GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, we are probably addressing the question or the comment to the wrong person, but here you represent the Council as a whole. I have a feeling that the Western Sahara issue, to which I have devoted over half my political life so far, is actually a tragedy. How the conflict should be resolved is clear – after all, the UN peace plan was there at the beginning of the 1990s – and it is equally clear which European countries have very strong geopolitical interests in its not being adhered to. I must of course take note of the response that what is done in the UN must be adhered to. I believe, though, that the European Union and the Member States must, for the sake of a common foreign and security policy, choose a coordinated way of proceeding, one that is in accordance with the UN peace plan. Following the visit of King Mohammed VI, events have followed in rapid succession. There has also been a visit to the Western Sahara by the French President, Jacques Chirac, who, in defiance of all international legal positions, said that the Western Sahara was made up of the southern provinces of Morocco – a point we are discussing in the Council of the European Union.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Mr van Velzen’s statement deals judiciously with issues related to culture and cultural services, especially where they concern the flexibility of the positions to be taken by each Member State. It is precisely because this set of problems leads to another – the problem of what is known as ‘cultural exception’, that it must be made clear that the Commission cannot allow itself to blunder into the issue of cultural exception. This is an extremely controversial issue, primarily due to its own assumptions. In an open world in which we are increasingly committed to the free interaction of cultures, cultural diversity must clearly be protected, preserved and valued, but not at the expense of hindering the free movement of values of exactly the same nature. It is increasingly senseless, treating some cultural products as if they were industrial products, to establish forms of protection that limit their access to certain locations, such as cinemas. With television, video, DVD and other new technologies of the digital, online and Internet age, any spectator, any consumer who wishes to do so, can choose to view whatever they wish without any real barriers being able to hinder this consumption. I do not believe – or rather I must at least express my scepticism – that 50 Ministers for Culture can resolve this matter beyond the only point that will then be accepted, which is that every Member State can do whatever it feels is most appropriate to protect its interests and its own specific cultural diversity. Having made these observations, Madam President, I shall simply add that items 7, 8 and 9 of the report to which I have referred address the problem in a very sensible way in terms of prudence and balance and they deserve our support.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this is a very necessary technical proposal and I fully endorse Mr Nicholson's report and the proposal to which it refers. But speaking of recovery plans in general, of course it is not only the Irish Sea that has seen catastrophic declines. The North Sea too has been confronted with drastic depletion of stock leading to partial sea closures and another cod recovery plan and the hake recovery plan. There is a manifest need in fisheries management to take account of the local eco-system and the regional differentials which exist. The broad brush approach, I would contend, has not worked with stocks on the decline and recovery very slow, if evident at all. That is why regional management is the way forward. In addition to the short-term technical proposals referred in this type of report, the approach of the Commission's Green Paper, which is both more regional and conservation-orientated, must be embraced. In this regard, I also welcome proposals to make additional funds available for tie-up schemes as a necessary part of the management tool box for conservation purposes, going in tandem with the recovery plans. Compensated tie-up schemes are also essential for the preservation of the CFPs social role. In Scotland, the need for recovery is acknowledged by all the stake-holders, but fishermen also must have the financial and the social protection that they need to encourage them while taking responsible actions. Therefore, I ask the Commission to ensure that a system is set in place which allows for compensated tie-ups, but without being subject to the whims of Member State governments, to ensure that a more level playing field exists between fishing industries in the different Member States, which from time-to-time will be affected by recovery plans.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, as the House knows, my report concerns the Spanish initiative to simplify the Schengen rules and cut out as much red tape as possible, by allowing group visas to be issued at external borders to seamen in transit, thereby making things easier for Member States with a navy. My report is a considerable improvement on the original proposal, because it protects citizens’ individual rights and personal data, using the Schengen provisions on which the regulation is based. My report also edits the text so that it is gender neutral, in recognition of the fact that many women have entered the seafaring profession over recent years. Most importantly, we reject the criterion of common nationality because there are insufficient grounds for requiring seamen to be of the same nationality in order to obtain a group visa. The report therefore proposes that short group visas should be issued to groups of between five and fifty seamen, even if they are not all of the same nationality. This will help European shipping considerably. (Parliament adopted the text) *** Report (A5-0011/2003) by Marit Paulsen, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive amending Directive 95/2/EC as regards the conditions of use for a food additive E 425 konjac (COM(2002) 451 – C5-0378/2002 – 2002/0201(COD)) Before the vote:

Political group: PSE
First of all, we would like to express sympathy with all the families and communities that lost members in this terrible tragedy. It is really the loss of life that makes this particular disaster an extraordinary one by European standards. It is regrettable that we do not have any instrument with which to give assistance in situations like this. I want to thank the Commissioner for his comprehensive statement on the subject and his suggestion that we might indeed organise ourselves at European level to give assistance to Member States and regions that have tragedies like this. That is important. The other thing we should remember is that we did have a budget line in the past. It was very small. It was not able to do very much but it was repeatedly abused by Members of this House proposing action when the disasters were not even major. Officials and ministers from Member States were coming to Brussels, whispering with the Commission and getting a few euros and making a political point by bringing aid back to their constituencies. So there was not much sympathy for this budget line when it was abolished. I think we should reinstate this budget line. When we had the earthquake in Greece, which was a big disaster, the Community had no instrument with which to offer its sympathy or solidarity to the Greeks. The same when the floods came in France and the same again now. These are major disasters, we should have an instrument, we do not have it. We should reinstate that instrument and we should make the rules tight so that only in situations where grave disasters occur will we call up this particular instrument. We can save it from year to year and ensure that when something major happens we have an instrument to deal with it. We did not have it so bad in Ireland this time although we have had many serious wind storms on the Atlantic. We had floods in Ireland also and I want to express my sympathy with the people in Ireland who suffered from these.

Political group: PPE-DE
The massive transformation of the labour market we have witnessed over the last few years requires us to alter our information-gathering procedures. The labour force sample survey proposed in this report will allow us to take ever-more effective steps to create jobs. The features of this survey, which includes six new variables and the option of differentiating structural variables, will allow us to understand the labour market better and define future economic and employment policies. In order to achieve the aims of the Lisbon Strategy especially in terms of employment and labour flexibility and in view of the entry into force of so many provisions linked to the European employment strategy, I voted in favour of this report, which approves the Commission’s proposal to strengthen this important surveying tool.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Rule 2 of our Rules of Procedure says that we all sit here as individuals, not as agents of political parties and we do not take orders from outside. (Applause from the centre and left) The essence of democracy is that individuals have guaranteed rights against the state. The Conservatives, I am sorry to say, are now wishing to introduce a new doctrine that political parties have power over individuals. That is the beginning of totalitarianism and that is why I left them. (Applause from the centre and left)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, following consultation yesterday, I should like to propose an oral amendment to the end of paragraph 41, adding a few words which take into account the actions taken by the political groups in response to criticism a couple of years ago from the Court of Auditors. It would read as follows: 'Notes the Bureau ruling on budget line No 3701 following the answers from the political groups to the Court of Auditors' special report.' That is the addition and it is also in the voting list. (Parliament accepted the oral amendment) Amendment No 13:

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, beef labelling has two distinct functions. Firstly, traceability in the case of a food safety incident – the recent E. coli outbreak in Scotland for example – and, secondly, to give consumers information about the origin of beef at the point of sale. The two should not be confused. For traceability we need maximum information made available to the authorities as and when required but the consumer label should be simple, concise and unambiguous. The need for information sprang from the BSE crisis. Member States have differing levels of BSE incidence but there are also variations in the measures to eradicate the disease and protect human health. Although the United Kingdom has the highest incidence of BSE, it also has the most comprehensive control measures. Other countries, which admittedly have lower declared levels of BSE, operate a whole-herd slaughter policy which entails the risk of the under-reporting of cases. Therefore people want to know which country their beef comes from. Reference to regions should not be an alternative to country of origin but a voluntary addition. Even regions like Yorkshire, Britain’s premier region and coincidentally the region I represent, are not known by every citizen throughout the EU. From a marketing and promotional point of view smaller areas and localities could be used, as well as regional breeds such as Aberdeen Angus. The well established description of Scotch beef should continue to be used. Small traditional butcher shops that sell beef unpackaged should be allowed to display information as an alternative to labelling each item. Many consumers would be confused if given information about hanging or maturation, which could be mixed up with sell-by dates in their minds. I would draw attention particularly to Amendment No 41 which seeks to exclude farmers from Community aid schemes if the regulation is not strictly adhered to. I have already had cases drawn to my attention regarding other EU schemes where honest errors by farmers, who are not professional bureaucrats, have resulted in punitive sanctions which often threaten the future of a family farm. We should not go down this road. The listing of antibiotics and stimulants that might have been administered would, if adopted, create a two-tier beef market. Animal welfare would be compromised as farmers would be reluctant to treat animals therapeutically. Similarly, reference to fattening methods should not be introduced. I hope that in amending this regulation Parliament can for once simplify rather than embellish and make the labelling of beef consumer-, butcher- and farmer-friendly.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Madam Vice-President, Mrs Maes, Mr Stockmann, Commission staff, ladies and gentlemen, we are indeed a cosy huddle of experts. My group endorses the rapporteur's recommendation that the Common Position be adopted. We would also like to thank the rapporteur for his work with the Council behind the scenes. It is important to bring this matter to a conclusion. Commissioner, Madam Vice-President, I think it is essential that in reforming the Slot Regulation, we agree on the new definition of slots as usage rights. A slot only entitles carriers to use airport facilities for takeoffs and landings at specified dates and times. These usage rights do not represent any kind of property right, neither to airports, nor to air carriers. Slots are a general good. That is the key issue. I am most grateful to you, Madam Vice-President, for stating that you will endeavour to present a revised version of the new Regulation by November. I personally believe – and here, I follow the line adopted by the rapporteur in his report – that it is essential to make it very clear that slots do not belong to the airport or to airlines, which means that they cannot be traded. We can devise all sorts of trading rules and amendments, but let me say this: the British Airways slots at Heathrow are not British Airways property that can be traded for generous sums of money. The slots are a general good – in Frankfurt, Paris or at any other airport. I am most grateful that the Council, Parliament and the Commission have agreed to strengthen the role and independence of coordinators, for the coordinators' role is to ensure the effective use of airports and airspace in the common interest, not to create advantages or disadvantages for the airlines or airports. The aim must be to ensure the best possible use of the airports for airlines and passengers in economic and environmental terms. I am therefore grateful to Mr Stockmann for concluding this matter successfully before the end of this legislative period. We should all vote in favour of his report tomorrow.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Lange for producing another excellent report on an important issue, that of atmospheric pollution and ozone smog. Several hundred thousand motor cycles cause just as much atmospheric pollution in my country, the Netherlands, as all the six and a half million cars put together. We cannot have a situation where new cars have to become exceptionally clean in 2005, but motor cycles get off scot-free. Nor is it acceptable that new lorries produced after 2007 will become exceptionally clean, whilst motor cycles remain unaffected. So I hope that when it comes to tomorrow’s vote, all delegates will vote in favour of equipping new motor cycles with a catalytic converter in 2006. Finally, I have a question for the Commission. I believe it is now high time we abolished the exemption for diesel motors, i.e. for trains from 1978. Trains too, must, and could, be far cleaner. I hope the Commission is prepared to respond on this point.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The changes proposed and the idea of coordinating general economic policy and employment policy guidelines could be a step in the right direction, helping to bring about a radical change in economic policy, if only the very acute social problem were a priority which other policies had to fall in line with. The opposite is happening, however. The emphasis is still on the Stability Pact and the policy of privatisation, merger and capitalist restructuring, which has resulted – in fact still is resulting – in mass redundancies, falling standards of living and pay, fewer and fewer social services and infringements of workers' rights, creating justifiable fears that coordination might cause even more problems, with social issues playing second fiddle to the policy of liberalisation and the rampant profit principle. Of course, coordination leaves out two of the four pillars proclaimed by the ΕU, namely environmental protection and social cohesion, but adds the completion of the single internal market. We believe that the sole objective of this sort of ‘coordination’ is to mislead the workers. We support a policy based on the objective of full, stable employment predicated on man and his needs, with full, protected social rights for all workers, a better standard of living and real social development and prosperity. Foster report (A5-0402/2002)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, fellow Europeans, a little more than 20 years ago, the European Parliament passed a declaration that condemned the occupation of the Baltic States by the Soviet Union and demanded our freedom. Today, we are at last all together in this room as free nations and free European citizens, to decide jointly the future of our continent. I am deeply moved that, in this historic session of the European Parliament, the first plenary session since enlargement, I have the opportunity to speak to you in my mother tongue. Enforced divisions are thus at an end; Europe is one again. Presumably it is this historical perspective that enables new Member States to see the European Union, not just as a common market, but as something more: a common home based on common values and perceptions. Today there is no longer an old Europe and a new Europe; just one Europe – our common home. It is for this reason that here and today we must ask, not, ‘What can Europe do for us?’ but, ‘What can we do for Europe?’ This is even more important in the light of the fact that Europe’s economic and social situation cannot be considered to be rosy. We must face up to facts. Europe’s development has slowed significantly during the last decade. Although the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy are in every way correct, we have to admit that, following its adoption, the gap in competitiveness between Europe and the United States has widened rather than narrowed. With this in mind, some have mockingly alluded to the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev’s promise to overtake America in ten years, which ended in his country falling even further behind. I do not want the same fate to befall the Lisbon Strategy. To ensure this, the new European Commission, together with the Parliament, must act decisively to find the means to force the governments of the Member States that have reacted coolly to the reforms to implement them. I very much hope that the European Union’s enlargement will also add impetus to this process. Yes, the GDP of the new Member States is lower than that of the older ones. Nevertheless, contrary to the view of the earlier speaker, I do not believe that we have joined the European Union in order to live comfortably for the next century from the support coming from wealthier Member States. Such an attitude would be immoral and ruinous for both Europe and ourselves. Estonia cannot look only to financial gain in Europe. Our aim must be clear: to achieve as rapidly as possible – in the case of my homeland, Estonia, I believe that time to be at least 15 years – a standard of living such that we no longer need assistance from wealthier European countries. In order to achieve that goal, we have to maintain our high growth rate and liberal economy and not take the route of tax harmonisation, which would be disastrous for Europe. I also hope that the accusations levelled at new Member States will not be repeated, since only by growing rapidly and by developing tax competition throughout Europe can we make the whole of Europe more competitive. IN THE CHAIR: MR FRIEDRICHVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I rise to speak in order to express our support for a resolution with which my Group and I, as Member for Galicia, agree. However, after a wasted year, and at a time when we are trying to put budgetary appropriations that were earmarked for the agreement under other headings, I must also express my deep suspicion about the Commission's commitment to protecting the legitimate interests of the shipowners and fishermen affected, and state my scepticism about the real will of the Union and of many Member States, amongst them Spain, to negotiate the agreement in the “general field of political and economic relations between Morocco and the European Union” as we propose in the resolution. I nevertheless hope, of course, that I am mistaken and that the treaty will finally be signed without further delay.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Thank you, Commissioner, for that very important information. Now, I would just like to ask you further whether you can give me answers on two specific points. Firstly, what is the situation as regards the training of the border guards, particularly as regards the project for a European police academy? Secondly, I would like to ask you when you think the Council will or might come to a formal decision on the project for a European border police force – or is that, at present, purely a figment of the imagination?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I have a request; every member has a very precise timetable. We agree on a great number of deadlines in the citizens’ interest. Today, yet again, the sitting has been brought forward, this time to 8.30 a.m. I think it would be conducive to greater overall efficiency if we stuck to a basic programme and stopped changing arrangements at short notice. Thank you for your understanding.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I am grateful for your reply, although I find it rather skimpy. I would like you to expand a little further, because my main concern is whether temporary migration is going to be introduced into Community action programmes and the European Union's employment strategy. I believe you have said that it is, but I would like you to reply by expanding on your answer. My supplementary question relates, in this respect, to whether the Council will ensure that this temporary migration is carried out within the context of respect for the social and employment requirements in force in the European Union and whether it will also be offered to women, under equal conditions, within positive actions to promote women.

Political group: PSE