GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I have taken the floor to stress the importance of this Green Paper – for I feel it is my duty to do so – and, therefore, to congratulate Commissioner Vitorino on the contribution he has made with this Green Paper to the building of an area of freedom and justice. I would also like to thank Mr Hernández Mollar for incorporating the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, which was the fruit of extensive, in-depth analysis, extensive debate and great understanding of the issue. He reiterated just now that we need to call strongly for criminal procedure to provide substantial criminal law, because that is the way to be able to provide safeguards, to achieve, indeed, what we see as a minimum level of reliability and minimum safeguards. The intention of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market in producing this opinion was to stress and emphasise the need to protect the freedom of defendants. We are aware that the institutions describe themselves in these terms, that legal civilisation, the rule of law, prevails, and these safeguards are essential to and representative of a fair trial, which is the subject of so much discussion and, I believe, must be our ultimate goal as regards procedure. The Green Paper represents a change of course, Commissioner Vitorino, a radical change of course from tendencies which are not quite democratic, giving precedence to powers of investigation and investigation alone, also in a supranational form. The European Prosecutor for criminal protection against fraud is an example of this point, which I have already made on other occasions in this Chamber and in other debates. All the provisions laid down have already been mentioned, but the right to immediate defence, the right to assistance, the language guarantee and other similar matters form the essential elements of this measure, and I would stress them once again. What we must emphasise are not just cooperation and coordination between the Member States but definitive recognition of final criminal decisions, and the Committee on Legal Affairs is working to this end. To sum up, Mr President, we must ensure that the level of protection of rights provided is higher rather than lower. To this end, we must take into account the safeguards provided by some Member States and ensure that Europe as a whole focuses its approach on that dimension and those rights. The Europe of rights and freedoms demands it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr Schmitt’s report is supported by the majority of my group. The advantages of creating a European Aviation Safety Agency in place of 15 national agencies are undisputed: - It can create uniform authorisation procedures, - it can standardise the rules on air safety and environmental protection, and - it can create standard provisions relating to the safety of products, persons and installations. At the same time, the new Agency would be a recognised partner for aviation authorities in other parts of the world. The functions of the Agency are clearly defined: consultancy, providing technical support to the Commission, issuing the requisite official documentation, conducting checks and inspections, monitoring the implementation of statutory provisions, devising and funding research projects and cooperating with the agencies of non-EU countries. The Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism has adopted other important amendments which would make the Agency more independent of the Commission as well as defining the obligation of the Agency to keep the European Parliament informed. My group also attaches importance to the provisions that are designed to increase transparency. These would subject the Agency to the following controls: - General Community budgetary procedures would apply to the Agency, - Community anti-fraud legislation would apply to the Agency, and - the Agency would be subject to regular external assessments. For these reasons the vast majority of our group voted in favour of the report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, previous speakers have said that we have repeatedly condemned the violence that is happening in Afghanistan and the human rights violations that take place every day. What are we to do, however, when the situation gets worse for women and for the Hazars, as mentioned today? We have a situation in which 170 civilians were executed in January and, as mentioned by Mr Dupuis and the others, there have been attacks in Yakaolang. What are we to do? On the other hand, we know that, after the Tampere Summit in 1999, the EU approved a recommendation from a high-level working party concerning how we should deal with the Afghan situation. I believe that this strategy needs to be soberly appraised. We need to review it again. How should our embassies in Pakistan receive people who apply to be allowed to come to our countries? I have heard it said that they are sometimes treated like criminals. I am pleased to see that we are seeking an Echo office in Afghanistan, something which should be reiterated. We must also give our support to the Christian organisations that are working in Afghanistan. There are Christian organisations that are doing an incredible amount for the Afghan population while maintaining a low profile. They, too, need our support. As has also been said by other speakers, we must also devote ourselves to getting the arms embargo into force and to ensuring that the UN gains access to the country in order, for example, to investigate the atrocities committed against the Hazars. These are some of the measures that are needed. We cannot get any further by condemning matters time after time. One feels really powerless. We need a more intelligent policy in this sphere. I think that our experience in areas close to home has shown that a presence in the country can also yield good results and, above all, has a humanitarian basis.

Political group: ELDR
Given the uncertainty about the precise position of the President of the United States, I propose correcting the second part of paragraph 2 to say “including the search for effective procedures” instead of “the establishment of existing procedures”.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I do not doubt that is what the President's notes say, but one of the problems with accepting it is that my notes and those of other Members and of the general rapporteur say differently. The problem is that my notes are in Brussels, not here in Strasbourg, so when I saw this in the Minutes I asked to raise it. Could I ask that we check the audio or video tapes of that voting procedure to establish the actual position? I am of course convinced that what I say is correct, but if I am proved wrong then I am more than happy to accept that.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it was good that Dr Trajkovski, the President of Macedonia, was in Stockholm. He is a man who has made an all-out commitment to interethnic coexistence. However, if you look closely at the situation in Macedonia, you cannot but conclude that the root cause of the extremist incidents lies not so much in Macedonia as in the hesitant action of the West in Kosovo. The fact of the matter is that the minority rules in Macedonia for the Walachians, Serbs, Romas and Turks are exemplary and many countries in the region would do well to follow its example. Secondly: the Albanian minority of around 28% naturally needs special treatment. They have 4 ministers in key positions in this government. What the previous government unfortunately failed to take into account was the question of higher education for these people and the need to resolve the problem of Tetovo University. This government made a start on all this, despite the Kosovo crisis, and just as it did so, along came extremists from outside and upset everything. I call on the Council to help this government to continue on its chosen path and to call on the opposition in Macedonia to support it. And I call on the Member States to send money to Tetovo University so that it can start the academic year. As far as Kosovo is concerned, I urgently call for the borders with Serbia and Macedonia to be closed to extremists. We can probably do this with the help called for. But UNMIC must get elections under way in Kosovo at long last, so that elected Albanian politicians can take their fate in their own hands and put the extremists in their place. Governments in the west must realise that problems need to be monitored closely and a solution found. If we keep stopping half way, we just give the extremists room to manoeuvre.

Political group: PPE-DE
This report is simply an enormous cosmetic and marketing operation designed to favour employers at European level, as a result both of the deliberate intentions of the entire process and of the EU’s economic and social guidelines, which seek to promote the deregulation of the economy, in particular in the labour market, through wage flexibility and job instability. Taking Portugal as an example, we could actually talk about corporate social irresponsibility, with multinationals closing and relocating to countries where salaries are lower and social and environmental laws are more flexible where profit is concerned, making thousands of workers redundant, calling into question the development of the least-favoured regions, breaking contracts with local authorities and States that have guaranteed them considerable amounts of public aid and tax benefits. Reality shows that many of these companies wishing to promote themselves internationally have no sense of social responsibility whatsoever. What they do is make use of job instability, short-term contracts, salaries in arrears and precarious labour conditions. They unfairly and illegally lay off employees, forcibly impose flexible working hours, encourage child labour and demonstrate a lack of responsibility for pollution. There is a climate of impunity and non-compliance with legislation in force, which must be brought to an end. - Recommendation (A5-0131/2003) – Mrs McNally

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Vice-President of the Commission, I consider this regulation extremely important and after all the European Parliament has been calling for an improvement in aviation safety since 1987. That means we must also regulate the flight and rest times of the cockpit crew as of the cabin crew. I agree with the previous speakers that we should give the unions and the airlines a last chance to settle this issue between themselves, working jointly and pragmatically. Of course we have agreed that they must reach an agreement by May next year. Madam Vice-President, please tell your services that if they have not done so by the end of May we will no longer play the game that has been played for six years, namely with the Commission waiting for the parties to reach agreement. But they have not reached agreement. The Commission behaved very politely and did not make any proposals of its own. Either the parties agree by May, or we expect the Commission to put forward a proposal that we can incorporate in the second reading. For it is unacceptable not to regulate a question that is crucial to passenger safety, namely whether the captains, the crews, have had enough rest to be able to carry out their duties. These issues must be settled. Let me address a second point that caught my attention at the December Council meeting. If we adopt a position at first reading, in fact at Parliament's final vote tomorrow, then I insist as I am sure my colleagues will also do on the Council deciding a common position. It can wait till May, till the two parties have reached agreement. But in the interests of passenger safety in Europe we cannot accept no decisions being taken on aviation until the supposed settlement of the Gibraltar conflict. The Commission and Parliament should jointly see to that. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I wanted to begin my speech by expressing my horror at this war in Afghanistan and any other war. We have always spoken out very clearly against the Taliban government and the measures it took against its own population, against women’s rights in particular. But we are also against the deaths of – I believe – thousands of innocent civilians in Afghanistan. Today we are talking about a weapon which is being used in Afghanistan, a weapon which the United Nations Convention of 1980 called into question, a weapon which is today also the subject of discussion in the Conference taking place in Geneva. A weapon which, together with anti-personnel mines, makes enormous areas of our planet uninhabitable. Mr President, I believe it should be banned. As simple as that. I even find the fourth paragraph of this resolution, which says that we must provide them with more reliable mechanisms, repellent. I believe that nobody in this House has expressed the horror of any war better than our recent winner of the Sakharov Prize, the Israeli Nurit Peled-Elhanan, who spoke here yesterday.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, a dispute has arisen in Italy, to be specific in my region, the Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol, regarding the ethno-linguistic census organised under the region’s statute of special autonomy and assiduously carried out by the German-speaking administration. This census runs counter to the principle of free movement as well as to Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of personal data and in particular to Article 8 protecting the ethnic origin of citizens. Whilst possible infringement proceedings are underway against the Italian State, it seems that Commissioner Bolkestein directly agreed to a solution with the Governor of the Province of Bolzano, as the President himself announced after returning from a trip to Brussels. Considering that the Italian Government, which is responsible for this kind of negotiation, has already made an official protest, I would be pleased to know from Commissioner Bolkestein what the tenor of this meeting was: if it is true that a solution was agreed to or if the issue was simply discussed.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would first like to state that I am in favour of the precautionary principle in an area where consumers’ health is under direct threat, but the discussion taking place here between the supporters of the ban and their opponents is nothing but hypocrisy. Everyone knows that both the good and the bad arguments in favour of consumer protection are used above all as weapons in a trade war and as arguments in shady manoeuvres in domestic politics. It is therefore total hypocrisy to blame farmers and their interests and to set them in opposition, explicitly or implicitly, to the interests of consumers, without censuring the part played by the large capitalist groups which produce and supply cattle feed. In Parliament we hear endless praise for companies’ competitiveness, for their right and even for their duty to maximise profits. Well this is the result of this race for profits in an area which affects health and food safety! Along with the carcinogenic consequences of asbestos, spongiform encephalitis is yet another time bomb laid by industry’s capitalist management. Whether the European Parliament adopts a position in favour of the embargo or of lifting it, the basic problems will not have been addressed. There will still be companies that cut corners on the investment necessary for studying the danger posed by new products. There will still be companies, such as those that produce asbestos, that continue to pass the dangers on to their workers and to consumers; companies which, in all conscience, will continue to run the risk of poisoning and even murdering people, in order to make a little more profit.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, not only is the present draft regulation on measures to promote the sustainable management of tropical forests and other forests in developing countries, very closely associated with the previous regulation in terms of subject matter, the political pressure and the political arguments used to rail-road this regulation through as quickly as possible are also reminiscent of what happened the last time round. In this case too, we opted for a conciliation procedure, notwithstanding all the prophecies of doom, and I believe we substantially improved the content of the regulation in the process. The active participation of the local communities and those who are directly affected, in the development of the national forestry policy and development planning, is now one of the objectives of the regulation, and this represents a major step forwards in terms of content, to my mind. Parliament has managed to secure adequate funding. The Council’s proposal earmarked a ridiculously low sum of EUR 63 million for the period between 2000 and 2006. Parliament demanded EUR 249 million for the same period and achieved it, making the point very clearly in so doing that it is unacceptable as far as we are concerned to play the reconstruction in the Balkans – as important as it is – off against EU development policy and development cooperation. It is vital that the Commission reports back to Parliament annually on the guidelines and priorities it has worked out. Together with Article 11 of this regulation, which lays down an annual reporting obligation in respect of financed projects and measures, this provides us with the basic tools we will need to draw attention, in good time, to disturbing trends.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, under Rule 111 of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, I propose an amendment to the agenda of this part-session to include a statement by the Commission about the French Government’s refusal to lift the beef ban and its decision to stop UK beef crossing its territory, which is a vital route into Spain and Italy. I should be grateful if the statement could be followed by a short debate as provided for under Rule 37. The Commission agreed that British beef is safe. Scientific evidence proves that British beef is safe. The French Government, as far as I know, has no new evidence. Stringent safeguards are in place in the UK, yet one state – France – is going to opt out of the Commission ruling. It will damage the internal market if this state of affairs is allowed to continue; it will damage the credibility of the Commission and it will further damage British farmers. BSE has already cost the UK GBP 1.5 billion in lost exports. British farmers have been patient for the last two-and-a-half or three years during the negotiations. They have abided by the rules. They have even destroyed animals with no sign of BSE. At long last the beef ban was lifted. Now they are confronted with a new attack on their industry. We need an urgent statement and debate. I hope time can be made for this.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the Gothenburg European Council recognised the need to integrate sustainable development into the Union’s other policies on an equal footing with economic and social objectives. I therefore agree with the proposal from the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy favouring railways and other less polluting methods of transport and which also proposes combined transport solutions more clearly than the proposal from the main rapporteur. Among the plans agreed at the Essen European Council, which were included in the White Paper, there is one, perhaps the most ambitious and most expensive, which is the plan for the interoperability of the Iberian high-speed rail network, which may take up half of the budget. Although we advocate promoting conventional networks, this project is on the table, and it is perhaps regrettable, Mr President, that in the route from Madrid to Valencia via Cuenca, it was not planned to pass through Teruel. I am well aware that projects are agreed upon and that it is very difficult to establish some stops, but the institutions in Aragon considered it to be viable according to a study by experts and it would favour a region that is in chronic decline and is suffering from chronic depopulation that has led to the residents forming a non-governmental organisation called 'Teruel exists'. The report on transport policy by our colleague Juan de Dios Izquierdo, in 2001, pointed out that transport policy should contribute to the economic and social cohesion of the peripheral or sparsely populated regions. We therefore regret that this branch was not taken into consideration.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I welcome the Commissioner’s statement that he is in listening mode. I wonder if he would listen in particular to those people who are working in the field of public health and their concerns that what has been a very good programme on public health care, health promotion and illness prevention seems to be disappearing. As I understand it, within the first seven categories of research programmes, when health comes in, it is confined to highly scientific biomedical research programmes. When people ask what is happening to public health care research, they are told that it has gone into the all-embracing Category 8, which is rather a jumble sale of a programme with a very small amount of money attached. They are told that directorates-general of the Commission are already being invited to submit bids, so it is Agriculture bidding against Environment bidding against Health, and so on. This area of public health looks like missing out, just at the time when the Treaty of Amsterdam is putting it up the agenda for the European Union. Will he have a look at that, because if we are going to get the research programme right, we need to have research into that research programme, and to listen to the people in the field.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, the crisis in air transport unfolding before our very eyes following the terrorist attack on 11 September is, of course, exacerbated by factors such as structural problems in airline companies, the absence, so far, at least, of a single European airspace, which we hope will soon become a reality, and public concern about the safety of air transport. We need to act as quickly as possible. When we attended the ICAO assembly in Montreal recently with the European Parliament delegation, we clearly stated the European position that international measures should be taken at ministerial level by the end of the year. And, of course, if, our hopes notwithstanding, there are delays, I think that the European Union should proceed unilaterally in order to establish a climate of safety in air transport. As you all know, the Commission recently proposed an initial package of measures, referred to as ECAC document 30. The parliamentary Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism has promised to examine it as quickly as possible so that these measures can be turned into Community law by the end of the year, which is also in keeping with the Council's wishes. For the same reason, the other three legislative proposals relating to safety will also be examined as quickly as possible. There is also another package of measures relating to safety in the cockpit, video cameras, ground/air communications etc., that is, the measures to which the Commissioner referred. As far as this matter is concerned, my point is that we are worried about the delay and about how the Member States' experts have worked up to now. We trust that they will take the hint and improve their working methods from now on. We are witnessing serious economic losses not just in air transport but in trade, tourism and other sectors of the economy. We would be failing in our duty if we did not do our utmost to deal with this crisis.

Political group: PPE-DE