GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Opening up Members States’ rail infrastructure to competition to the fullest extent within a short timeframe could have disastrous consequences for the public service role played by national rail companies. It entails the risk that profitable trans-European lines would be monopolised by a number of big operators, while less profitable secondary networks would be left to small operators. Thus far, the Commission has failed to present an assessment of the consequences of rail liberalisation and the separation of rail infrastructure and operations. This proposal for complete liberalisation is very premature. This is why I voted against it.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr Stenzel’s excellent report, on which we are essentially all in agreement, attempts to present in a positive light a balance sheet which can clearly only be problematic. It should come as no surprise that there are differences of opinion regarding a European agency which manages financial aid for south-east Europe, and so the calls for promotion of adequate investigation of any suspicion of mismanagement and/or corruption, in particular those related to investments in the energy sector, are understandable. Hence the need to improve transparency in the financial transfers and practices of all areas of the organisation’s activity. It is no coincidence either that a call has been made for an internal auditor to be appointed and that the importance of the European Court of Auditors, of a financial auditor and, lastly, of the role of the European Anti-Fraud Office has been stressed. All this points to the fact that things are going rather as we had feared but that that was rather to be expected: we cannot work miracles in the region, it is almost impossible for good governance at all times, on all occasions, to be guaranteed, but we must, of course, make every endeavour to reduce the possibilities of illegally providing or receiving funds. As you can see, there is no international cooperation strategy, and this is quite a serious matter. Our organisation has not contributed a strategy either, but it is difficult to establish a strategy when we do not know where our borders will lie in the short- or long-term future. All this must be borne in mind. On the other hand, however, the competence of the European Agency for Reconstruction has been extended geographically, and I wonder whether this is the right way to proceed, given that the problems presented by each individual situation differ quite widely. The Commission had promised Parliament that it would produce a report, although this is not yet available. This too is confirmation of the difficulties and is a further indication of the problems encountered by the reconstruction bodies in the Balkans. It was, of course, an easier matter to provide initial aid, but things become more complex when it is a question of defining reconstruction and deciding where and how to strengthen the institutions. The figures on the aid managed by the agency would appear, however, to be more or less in order as regards the relationship between projects, financing, payment times and results, and this is good news. The reconstruction of the Balkans is too delicate and sensitive a matter to be neglected even temporarily, and so I feel that we should devote more attention to it.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on a point of order, from the reply you gave me you have misunderstood the point I wanted to make. I totally agree with you that this House should always be delighted when the Council as such pays attention to our reports. However, the point to which I was drawing attention is that a subset of Council, the Pesca Group, is said to have held a meeting in which it discussed drafts of reports to this Parliament which have not yet been seen by the committee; in other words, that they have been 'cooking up' reports ahead of their being seen by the committee. If true, that would be a grave infringement of the rights and privileges of this House and a breach, in effect, of Rule 2 of our Rules of Procedure. I wish to lodge a protest about that and suggest that it be taken up with the Presidency of the Council and with the chairman of our own Committee on Fisheries.

Political group: Verts-ALE
During the Cold War, refugees from the East were very welcome in Western Europe. Seeking refuge was praised as a freedom-loving act, which presupposed universal solidarity. These days, refugees mostly hail from further afield, look different to western Europeans, and there is far less understanding for the situation from which they are fleeing. Since the standard of living in the country they are leaving behind is always lower than ours, they are from the very start suspected of having economic motives for fleeing. This situation has been exacerbated over the past year by the fear that refugees could be terrorist infiltrators. EU Member States tend to prescribe upper limits to the number of refugees they will allow in their countries, and set their reception levels lower than those of the neighbouring states. This is how we create a Fortress Europe, which denies access to people even in huge distress and in respect of whom international treaties are being violated. The upshot is that, even more than before, families are being torn apart and that people are sent back to a country that is unsafe for them, where they head for disaster. I reject the main idea, but support the proposals tabled by the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs not to extradite anyone to countries where capital punishment is a threat, possibly to deny refugee status only to war criminals, and to take account of the increasing number of female asylum seekers.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, as some of the previous speakers have pointed out, and as the rapporteurs for the report also observe in recital G, the present conflict concerning Western Sahara remains an obstacle to further regional integration. It cannot be emphasised enough that this 27-year-old conflict is a major problem, and not only for parties directly involved. What, therefore, I in actual fact miss in the report is a considered opinion discussing the peace plan in actual fact adopted in 1991 by all the parties directly involved in the conflict. Along with this, there is a more detailed agreement signed by the parties, that is to say Morocco and Polisario, in 1997 in Houston. Instead, the rejected third way, or what is termed James Baker’s framework agreement, is talked of and continued with, instead of a conclusion being reached as to what we are to do to implement the peace agreement adopted by the parties. That, I think, is a major shortcoming.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr Schmidt is absolutely right. I do indeed intend to point out that now that the economic climate is changing – for undoubtedly the American trends will also have an impact in Europe – then naturally a corresponding change in economic policy is required. I thus agree with the many speakers, headed by the rapporteur Mr Katiforis, who have shed light on the need for public investment in education, research, environmental improvements and the like. It seems as if, as Mr Herzog also pointed out, there is a dogmatic opposition to such change. Despite the fact that the economic reality is changing, policy has to remain fixed. In this situation, it is important for individual countries to be able to act more freely, and here I understand Olle t’s concerns. I am in fact very glad that my own Member State, Sweden, has not signed up to EMU and thus has a freedom to act which means that the country can conduct a more realistic economic policy with regard to the changes in economic trends.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Thank you, Mr President, Mr Haarder, ladies and gentlemen, the International Criminal Court is officially a reality. Nearly four years after 120 countries rubberstamped the Rome Statute and the establishment of the Court, it opened its doors in The Hague yesterday, on 1 July 2002. The European Union is fortunately a staunch supporter of the Criminal Court, but the United States is its most radical opponent. The Americans are now running a campaign against the Court in order to prevent its own citizens or military from ever being able to be taken before the Court, and they do not stop short of threats, for example by showing their willingness, if necessary, to sacrifice the entire UN police force in Bosnia for this. My group emphatically rejects the campaign by the United States against the International Criminal Court. The so-called ‘Hague invasion act’ is a serious violation of the agreements between the NATO allies. At one time, back in 1945, the Americans were our liberators, and now they are threatening to invade Scheveningen. I too would gladly present them with Dutch new herring, Mr Van den Berg. Why exactly are the Americans kicking up such a fuss? Does the American administration not believe in its own legal system? After all, the Court is only activated when the country in question takes no, or insufficient, action in trying crime. However, two things should be prevented by Europe. This week, it transpired that the UN mission in Bosnia is at stake. My group deeply regrets this dramatic step which jeopardises the UN peacekeeping operations in general. It was therefore appropriate for NATO to hold an emergency meeting, but at this moment in time, a practical solution to Bosnia appears imminent; this conflict, however, may in no circumstances compromise future UN peacekeeping actions. This immediately brings me to my last point. The conflict surrounding the Criminal Court could widen the gap between the European Union and the United States. I call on both the Council of Ministers under the Danish Presidency and the Commission to make every effort in order to keep relations with the US as smooth as possible in the interest of us both and the rest of the world.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, we are all familiar with the catalogue of problems affecting the Euro-Mediterranean region and their causes: they are basically the same as in 1995 when the Barcelona Process was launched. They have already been mentioned in the debate: from illegal immigration to droughts, from external debt to the failure to respect human rights, and terrorism, which ruthlessly destroys the lives of innocent human beings and families, as we are seeing in Spain, in Algeria and in the Middle East itself. Today more than ever we must make the statement that only cooperation, dialogue, economic and cultural exchanges, solidarity and mutual understanding can turn the two sides of the Mediterranean into a prosperous and peaceful area. Neither the European Union nor the Maghreb or Mashreq countries can afford not to take advantage of the human and cultural resources that enrich the region. The problem is that we are not doing that properly. The association agreements are dead letters in many respects. The financial instruments are not being used as they should and the political, economic and social development of those countries is not keeping up with the pace of horizontal cooperation, which is very necessary, nor with the modernity required today by a world which, technologically speaking, is taking giant steps forward. It is time to move from contemplation to action, to demand performance and effectiveness in the efforts to implement the strategy which has been drawn up and, in this respect, I would like to emphasise the demand for human resources to be strengthened, as indicated by Mr Galeote.

Political group: PPE-DE
In principle we agree with the rapporteur’s finding that drinking water should be a social resource, accessible to all, and not a commodity subject to speculation. We disagree, however, with proposals that recognise a positive role in water management for the private sector, be it in the form of mixed management by the public and private sectors or with the state defining a legal and institutional framework within which private agencies operate in the water sector. Our disagreement is based on the fact that, irrespective of intentions, legal and institutional frameworks and restrictive mechanisms, the private sector is being activated on the basis of the profit criterion, automatically converting a social resource into a commodity with all that implies, especially for poor nations. We would stress that, as with the food problem, the problem of drinking water is primarily political and secondarily technocratic. That is why radical social changes are needed in order to deal with it effectively. The failings of the various programmes applied within the framework of the current system, which in certain cases have exacerbated rather than mitigated the problem, confirm our reading and anticipate the impasses and the exacerbation of the problem which will be caused by the application of the terms and conditions being set by the International Monetary Fund for funding similar activities in developing countries.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Tisza and Danube Rivers are currently experiencing an environmental disaster on a huge scale. Living organisms in these rivers have been destroyed over many hundreds of kilometres and the drinking water for thousands of people is under threat. The environmental disaster itself is bad enough but, to make matters worse, companies, politicians and the media in Romania have sought to deny and prevent news about this incident getting out. When I read that assertions are being made to the effect that this is a conspiracy on the part of their Hungarian neighbours, I realise that now is the time for the European Parliament to make it clear to Romania in no uncertain terms that this is not the way we want to behave towards each other in Europe, or how we want to solve problems. That is not how it works! One has to consider the problems, establish the causes and do everything possible to prevent them from recurring. As I see it, two things have happened here: firstly an international company has been negligent. If this large vat of cyanide had only a flimsy protective covering then in no way does that accord with the environmental standards we have in Europe and other parts of the world. Secondly, there are major loopholes in the environmental protection legislation in a country that is in the process of applying to join the European Union. Three things need to be done: the European Union must deliver technical and financial aid with all haste, so as to combat this contamination. This episode has shown that not only do we need rapid reaction forces in the military sense, we also need them for civil disasters. Secondly, we also need to assist the Romanians in drafting new environmental legislation and standards. Thirdly, we need a liability system for environmental damage. This case demonstrates that environmental protection is part of the acquis communautaire and is one of the conditions of entry to our European Union. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Yesterday we heard Mr Verheugen and today the Council’s representative acknowledging, even in small measure, some of the problems related to respect for human rights in Turkey concerning which, indeed, they expressed their sorrow. Yet, both yesterday and today they underlined the supposed progress made by the Turkish regime in that area. And we heard the representative of the Council telling us the same thing today. The truth, however, is that contrary to what some people are claiming even in Greece, the Helsinki decisions on Turkey have emboldened the Turkish regime. It is no mere chance that on the next day Turkey’s leaders declared that Turkey has become a candidate for accession without attached conditions. It is not by chance that, while they have not complied with any of their commitments, they protest that they have not been given the appropriations provided for under customs union. They also told us that Turkey intends to take steps. But we have been hearing that in the Council of Europe for very many years, perhaps more than ten, without anything happening. If anything, things are worse. The campaigner for democracy and human rights who was shot was sent to prison again instead of his attackers being punished. My question, then, is: specifically when does the Turkish regime intend to progress with democratising that country’s constitution and criminal code, to set free the leaders of HADEP and the Members of Parliament as well as all the political prisoners? Will the Kurdish issue ever be resolved, will all the political parties be allowed freedom of formation and operation and finally, will Turkey ever withdraw its troops from Cyprus?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in my opinion, the 1998 discharge was a fascinating exercise in terms of both the budget of Parliament and that of the Commission. In April, the power of the plenary meeting became evident. Against the Committee on Budgetary Control’s judgement, we rejected the European Parliament’s discharge, and we formulated five requests for the Secretary-General of this Parliament. This illustrated that we can be just as firm with Parliament as we can with other institutions, notably the Commission. I should like to express my personal and heartfelt thanks to Secretary-General Priestley and his staff for the efficient and bold manner in which he met this request and has provided us with the information required. In my opinion, the 1998 discharge was a fascinating and at the same time useful exercise. And we can now grant this discharge with a clear conscience whilst taking into consideration the comments included in the Stauner, Kuhne and Rühle resolutions. But I am left with some concern, as if something bad could happen at any time. Indeed, the framework agreement between the European Commission and Parliament which is due to be voted on tomorrow is hanging over us like a sword of Damocles. I call on all MEPs, including the MEPs who are following this debate in their chambers, to study this framework agreement carefully and to examine how Parliament’s powers in respect of the grant of discharge are being whittled away. I would invite you to read Paragraph 17, which contravenes Article 276 of the Treaty of the European Union, and would also invite you to read Annex 3, which is clipping the wings of the individual MEPs and rapporteurs. I would call on you to fight the establishment of this Parliament, the establishment within your own groups and not to consent to this framework agreement tomorrow.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, let me begin by warmly congratulating and thanking the rapporteur and pointing out that, in her report, she does not just welcome the draft framework decision but also proposes a few changes, which have been referred to by various speakers but which we cannot discuss in detail now, to supplement and improve the text. It is crucially important to continue the success story of the euro and we must make every effort not to spoil this success story or put it at risk by taking inadequate measures to prevent counterfeiting – and we are well aware of the initial attempts that are being made. We have all noted that the conversion phase will bring uncertainty and risks with it. So, in addition to the efforts to combat counterfeiting, to ensure the sound implementation of the provisions, the planned information campaign will of course play a key role and here we still have serious work to do. We are also concerned with the question of cooperation. We need to define the precise responsibilities of the ECB, the national central banks, the Commission and Europol pertaining to all matters relating to counterfeiting of the euro. I also think we should perhaps consider setting up an interinstitutional or EU body in charge of coordinating the cooperation work. In the same context, we could establish an early warning system functioning round the clock, together with a common information system for the rapid exchange of data between the responsible authorities. Aside from the report, which we welcome, many questions have arisen that still need to be resolved. I hope the debate we are holding here will bring some clarification.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, what causes me to take the floor is simply Mr Cohn-Bendit’s observation that we must not serve national interests on this issue. As a Dane, I should like to say that that is something with which I completely agree. An investigation must, however, be carried out, then, into whether matters have in actual fact proceeded in this way or whether national interests have played a part. I do not, moreover, think that a report is sufficient. Anyone at all can come and say whatever they like. We must have a proper investigation. I do not, however, agree that what we have to defend here is the EU’s interests. It is our children’s and grandchildren’s interests. Are there to be fish in the sea for future generations too? It must be our task to ensure that there are. It is not the interests of the EU but those of future generations that we must serve.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I wish to begin by congratulating the rapporteur and all the parties involved in the proposal tabled. I think that a surprisingly sound piece of work has been done. It is an important report for the environment, but it also addresses a major and important consumer issue because detergents are important items of daily use. Consumers need to be given full and adequate information so that they can direct developments in the market by choosing environmentally friendly products. When it comes to phosphates, it is argued in Sweden, where we still have a number of detergents containing phosphates, that, firstly, we have sewage treatment works to deal with the phosphates and, secondly, that the alternatives are not entirely free from problems. I have accepted these arguments. In Amendments Nos 40-46, now being tabled by the Group of the , we take as our starting point the Scientific Committee’s statement that phosphates cause major problems and that the existing alternatives do not cause these problems. That being said, I believe it is time genuinely to ban phosphates if they are so dangerous and if they pollute the Mediterranean etc. Let us not wait for that to happen. I should therefore like us to vote in favour of these amendments so that the Commission can put forward a proposal concerning the matter.

Political group: Verts-ALE
We shall not discuss the medical arguments put forward in favour of restricting the use of antibiotics and other antimicrobial agents. However, the report mentions the need to save money on health care costs. Although this need could, generally, be justified, we nonetheless reject any argument for this. We know only too well that, when it comes to making savings on medical spending, it is always the health care of the working classes, and particularly the poorest sectors of society, that suffers. The result of these ‘careful recommendations’, which governments usually use as a pretext to take restrictive measures, does nothing to affect the excessive use of medicine by the rich, whilst the poor are deprived of even the most basic levels of care. We therefore abstained from voting on this report. Report Schmidt (A5-0324/2001):

Political group: GUE-NGL
I wish firstly to welcome Italy as the country holding the Presidency and to thank you very much for your answer. I am aware that the Italian Government, especially its minister, Mr Buttiglione, has a strong commitment to issues concerning religious freedom and tolerance around the world. I still want nonetheless to repeat my question as to how the Council views USCIRF’s report on Saudi Arabia and the Wahhabite Islamic-inspired violence and terrorism. What can the EU do under Italy’s leadership to strengthen the EU’s positions on this issue? I also wish to ask a follow-up question. Are you prepared to strengthen the EU’s efforts in this area? Could the EU prepare reports corresponding to the American annual reports on religious freedom?

Political group: PPE-DE