GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, I requested the floor in order to express the profound dissatisfaction of a number of Italian Members – most probably all the Italian Members and, I imagine, the dissatisfaction of the majority or the whole of this Parliament as well – at the statements made by President Kuçan yesterday. We fully approve his condemnation of Slovenian nazi and fascist oppression which he expressed in his speech before the European Parliament yesterday, but we cannot accept his failure to condemn the horror of anti-Italian ethnic cleansing perpetrated by the Communist regime immediately after it came to power. In particular, we cannot allow the massacre and eviction of the Italians to be described merely as a measure intended to combat collaboration with nazis and fascists, in the spirit of Potsdam and Yalta which divided Europe and from which Europe has had to regain its freedom and unity and is still in the process of doing so. The events in question were a series of crimes against humanity in which the methods of ethnic cleansing that, tragically, have recently been employed in other parts of the Balkans, were developed for the first time. Italy is well disposed towards the Slovenian population and supports the entry of Slovenia into NATO and the European Union. We were of the opinion that the 1995 Solana agreements had provided a fair solution to the Italy-Slovenia disputes. We cannot understand why President Kuçan is putting forward fresh interpretations of past events which are totally unacceptable and harbouring unfounded fears regarding the future. Yesterday, President Kuçan issued a statement via the Slovenian Embassy saying that the controversy was caused by translation errors and that it was not directed at Italy but at Austria. Well, in our opinion, an action contravening human rights, which is a crime, is just as reprehensible whether it is directed at the Austrians or the Italians. Madam President, I call upon you to take steps to inform the Slovenian government and President Kuçan of the profound dissatisfaction of this Parliament at his unacceptable statements, which certainly do nothing to create the appropriate climate for the negotiations on the accession of Slovenia to the European Union, negotiations which, we hope, will reach a positive conclusion.

Political group: PPE-DE
My group believes that guaranteeing a high and uniform level of safety and environmental protection in civil aviation is the key objective in setting up the European Aviation Safety Agency and drafting attendant legislation. This is a major and logical step on the way to a comprehensive European aviation policy. Common rules create clarity and predictability, but can, at the same time, prevent duplication and thus save money. Uniform European rules are in the interest of industry, but they must also enhance consumer safety, of course. As far as we are concerned, the scope of the Agency may be broad, starting with certifying aircraft types, then extending the scope to include other elements, such as training. Needless to say, we must make effective use of existing national capacities and build in a transitional period to move towards a fully-fledged Agency, although this period should remain limited. We are not keen on a dual-track policy involving competing bodies. So-called third countries must be persuaded to participate in improving safety agreements. For this purpose, the European Union must develop a pro-active policy. It should be reasonable, yet unyielding. We must avoid leaks in the safety system due to a lack of sound agreements with countries that fall outside the scope of the proposed legislation and of the Agency. In the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, we adopted the rapporteur’s compromise amendments. We too would like to see this matter brought to a prompt conclusion. So we are calling on the Council and the Commission to respond in the same cooperative spirit. The Group praises the rapporteur’s determination where the Agency’s independence is concerned. This is a key point for us too. Safety, not the request for competences, must be top of the list. Independence does not mean that the Agency is not accountable for its actions, and the European Parliament wants to take an explicit part in this. We will assume our responsibility, even today, in setting up the Agency, but we should also be allowed to carry out our task as the European Parliament in a well-informed manner.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I wanted to speak before you took that vote to explain why I wanted Members to vote against the amendment. Yesterday the whole position changed with the position the Commission has taken on the legal base. But it is too late now because you have just taken the vote and Members voted in favour of it. We will just have to press on.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I wish to say two things: the first is to express the profound and genuinely heartfelt solidarity of the Autonomous Region of the Azores; the second is to praise the words and specifically the action of Commissioner Barnier, who, for several years now, has dedicated considerable attention and commitment to the problem of natural disasters. What is needed now is to transform this commitment into a draft regulation that will ensure that these phenomena are dealt with objectively and impartially so that all citizens are treated equally, wherever they may live, be it in the mid-Atlantic or at the centre of Europe. This must be done, furthermore, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity and bearing in mind the spirit that has been demonstrated in this House; the spirit that European solidarity is being built right now, in these times, which are extremely difficult for us all.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this Parliament gave its views clearly during the reading on the Sixth Framework Programmes. Those views were reinforced by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy last week: we are in favour of the development of therapies for dreadful diseases by the use of embryonic stem cells under very strict conditions, with no creation of embryos for research, with the use of supernumerary embryos, with the consent of parents and without payment. I regret the intolerant anti-European rejection of subsidiarity by some colleagues this afternoon. We believe that the exploration of other forms of stem cell, and indeed comparisons, are essential. Now to the matter of dates. I regret that the Commission chose to introduce a date, because it has encouraged some Members of this Parliament to put forward even more absurd dates. This has been done in a rather sly, hypocritical and misleading way in that not simply different dates, but also different procedures – with stem cell lines and not with embryos – have been proposed. The hypocrisy of those amendments should be exposed so that Members are absolutely clear on what they are voting. I have a direct question for the Commissioner. Is it true that the dates suggested by Mr Nisticò and others would drastically reduce the availability of stem cell lines to make the European Union totally dependent on the United States, Israel and other countries for lines under patent? Would this damage European Union science and, most importantly of all, would it damage the prospects of helping people who are suffering from terrible diseases? (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to invoke Rule 122 of the Rules of Procedure in order to make a personal statement. Mr Galeote referred to me personally, accusing me of demonstrating party-political motives for having raised the issue of Mr Berlusconi and Mr Dell’Utri’s immunity. As a Spanish Member of the European Parliament and as Socialist coordinator in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, this case falls within my competence, and to some extent I am obliged to raise the matter, because it seems to me absolutely shameful that seven months after the president of the Spanish Supreme Court sent a petition to this Parliament, nobody has even had the courtesy to reply to him. Somebody is responsible, either Parliament or the Spanish Government.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I said by way of introduction, back in the debate held on 5 July on “quality evaluation in school education” that the foundations for the future of young people are laid in classrooms, but not just in classrooms. There are no two ways about it, education, i.e. training and further education, must take centre stage in all policy areas. Education is not an end in itself but is the key to our being able to hold our own in the modern age, not just in economic terms but also at a personal level. The transition to the knowledge-based society, the globalisation of the economy, social, democratic and environmental change, together with far-reaching changes in the world of work, due not least to the new technologies: these are the big challenges we face in the third millennium, and they also require renewed efforts in the educational field. So again, I welcome the fact that this report has come before the House, because its aim is both to improve school education and the quality evaluation thereof. Quality comparisons – be they internal or external – generate competition, and if the quality of education in European schools is enhanced as a result, and the three-fold challenge posed by the information society, globalisation and rapid scientific and technological change is taken into account, then this report will have achieved its goal of giving renewed impetus to efforts in the field of education, and a major step forward will have been taken at European level. So let us help to ensure that the report on implementation, which the Commission is to put before Parliament in three years’ time, proves successful. Permit me though, on a final note, to say something that is fundamental to the future of education, since I have just come from an educational symposium, the Federal Conference of the Austrian People’s Party. There is more to education than equipping people for employment. Its goal must be the all-round development of young people as individuals. This entails imparting fundamental knowledge, skills and competences, communicating values, and educating people in music, creative subjects, health and sport. Secondly, a sound knowledge base, which imparts important material and leaves out what is unimportant, still forms the basis for education in the twenty-first century. So it falls short of the mark to say that knowledge and information ought only to be obtained from the Internet. Those who do not have basic knowledge do not know where to acquire knowledge either. The cultural techniques of reading, calculating and writing form part of this knowledge base. The new technologies offer new opportunities to acquire knowledge and employ our cultural techniques. Only those who have a knowledge base know how to handle knowledge properly, and how to distinguish and differentiate, in an age that has seen an explosion in knowledge. That is why I feel this report makes a significant contribution to placing the acquisition of knowledge at the heart of our policy areas.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should in any case like to congratulate Mr Costa Neves on the strategy which he has outlined on behalf of Parliament. It gives a powerful signal indicating what Parliament does and does not want. Coming from the Committee on Fisheries, I also notice that, with regard to agriculture, the European Commission has in any case understood that Parliament would like to set aside a large proportion of the budget for food safety and the fight against animal diseases, but as for the fishery guidelines, I have to say that it appears as if the Commission is still on a different planet. It does not breathe a word about the problem that, after the failure of the fisheries agreement with Morocco, less money is being spent. Neither does it mention the problems this has caused in vulnerable coastal regions in Spain and Portugal. Nothing about the problems in the northern regions as a result of the temporary fishing ban due to the worrying cod stocks. Even the Council is, for the time being, not taking any action further to implement Nice. Needless to say, it is evident that the transfer of money from one heading to another, from heading 4 (external actions) to heading 2 (structural policy) is no child’s play. Also because the ceiling of Berlin has been determined per heading. But financial crisis management, such as the fight against the BSE crisis and aid for the Balkans, has shown that decisive politicians are not hindered by strict budget rules. The EP’s Committee on Fisheries agrees with rapporteur Costa Neves where he states that both the Commission and the Council may actually be slightly too relaxed in some areas. At the same time, it prompts him to boost the creativity and decisiveness of the Commission and the Council. Our proposals are as follows. We would earmark the funding that has not been used for fishery agreements under external actions, heading 4, to alleviate the effects in the coastal regions of South-Eastern Europe. We would target structural funds to address the crisis in fisheries, which have been left over following the failure of the fishery agreement with Morocco, and further to the measures which have been taken to protect cod and hake stocks. We would, for the time being, set aside any balance in the account in 2001 to restructure the fisheries sector and, if possible, use the instrument of flexibility to fight the fisheries crisis. Finally, we would also like specific research to be initiated into the use of genetic modification techniques in fish farming. Europe is lagging far behind the United States and Canada in this respect, and only sound research will provide a basis to keep this technique in European fish farming at bay.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, may I just say what a pleasure it is to be invited to take the floor at five minutes to midnight. I often think – because it is usually the case with employment legislation – that it is all a plot by the Secretariat to remind us of the folly of the working time directive, not that we need to be reminded of that particular folly on that particular directive. Regarding this one, this conciliated text is in my view a bad compromise on a bad directive. It would have been much better for both parties to have kept their original positions and for the legislation to have fallen. Certainly I voted against it; I was the notable exception referred to by my colleague Liz Lynne. I also voted against it in the conciliation committee for this reason, even though we did manage to dilute many of the dafter amendments during that committee process. As far as the UK is concerned, existing noise regulations have been well thought through and these tighter regulations at EU level are neither necessary nor appropriate. Mr Hughes mentioned the importance of business impact assessments and that they should be carried out thoroughly. I agree with that. It is significant that there has been no proper regulatory impact assessment at EU level to determine the costs and benefits of the proposed directive. Certainly there was one done by the UK which established that the costs far outweighed the benefits and perhaps that is why the EU decided not to do one. This legislation does not reflect the real world. Coming two weeks after Parliament approved the atypical workers directive, where extra costs and red tape could mean the loss of 160 000 temporary worker jobs in the UK alone, this latest directive shows that the EU continues to operate in a time warp when it comes to employment and social legislation. Finally, I would like to say that during the progress of the legislation through the European Parliament there have been three different ministers back in the UK, which may explain why the UK Government has made such a limp response to it. The UK Conservative response will not be limp. We will stand up for common sense and vote against it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to support what Mr Daul has just said. For me also the timber trade is something of great importance, but then our aid to Ethiopia is equally important. For this reason I would like, and I attach great importance to this since you did not previously allow me to speak again when Mrs Buitenweg falsely quoted me, once more to clearly ask: where are those who this morning arranged this whole theatre? Why are they not here now at the end of the session, proving that the work of Parliament is genuinely important to them? That is the real question.

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, honourable Members, I would like to start by thanking Mr Harbour very warmly for leading the initiative, together with STOA, Parliament's Scientific and Technological Options Assessment group, to ensure that the European Parliament could participate in this World Summit. We all know that in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, we have promoted the Internet and the liberalisation of telecommunications in Europe very intensively. Europe has taken on a leading role in the world here. I think that we must also make our contribution to the globalised process, and this contribution naturally means promoting free competition first and foremost. In my view, it is the Internet, above all, that will finally enable family companies and small and medium enterprises to participate in world trade as well. We have learned that in ‘customer to customer’ services in particular – that is, business to consumer and business to business – the Internet opens up totally new opportunities. Through e-bay and other systems, there are now platforms where even micro-enterprises can market their products using services on the world market. We have international payment systems such as credit cards, and firms that handle financial transfers. We have international logistics companies that transport goods around the world. Due to the pressure from imports from many countries of the world – I am thinking, for example, of China, which is currently showing an 8% growth rate, compared with just 1% growth in Europe – Europe has a massive demand here. We must therefore do all we can to ensure that our companies establish a higher international export profile. It is here that a conference like this can offer opportunities to boost our involvement. It also demonstrates yet again that there is an urgent need for a WTO Parliamentary Assembly. I see that the UN and civil society are now participating on these issues as well. Yet we – the legislative – are not involved to an adequate extent in this area. I think that for the future, it will be essential for us to participate in these international frameworks and ensure that the infrastructure we need for our small and medium enterprises in Europe is established. I therefore welcome the fact that the European Parliament will have a stronger Committee on External Trade in its next parliamentary term. Ultimately, we also need many more small and medium enterprises and family enterprises around the globe. We must therefore form partnerships between small enterprises around the world, offer them platforms and provide support to our 18 million – soon to be 22 million – SMEs, which employ two-thirds of Europe’s workers, so they can become global players and through them, we become successful in the global market. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on a point of order. The House will be aware that last week in Nigeria a young woman was condemned to death for adultery. She was to be stoned to death, having been buried in the ground. After a letter from Mrs Fontaine, a number of Members of this House and from myself, as ACP Co-President, that death sentence was not carried out, and an appeal can be made within two months. However, I am appalled to tell you that a further case has now arisen; an 18-year-old is to be taken to court on Monday for the same offence of adultery and will be condemned to death, again by stoning. I sincerely hope that this House, and every Member in it, will support you in writing to Nigeria in the hope that such sentences will be stopped in the future, so that this barbaric method of killing someone under Sharia law is taken up with the Nigerian Government and the latter urged to ensure that it never happens again. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would just like to express my profound sympathy with what Mr Nogueira Román has said. We, in Scotland, recently in the case the Braer disaster suffered a similar misfortune. But that is not what I wanted to speak about tonight. I would like to mention the currently hot issue about access to the Court of Justice, especially rights of semi-privileged access in the case of regions with legislative powers. The Committee on Constitutional Affairs discussed that last week and it will come before us in a fortnight's time as a hotly controversial point. Tonight's debate on fisheries brings up an interesting example which shows what the reality of the issue is. There are big risks for Scottish fisheries of the kind which Mr Nogueira in a different sense has alluded to. It could be that we want to raise an issue about the legality of current proposals under the primary law relating to the accession of Spain and Portugal. That really ought to be something which can be taken up by the legislature and executive which deal with this problem as a matter of European law, then the Scottish Parliament and Executive. Only if we get appropriate rights of access to the courts will that sort of question be answered in the proper place.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The EU has a long history of devising minimum rules for the organisation of working time. The British opt-out in this area has, unfortunately, been ever increasingly turned into almost a principal rule, because 33% of employees in Great Britain have signed agreements to the effect that they are prepared to work more than 48 hours per week. There are tendencies for this now to spread to more countries, entailing a risk to employees’ health and undermining safety in the workplace. We do not wish to support such a development. It was therefore crucial that I voted in favour of the new wording of paragraph 12, the two parts of which were adopted by, respectively, 275 votes in favour and 229 against (with 9 abstentions) and 335 votes in favour and 155 against (with 21 abstentions). This means that the time limit on the British opt-out is now to be phased out. Amendment No 28 involves a long-term solution to the problem of doctors’ hours on call being discussed in the next stage of consultation, something I supported because the result would otherwise be demands for approximately 3 000 new doctors in Sweden and an unsustainable funding situation for the county councils.

Political group: PPE-DE