GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, this proposal sums up our approach quite neatly. Our point of departure is a known problem, the delays of 1999, even though this year was exceptional due to the war in Kosovo and the changes to flight paths. When a problem arises, we quite spontaneously turn to Parliament’s favourite topic, namely competition. We will sooner or later have to build an effigy to competition. The limits of competition are reached very quickly when the safety of passengers is at stake, and these limits, which fortunately appear, for the most part, in the draft texts, are a matter of responsibility for Member States. Air-traffic controllers are, essentially, equivalent to a policeman on the side of the road, to a ship’s captain steering a vessel into port, and we can never do deals at their expense. In addition, each Member State is free to select its air navigation providers, and the regulation must provide for cases where public or private businesses concern missions of general interest. An amendment has been tabled to this effect. Airspace is not only used by civilians but also by the military and cooperation between the two is therefore necessary. I would point out that this cooperation, for the army, falls under the intergovernmental rather than the Community pillar, and in this case, the Single Sky Committee is not answering the question. Moreover, the Fifteen are not alone; there are other countries. You told us that they are to join Eurocontrol next month and this is a positive step. We must now wait for the next developments. There are more limits – and I shall end on this point – since control is a single entity that we cannot carve or cut up into slices. The services involved in providing control cannot be disassociated. I hope that the outcome of our vote will take into account all this information. Having said that, our fellow Members have done a good piece of work and I thank them for listening carefully to what we have said.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the right to freedom of movement, that is, the right to select one’s place of residence, both in the professional and in the private sense, is one of the many important fundamental freedoms and rights enjoyed by the Union’s citizens from the beginning of its existence. This right, this freedom, is enshrined in the Treaties. It is also contained in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and has its own very practical dimensions. I refer to the abolition of internal border controls and to the elimination of all administrative barriers to settling and taking up work anywhere in the territory of the entire Union. From the first of May, citizens of the new Member States may travel throughout the Union without passports. They have been quick to exercise this right, and have enjoyed doing so from the very first day. This has given them a real feeling of belonging to the Community, even if they still have to produce identity cards at the borders. The citizens of the new Member States of the Union understand that a partial restriction on their rights to free movement is justified, until their governments are ready for full integration into the Schengen information system. The same cannot be said for the restrictions introduced by several governments concerning access to labour markets. There is no rational justification for these decisions. They are based entirely on exaggerated fears or cold political calculations with the next elections to national parliaments in mind. There is no empirical evidence that an immense wave of citizens from the new countries will flood into the old Member States of the European Union in search of work. Studies by independent research centres presented by Commissioner Wallström, for example, suggest quite the opposite. Over the course of the next five years, economic migration from the new countries of the Union to the old should not exceed 1% of the population of the ten new Members. The experience of previous enlargements suggests enlargement caused a reduction in the number of economic migrants, rather than an increase. This is what will happen this time. The citizens of the new Member States want to find work in their own countries, and they believe that membership of the Union will help them to do so. I therefore take this opportunity to appeal for restrictions on access to labour markets to be lifted as quickly as possible. This would certainly not be a disaster for the old countries. Further, the new Members of the Union would see it as a tangible sign that they too may enjoy the full rights and freedoms available to the citizens of the entire European Union.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mrs Péry, Mrs Diamanopoulou, I would like to start by thanking Mrs Péry for the clarity with which she outlined the Council's proposal, which I fully support. As has been said, the European Parliament has on several occasions, at times of crises, restructuring or conversion of production plant, decided by a large majority on the need for the European institutions and social dialogue partners to intervene early enough to be able to find all the possible solutions in order to avert avoidable serious social conflict and prevent the deindustrialisation of entire territories and the triggering-off of processes of serious social exclusion. What Parliament was complaining of was the lack of information which would have made it possible to analyse these processes in due time and, more generally, to examine the changes taking place in production and employment in these firms before such an analysis lost its value due to the precipitous adoption of irreversible decisions. I feel that the creation of a monitoring centre – a centre coordinating all the information useful for predicting restructuring and conversion processes – could be a valuable service for the Community institutions and facilitate social dialogue at European level. For we are talking about a service activity, not a new institution, a service activity which would contribute to producing a high-quality, timely intervention which is the responsibility of the Union institutions alone. Therefore, I call upon all those Members who voted on the resolutions on the restructuring processes, from Verwoord onwards, and especially those who voted on the Michelin affair in a resolution which explicitly provided for the establishment of a monitoring centre for industrial change, to show consistency on this occasion. Mr President, with a tool such as this, it will, indeed, be possible not only to inform the workers concerned in advance and to explore the possibilities of averting or reducing redundancies – as stipulated by the Community Directive of 24 June 1992 – but also to facilitate at local and Community level dialogue which would make it possible to ascertain the existence of alternative solutions to those put forward by the companies. These could be partly implemented through public intervention as well as through initiatives to find alternative employment for workers whose jobs are under threat and, in particular, initiatives for the vocational retraining of workers. This is the only way we will be able to ward off the danger represented by restructuring processes or mergers of large companies for large numbers of workers and for certain areas which are undergoing a radical process of decline or exclusion, particularly affecting young workers. Without such a tool and without such preventative analyses, Parliament is destined to remain a centre of belated, ineffective claims.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, you have always shown a great deal of sensitivity when people, or even one person is killed in political violence anywhere in the world. I should like to propose, following the death today of 15 innocent people in Baghdad market and the death of soldiers on both sides, that we observe one minute's silence for the victims of the war in Iraq.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, please allow me to thank you on behalf of all Andalusian fishermen, and on my own behalf, for the efforts you are making to persuade the Portuguese authorities to free Agustín García, the fisherman who, as you know, has spent more than two months in prison. Mr President, the Guadiana fishing agreement between Spain and Portugal expires today, and it would be really positive if the negotiations on the renewal of this agreement were to begin with a gesture of friendship and goodwill on the part of Portugal, freeing the imprisoned fisherman, as well as a commitment on the part of all fishermen to respect all the agreements signed. I would like to thank you once again and I would ask you not to forget this issue and to communicate this proposal to the relevant authorities.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I am pleased that Mr Tannock has expressed his regret at the offence caused by the remarks he made last week at a meeting of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. Indeed, I also regret his receiving hate mail, as he described. Mr Tannock was very clear in his remarks that he did not regard Turkey as a victim of the terrorist attacks and that the victims were 'British and Jewish' - not Turks. Not simply did Mr Tannock go on to criticise the Turkish Prime Minister directly, but I believe his remarks could be regarded as offensive to Muslims and in general to the Turkish victims of the attack, irrespective of their religion. I am pleased that my statement has caused him to retract those original remarks.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I wish to say that, were it not for the obstacles put in the way of the Spanish State and of Galicia, my country could achieve a level of milk production similar to that of Ireland or Denmark, whereas today it produces only 1.8 million tonnes. In any event, it would be able to meet its own requirements and double its level of production. Bearing this in mind and taking account of the farming structure in Galicia, which is based on family ownership, with a clear focus on milk production, I wish to ask the President-in-Office of the Council: would the Council accept specific measures – that could also be applied to another country – that would enable Galicia to increase its production whilst temporarily maintaining the intervention price system?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioners, I have had a poor impression in the European Convention of the direction in which the EU’s policy on languages is heading. There the proposed amendments to the Praesidium’s draft constitution are not translated into the official languages of the EU. The discussions held by the Convention’s working groups have only been interpreted into two or three languages. A constitution is being drafted, however, which is at a higher level than the Member States’ national legislation. As the Convention is called the Convention on the Future, language restrictions and the destruction of national linguistic identities would seem to be the future of the EU. Both budget reports give attention to language, translation and interpreting. When Mrs Gill speaks of controlled multilingualism I am not sure that that means equality for all languages. When distance interpreting is mentioned, I am not sure that that means distance interpreting for all languages. If not all languages in the EU are to be used equally, let us draw lots for those languages that are to be the so-called working languages. Another linguistic outrage is the fact that the European Parliament visitor’s service no longer has a Finnish-speaking official. Otherwise, the guidelines for the budgetary procedure are on such a general level that there are only a few general remarks to make. Parliament’s unanimous political will would seem to be that there should be a determination to reduce the amount of unpaid payment appropriations, or RALs. Many in our group oppose the introduction of financial support for Europarties, as the parties would then become supranational. As regards Mr Wynn’s report, which is the next to be discussed, some amendments to it have been tabled calling for the introduction of ‘Eurotaxes’ to finance the work of the EU. These supranational taxes are unacceptable to many in our group.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the annual report in question is a welcome and important beginning, and its value is underlined by the fact that independent NGOs were equal partners at the human rights forum which has just ended and which was organised on the initiative of the country holding the presidency. This is the start of what must become a tradition. With human rights there is always the question of weighing up different values against one another: ‘horizontal tensions’ exist between the various human rights. Since the end of the Cold War they have manifested themselves more dramatically than before in the balance between classic basic freedoms, on the one hand, and collective rights, such as economic, social and cultural rights, on the other. The development has rapidly taken a direction which will weaken collective rights, which have been characteristic, for example, of the welfare state. Of all the human rights, however, it is freedom of speech that holds a special position, as without free and independent communication the other human and fundamental rights cannot be established and even serious violations of human rights, such as crimes against humanity, cannot be effectively exposed. As the President-in-Office of the Council said, reports on violations of human rights are an everyday occurrence. A free and independent media is also a vital prerequisite of civil society. For this reason, it would be advisable to accord greater emphasis in human rights monitoring and reporting by the Union to freedom of speech and to safeguarding, improving and monitoring the rights of journalists and their ability to work, for example, by devoting a special chapter or section to this area. As we develop the Union’s own position on human rights we must, as the Foreign Minister, Mrs Halonen, said, be consistent. But we must also maintain a balance. There must be balance between the different types of human rights, the pillars, as mentioned by Mr Verheugen, and the institutions. The European Union cannot complacently and regardless of others develop its own human rights culture in such a way as to upset the balance.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr de Miguel, I am glad to hear you speak again. I heard you yesterday, when you did indeed announce that the Presidency intends to convene the Council, and today you remind us that the review of the agreement with Israel has to be adopted unanimously. I should like to ask the President-in-Office of the Council this: what is the Spanish Presidency’s position?

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I believe that the BSE crisis that broke out in 1996 has revealed the extent to which ultraliberalism can lead to the health of consumers and the interests of livestock producers being sacrificed. The work of this Parliament’s committee of enquiry contributed to the application of measures to protect consumer health: in particular by banning animal meal for cattle and through the compulsory labelling of beef. But fraud, negligence and the lack of adequate measures mean that the BSE crisis is still not under control, since new cases are being discovered all the time. Without becoming paranoid, we must recognise that the consumers’ concern is perfectly legitimate. My group believes that the health of consumers is an imperative which should have overriding priority over all other considerations. It is therefore urgent that measures are taken to reassure consumers and to restore their confidence in food safety. I do not know if this is a panacea, Commissioner but, in line with the precautionary principle, it seems to me that experience behoves us to ban, as of today, the use of animal meal in feed for livestock, including pigs, poultry and fish. Detection tests must also be extended to all cattle entering the human food chain. The current crisis has led to a significant slump in sales and to a fall in prices, which are hurting livestock producers and all those involved in the beef sector. It is necessary both to restore consumer confidence and to help the livestock producers affected by the crisis. Selective aid, such as market support and a grass subsidy, are essential. But, beyond the immediate future, should we not be reflecting on the mechanisms of the CAP? Are these not the very mechanisms which are at the root of the problem? They have contributed to overly intensive production, which has harmed the environment and the quality of farm products. They therefore need to be reviewed. Perhaps it would be no bad thing if animals returned to traditional fodder. I feel like saying, “Yes, let them have a bit more grass.” But the European Union must also encourage the production of oil seeds so that animal meal can be replaced by vegetable meal. To achieve this, there would have to be a re-examination of the 1993 GATT agreement, which prohibits the European Union producing more than 25% of its vegetable protein requirements so as to satisfy US exports.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I wish to make three points. Firstly, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, the draftspeople and the Commission – in particular Commissioner Diamantopoulou – on the directive and the report we have in front of us. It has been a long time coming. I was the chairman of the European Parliament’s Committee of Inquiry into the growth of racism and fascism in Europe back in 1986, when our rapporteur, Mr Evregenis, proposed such legislation. I myself was the rapporteur for the Committee of Inquiry into Racism and Xenophobia in 1990 that reiterated that demand. I suppose in a way it was worth waiting. We have here legislation that will make a real impact on the lives of the 12 to 14 million third country nationals living in the European Union and the 4 million black Europeans. Secondly, and without subtracting an iota from my support for the report and the directive as a whole, the Council will have to resolve a number of outstanding issues: on representative actions, on the definition of indirect discrimination and, as the previous speaker said, on the burden of proof. The last of these must be workable, because otherwise we will keep the previous speaker happy! The best basis is the existing burden-of-proof legislation, which is now underpinned by 25 years of case-law, and where the numbers are not available, expert opinion will suffice. Thirdly and finally, I wish to warn my colleagues in the PPE Group. Many of them – the large majority I believe – have been genuinely concerned that Parliament’s procedures have not given them adequate time to consider the detail. Yet a few clearly have darker motives. With Mr Haider and Mr Le Pen lurking in the background, the Vlaams Blok and the Movimento Sociale Fiamma Tricolore promoting racism and xenophobia, the PPE Group, as a whole, should not be surprised if people conclude that if they continue with their technical objections, then this is a thinly disguised attempt to block these proposals which the vast majority of Europe so much welcomes. Those who lie down with dogs get fleas.

Political group: PSE
The fundamental objectives of this recommendation are to increase road safety, guarantee a minimum standard of health and safety for those working in the sector and establish equal conditions of competition with other transport operators. The common position adopted by the Council fails to take proper account of these objectives, especially on the following points: - the inclusion of self-employed truck drivers - the exclusion of employees in haulage companies based outside the EU - the definition of the working times and standby duty - the definition of night work Although we realise that accepting the recommendation would lead to difficult negotiations with the Council, my group voted in favour because: 1. Self-employed truck drivers need to be included within two years of the transposition of the directive in order to resolve the problem of bogus self-employment so as to get round restrictions on working times. 2. The working times of self-employed truck drivers must include not just the time at the wheel but also the time needed to check the vehicle, do administrative work, run the business etc., because otherwise rest periods are too short, thereby jeopardising drivers' health and lowering road safety because numerous serious accidents are caused by overtiredness. 3. The definitions of standby duty, night time and night work must take account of social aspects. 4. All truck drivers must provide proof of the time spent at the wheel, irrespective of whether they are employed or self-employed.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, when I wrote my report on HIV/AIDS two years ago, I was not sure what the outcome would be. However, I am delighted that the EU, the Commission and this Parliament have done quite a lot, as many speakers, including the Commissioner, have said. However, I want you to focus on an African woman who is suffering and dying from HIV/AIDS, TB or malaria. If she were to watch CNN what does she see and hear? She sees the conflicts in Iraq, Congo, Afghanistan, Burundi, Zambia, Zimbabwe and so on. She sees loss of life, billions of euro wasted, including the EUR 75 billion that President Bush has pledged for Iraq's reconstruction. This is essential, but it is a lot of money in relation to the US commitment of EUR 15 billion over 5 years for HIV/AIDS, of which 10 000 people are dying every day. So, this lady sees terrorism in Istanbul, New York and Saudi Arabia. She sees a natural disaster in Iran – 20 000 people dead, a town flattened – and she says to herself 'I have TB, and yet I do not have ten dollars or ten euro to cure it. I am dying'. How does she feel when she sees all these billions of euro that we spend to renovate buildings that have been destroyed and which are then destroyed again? The pledges – which are very worthy indeed – for the reconstruction of Iraq made by countries like the United States amount to EUR 75 billion. What is their contribution to the fight against HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria? That is where the European Union has been tremendous, very generous and is showing the way for the rest of the world. I also look to the oil-rich countries. What are they doing? How much are they contributing? If not, why not? What about Japan and others? If we are to address this issue we have to be serious and put it into context, because the people who are suffering are poor, sick, oppressed, not free to work and live in harsh conditions. They have no water or electricity, they have no tools to till their land, and nor are they near the sea. What chance do they have? That is why it is important to refocus EU aid and to go back to the basics of life such as water and access to energy, because these people are already spending their whole day looking for water and firewood to cook their next meal. I know the Commissioner is committed. He is brilliant. I know this Parliament is behind him. Let us go for it and make sure that this year and beyond we can achieve what we set out to do.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, now that the Commissioner has explained to us, in an extremely coherent manner, that the erstwhile President-in-Office of the Council and his Minister of State for Europe bore responsibility for the lack of coherence, perhaps you could help the Commissioner and ourselves, so as to enable us to take this decision. It would be helpful if you could give a positive answer to my questions on the Financial Perspective up until 2004 and on heading B7, or if you could at least confirm that the Portuguese Council Presidency intends to make efforts of this kind to make good the aforementioned lack of coherence, which is something the Commissioner will also seek to achieve on the part of the Commission.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, what interests me most is how the euro-debate will go on from here, after the referendum in Denmark, and what changes the Commission intends to make to the information strategy?

Political group: PPE-DE