GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, after months of misery it looked as though it was going to be possible for a little ray of hope to shine on Kosovo. The European Union generously released EUR 500 million to help the Kosovars rebuild their country and the Commission did its best too. Instead of the usual bureaucratic “to-ing and fro-ing” between Brussels and the location where the work takes place, the Commission opted for a decentralised agency which was in a position to start work on an autonomous basis. But nothing came of the Commission’s good intentions. Yet again they were torpedoed by political games in the Council. It was due to horsetrading, for it cannot be called otherwise, between the Germans and the Greeks, that the unhappy decision was taken to have the Reconstruction Agency based in Thessaloniki. This leads to wastage, wastage of money, wastage of manpower and wastage of efficiency. It also produces incomprehension in Kosovo, for at the end of the day, it is Kosovo itself that has to be reconstructed and not Greece. But the worst is still to come. Do you know that a Kosovar needs a visa to travel to Greece? And that he can only obtain that visa from the Greek Consulate in Belgrade? Of course that is very hostile territory for most Kosovars, which means that in deciding to base the agency in Thessaloniki, the ministers are excluding the people they are trying to help from the reconstruction process. The members of the Committee on Budgetary Control have decided unanimously, that is across all parties, to reject this state of affairs. We also call for there to be effective supervision of the agency. Some of the points have already been mentioned by my colleague from the Committee on Budgets. Furthermore, we consider it to be of the greatest importance, of course, for OLAF to be able to intervene when things go wrong. I will just return briefly to the question as to where the agency should be based, and I also speak for my group. Mrs Pack has very courageously taken upon herself the task of clearing up the Council’s mess, proposing a completely logical solution that involves establishing the agency in Pristina and linking it with the Stability Pact in Thessaloniki. That ought, at the same time, to give some substance to the motley collection of talking shops we have now. I applaud her intentions, but of course the question is whether the Council is going to take any notice. I think it was made clear yesterday that the Council has no intention of listening to what we want in any way, shape or form. That is why I wholeheartedly support her proposal to postpone things. We are simply going to have to do battle with the Council for what is right and efficient.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, my wife and I have had the privilege of having our three children in a parents’ cooperative in my home town in Dalarna. A parents’ child care cooperative is not perhaps a model for a European Cooperative Society, but we have very good experience of cooperative work. The regulation on a Statute for a European Cooperative Society and the Directive on the involvement of employees are inseparable. The Statute concerns how the mechanisms that are to guarantee employees’ right of codecision in European Cooperative Societies are to operate in practice. In the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, we have chosen to adopt three political priorities. Firstly, the European Parliament must demand a legal base guaranteeing Parliament the right of codecision. Secondly, current provisions concerning the right to information and consultation must be fully respected during the procedure before a European Cooperative Society is registered or restructured. Thirdly, the rights that employees enjoyed before the European Cooperative Society was created must be guaranteed. Parliament has warned the Council that it would not tolerate a repeat of the Council’s position on the European Company Statute. The Council has ignored that warning in this case. In order to defend Parliament’s role in the legislative process, and with reference to Parliament’s legal service, those of us in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs have highlighted Article 95 of the Treaty as the correct legal base. It is a question of bringing about an approximation between the Member States’ legislation, not of transferring the right of decision from national legislation to the EU.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I refer to Rule 135(2) which says: 'Where an electronic vote is taken, only the numerical result of the vote shall be recorded'. However, if a vote by roll call has been requested, in accordance with Rule 134(2): 'Votes shall be recorded in the minutes of the proceedings of the sitting by political group in the alphabetical order of Members’ names'. Would you be good enough to let us know whether the Minutes tomorrow will give the accurate result of the vote as published so far? There seems to be a discrepancy between the result that came up on the board and that which has been published, the published vote being 273 in favour and 272 against. The House, and all the press downstairs ... (Mixed reactions) ... with all the excitement going on, would like some clarification as to what Parliament’s position is. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, from what I have heard, there have been two interventions against and none in favour.

Political group: PSE
Who could vote against a document so replete with declarations of good intent? It is indeed obvious that we must assess the situation of disabled people ‘from the perspective of human rights and not from one of charity’! We must indeed ‘facilitate the fulfilment of the aspirations of disabled people’! The simple fact is, though, that the necessity of reaffirming such elementary truths as that the disabled are human beings itself demonstrates how far this is from being obvious in this inhumane society. And, despite the title, ‘Towards a United Nations legally binding instrument to (...) protect the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities’, there is nothing whatever binding about the document, and how, in any case, could matters be otherwise? How does one ensure, for example, that persons with disabilities have ‘access to work’ when such access is denied to 30 million people, with and without disabilities, in the European Union? How is one to ensure that they have ‘the right to live independently and with dignity in the community’ or even ‘the right to accessible housing’? How is one to ensure this at a time when all governments are cutting back on social security benefits and when the minimal allowances paid to the disabled allow them to do little more than feed themselves as best they can?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I too feel that it is appropriate in this debate to assess the new developments in the current tragic situation. I include among the positive developments the resolution of the crisis of the Church of the Nativity, although I do feel that we must clarify the status of the 13 Palestinians and the European legal framework for receiving them. I also include among the positive developments President Arafat’s daily statements before the Palestinian Legislative Council and the efforts to bring about reform and relegitimisation of the Palestinian Authority, as well as the launch of the electoral process, the condemnation of the attacks against civilians and the opposition to terrorism. We must, of course, monitor and support this desire for reform. In all this, we agree with Commissioner Patten. Among the negative developments I would include the disturbing decision of Likud. We must remember, Mr Galeote Quecedo, that Likud is expressing the position of Israel’s Head of Government here, which is certainly not something to be played down and which, moreover, I am sure is likely to generate more terrorism; terrorism is not on the wane, for Hamas is still voicing its intention to continue with the attacks. In any case, we have become familiar in recent months with the unhealthy relationship between the Israeli right and terrorism, in which each fuels the other. I, like General Morillon, would urge you to express your opinion of the Israeli government now, for it is important that Shimon Peres has made the statements you quoted, Mr Solana, but Shimon Peres must also tell us the position of the government of which he is currently part. Lastly, I would like to say that the resolution of the incident of the Church of the Nativity should encourage Europe in its role. On that occasion, Europe’s role was that of negotiator. It is therefore apparent that there is a useful role for Europe to play, subject to certain conditions. We therefore call unequivocally on the Council to be more courageous and more consistent in its actions, for Europe does have a genuine role to play and is capable of discharging it successfully. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I think it is important to point out that it was not I alone but all the members of the Austrian People’s Party in the Group of the European People’s Party who ultimately rejected the de Roo report. We have difficulties with the nuclear issue in Amendment No 38. The wording is simply too vague for our liking, and I am a little surprised that Alexander de Roo does not also recognise that the right to bank credits leaves the door open for credits issued before 2012 in respect of nuclear projects to be used after that date. This means that operators could meet their environmental requirements by means of credits from a nuclear project conducted in the period from 2008 to 2012. Our support for the total exclusion of nuclear projects is absolutely solid, and this is why we were unable to accept the de Roo report at the end of the day.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I get the impression that there will be speakers only against the urgent procedure, something I consider a very important step. There is the danger that the Council will decide on its position before Parliament's has been produced. I consider it a matter of urgent necessity that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs should deliver its opinion first, and that only then should the Council come to a decision. It is for that reason that we should reject this request for urgent procedure.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the great deterioration in the situation in Belarus is manifested, among other things, by its presence among the topical and urgent subjects of major importance two part-sessions of this House in a row. That really is exceptional, as this item on the agenda is otherwise much more diverse. It is quite incredible how the autocratic Mr Lukashenko keeps on believing that he can get away with things in Belarus that would be permitted nowhere else in Europe and allowed nowhere else in the area covered by the OSCE. It is quite clear to my mind that he has lost his grip on reality. The tragedy of the situation in this country, and of the developments occurring in it, is exemplified, in the area of freedom of opinion, by the fact that opinion surveys now have to be cleared by the government, with checks having to be carried out on who is commissioning them, how they are funded and how they are run, and a government commission demanding corrections to their results. To take another example, our delegation in this Parliament received a letter from the Ambassador of Belarus dictating to us what we are to do with our agenda. Perhaps he can do that with his own parliament, but we are freely elected deputies and still decide on our agenda ourselves. That only goes to show in what sort of situation Belarus' parliamentarians find themselves. We are submitting this resolution at a time when the question is being raised within the OSCE as to whether or not Belarus' Parliamentary Assembly is to be recognised. I do not believe that it can be recognised, as it is not freely elected.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are now close to the end of almost five years of work on trying to obtain safer food in Europe. Mr Schnellhardt’s recommendations constitute a very important part of these efforts because they affect the issue of how matters should in practice look in restaurants, shops, abattoirs and cutting plants, irrespective of whether they are large or small. On behalf of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, I am not without certain views to the effect that the matter has taken an eternity. It has been tough. Mr Schnellhardt and I have, of course, had different views on certain technical issues when it comes to both his and my reports, which have a lot in common with each other in certain areas. Nonetheless, I have to say that, in the last analysis, Mr Schnellhardt has done a very constructive and skilful job. There is no doubt about that. I wish to thank him for his cooperation. We shall support the compromise, if not wholeheartedly. There are a couple of small aspects about which I am extremely concerned, for example when it comes to the definition of cutting plants. The definition does not expressly state that the rules in actual fact apply to all establishments that cut and otherwise deal with raw meat. I regret that, because we know how dangerous such plants are for, even if feed producers, farmers, hauliers and abattoirs behave perfectly correctly, hygiene can still be completely ruined at the very last stage. A compromise depends, however, upon both give and take by the parties concerned. The Group, to which I belong, will not get exactly what it wants, otherwise, we should of course be in a dictatorship rather than in a democratic assembly. I am concerned about the cutting plants. I hope that the European meat industry will go to court if the definition is not interpreted as best it can be. Otherwise, we support these recommendations and are very pleased that we have reached this agreement. I should like to state that those of us who have worked on it have, in general, done some skilful and persistent work to make food safer. I should also like to mention Mrs Corbey and Mr Whitehead. It is perhaps we who have been most industrious in these matters. Thank you for your cooperation.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would like to ask you to take note of the fact that in this building there are meeting rooms with no screen. And while there are plenary sittings and meetings under way at the same time, it would be a good thing if all the rooms had screens, if that is not too much trouble. Mr President, our Group has significant doubts, and reasonable doubts, in relation to the EURODAC report presented. We have already rejected a report which intended, in unclear terms, and for who knows what reason, to take the fingerprints of the illegal immigrants who arrive in the European Union. We have a new proposal, this time from the Commission, which makes important advances. This new proposal says that the fingerprints of illegal immigrants – because we are talking about the extension of the existing EURODAC programme to illegal immigrants – will only be taken in application of the Dublin Asylum Convention, that is to say, only in order to find out whether these immigrants have asked for asylum in another Member State of the European Union. We are not opposed to this idea, on the contrary, we are not against clarifying whether there is a Member State responsible for the handling of the case if it is shown that a person has already applied for asylum. But we have many doubts about this massive taking of fingerprints – because we believe it will be massive – of people who have crossed borders illegally or who are in an illegal situation in a Member State. Therefore, we believe that a little more time is needed to carry out the proposed extension of the EURODAC system. What we are clear about is that it is not acceptable to apply it to minors. In this respect we will stand firm. We will demand that this system be applied only to adults, because minors require other legal provisions if they are not accompanied. And if they are with their family, that family will enter the system.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, in April the Group voted for the legislative resolution on the directive on a European framework for informing and consulting workers in the Member States. Partnership and subsidiarity are the hallmark of the Parliament and Commission proposals. Companies should be provided with a tailor-made solution for informing and consulting workers, based on agreement between the two sides of industry. One of Parliament’s proposals is that existing national workers’ organisations must be involved in drawing up this agreement. It would be unthinkable to have an agreement that local works councils had not been involved in shaping! Although the Commission’s initial reaction to the various amendments was positive, they have not yet put forward an amended proposal, as you yourself have said. You cannot just put everything that was so carefully worked out in Parliament on ice! It is high time that the right conditions for a Council common position were created. There is obviously a lack of political will in the Council. How does the Commission view the situation, Commissioner? I did not entirely follow you. Does the Commission believe that the Finnish Presidency and possibly also the forthcoming Portuguese Presidency should be concerned that the United Kingdom, for example, might switch back to the opposition camp in the dispute over workers’ participation rights in the European Company, which has not yet been created? After all, it is an open secret that the British Government was only persuaded to support a European Company with minimum participation rights because of a promise to hold back on the directive on information and consultation for one year. When we have considered examples of company restructuring in this Chamber, we have often complained about management’s failure to provide information in good time, as with Hoover, Renault and Michelin. But we have some good news now. This relates to the success story of the directive on the European Works Council. For it to work well, national workers’ organisations at local level should be able to forward their information to the European Works Council, and they should have sufficient rights to react in good time. This directive will ensure that. I would like to state my question even more clearly, Commissioner: was I right in understanding you to say that the Commission does not intend to present an amended proposal before the end of this year? I would deeply regret that. Timely information for workers means transparency, which in turn creates confidence and avoids friction in European companies. Employers and employees stand to gain from this in equal measure.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, firstly I wish to tell Mr Monti that I will not be engaging in any personal attacks on him - he has an extremely difficult job. However, let me just say, in reaction to the previous speaker, that businesses just stop - they go out of business. That is the reality. We have to remind ourselves of what we are trying to address tonight, which is the reality of 110 000 jobs. The reality is that if you do not have a job, you cannot pay your bills or support yourself. This House needs to recognise that we must come together to create better social dialogue and a better awareness and social responsibility for those in employment. In the United Kingdom alone, 10 000 jobs rest with Alstom. We need to support Alstom. The uncertainty over the aid is not helpful. There are already concerns that plants in Washwood Heath (Birmingham), Rugby and Stafford face an unnecessary and uncertain future. We need to give them certainty and encourage development and investment. We are not doing that. We need flexibility of application in the rules on state aid. When we are dealing with huge social upheaval we must also look at the costs. I support this refinancing package, but it must not be at the expense of British workers and British jobs. There is real concern for those in the transmission and distribution businesses that their business is likely to be transferred to Arriva. There is real concern about the final salary pension schemes of those workers. We must give them some form of certainty. My big fear tonight is that we will conclude that Alstom may survive and get the support of the European Union. What we need to say is that Alstom will survive, and we must do everything possible to ensure that survival and protect those 110 000 jobs. We owe it to ourselves and to those people in those jobs.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, to save time, could you perhaps only give the floor to people who are present in the room during the introductions and who are also willing to listen to the answer. You might then have fewer problems with the speaking time, and this auditorium would also be better populated; I am embarrassed on behalf of my fellow MEPs because they are not here to listen to the President-in-Office of the Council and the Commissioner.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I generally welcome any measure or any directive to improve the mutual recognition of professional or academic qualifications. Every member who, like me, lives in a border region, knows the problems encountered by citizens who work or wish to establish in a nearby Member State. The EU Treaty clearly regulates the freedom of movement and the freedom to establish of people in the EU. But the devil is in the detail. We now realise that in fact every job description needs to be regulated. But people no longer understand this. Is this a citizens' Europe? Is this a common market? These are the questions. The difficulties are clear from the number of current directives alone – there are 'only' fourteen on today's subject. We must reduce and harmonise the huge administrative costs, including within the Member States, which is why the Commission proposal to simplify the procedure is most welcome. Individual job descriptions, training courses and pre-requisites vary enormously within the EU. We need to start by finding similarities in training and curricula. In the long run, uniform training courses and uniform curricula would be a great help and we must work towards that. Until then, the Member States must consider very carefully how and where additional demands and improvements are needed and what sort of subsequent examination then needs to be demanded. The deadline provided for by the Commission – which says that a decision on recognition must be made within three months – is an excellent move. Procedures for recognising diplomas acquired in third countries must also be simplified. We must cut the red tape within the EU, so that our citizens are able to put their skills to good use in every Member State.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as Mrs Stihler has already said, this proposal is of major importance for Scotland. For example, there is one of our local authority areas that has 26 inhabited islands and a coastline as long as that of France. Scotland, as a whole, has 462 different coastal plans in place, almost three quarters of them locally based. Whilst management of coastal zones must remain predominantly local, national strategies to support and coordinate action are vital. We are fortunate in having a Scottish coastal forum to perform this role. But such good work can be undermined. As the Firth of Clyde forum recently explained, we lack any measure of security, political or financial, which would give us a strong footing for pursuing longer-term management. That is why the Commission proposal is so welcome. I congratulate Mrs McKenna on the extent to which her report has amplified and clarified the text.

Political group: ELDR