GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, the reason for our proposal is very simple: what is happening at the moment with the Afghan refugees and the treatment they are receiving from the Australian government – and I mean the Australian government because the Australian Federal Supreme Court is finding fault with it – does not only involve a violation of human rights; it is an issue which involves a blatant violation of the principles of maritime law and humanitarian law ratified by all countries, including such an important European ally as Australia. We must speak out clearly in this regard, by condemning a political attitude which verges on xenophobia.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly I would like once again to point out that Commissioner Reding has announced a dramatic change in the information strategy of the EU and has thus made it clear that there are deficiencies, that fresh efforts must be made and that we must make this issue a focus of our concerns. We thank you for this. Secondly, I would like to point out that we too must ask ourselves whether this morning’s initiative to prevent voting was a positive information and communication strategy for Parliament outwardly as well as inwardly? I do not think that it was! The homework which we have to do we must do ourselves and we must not confuse information and communication within the framework of our work with self-promotion. It is a matter of Community promotion and not self-promotion. In this regard we should all resolve to understand that one of the causes of the problems of the political parties and of the institutions is a problem of communication and information. We, and I say that very clearly, the institutions of the European Union, the European Parliament and the delegates cannot bear sole responsibility for providing information on Europe. Without the support of the Member States, without the support of the public representatives at borough, county and national level, without the support of all the institutions, we will not get directly to the citizen, because either we are here doing our work or we are involved in communication and information processes with our citizens. We cannot do both at the same time within the meaning of Maastricht and Amsterdam! Commissioner, I am waiting for your master plan, your schedule, your specific measures for implementation. The public mandataries, all persons and institutions who receive money from the EU, should be involved in this implementation. We must increasingly involve the visitor groups and also two areas of activity which, in my opinion, are in your sphere of responsibility, i.e. schools and youth, and the staff in the offices of the Community institutions must be equipped accordingly. Please submit to us a specific plan of action and a schedule.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it has already been mentioned today that the first URBAN initiative was an unqualified success. The fact that this initiative will now be continued in the form of URBAN II, albeit with a smaller budget, is something for which we have to thank individual, committed Members of this Parliament, including in particular – as far as I have heard as a new Member of this Parliament – the rapporteur Mrs McCarthy, whom I should therefore like to thank very much for her dedication and of course also for her report on URBAN II. (Applause) A new feature of the URBAN II initiative is that it has been tailored to small cities or parts of cities. This is important because it is precisely small cities which often find it harder to access aid. And yet the problems which give rise to the urgent need for regeneration can be particularly acute precisely in cities of this kind and thus have a proportionally adverse effect. To increase the effectiveness of individual measures the number of projects for URBAN II has been limited to 50. I think that it is important not to stick rigidly to this arbitrary quantitative restriction and instead to leave it to the Member States to decide between how many projects they each wish to divide the support funds to which they are entitled. In any case it is necessary to ensure that in small Member States in particular it is not only areas of large cities which are again in receipt of the support. There URBAN II would only be a drop in the ocean; its success would be doubtful and the whole thing would be a flop. Just as important in my view is not to broaden the selection criteria for URBAN II too much and thus water them down. It is precisely a strictly defined list of criteria which is essential if the programmes which are funded are to be models and be transferable to other problem cities in the future. From my own experience of local government in an old industrialised region beset with problems, I should like, in conclusion, to ask for your particular support, ladies and gentlemen, for two points in the report which alongside the social policy aspects are, I believe, essential. Firstly, environmental protection is essential for sustainable urban development and the inclusion of this aspect should therefore be a general requirement for a project to receive funding. Secondly, preventing and combating routine urban crime and crime related to drug dealing must start at local level. These are essential steps towards increasing the quality of urban life and must therefore also play a central role in the URBAN II initiative.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner, but first and foremost I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Sturdy, for an outstanding report, many parts of which I can support. It is, of course, necessary to intervene in some respects in order to remedy the problems that do after all exist in the beef sector, but I would like to emphasise that consumers’ lack of confidence has nothing to do with whether meat is produced on an intensive or extensive basis. I would like to stress that a reintroduction of the 90-head limit will have very serious consequences for some countries in particular. It will result in more bureaucracy and it will not provide any relief whatsoever in connection with the consumption of beef, which is after all what we need just now. With regard to the buy-up scheme, I would like to say that it is not an aim in itself to buy up animals in order either to put them into cold storage or subsequently destroy them. Consequently, we have proposed that we donate the healthy tested beef to areas that need crisis help. We can do this very easily for the costs associated with the intervention buy-up. I would, then, like to draw the Chamber’s attention to the fact that the proposal to tighten up the stocking density requirement, namely by reducing the number of livestock units per hectare from 2 to 1.8, will not have the desired effect either. Nonetheless, we agree that the intervention ceiling should be abolished for the years 2001 and 2002. However, with these few but – I hope, Commissioner – clear comments, we would like to support your proposal but, at the same time, also draw attention to the fact that we should not, through the new decisions we make, contribute to maintaining the distortion of competition that currently exists between some of the Member States.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, in my opinion, the tone of this discussion is too pessimistic. I think that now, of all times, we need to testify in strong support of the value of the European model, not only as a market, but especially as a model for well-being, sustainability, development, and the prosperity which is tied up with well-being. That is why we have made a conscious decision to support integration in place of confrontation, unity in diversity, and world development in place of dominance. And so we have brought about the upcoming enlargement of the Union, but, at the same time, we are confronted with the growth of unemployment. At this time, therefore, we need leadership from the Commission, the Council, Parliament, the EU institutions and the Member States. Member States, regions, local authorities and heads of businesses alike fail to deliver the goods, however. They all sit on top of their heaps of gold, exercising caution and not doing what needs to be done in order to combat this unemployment. Believe me, if we carry out enlargement of Europe with unemployment still hanging over our heads, we will be heading for an utter fiasco. You talk of research – we have failed to bring about a real European policy for this. Our doctores honoris causa still come to our universities to collect their honorary doctorates, before returning to the USA to work in very high-performance laboratories. Why are we doing so little; why are so many countries lagging behind in terms of research? If sustainable development is to be possible, each country must do more than it is currently doing, and together we must do more than we are currently doing. For we must admit that when times were good – times are not so good now, but we must turn the tide – we did actually see, to our regret, that regions with high unemployment also remained regions of high unemployment when they were part of the Union. On top of that there is also cyclical unemployment. At the same time, we can see that, across the board, there are still semi- and unskilled workers who are out of work, still too few women in the labour force, too few people in work, and businesses that systematically show their staff the door when they reach 52; and there are still too many countries that endorse this behaviour and even give government money for it. Have we not been fobbed off in that regard with nice summits and fine words for long enough now? I hope that now, some action will be the result.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, we are looking just now towards China in the hope that the incident involving the American aircraft will be resolved without too much rhetoric and political point-scoring. Even setting aside this event, reports from China are, nevertheless, pouring in thick and fast. They almost always concern acts of cruelty against its own citizens. Commentators the world over are agreed that the human rights situation in China is becoming worse and worse. We are talking here about the situation in Tibet and Sinkiang and about the widespread increase in the torture and persecution of dissidents, active trade unionists and representatives of democracy. We are talking about the frequent use of the death penalty and the opposition mounted against freedom of expression on the Internet. We are talking, in particular, about the arrest, torture and persecution of Falun Gong practitioners. The Chinese régime’s objective of breaking this movement will not succeed. The persecutions must therefore be halted immediately and a dialogue entered into. Parliament agrees about the situation in China. I know that the Commission shares this view, and Commissioner Patten has defended human rights in China several times in this Chamber. The world’s most populous country is systematically violating its citizens’ rights. Europe cannot remain silent and watch this happen. The signals coming from the Council are, however, conflicting and hypocritical and help weaken the international struggle to get the Chinese régime to change its policy. This lack of unity benefits none other than the Chinese régime, and at the expense of the Chinese people. The Council must therefore get its act together and show that all the talk about unity is not just idle chatter but can also be expressed in action. It must also support the resolution against China in Geneva in a couple of weeks’ time.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, for clarification, my group was also an author of this resolution but somehow we got dropped off the list. This is something that we are going to see happening again if we do not look at our whole policy – this fortress Europe mentality – the fact that we are building the barricades and the walls higher and higher. We are trying to prevent people from coming in and we need to implement measures which will prevent asylum-seekers resorting to traffickers in their effort to reach a country where they can seek asylum, as they are entitled to do under the Geneva Convention. There is quite a lot of hypocrisy concerning this issue, and I would like to refer to my own Minister for Justice in Ireland, John O'Donoghue. He was crying crocodile tears at the weekend over this event yet he has tightened the laws in Ireland in every possible way to ensure that asylum-seekers do not come to Ireland to file an application for refugee status, which I would like to reiterate is something that they are entitled to do under the Geneva Convention. To highlight this minister's hypocrisy further: yesterday, for the first time in the history of the Geneva Convention, there was a meeting of the 141 countries that signed that Convention in 1951. Our minister, who was crying over what had happened at the weekend and saying that it was one of his worst fears, did not think this meeting was important enough to attend. We really need to change our policy on how we treat asylum-seekers and refugees and we have to stop building the barricades higher and higher to keep them out. We have to realise that there are people who are desperate to get out of their countries and that there are reasons why they want to leave. They are human beings, they are not the so-called undesirables that some people would like to think. They are exactly the same as the Irish who were desperate to get out of Ireland at one stage going to America and other places – where they were well treated. We have a duty and an obligation to treat everyone in this world equally.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, our ports are of enormous importance to our prosperity, and they form the linchpin for world trade. Unfair competition among ports should therefore be avoided, and we can imagine a directive to this effect, but it has not been drafted yet. However, the fight should not lead to a lack of security, social dumping and environmental pollution in ports. Self-handling that has been proposed in this forum, even in its watered-down version, constitutes a serious infringement of this. In this light, the European Parliament would have liked to make self-handling dependent on a real compulsory authorisation and omit the pilotage services from the competitive battle. It is therefore very unfortunate that neither the Council nor the Commission acted upon the compromise that was struck in Parliament. Despite two and a half years of discussion, the camps are diametrically opposed to each other. We are in favour of a breach in social tradition in our ports. After the ships of convenience, we are now also being faced with ports of convenience. This fear is not only present among port workers, but also among those who are concerned about social peace in our ports, which is being jeopardised by your directive, Mrs Miguélez Ramos. This push for liberalisation is currently presenting more risks than benefits in our ports. We will therefore vote against it, and do so emphatically.

Political group: Verts-ALE
No one denies the harmful effects of smoking and no one can object to measures being taken to reduce smoking. From this point of view, the Commission’s proposal for a directive contains positive provisions. However, although there is serious doubt as to whether the Commission’s proposals will reduce consumption, they will undoubtedly have a decidedly adverse impact both on Community tobacco producers and on tobacco industries and merchants. The amendments relating to a reduction in the consumption of tobacco products are no more than a pretext, the sole purpose of which is to reduce budgetary spending (approximately 1 billion euros a year, compared with total tax revenues in the 15 Member States of the EU from the tobacco sector of 60 billion euros a year) and, if adopted, will cause huge and irreparable social, political and financial damage to regional economies, especially in Greece. Similarly, the abolition of the three-year derogation for the application of the directive proposed by the Commission and the application of the directive both to tobacco products consumed in the EU and to products for export to countries in which the strict provisions of the directive do not apply will cause Greece tremendous problems.

Political group: GUE-NGL
This last report concerns the communication on the protection of passengers who travel by air. This time, a pensioner, Mr Roberto Roberti, came to my aid. As we left the aeroplane together in Strasbourg, he said to me: “What a horrible meal we had on the plane! I wish they would serve Parma ham, spaghetti with pesto from Genoa, polenta from Veneto and sweet-smelling tomatoes from Naples!” Well it is now lunch time, Madam President, and what better way to conclude the morning’s work than by saying “Buon appetito!”

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Council, Commission and Parliament at last agree on something. The promotion of SMEs contributes to greater investment and innovation, and to the creation of new philosophies of enterprise. A multiannual programme was started to benefit an initiative towards growth and employment. Parliament approved a budget of EUR 450 million. SMEs are an engine for jobs in Europe. Seventy per cent of all workers are employed by them, and over 80% of all apprentices trained by them. In order to give them a better chance in the market, however, more financial and fiscal burdens have to be taken off their backs. They need improved access to risk capital. The European Investment Bank should apply its funds not only to the knowledge-based enterprises in the multimedia and biotechnology sectors, but also to cutting-edge technologies in the environmental and energy sectors and to innovative service-providers in craftsmanship, trade and tourism. Interest-rate subsidies paid out amount to over EUR 93 million rather than the EUR 100 million that had been envisaged, yet, all the same, 54 000 new jobs were created where 33 000 had been expected. If that is not a success... The excellent report that Mr Bushill-Matthews has produced meets with full support from the Group of the , and my committee was unanimously in favour of it. I echo his criticism that the report reached the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs far too late. Obviously there were too many services dealing with it. Parliament can, though, only take responsibility and perform its supervisory function if information is available in good time. Future reports will have to concentrate on aspects that make effective analysis possible. What about the quality of jobs in innovative fields? How is sustainability ensured? How many women – who, at the end of the day, are a significant element in the European employment strategy – are involved? The Commission's report is encouraging, this criticism notwithstanding, providing, as it does, evidence that it is worth investing in these forward-looking sectors, and that is entirely in the employees' interest.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as a Member of the joint EU-Bulgaria Parliamentary Committee, I too would like to welcome the Prime Minister of Bulgaria. I will have the pleasure of visiting your country next week, Prime Minister, and I therefore welcome your presence here and hope that Bulgaria will soon become a fully paid-up Member of the European Union. With regard to Mrs Hautala’s document, I have to ask myself, and you, Mr President, this question: if many Muslims are so resolute in their oppression of women – they do not even allow women to walk down the road like human beings – how can we allow them to enter the European Union if they cannot respect this and all the other European Union directives on equality between men and women? We need to reflect on this point.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, in the plenum we value your presence in the debates of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism. The fundamental axis of this report is road safety. As some honourable Members have said, lack of safety leads to 40 000 deaths and 1 750 000 injuries per year in the European Union. And there is great consensus on the part of all the groups with regard to the need to achieve the objective of safety. But here the differences begin, and we are producing proposals which will give the Council work, because the Council will have to take a position on many points on which in this House we are naturally not going to achieve unanimity. Specifically, we are talking about one of the factors of safety. It is true that there are technological factors, there are infrastructure factors, there are many agents involved in the question of safety or lack of safety, but I believe we must focus on the essential factor, the human factor, the driver in this case. On the basis of Mr Markov’s proposals, and with his cooperation, the report has developed, leading to greater flexibility for the driver, because it is the driver who is aware of levels of tiredness at any given moment and it must be they who call the shots in terms of rests and the distribution of working time. There is a gremlin which creeps into all these debates and that is that sometimes this flexibility can be used by the transport company to counter the driver’s capacity to decide. If this were the case, the system of controls on companies would have to be extremely strict, since we are talking about risking lives, in particular that of the drivers themselves. We are also talking about a very important European small or medium-sized enterprise, the transport enterprise, which we must promote and whose competitiveness we must defend. And we are talking about a transport problem in a Europe which is not equal, a Europe which has peripheral areas for which transport has an importance which is different to that of central areas. I believe that this report has important objectives, but we must continue to work on it until we reach a consensus.

Political group: PSE
The reunification of Europe is an opportunity of historic significance, but whether the Czech Republic is founded upon the European order is a matter of doubt. Czech Prime Ministers have described the post-World War expulsions as 'just' and 'necessary', and have even held them up as examples in present-day conflicts. This must be set against the statement in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights to the effect that 'collective expulsions are prohibited.' It was for that reason that Parliament's resolution adopted on 20 November 2002 stated, under heading O, that ‘ethnically-fixated policies leading to collective expulsions and the destruction of cultural goods are a flagrant breach of fundamental human rights and the common European legal culture’. This is an unambiguous verdict. It is not aimed at exacting restitution of any kind, but makes it clear that Czech positions such as those referred to are an offence against the most fundamental principles of law, which the EU exists to maintain. Although we note with satisfaction President Klaus' statement that the ‘events full of violence and human tragedies’, which had also befallen the Bohemian Germans, were ‘unacceptable acts from today's point of view’, nothing comparable has been said by the Czech Government, or by its parliament, or by groups or parties in it. They have therefore failed to dispel the doubts as to whether the Czech Republic has its roots in the ground of European legal culture. This means that not all the conditions for the Czech Republic's accession to the EU have been complied with, so that we are unable to vote in favour of it doing so.

Political group: PPE-DE