GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
First I should like to say that I have submitted a written question along the same lines as that put by my fellow member Mihail Papayannakis. Secondly, I should like to say in all honesty that, as a Greek citizen, I am shocked by what you have said. In other words, that we do not know and the Greek Government does not know, no-one knows what has happened to over half our toxic waste. From what you have said, I think that my fellow countrymen in Greece should be worried, and with good cause. I should like to put two questions to you. The first is: what sanctions will be imposed on Greece? Do you think it is sufficient merely to take recourse to the Court, which could take three or four years to reach a verdict? In the meantime, what about public health in Greece? Toxic waste is an extremely important issue. My second question is this: assuming that Greece is convicted for the waste, for the waste management in Hania in Crete, can you tell us, in general terms, where you think the problem with the application of environmental legislation in Greece lies? Which specific areas of Community legislation are causing problems? Because I know, for example, that there are also problems with the management of nitric compounds.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the situation in Sierra Leone has been the subject of our urgent debates on several occasions, and we have always dealt with it by encouraging peace talks, national reconciliation and aid for the displaced population, and by calling for an international criminal justice system that can try those responsible for the genocide that is being committed in that country. Today, we are not faced with a merely political issue, but with a criminal act that falls under a criminal code. We are talking about a kidnapping carried out by criminals who have no political links, either with the members of the former military junta or with any of the groups that signed the peace agreement in July 1999. Their demands are limited to a request for a group of prisoners to be freed and for the revision of a peace agreement that is supposed to be putting back together a country that has been torn to pieces. The victims of the kidnapping undoubtedly have a great deal of political significance. The international presence in Sierra Leone is a good example of the perseverance on the part of the international community in seeking world peace. Therefore, taking on that responsibility, we are in support of the European Parliament addressing the Government of Sierra Leone today and calling for the immediate and unconditional release of the British soldiers who have been taken hostage. Turkish bombing in the north of Iraq

Political group: PSE
President, this is an excellent attempt by Mr Brok to survey all the controversies and trouble spots of the world. The document has positive things to say on the wider Europe debate and new neighbours and, in particular, on the need to acknowledge the potential for full EU membership in future for those neighbours which are clearly European, namely Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus. Today I welcome to the Parliament Mrs Timoshenka, a Ukrainian leader of the opposition. It emphasises cooperation in the areas of security and defence, which is excellent, only to spoil it, in my view, by regretting the continued unanimity principle and calling for QMV in foreign affairs, which would imperil national sovereignty. It rightly calls for strengthened EU and G8 measures again the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, which is arguably the biggest threat of all. However, I am less convinced of the need for an EU foreign minister or armaments agency and found the mini-defence union proposals of Belgium, France, Luxembourg and Germany purely a piece of post-Gulf war anti-American posturing, which undermines NATO and is laughable without UK military participation. I also have concerns about the call for reforms of the UN. They are long overdue, but not if this means an EU seat replacing the UK's permanent seat. I have longed believed that there is a case to make for India as a permanent Security Council member and, possibly, also Japan and Brazil. I welcome the need for closer cooperation with Latin America in general. I also have problems with including the ESDP in the Community budget, as defence policy is ultimately a marker of national sovereignty and can mean people dying for their country. It should therefore remain under national parliamentary scrutiny. Lastly, I have my doubts as to the necessity of a EUROMED Parliamentary Assembly and a EUROMED bank, which will be expensive. Besides, most of these countries are not true and fully functioning democracies with properly elected parliaments.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Turkey has won the Eurovision Song Contest, but has not yet scored enough points for the integration festival. Our Turkish friends have undeniably made progress on very many fronts in recent years. If the country meets the Copenhagen criteria, the European Union will have to keep to the promises it has made. I am pleased that, in his well thought-out and sympathetic report, the Christian Democrat Mr Oostlander recognises that the universal values of democracy, constitutional state and human rights can very well be accepted and defended in a country with a clear Muslim majority. It is crucially important for us that Turkey develops quickly into a fully-fledged democracy, in which the armed forces are subordinate to elected politicians. It is for this reason that the Turkish National Security Council with its present powers and in its present form must be dissolved. Many quarters point to the important role of the military in guarding the secular State. It is said to act as a bulwark against rising Muslim fundamentalism. I should like to point out however that it is not only the task of the military to keep Muslim radicalism at bay, but of all responsible leaders. As far as necessary the structure of the State must be adapted to anchor all the democratic requirements. We therefore support the reforms of the political and legal system the Erdogan government has in mind. We are naturally very curious about the precise details of the new Constitution. This is not a matter of more or less Kemalism, but simply of the compatibility with universal standards and the demands of EU membership. We are glad that the Erdogan government has now tabled legislative proposals to strengthen freedom of speech and to permit the use of Kurdish in audiovisual resources and election campaigns. Nonetheless I would, with Mr Oostlander, point to the fact that a successful legislative process is not sufficient in itself. It comes down above all to its application in practice. While the police remain free to torture prisoners and human rights continue to be violated, there is no way, as far as I am concerned, that the negotiations can begin. A drastic softening of Turkey’s attitude to the Cyprus problem is also needed. The failure of the Hague conference was attributable in no small part to the rigidity of the Turkish position. Ankara should allow itself to be led more by the positive attitude of the Turks who live in Cyprus than by the negative pronouncements of their leader there. Finally, Turkey will have to develop a policy of good neighbourliness with Armenia, which can then in due course lead to a political gesture of which the Armenians have such incredibly great need. In December 2004 we are going to take stock, but there cannot yet be any question of accession in the near future. There is still a very long way to go before the whole of Europe, away from the song festival, votes for Turkey.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, at the height of the 2001 outbreak of foot and mouth disease the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party formulated three principles: how can we prevent such outbreaks from recurring, what are we to do if there is another outbreak and how can we pay for such outbreaks in future? On the first point: better border controls. We have heard that the Commission has issued new guidelines. I have paid particular attention when arriving back in Europe from time to time from another continent. To be honest, despite the newly announced measures I have not yet been able to detect much change. What exactly were the new measures? What are we to do if there is another outbreak? We took the view that the mass culling of healthy stock is not acceptable in future, which is why we fully support the conclusions of the report that prophylactic vaccination must be used. We went even further. In 2001 we submitted an amendment to the budget to ensure that the Commission was able to carry out research into better vaccines, marker vaccines against foot and mouth disease. We did not limit ourselves to foot and mouth disease by the way. It could extend to all infectious animal diseases. It is particularly disappointing to note that as of now, some two years after the amendment was submitted and carried, the Commission has still not begun this research. We are constantly given different explanations. It will happen. But it still has not happened. I should like to know why. Another point: what is to be done with the products of vaccinated animals? That strikes me as a huge problem. This has already been said by Mrs Corbey and by Mr Maat. The probability is that it will be more difficult to sell the products of those vaccinated animals, and that it will be at a reduced price. Will that also be covered by future compensation schemes, yes or no? What is the Commission proposing to do in this respect? Third point: how are we to pay for such outbreaks in future? In that respect we were lucky with the outbreak in 2001. There was sufficiency leeway in the agriculture budget. If calculations are correct there is considerably less slack in the agriculture budget. The euro is strong against the dollar and there will be very little leeway. If there were a new outbreak now, how would we pay for it? This was in fact why the submitted an amendment in 2001 calling for studies to be carried out in to insurance systems. In that respect the Commission did do its work. At the end of May we shall have a report on the subject. As rapporteur for the 2004 budget I myself made it one of my priorities. It is not acceptable that we should always leave the financing of such outbreaks to chance, according to whether there is money available or not. It must be put on a sound financial footing. I hope to be able to work that out in future in consultation with the Commission. The point about six months and three months is also essential for us and I therefore recommend that the plenary should accept the amendment of the Liberal and Christian Democrat groups on this.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the future European Constitution must lead to a more democratic and effective Union, that is, one that is closer to the citizens and their concerns. In this regard, the role of the regions is quite simply essential. What the Convention must do is formalise something which is already a reality. How is it possible that the regions are applying Community legislation and that this is not formally recognised in terms of rights within the institutional framework of the Union? How is it possible that these regions transpose Community legislation but their situation is clearly undervalued in the Treaties in force? We must correct this in the following way: firstly, the regions must be consulted at every stage of the legislative procedure in the European Union; secondly, we must urge the Member States to allow them the greatest possible participation throughout the European decision-making process in each of the States, including at the level of representation within the Council of Ministers; we must also increase the role of the Committee of the Regions and allow the regions to be able to act within the framework of the principle of subsidiarity. If somebody has to apply and transpose legislation in accordance with this principle, then logically they must also be able to defend their prerogatives and rights. Also in the European Union the courts are there to ensure the better legal operation of the institutions and policies we have decided on jointly. By whatever means, the important thing is that the Napolitano report, in the form it is in today or the form it will be in, probably, after the vote in the plenum, will recognise the right of the regions to defend their prerogatives before the Court of Justice – this is the fundamental thing – and also to apply the policies of the Union, in a more effective manner, within the framework of Community law, as the Socialist Group’s Amendment No 5 states. The Spanish Socialists voted in favour of the Napolitano report in committee and we will do so again tomorrow because it represents a step forward. What will be approved will probably be somewhere in the middle.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to report to the House that, following the debate last night and discussions with the presidency, in the spirit of compromise reflecting our work on this portfolio, I am mandated by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy to withdraw Amendments Nos 3 and 11. On that basis, I understand that the Commission is in full support of all the amendments and the presidency has indicated its support. Therefore, I urge colleagues to vote for the rest. Block No 1 will effectively subsume three other amendments. (The President declared the common position approved as amended) *** Report (A5-0418/2003) by Dieter-Lebrecht Koch, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive amending Council Directive 74/408/EEC relating to motor vehicles with regards to the seats, their anchorages and head restraints (COM (2003) 361 – C5-0283/2003 – 2003/0128(COD)) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0304/2003) by Paolo Costa, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive amending Council Directive 77/541/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to safety belts and restraint systems of motor vehicles (COM(2003) 363 – C5-0282/2003 – 2003/0130(COD)) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0305/2003) by Paolo Costa, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive amending Council Directive 76/115/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to anchorages for motor-vehicle safety belts (COM(2003) 362 – C5-0286/2003 – 2003/0136(COD)) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0408/2003) by Willy C.E.H. De Clercq, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, on a legal framework for free movement within the internal market of goods whose ownership is likely to be contested (2002/2114(INI)) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Joint motion for a resolution(2) on the Commission’s legislative and work programme for 2004 (Parliament adopted the joint resolution) *** Joint motion for a resolution(3) on the European Union's role in conflict prevention in Africa and particularly in the implementation of the Linas-Marcoussis Agreement in Côte d'Ivoire (Parliament adopted the joint resolution) *** President. – That concludes the vote. EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE Joint resolution: Members' Statute (B5-0543/2003)

Political group: PPE-DE
The resolution urges the current Intergovernmental Conference to adopt ‘improved provisions’ for Title IV of the Convention’s draft Constitution which, for example, deals with the procedure in the event of changes to a future adopted Constitution. We wish to emphasise that such ‘improvement’ must not lead to a disappearance of the demand for ratification by all the Member States in the event of changes. We also wish to emphasise that we are able to support the establishment of a border administration authority but that we do not wish to see any operational structure or any other form of operative cooperation.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am speaking on behalf of the Spanish delegation of the European People’s Party, the delegation of the Spanish People’s Party, with regard to Mrs Terrón i Cusí’s resolution on the area of freedom, security and justice. There have been some votes where we have not followed the guidelines of the Group of the European People’s Party, and we have voted in favour of the Terrón i Cusí resolution, which we consider on the whole to be excellent. However, we have voted against paragraphs 2 and 6, because they seem to us to be legally incorrect. On the other hand, we have voted in favour of Recital J which, in fact, is in line with what I, as draftsperson of the opinion of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms, proposed to that Committee, with a view to the Intergovernmental Conference. We have also voted in favour of paragraph 13. An appropriate statute and the right of movement and settlement for residents of non-EU countries is something which the Spanish People’s Party has been advocating for some time. For similar reasons, we have voted in favour of paragraph 14 which, with the oral amendment, dealt with certain very justifiable concerns about the question of subsidiarity, since political rights, not just voting in local elections, but political rights in general terms, form part of the sovereignty of Member States. Given the oral amendment, we felt we could vote in favour and that is what we have done.

Political group: PPE-DE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. – Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on establishing a clear set of priorities. I particularly welcome the emphasis on food safety and consumer confidence and improving the implementation of the EU budget. However, speaking on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, I have to express my concern at the absence of any major areas of this committee's priorities in these guidelines. The committee's opinion has been appended but I would urge the rapporteur and the Commissioner to accord the following areas greater emphasis during this year's budgetary process. First, the funding for the information society does not really correspond to the importance attached to it by the Heads of State or Government when it was launched with much fanfare at Lisbon. The information society is an area that has caught the imagination of European citizens and they want to see results. But within the EU budget it is nothing more than an afterthought. If we are to really connect the EU to its citizens, we must put our money where our mouth is. We need to recognise that this is where the future of new European jobs lies. However, the EU, and more importantly the EU budget, has never taken this on board. We also have to address the issue of the possibility of the emergence of a digital divide in Europe. We must do all we can to prevent the emergence of an information underclass. That would drive a thick wedge between those who have access to information and those who do not. I therefore urge the Commissioner to seize the initiative to ensure that the resources are enhanced to allow the information society to conform to the principle of equality, in terms of both accessibility and opportunity. My second point relates to energy. It is clear that we are too dependent on external resources. What we must do is enhance Europe's renewable energy capacity. We must avoid a situation similar to last year where industry across Europe was brought to a standstill by a small group of people. Therefore, we need corporate approach looking at alternative sources of energy. Finally, what I am trying to obtain is not a shopping list of priorities for these guidelines; I am, however, trying to ensure that adequate support and resources are targeted to areas that underpin Europe's future economic success.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, in Burma twenty leading opposition members have been arrested, including Aung San Suu Kyi, the 1991 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, the holder of Parliament’s Sakharov Prize, and the President of the League for Democracy. Over one hundred offices of the League have been closed down, its supporters have been persecuted and arrested, and according to our information just recently seventy sympathisers were killed in the North of the country by armed troops of the military junta. In the past few years, after the European Union had quite rightly suspended trade-facilitation measures and blocked foreign capital, the first positive effects were felt. In 2002 Aung San Suu Kyi was released from house arrest, and there were justified hopes of reform, and so the EU decided to withdraw certain sanctions until the end of the year. The Group of the European People’s Party is asking that the Government of Burma should now release from arrest the Nobel Prize winner, her fellow-campaigners and the political prisoners. Persecution and murders must be brought to an immediate end. Universities, schools and the offices of the League for Democracy must finally be reopened. We are also asking for free elections under independent international observation. If the military junta continues to refuse to introduce a course of reforms which is so badly needed, then the visa ban must be extended and capital must remain frozen, without any possibility of licences being granted. The ASEAN States, the United Nations and the international community must be made to discharge their obligations, so that pressure from Europe receives wide support. IN THE CHAIR: MR VIDAL-QUADRAS ROCAVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as the last speaker from my group and as coordinator of the group, it falls to me to try and summarise the positions that have been expressed. Listening to the debate I feel that our group's views are very much the centre of gravity of Parliament as a whole on this question. If I could try and summarise this in two sentences, it would be to say 'yes' to better information, consultation and more systematic consultation of non-governmental actors and so on, but 'no' to delegating decisions to a sort of cosy deal between the Commission and industry. We would say 'yes' to delegating technical and implementing legislation, but only if there is an adequate procedure to bring things back if they go wrong. In other words, there is considerable sympathy in Parliament for much of what the Commission intends to achieve in its White Paper but genuine concern about what might be the real effects of some of the proposals therein. Let me take the example that has come up recently of the self-regulation on pedestrian safety, where the Commission has made a deal with the automobile industry. This is a very good deal in many ways and a lot of what has been agreed is a good step forward for pedestrians' safety. But what if it were not very good? What if it contained some outrageous things that would not be acceptable to this Parliament representing the citizens? We represent all the citizens of Europe not just those who are organised in NGOs. What if the automobile industry subsequently does not apply the deal, because it is not enshrined in legislation? What can we do to remedy the situation if one or the other manufacturer does not respect the deal? That is the sort of concern that is being expressed in this Parliament. I welcome the commitment of the Commission only to take this forward once Parliament has given its view and to explore these issues further in an inter-institutional working party. That is a very welcome development. I am very glad you gave that undertaking today and I look forward to taking this matter further. (Applause)

Political group: PSE