen that way. Perhaps the evaluation report would present the right opportunity to introduce further improvements, such as, for example, the possible certification of the producer of the compound feedingstuffs. There is one more point I would like to mention, namely that the first positive list, to look at things in a European perspective, was the so-called purity law for beer. As I have said before, it was instituted in 1486 in the area I come from, and made applicable to the whole of Bavaria in 1516. It was a fine positive list for the production of beer, and you should put all your drive and ambition into drafting an equally good positive list for compound feedingstuffs. So, then, particular thanks and appreciation to the rapporteur, to the chairman of the Conciliation Committee, Mr Friedrich, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf and Mr Kindermann for the tough and persistent negotiations.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I should like to say that, compared to other excellent initiatives such as the Galileo project, the Commission proposal seems inadequate in that it heavily penalises the east-west link south of the Alps, and only provides an eastward extension towards the candidate countries for the Stuttgart-Vienna axis, north of the Alps. This is why I, together with other Members, including Mr Pitella and Mr Fava, have tabled amendments which I hope will be adopted in order to compensate for this enormous mistake that unfairly penalises southern European development policies, with the remarkable exception of Spain, which is amply provided for. Moreover, I hope these amendments will be adopted because I do not support Parliament's decision not to intervene in Annex III, thus renouncing the exercise of power and prerogative conferred upon it by electoral mandate.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to speak in French, if I may, so that I can make myself understood more easily. Thank you for your answer, Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck, and for the information that you gave. I knew the details regarding the Schengen Agreement but it is useful to have confirmation of them. My first point, Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck, is that I am not talking about abolition. Your translation services have made a mistake – I am talking about suspension. This is a different concept altogether and this is the correct word. I sincerely apologise for writing in Greek. My second point, Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck, is that you spoke of the reinstatement of checks. In the case that I mention in my question, however, involving the 150 young people from Greece who were banned before they even left their ship in the port of Ancona, they did not undergo any checks at all. That is why I put to you the following question – when the Schengen Agreement is suspended, which legal status is applicable? I would guess that it is the status laid down generally by the treaty, in other words, free movement with passport control. The passports of the Greek citizens were not checked, Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck. This, forgive me for saying so, is totally illegal, it is deplorable and what is more, this is a matter for the European courts. And, in my view, it is a matter for you, the Council or the Commission.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, I too would like to thank the rapporteur for his report and I go along with the gist of what Mr Costa said. However, there is one point with which I, like other members of the Dutch People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy, am struggling, namely the following. Recital No 14 and Article 4 provide for the possibility of government aid being granted for the purpose of the use of infrastructure. This is possible pursuant to the amendments. In our opinion, this exemption from the ban of government aid is undesirable. First of all because the starting premise is wrong, for transport by road already pays the lion’s share of external costs. Secondly, it is not judicious to grant extra support for the use of the railways, because costs do not constitute the most important reason why transporters do not opt for rail. We need an increase in quality and reliability, and market discipline is in that case the best incentive. I fear that this incentive for a modal shift, of which we are, of course, in favour, is counterproductive, brings about distortion of competition and undermines the work that has been done in the framework of the rail infrastructure package. We will therefore be voting against Recital No 14 and Article 4. They do not belong here.

Political group: ELDR