GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, first of all I would like to express my grave disappointment at the resolution which we have before us. My group, the Green/EFA Group, signed the amendment, but we were appalled that the amendment and the resolution does not go far enough. They do not cover a number of serious issues like Plan Colombia and the grave human rights abuses that are taking place in the country. It has been stated by many human rights organisations that human rights abuses by paramilitaries have the support of the armed forces and that the murder of the poor people in rural areas is as a result of this. Most of the Colombian military forces continue to be implicated in serious human rights abuses and their aiding and abetting of paramilitary atrocities are basically ignored by the Colombian authorities. The US State Department has consistently reported that Colombia's armed forces have taken measures to punish human rights abuses in their ranks. Plan Colombia will result in USD 1.3 billion from the US being allocated for mainly military purposes. Many human rights organisations believe that the plan will worsen conditions for poor rural populations and will certainly increase political violence. It is going to irreversibly damage the people and the environment and it will not solve the drugs problem. There was no consultation on Plan Colombia with the Colombian people, which is unacceptable. I was in Colombia last year with NGOs and I can tell you that the situation there is really grave. The Colombian soldiers continue to actively encourage the paramilitaries responsible for human rights violations and it is clear that the United States and Colombia have acted against the interests of the people. I believe that this should have been part of the resolution. The only group that wanted to address Plan Colombia and the whole human rights situation in Colombia was our own group. That is really unfortunate and a gross abdication of our duty to people all over the world.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The European Parliamentary Labour Party supports the thrust of the Weiler report on the employment guidelines for 2002. It also has a lot of sympathy for the amendments submitted by Mr Bushill-Matthews but feels that the Weiler report is not the appropriate report for such amendments.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the European Central Bank is still very much an institution which makes crucial decisions for the millions of citizens of the European Union without being subject to any democratic or political control. From this point of view, when Parliament considers that progress is being made because regular press conferences are held following any Governing Council meetings and because, in addition to annual reports, the ECB also publishes monthly reports, this invokes a false sense of true democracy among the peoples of Europe. This ‘progress’ has, in fact, been run-of-the-mill practice at the central banks since the 1930s! Mr President, European citizens are, first and foremost, interested in and, at the same time, concerned by the content of the policies of the European Central Bank, the European Union and the Member States – policies which give absolute priority to so-called monetary stability and the interests of major credit capital, at the cost of dramatic job losses and the total disintegration of the so-called European social model. Workers are concerned by the fact that the European Central Bank considers a growth rate of over 2.5% to be dangerous for the notorious monetary stability, thereby deferring indefinitely efforts to address the issue of unemployment. The average inflation rate of the 11 countries within the euro area is below 1%. Some countries have already entered an anti-inflationary phase, but there are growing signs of a rise in interest rates in order to maintain monetary stability. Mr President, with growth rates below 2%, with a new rise in interest rates, with deflation and the rigorous implementation of the Stability Pact, growing pressure is being brought to bear on the security and social rights of workers, and this will indirectly bring about a dramatic deterioration in their living standards and working conditions.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is almost midnight already, and I do not wish to extend this sitting unnecessarily. I agree with what Mrs Roure and Mr Perry have said and, of course, with the content of Mrs Sanders- Ten Holte's report. I should like to confine myself to a couple of points, and I shall begin by referring back to Feira and Lisbon. This report is really a follow-up to the thoughts of the European Council meetings in Lisbon and Feira. When we contemplate the information society and globalisation, when we consider the speed at which technology is changing our society, it becomes obvious that we must guarantee a school education that enables young people to stay abreast of these developments. We must create the basis for the essential establishment of lifelong learning. For that reason, I approve of the measures that are proposed here. They will probably help us to deal more effectively with this challenge. Let me just come back to a point that I raised myself in an amendment. It must be possible to work with the existing resources, with the available networks and databases. There is no need for us to keep reinventing the wheel. We should use what we have, comparing the knowledge we each possess and then operating on the basis of that knowledge. I shall move on now to a technical point. In recent days we have heard that Mrs Sanders has been trying to make the first reading suffice. But of course there is a price to pay for that. Whoever wants to shorten the legislative process to one reading by making use of the scope for interinstitutional agreements has to conclude a deal. This deal does not involve a decree from the gentlemen of the Committee of Permanent Representatives, who have no say; they must simply declare their acceptance of the sound parliamentary proposals. They have not made such a declaration; they did promise us something, but we set no store by promises. We shall vote on our report tomorrow. Thereafter, if the gentlemen of Coreper feel able to accept our amendments, we are prepared to expedite the matter very swiftly in the autumn – there is no rush. We should not buy a pig in a poke; we should vote on our report tomorrow and give these gentlemen the opportunity to think again.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, my question does not concern the timetable; instead I would like to ask a question regarding a principle of enlargement. The process of enlargement is expected to be a truly demanding one, in which there is a danger that we either become frustrated by long waiting times or compromise over the criteria by granting overlong transition periods, which will naturally cause displeasure in the old Member States. An arrangement such as the EEA agreement may be regarded as a solution of the past, but I would nevertheless like to ask, whether the Commission could, even in principle, consider a possible solution along the lines of the EEA agreement – not as it stands but of that nature – to be used as some sort of ’hatchery’ or incubator for the new Member States prior to actual membership, instead of the applicant countries having to wait for long periods of time before permanent membership becomes a reality. I would further like to ask, whether the Commission shares the view that this kind of arrangement, along the lines of the EEA agreement, could considerably reduce the costs of enlargement and promote the economic development of the applicant countries. I hope this question was not an improper one at this time.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in my opinion, it is never out of place or superfluous to mention European citizenship, not least because we very frequently expect the citizens to be Europeans and then fail to treat them as such. Indeed, the citizens are starting to feel European, and this is happening as they begin to enter into dialogue with the European institutions. However, there is more to citizenship than that: in a way, it confirms the citizens’ place in this European dimension, which they must feel both contributors to and responsible for at this time of great impetus and dynamism. We feel that the level of participation in the European elections is low and declining steadily, but we wonder what we are offering the citizens of the Member States as part of this European package. We are not offering them the mutual right to study in different Member States, we are not providing facilities to resolve language difficulties, we are not providing a labour code, we are not – as Mr Coelho, who has produced an excellent report, pointed out – providing free movement, we are not recognising qualifications and, therefore, we are not recognising a right to work, and we are not recognising the right to health. I am saying this on behalf of the citizens, for I receive the petitions sent by the citizens to the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions, in which they describe these major areas of intolerance within the Member States of the Union. I would next like to point out a major contradiction: we have achieved Schengen, which is a milestone which could benefit the whole world, particularly the countries which are still troubled by wars over territory and border conflicts, but we are preserving the right for the Member States to expel European Union citizens from one Member State to another. How is it conceivable that the right of expulsion still exists when it runs counter to Schengen? We can expel citizens outside the Schengen area, not within the same territory. Well then, I feel that we should all make every endeavour to start building Europe at the level of the citizens, starting precisely with the recognition of status which the Charter of Fundamental Rights placed at the centre of the European project and which must be reproduced in the Treaties. If we do not succeed in doing this, however many conventions we produce we will never manage to build Europe, especially when one country – I am referring to Ireland but there may be many others, including my own – has refused to recognise, to sign and to ratify the Nice Treaty and when three Member States have refused to share our experience with the single currency. The road is long: we must all strive to place the citizens at the centre of the Europe we are building.

Political group: PPE-DE
It would be very simple to inform all the Member States of the European Union of the ‘occurrences’ (incidents, near miss situations etc.) in European civil aviation, something that is not done at present. Nevertheless, although the report wants these events to be recorded and communicated to the States, it also demands that the ‘confidentiality’ of the information on these occurrences be guaranteed. Who can benefit from this confidentiality, however, and what purpose can it serve, other than to conceal the real situation from those living near to airports, from users and air transport staff, other than to safeguard the commercial and financial interests of airlines? Instead of this, we need the greatest transparency and, primarily, complete transparency with respect to the populations, as this is the only way of revising the entire chain of responsibilities in the ‘occurrences’ in question. We must be able to go right to the top of this chain of responsibility, in other words to find those directly and ultimately responsible, namely the airlines and the airport management companies. We are therefore abstaining on this report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, climate change is set to be one of our most difficult environmental challenges. What makes it so difficult is that, if we are to take the matter seriously, huge changes must be made in both the energy and transport sectors. What is probably also required, in spite of new technology and alternative energy sources, is less use of transport and lower energy consumption overall. A large part of the responsibility for this lies, of course, with the individual Member States, but the EU too can do a great deal. My Group naturally supports this resolution which we have also been involved in drafting. I shall emphasise three points which are especially important for the EU in this situation. The first point is that we must come up with a carbon dioxide levy, that is to say, a tax on greenhouse gases. I should like to emphasise what is stated in paragraph 15 of the resolution to the effect that it is probably better to have a decision of substance, even if we do not have everyone on board, than to have a decision lacking in substance which entails an unacceptable delay. The second point concerns the subsidy for fossil fuels which is, of course, directly counter-productive. I also think that the EU’s energy research grants must focus solely on renewable sources of energy, which is not the case at present. The third point concerns aviation fuel. It is a matter of urgency that agreement be reached on the international taxation of aviation fuel. Aviation is the area with the fastest increase in emissions of greenhouse gases. On this subject, I should like to hear a little more from Commissioner Wallström. What do you intend to do with regard to this particular area? What initiatives do you have under way? To conclude, I should like to point out that there is a lot of scepticism in my group about trade in emission rights.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, on behalf of my group, I would like to ask the Commission and the Council – and subsequently, Parliament – to issue an opinion at this part-session on a fact that has only recently been brought to our attention. As you are no doubt aware, this weekend the New York Times revealed that the Pentagon has a secret plan to authorise the use of atomic weapons against an ‘axis of evil’, which has been considerably extended on this occasion to include countries such as China and Russia. This constitutes one of the most unprecedented, irresponsible strategic about-turns since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, an almost inconceivable fact, which has, nonetheless, been confirmed by the American authorities. That is why we believe the European Union must react very firmly, at the required level, in response to this absolutely unacceptable shift by world’s leading military power, the only country, in fact, that has ever dared to use nuclear weapons.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, what exactly does the Commission consider to be defined, and I quote from the question, as 'industrial animal-husbandry systems'. Would it not be unreasonable to discourage developing countries from employing modern, efficient, cost-effective and humane systems of animal husbandry?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is certainly not a coincidence that so many Belgian Members have taken the floor during this debate today. The problem of night flights in a densely populated country such as Belgium is a very topical and extremely sensitive issue, especially since the Belgian Transport Minister issued a ban on night flights in Zaventem which, following a hefty row within the government, was withdrawn soon after. I believe that Mrs Van Brempt has outlined the dilemma very expertly. Tens of thousands of people live and sleep a stone’s throw away from the runway. 15% of the population are suffering as a result of the noise pollution generated by aircraft. Medical reports have shown that people living near airports are having to deal with health problems of an unacceptably serious nature, such as insomnia, high blood pressure, stress and depression. Needless to say, it makes no sense to ban night flights in one Member State alone. Businesses, such as DHL, will then simply move to airports in other Member States. As a result, we are at risk of finding ourselves in a downward spiral, where the citizens’ quality of life is pulled down with it. Mr Sterckx has already pointed out, with good reason, that measures to reduce the effects for those living near airports should not promote distortion of competition. The increase in the number of noisy, obsolete and unlisted Russian aircraft, in particular, is the cause of unacceptable noise pollution, not to mention the risks for the environment and safety which such aircraft pose. In my town, Ostend, where the airport is situated in the centre of town, there have already been over 50 incidents, so far only leading to material damage. I therefore concur with Mrs Oomen, who advocates uniform framework legislation, which will reconcile the economic and employment interests with the care for public health, the environment and safety and which will apply to all airports within Europe. The much publicised and promised common framework for noise classification of aircraft could not be here soon enough, Commissioner, especially given the Russian situation. I also hope that the European Commission will not budge one inch from the position it has adopted with regard to hushkits and will not succumb to American pressure. Finally, I would like to ask that special attention be paid to the specific problems which smaller, regional airports have to contend with. They are fighting to remain profitable and are even unable to make the necessary investments to reduce noise pollution. This is why I would ask Europe, where possible, to help out in order to guarantee the viability of airports, but especially the quality of life of those living near them.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I have a question for Mr Nielson regarding bridging the gap which he mentioned. He said there would be further discussion of this. Were there any proposals in the expert report as to the form this involvement of development aid would take or even of other development instruments such as PHARE or TACIS, for example, and has it been ascertained whether the problems are in the area of ecological aid and the programme there or in the area of other forms of aid? Could you clarify this?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, the Treaty on European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights recognise the importance of and need for political parties at European level in order to promote integration. I think, however, that the requirement to have representation in at least five Member States, that is in 33% of them, in order to obtain funding, is excessively restrictive and gives the impression of wanting to close the doors to new ideas and new ways of understanding politics. What would happen if, within a Member State, a party were required to obtain parliamentary representation in 33% of the constituencies in order to be considered an established party with the right to a presence and to public resources and funding? Firstly, many of the parties from Federal States and regions could not get into the State parliaments, and we would therefore have less democracy, less integration and less Europe. The same applies to European parties. If we want to promote integration and the shaping of the broadest political awareness and will, we have to decrease this limit and immediately make representation in three Member States sufficient to be considered a European party. Moreover, the small parties of today could be the big parties of tomorrow. We should not close the doors on the future.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, amongst the priorities of the Spanish Presidency, I have heard no mention of a European policy that shows greater solidarity with the rest of the world. As coordinator of the Group of the , I would like you to clarify your plans for social development and for the reduction of poverty, which the Commission, Parliament and previous presidencies have set as objectives. You mentioned the Monterrey International Conference. What position will you be adopting on the policies that need to be funded? Who is to fund them? Are you going to support the objective of 0.7% of GDP, approved at the last Development Council by the majority of Member States? How much cooperation will there be with Latin America and with the countries of the Mediterranean, with an integrated approach between trade relations and the fight against poverty? What will your position be on the commitments given through the United Nations programmes on education and health for all? What will your position be on the current conflicts in Africa? I hope that on all of these issues you will consult the European Parliament and, also, civil society and the NGOs. I wish you a Presidency, Mr Aznar, that will be fruitful for Europe.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as you can see, it is almost exclusively Members elected in Italy who are speaking, and this is significant. Various colleagues from other countries have asked me – what is Ustica? Why the urgency? This is a question, or rather, these are two very reasonable questions. Ustica, as perhaps a lot of people know, is a small island in the South Tyrrhenian Sea. Why this urgency though? It does not spring from something that has happened now but from something serious which happened almost twenty years ago. The urgency is because an Italian deputy Public Prosecutor has issued a judgement which identifies the high-level air force authorities as being to blame for covering things up, keeping quiet and not saying what they knew, which prevented the truth coming to light about what happened almost twenty years ago. So what happened? An aeroplane left my city, Bologna, two hours late but never reached its destination, Palermo. It was hit, so several parties say, by a missile during an aggressive act which took place nearby. Well, immediately afterwards, in the following days, weeks and years, there ensued an extraordinary criminal course of events which aimed to conceal the evidence, to silence people and to ensure that the truth did not come out. Why was all this done? This is why we need to take up this subject again today, as the course of Italian justice has entered the final and perhaps overdue stage of its inquiries. We are asking the Member States – because they say aircraft from one of the Member States or NATO might have been involved in that act of war – to help with information, which there is no longer any reason to keep confidential, concealed or secret, so that we really can bring the facts to light and the whole truth can be told. After all, the relatives of the 81 victims are asking for nothing more than to know the truth and to see that justice be done. I think this is not just an Italian internal affair, but is a service to the whole of European democracy.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on a point of order, that does not come under Rule 110a. This is a second reading. (Laughter)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the next item on the agenda is the oral question on the liberal professions. At the Conference of Presidents no agreement could be reached on a motion for a resolution to accompany this oral question. There have since been further discussions, and I think there is now a majority in this House in favour of an accompanying resolution. I would therefore like to propose voting on a resolution in the next Strasbourg week and would suggest that we set a deadline of 12 noon on Thursday of next week for the submission of motions for a resolution. (Parliament agreed to the request)(1) (The order of business was thus established)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I have since read up on exactly what was written in the Minutes about the incident involving the demonstrators. I would like to make something clear. During the sitting, three demonstrators carrying banners entered the Chamber. That is what it says. I have to tell you that these three people did not make their way into the Chamber calmly, but sneaked in quickly, and they had not unfurled the banners at that stage. They did not do this until they were in the Chamber, and our staff were unable to see them. I simply wanted to say this, because as it is minuted here, one could assume that the staff should have noticed the fact that they were carrying banners. That was not the case.

Political group: Verts-ALE