GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, I would firstly like, of course, to congratulate Mr Watson on his excellent work and his important and difficult report. Mr Watson has not theorised, but has taken account of what afflicts us and, in particular, he has dealt directly with what is inflicted on us by ETA, and of what affects Basque society, Spanish society and, in my case, Catalan society. His total condemnation and his call for the need to respect victims must be a constant element in our statements and our positions. I would firstly and clearly like to highlight in this report the fact that important positive action measures are proposed for the legal and police areas: the establishment of minimum standards, the establishment of a form of extradition, the recognition of judicial resolutions, the execution of arrest warrants and the approximation of national legislations. I believe that these measures improve the important and priority legal and police action. In the time that I have available, I believe I should stress that the report has not renounced important values in the fight against terrorism in Europe. It is very important that Recital N incorporates the idea that ideologies are legitimate if they are compatible with democratic respect and values. It is significant that in Recital O, the expression ‘democratic dialogue’ reappears, as a fundamental principle, based on mutual respect and non-violence. It is also significant that Recitals R and S state that measures must have restrictions on the part of States so that there is no abuse of the legal regulations. I believe that all of this is important, given the balance which is provided by priority and efficiency of action and respect for European values. I must mention my satisfaction with these changes, because they change the resolution, approved by written declaration in September 1999 and in which I expressed my disagreement – even though I signed it – with the removal of the expression ‘democratic dialogue’. Through this report the European Union is fully recovering its values on this issue, because peace, understood as the exclusion of violence, on the one hand, and dialogue, on the other, is an essential pairing for the European Union, inside and outside Europe. Europe, when it goes anywhere, inside or outside, does so with this pairing of ‘peace and democratic dialogue’ and clearly, as I insist inside and outside, I do not want to give any example because I would not want it to provoke comparisons which would alter what is positive about this report and this debate. I am very satisfied that this report can be approved and that it will be an effective tool for resolving this serious problem which affects many people.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I have tried to listen carefully to the Council and the Commission and have to say that the Commission has, as usual, been more honest in describing where our partnership stands today and in pointing out that it is a question of both give and take, for I think that the results are notable by their absence. Further shadow boxing and fine-sounding speeches are more in evidence than actual results. I also believe that there is an alarming risk that, to some extent, relations between the United States, Russia and the EU will come to resemble those we are seeing in the Middle East. Are we in the EU the only people to be concerned about human rights, freedom of expression, media pluralism, the environment and, perhaps too, the position of the organisations representing citizens? What is actually happening in Kaliningrad? What is in fact happening in the energy dialogue? We are waiting for results. What is happening with the environmental partnership in the northern dimension? In the context of quite a few summits, the EU has said that something must happen. The EU has made decisions to enable it to finance important environmental projects in north-western Russia, but the Russian Federation is not playing its part. Are we to promise WTO and NATO membership or should we perhaps demand results from the Russian side as preconditions for such membership? The Presidency and the Commission touched upon the issue of responsibility for nuclear waste, and specifically the MNEPR Agreement. How many times are we to see the Presidency, for example the Swedish Presidency, seeking results? The issue is postponed, first for six months and then year after year, while all the time we know that the clock is ticking for untreated waste and that the submarines in Murmansk may begin to leak. We also know that, in my country, we have major problems with land transport to Russia where agreed deadlines are not complied with and additional costs are incurred. I would also appeal to you to address difficult issues in the negotiations with Russia. I would say, finally, to the Presidency that other summits and other heads of government have not hesitated to address the situation of kidnapped children. This issue must also be addressed in a serious dialogue. I myself am aware of quite a few children, for example Maria Sobeva and Tommi Ylönen, who have been kidnapped and taken to Russia.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ten years after the Rabin/Arafat agreements, a neutral observer taking stock of the Blair/Gaddafi civilities would say that a miracle has taken place. However, if he looked into it further, he would say that we have a greater tragedy. Where is the balance? The balance is quite clearly worse today than it was ten years ago when there were events and political choices. When it became clear from various quarters that the official government line was to murder people, we did not react. When the new wall of shame started to be built, again we did not react. A particular peculiarity distinguishes the shape of our policy. Yes! We are the biggest financiers of the area, but to finance someone without intervening politically is basically like pouring water into a pitcher full of holes, into a bucket full of holes, which cannot hold the water. What are we doing now? Quite clearly we have to take initiatives. In a few days, as is our custom, the presiding country will meet the president of the United States of America in order to raise the imperative question of the joint approach to this issue. It would, of course, be better if this meeting were held in Brussels at long last. We are also talking about the Euro-Mediterranean conference and we all welcome the meeting in Athens at parliamentary level. However, there must also be a corresponding initiative at government level. In other words, if we cannot get to the heart of the problem, we must confine the problem. It would not be a bad thing, for example, if we set up a special office in the area, based in Cyprus, to take account of all the irritations and take the corresponding initiatives. Politics are not neutral. Politics mean initiative, pro-action, proposals and results. If the European Union wants to demonstrate its ability, including for its own interests, it is an area which has matured to the point at which it will have the general acceptance of mankind if it makes a positive contribution to resolving the Palestinian problem, which is the tip of a broader problem, but if the tip is solved, it will also be resolved at the base.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, although education in the Union is the responsibility of the Member States, there are many channels in the European Union for the support of cultural education in schools. The main ones are the multiannual programmes, such as Socrates, Leonardo da Vinci and Culture 2000. They all encourage cultural creativity and mobility, intercultural dialogue and knowledge of the history of the European peoples. The learning of languages, something which is closely tied to cultural skills, has an important role to play in Union policy. In 2001 we celebrated the European Year of Languages. I am pleased that the rapporteur highlights the importance of knowledge of European history and cultural heritage in his report. The history of our continent is not only wars and bloodshed but also a fruitful interaction that has enriched our national cultures. We can see that many artists who have been essential to the identity of independent nation-states have at the same time been important European players. With enlargement of the Union there will be a need to raise awareness of the culture and history of the new and the old Member States, as the report quite rightly states. I believe it will strengthen our sense of alliance, as the countries of the Baltic and Central Europe that are now joining the Union are firmly rooted in a common European cultural heritage. Culture, education and research occupy a central position in the Commission proposal in the financial frameworks for the period 2007-2013. Investment in these is crucial to success in the context of the Lisbon Strategy, but culture and education have a broader function than just economic success. They create a framework for people’s intellectual growth and mutual understanding. I therefore welcomed the report’s recommendation that the Commission and the Member States should ensure that in European research programmes encouragement is given to projects concerning the fundamentals of European civilisation such as common law, the history of institutions and education, the rules of coexistence, social and anthropological practices and forms of artistic expression. I hope that the objectives set in the report are duly taken into consideration when the Commission is drafting new multiannual programmes relating to culture, education and youth exchange schemes. Similarly, the report contains the ingredients for negotiations among the EU Ministers for Education and Culture regarding common educational and cultural-political objectives.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner and rapporteurs, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to take the opportunity briefly to point out that, in fact, in a very short space of time, we have slowly but surely put together a package consisting of a number of reports. These reports are not only those before us but are also those on the organisation of working hours, whereby the working hours for employed, but also for self-employed, drivers have been reduced from an average of 60 to 48 hours. In this package, we have drawn on our concern for safety, the environment and efficiency to still try to get a number of proposals adopted in order to improve the whole environment of freight transport by road, as well as the role which the driver plays in this. Reference has already been made to accidents which happen on a regular basis, also involving people from third countries who do not carry the paperwork. With regard to the report by Mr Van Dam, I should like to note that we really have been in a position to implement this in a relatively short space of time, and that is why I should like to support his attempts to prevent another round of amendments so that we can roll up our sleeves at the earliest opportunity, in the knowledge that there will undoubtedly be a number of flaws which will be picked up during the evaluation which will take place within three years – at least, I assume that this promise will be confirmed shortly. I also endorse the comments by Mr Brian Simpson that the way in which subsidiarity is being used by Mr Bradbourn in his amendments is not actually the way in which we should be working at the moment. As the Group of the , we shall resolutely vote against this approach. I should like to finish off with a word of thanks to rapporteur Hatzidakis and, obviously, Mr Grosch. Mr Hatzidakis, this was a technical amendment. These are the kinds of reports which we passed on to the then chairman with great pleasure, and I wish you every success in your next job in this transport environment.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I can be brief about what has led us to this discussion: the charge of separatism against HADEP is undesirable and, mainly, unjustified. HADEP is a democratic party which is trying to defend the cause of the Kurds peacefully, and has done so in the past. It is therefore only right that the Council, the Commission and Parliament, too, should denounce this charge unequivocally. I can only hope, therefore, that the decision to re-examine this case next Friday in terms of the present constitution and the proposed constitutional changes, and not to proceed full steam ahead towards a ban, forms part of a more general change of direction regarding what, in my view, is the central issue under debate here, namely the question of how political, cultural and religious minorities in Turkey should be accorded a place in the political system. This is about fundamental human rights: the right to speak one’s own language, the right to use that language in the media and the right to be taught in that language. But more than anything, it is about the need for crucial political reforms. In this sense, the case against HADEP epitomises the choice which Turkey is facing: either the country opts for pluralism, democracy and freedom of expression, or these basic European principles remain subordinate to a dogmatic view of state security. However, let there be no misunderstanding about the fact that this criticism of Turkey and this support for HADEP are based on one crucial premise, namely that it is to be welcomed that Turkey is one of the EU’s candidate countries and that the European Union must do everything in its power to enable Turkey to acquire membership. Consequently, it is not my intention, by supporting HADEP and criticising the Turkish government and authorities, to keep Turkey outside the EU indefinitely, but rather to prepare Turkey for fully-fledged democratic membership of the European Union.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I was not aware that this was going to arise and I apologise therefore to Mrs Villiers for not being able to talk to her about it earlier. She is quite right to say that agreement has been reached with the Council and it is now up to Parliament to have the third reading. We pressed extremely hard – and you, Madam President, were involved in this – to try and get to a position where we could be flexible and act very rapidly as a parliament. Unfortunately, we have to await the documentation that comes from the Council in all 11 languages of the Community before we actually have Council's position formally adopted so that we can come to a conclusion with a third reading. It is therefore, unfortunately, a matter of timing, due to the scheduling of documents and translation etc. that we do not have that flexibility. I did press very hard indeed but unfortunately it was not achievable.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, recent incidents which involved meat from sick cows ending up in the food chain in the Netherlands and France, as well as the debate which has flared up again in Great Britain, underline once again the need for tighter monitoring and inspection of food production. Winning back the public’s confidence in food safety is more important than for food safety alone. After all, this is about the confidence of the citizen in the government. This is why the new European Food Safety Agency must become a powerful and independent body which does not only inform the public but is also given specific powers to propose effective measures in good time and to investigate problems in the event of a crisis. We therefore have an organisation in mind which is as slim as possible, and not a large bureaucracy. In addition, part of the body’s efficiency will consist of transparent decision-making and the swift publication on the Internet of its studies and recommendations, as happens with, for example, the Food and Veterinary Office in Dublin, which is running extremely smoothly. The public is entitled to this. It is also important to build on the work of existing organisations, such as EMEA and FAO, because duplication must be avoided. Finally, the European Government should not escape its responsibility. In the final analysis, decisions must be taken by the European Commission, and Parliament must, for example by means of a discussion on the annual report, remain involved in the work of the agency. On a final note, President Prodi created huge expectations in the run-up to his presidency, and Commissioner Byrne and rapporteur Bowis were asked to flesh these out in their White Paper. I believe they succeeded in this extremely well, and we shall now welcome legislation in this field as soon as possible.

Political group: ELDR
I voted in favour of the common position because it addresses many of the demands by the Disabled People’s Associations. It does away with exemptions laid down in the proposal for a directive and establishes principles that are to be complied with in order to guarantee greater accessibility for disabled people. At this second reading, the rapporteur is insisting on extending the concept of the ‘passenger with reduced mobility’ and on conditions for greater accessibility, in line with the view of associations working in this field. This is something we welcome. Finally, I must point out that our position has been completely the opposite of the view put forward by the , which sought to destroy the common position that had already been reached. This approach jeopardised the rights of the disabled.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, first of all my thanks to Mr Grosch for smoothing off the rough social edges of liberalisation in order to combine these two elements with each other once and for all. I think that the aim of the directive is very clear. We want to improve road safety. We also want to try to improve the environment on our roads by means of training, because if drivers know how that works, they will be able to influence it. Ultimately, of course, it is also a social package. I will not go into all the details. I think that it was a good thing that Mr Vermeer withdrew a couple of amendments, otherwise it may have resulted in the social dumping we have been talking about. There is, however, a catch, and I would like to speak to the Commissioner briefly about this. It is as follows. Over the past few days, the case of hauliers Willi Betz has shown us that there are problems with the CEMT licences. We all know that the driver’s certificate that Mr Van Dam worked on, and which is based on community licences, came into effect on 19 March. It is still possible to evade the CEMT licences, as Mr Grosch mentioned at the end of his speech. I would like to ask the Commissioner how we can get the CEMT to pay attention to the specialist training and follow-up training we are aiming towards for members from Member States and drivers working for companies registered in those Member States, otherwise we will be left with an unresolved problem. For this reason, I would like to ask you to give your attention to this. Secondly, I think that we are dealing with social matters here, and I will soon be raising the issue of whether we should really be dealing with this via the RETT or the EMPL. I will be coming back to this.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there are circumstances which make Western Sahara a highly topical issue and they are relevant this evening. The first is the United Nations Security Council’s urgent resolution of 29 February, which agreed to extend the MINURSO mandate to the end of May. Secondly, there is the food crisis facing the Sahrawi refugees in the desert camps. Mention must be made of serious incidents which have recently occurred in the occupied territories of Western Sahara, where pro-referendum demonstrations have been suppressed by the Moroccan authorities. Mention must also be made of the visit the Maghreb Delegation will be making to Morocco next week and the King of Morocco’s favourable attitude to the European Parliament visiting the territory of Western Sahara for the first time. The instability that could become endemic in this part of Africa could affect some of the outermost Community regions, like my region, the Canary Islands. Our citizens want a peaceful solution to the conflict in Western Sahara and they want the Sahrawi people to hold the referendum under conditions of freedom, transparency and equality. And finally, one of the objectives of the European Union’s common foreign and security policy is the maintenance of peace and the strengthening of international security. And here the High Representative for the CFSP, Mr Solana, ought to play a more active role in achieving adequate guarantees for the Sahrawi people through an active presence and direct participation in the stages of the peace process and the referendum. That is why we support the motion for a resolution.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, illegal immigration is a daily phenomenon at all of the European Union’s borders, affecting certain regions with particular intensity and with an enormous humanitarian, social and economic impact. Please allow me to focus on those border regions of the Union which, like Andalusia, most vividly experience the arrival of dozens of people each day. Andalusia, owing to its geographical proximity to the Maghreb, is enduring great migratory pressure without having the appropriate instruments for confronting it. The Spanish administration has publicly acknowledged that the situation is unsustainable and, furthermore, bilateral relations with the Maghreb and the Kingdom of Morocco are difficult at the moment due to problems related to fishing, drug-trafficking and illegal immigration itself. Some of us have been arguing for years that, within the framework of the Schengen Agreement, the special status of border regions such as Andalusia should be recognised and that these areas of the European Union should be provided with instruments which would allow them to deal with the arrival of these immigrants more effectively. They should also be given the power to propose measures to the central government and to the European Union relating to work, residence and the necessary social integration of people who are forced to emigrate across the Straits of Gibraltar to reception regions such as Andalusia.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, the report we are now discussing is an important step on the way towards implementing the Lisbon objectives. Just like Mr Karas and Mr Bullman, I am quite disappointed that the Commission once again has managed to forget the decisions made at the Gothenburg Summit in which the environment was also to form an aspect of the Lisbon process. Although I think that it is good that the rapporteur is encouraging the Commission and the Council to add sustainable development to the rationalisation of political coordination, it can be done considerably earlier than the Commission is doing. The fact is that, besides failing to reinforce the Lisbon objectives with an environmental objective, there are also still many issues which remain to be resolved. We have discussed fisheries policy practically all night, but this also concerns an overhaul of agricultural policy, an area where we have to tackle the subsidies which we know to be damaging. We must also make sure that the environmentally harmful subsidies are abolished. This is included in the concept of ‘sustainable development’, but the Commission does not really seem to have accepted this or thought it through yet. The goal for the spring summit next year must be to create balance in the measures between all three parts of the Lisbon agenda, above all by developing the environmental dimension and continuing to strengthen and make concrete the concept of sustainable development within all three dimensions of the agenda. The Commission must do this in a much more focused way. Above all, it must be ensured that the environmental indicators are taken seriously, which will in fact not be discussed until a few days before the Council is to reach a decision on this. All the work on sustainable development in this agenda has completely the wrong focus and is going far too slowly on the part of the Commission.

Political group: PSE