GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, it is a particular pleasure to be called to speak immediately following Mr Rothley, who has done so very much during the whole of this Parliament to bring the matter to the conclusion that we seem now to be at the point of reaching. He has paid compliments to other colleagues, so let me pay a very warm compliment to him. It has been a great pleasure to work with him on this matter. It is something to be welcomed by us all that, provided the Council keeps its eye on the ball, we shall have a proper Members' Statute before the next elections. It is absolutely critical to these elections. I shall not be a candidate myself, so I speak without a personal interest in the matter. Indeed, I will be 63 when I retire, but not on this pension scheme. (Laughter) It is essential to have a proper expenses regime and to have a common salary. I have been rapporteur several times on privileges and immunities under the existing protocol. It must be said that it is an extremely labyrinthine and arcane system and not a satisfactory basis for the privileges and immunities of a House of this kind. Therefore, although this matter is not going to be brought home at this stage, I would echo the proposition that we must work hard in the near future to get the whole issue of privileges and immunities put on a proper footing as well. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I welcome this report as a very important first step in what is going to be a very important debate. The rapporteur has worked very hard to bring us together on this issue and I would commend the work he has done to the House. He really has tried very hard to get us to the situation where this House will give a great deal of support to his ideas tomorrow. We all know that there is widespread concern about PVC within our society. We have, however, to bear in mind that it is a cheap plastic made from salt and natural gas. Where there have been problems they have been where it has been pressed into service for uses for where it is not best suited, e.g. packaging or children's toys. Where it is best used, where its natural properties are best used and need not be modified, e.g. in construction products and in specialist products like blood bags, it is an extremely useful, very important plastic and very difficult to replace. We do, however, have a problem in terms of its disposal where harm to the environment can be caused by inappropriate disposal and we need to take sensible action with regard to that. Much of the Sacconi report I entirely endorse. I support the phase out of dangerous and unnecessary additives. I believe the voluntary recycling commitments must be reinforced and turned into legally binding agreements. But I believe that the proper route for disposal is incineration in a high temperature incinerator. Suggestions that it should go into a landfill are a serious mistake and a very bad error and I am very glad that Ms McKenna, speaking on behalf of the Green Group earlier tonight, agreed with me about that. This is the beginning of a very long debate before we reach the stage of legislation. It must be a wide-ranging and broad-based debate. It must reach conclusions that are satisfactory to the public, because of the concerns they have expressed, but also to the industrial needs of society. I welcome Mr Sacconi's report as the first step in the right direction.

Political group: PSE
Further to the comments of my colleague, Mr MacCormick, I too was very concerned. That is why I tabled the question. The Amnesty International Report, Stopping the Torture Trade (2001), found that electric-shock devices have been used to torture or ill-treat people in prisons, detention centres and police stations in no less than 76 countries around the world. The report also found that stun-gun weapon manufacturers are advertising these products with the 'awarded' CE standard. As Mr MacCormick has said, the CE mark was meant to be a sign of quality and safety, but in a torture weapon it is pretty perverse and sickening. I welcome the Commissioner's proposal and would welcome further clarification of the timetable. To push things a little bit forward: you have explained how the CE mark is awarded, but how are the recipients of the awards monitored and have any CE marks been withdrawn, to your knowledge?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a year has gone by since the war in Kosovo, and intensive reconstruction work has begun. An enormous amount of valuable property has been destroyed. To avoid similar disasters in the future, we are now taking new steps to establish a common European defence and security policy. We are doing this in order to join together in creating tools to safeguard the lynchpin of security, namely freedom and peace in Europe. I am extremely pleased that this process is going on. Within the framework of the EU’s mandate, this joint commitment is now being carried out and intensified. I think it is important that the EU should concentrate on what it is good at, namely engaging in trade, developing contacts and taking measures to prevent conflicts. It is also important, however, to create credibility through ‘more muscle’ and increased ability to intervene in time. If (as it wishes, and is endeavouring, to be) the EU is to be taken seriously in the world, it must also demonstrably be able to take more responsibility in its own area. It is therefore important that we should create structures which cooperate with NATO, for it is there that the competence, capacity, leadership ability and credibility are to be found. The EU has a complementary role, and that is why Mrs Lalumière’s report is so commendable. This concept is based upon individual Member States’ fulfilling the commitments they have made. Our main role in the European Parliament is therefore to exercise supervision. I have previously discussed the shrinking defence budgets of the Member States. These defence budgets are shrinking at the same time as we require investment in restructuring and new hardware. Since we last discussed this subject, Germany’s supreme commander has resigned in protest, which is as good a sign as any. If our heads of State and government are to have any credibility in the year 2003, they should not only talk in Feira, but must also then return home and review the responsibilities of each country and the commitments they have undertaken to fulfil.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I would firstly like to highlight that the amendments presented by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms have been accepted by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and, in particular, the demand in Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights for good administration and access to the texts of the institutions (this corresponds to Amendment No 1 of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms). The promotion of free computer programs is an option increasingly used by public administrations and which democratises access to and the use of public documents and data. In fact, if we make the documents available in a format not linked to the use of specific computer programs involving payment, we reduce the discrimination relating to the wealth of the users. It is important to promote the use of the information by people with diminished sensory capacity, for example through a textual description of the graphs and pictures contained in the documents. Furthermore, the advertising of all generally accessible documents, including those relating to judicial and administrative procedures, must reach the public sector. This is a fundamental instrument for the development of the right of citizens to knowledge and a fundamental principle of democracy. This objective is applicable to institutions at all levels, local, national and international, and furthermore it is necessary for the public administrations, whatever their institutional level, to promote and support the reuse of the information provided. I would end by stressing that we naturally believe that all these principles should also apply to the European institutions.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I salute the rapporteur for his efforts. Whenever the Union's relations with the People's Republic of China are assessed, economic interests are always to the fore. This is certainly understandable; after all, a market of around 1.3 billion people promises absolutely inexhaustible profits for those companies and banks active in it. China's accession to the WTO will further improve the terms for capital recovery. It will also intensify competition between Pacific economic powerhouses like Japan, Taiwan and the United States on the one hand and the EU and its Member States on the other. Everyone wants as large a slice as possible of this huge cake. This is accompanied by constant reproaches from the political side that China should have more respect for human rights. These overlook or underestimate the fact that China is trying to complement the economic reforms, which have been underway for years, with federal democratic structures, social security systems and economic regulatory mechanisms. In acceding to the WTO, China is continuing this process. Nevertheless, nobody should be under the illusion that this separation of the State and the economy will solve China's immense social problems. The much lauded market of global capitalism is – whether you like it or not – amoral and not a suitable vehicle for translating basic values such as social justice and solidarity into action. It is and remains the state which is called upon here. There is no other government in the world that bears responsibility for 1.3 billion people. Seeking to establish a multilateral dialogue with China is all well and good, but in so doing nobody should put China under pressure or only have their own interests in mind. Anyone who does put pressure on China should keep a sense of proportion, carry out a realistic assessment of their own potential to meet the same demands and have a clear idea in advance of the effects that it might have. A dialogue is only meaningful and successful if a consensus is sought in the interests of all parties. This also applies to the death penalty. It is right to call for it to be abolished, but we should be just as consistent in calling for it to be abolished in the USA. Relations with China are more than ever before of strategic political significance. Uni-dimensional development, as is currently happening on China's doorstep as a result of the USA's strategic intentions, would not be very beneficial. Instability would be the result. As the EU enlarges, indeed precisely as it undergoes this process of enlargement, it is called upon to oppose any unilateral attempts to accumulate power, and to maintain and – if necessary – establish and consolidate stability by cultivating a balanced relationship with China.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to support the fine rhetoric of my fellow Member Mr Lagendijk. I would prefer Ms Leyla Zana to be at liberty in a country that is negotiating with the European Union. That is actually the only option which I find acceptable. It is in fact very rare for someone to have spent so long in prison and to have held the Sakharov prize for almost as long. The situation is quite extraordinary. It is also very unusual for the European Union to have continued proceeding on a 'business as usual' basis for so long. This cannot continue. We must make more of a nuisance of ourselves, exert more pressure so that this pressure can in turn be exerted on the opposing forces in Turkey. The old state philosophy, the old type of Kemalism, still holds considerable sway as can be seen in this trial. Those in charge are themselves supporters of this old philosophy and of course time and again come to the same conclusion. I agree with other Members who have already taken the floor and made the point that the unusual feature here is that the Government, as we must recognise, is doing its best and has adopted some dramatic legal reforms. The Government was behind the change allowing trials to be reopened, in particular. It also introduced the option to free someone from prison, but this is not used: the legislation is either not used at all or not used properly. I believe that we must persuade our own governments of this. It is not just a question of isolated symptoms, like the serious case of Leyla Zana and her associates. It is a consequence of a more profound question which we must discuss with Turkey. I would also add that in my opinion it is essential to build up contacts between European judges and public prosecutors and their Turkish counterparts in order to change attitudes, as the wrong attitude can take us down the wrong track time after time, falling into the trap of nationalistic hatred against minorities caused by the fear that they could undermine the integrity of the State. For these reasons I think that we must press for the existing opportunities to be used to free Ms Leyla Zana and others imprisoned for similar so-called offences in anticipation of reform of the entire legal process.

Political group: PPE-DE
The majority of British ports are well run and prosper because private operators have taken over from cash-strapped local authorities and are running the ports as successful businesses. The proposed European Commission directive to increase competition in port services in the EU threatens to reverse this. It would leave British ports vulnerable to takeovers similar to the takeover of various electricity firms by Electricité de France. It would impose unnecessary bureaucracy on an already highly competitive and successful UK ports market. It would threaten the independent, commercially based and subsidy free nature of British ports. I would like to see private operators exempted from the scope of this directive.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Europe is not only an economic union, it is also a union of standards and values. According to my group, the protection of human rights inside and outside Europe forms an integral part of this. Homosexual rights are human rights. We in Europe must, therefore, take a firm stand against any development, wherever in the world, which encourages slander against, or the exclusion or persecution of people, on the basis of sexual orientation. I am for that reason proud that my group is one of the initiators of this resolution which is directed against Namibia this time, and which clearly states that the developments in that country are unacceptable in our eyes.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would first of all like to congratulate Mr Wuori and Mr Cornillet on their reports and the excellent work they have done. However, I regret that Mr Wuori’s report does not refer to the situation of one of the most violated fundamental rights and the most forgotten: the right to education, to receiving essential basic training as a means for escaping the underdevelopment and poverty which so many children and adults are condemned to living in because they are not guaranteed this fundamental right. In fact, according to Unicef data, 130 million children have never been to school and a further 150 million have started primary education but have left it before becoming fully literate. In sub-Saharan Africa, furthermore, the figure for children not attending school is increasing, rather than decreasing. This is in spite of the objectives set by the World Conference on Education for All at Jomtien, in 1990, or at the World Education Forum which took place in Dakar in 2000. Given this situation, we cannot close our eyes, nor ignore the lack of political will of the European Union and its Member States when it comes to translating the rhetoric of great declarations into budgetary contributions. If we say we are going to defend human rights, we must also defend the right to education at all costs. With the same vigour with which we defend the right to life or the right to non-discrimination or the right to freedom of expression. Let us not forget that human rights are indivisible, inalienable and universal.

Political group: PPE-DE
Nobody now denies that road transport has fallen into the brutal clutches of free trade, to the detriment of employees’ working conditions, road safety and the environment. In this context, I have supported all the amendments that aim to make social and fiscal dumping illegal. For example, I voted in favour of measures strengthening monitoring accompanied by sanctions, whether on the road or on company premises, and in favour of all improvements to drivers’ working conditions. In this field, as in others, I am in favour of striving for social and environmental excellence. That said, I am still sceptical as to whether the European Union truly wants to legislate in this fundamentally important field for the capitalist economy and, above all, to impose proper checks and sanctions on all offenders. Without real involvement from the Member States, and without additional human and material resources, which includes enlarging the labour inspectorate, I fear that these provisions will once again go unheeded. I have nevertheless voted in favour of this report, but I am counting particularly on the Europe-wide mobilisation of employees and of their unions to really shift the balance of power.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, if our goal is to establish a federation of States and the constituent process is to involve the Treaties, the Laeken Declaration establishing a Convention that is to propose institutional reform to the Intergovernmental Conference before the European elections and before enlargement, is a success for Parliament and the Belgian Presidency. However, the European Parliament must ensure this success does not become an illusion. This democratic challenge must be supported by a great debate open to all the citizens of the Union. As I see it, the future of Europe is in the hands, in particular, of the great political families which created the European Community and believe in integration, in the European social model, in European democracy and in European reunification. However, on certain points of the Laeken agenda, the Community process was slowed down by a cross-fire of vetoes. This is the weapon of the sceptics and populists. I refer to the deferral of the financing of Galileo, which President Prodi also mentioned, and to the failure to reach agreement on the locations of the European agencies or on the Community patent. In any case, as has just been said, these shadows reinforce the need for the Community method and majority decisions; I refer also to the security and defence policy, in which progress has been made, and to foreign policy, which is still poorly defined. Europe is standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States in the fight against terrorism, but it is also concentrating on combating the poverty which divides the world, while the situation in the Middle East has reached tragic dimensions. What should we do? Is there no way forward? I support Mr Verhofstadt’s call for a Europe whose actions are consistent with the values of freedom and solidarity, which it enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights in order to make globalisation more humane.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, there is no doubt that we need this legislation: we are absolutely drowning in a sea of milk cartons, hair sprays, coke cans, pizza boxes, bottles of wine and shampoo. They are evident in every town, city and street we go into across the Union, in particular the UK. Landfills are reaching capacity, incinerators are overflowing and the wads of excessive packaging we use should go. This legislation, if it signals the end of just one elaborate box, fancy bottle or something wrapped in plastic and sold in a heavyweight bag, will have done its job. However, I would call on everyone here to recognise the importance of allowing time for change. Ministers are calling for a 2008 date for the UK and some of the other states. I would ask you to support that. Culture change takes time. The UK is meeting its existing recycling targets, but it is simply not possible to meet and implement this legislation by 2007 without an expensive, crash-spending programme. The figures do not look very significant, but they represent millions of tonnes of material which must be collected, recycled and new markets found. A realistic timetable for implementation is five years. Any attempt to compress this time will result in spiralling costs – if not quite as much as Mrs Jackson says. Nevertheless, we need time and we will do the job.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to congratulate Commissioner Diamantopoulou on this important proposal for a decision and also Mr Cashman and Mr Mann, who have enriched and broadened the scope of action for combating discrimination. Today, we voted with a large majority for the reports on enlarging the Union to include the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, Cyprus and Malta. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to emphasise just how important it is that we support the attempts made by these countries to combat discrimination and to accept the multi-cultural nature of modern societies as a necessary condition for peaceful coexistence between peoples. The applicant countries must be given every assistance in meeting the Copenhagen criteria and in integrating as full and equal members into the European Union. Special attention must be paid to the countries of the Balkans and to Turkey. More resources must be made available to them in order to bolster their attempts to strengthen their democratic institutions and to eliminate discrimination, especially discrimination that is rooted in race or ethnic origin, or religious conviction, which has caused so much pain and bloodshed recently and taken so many human lives in the Balkans. I just wonder how much in fact we have learned and how wiser we have become as a result of the events in the Balkans, which were primarily caused by religious fanaticism. That is why I believe we urgently need to give the Balkan countries adequate resources and to promote measures to prevent and combat discrimination at its source. This can be done through the education system, the mass media and also by giving much more power to NGOs.

Political group: PSE
You claim to be fighting financial crime and dirty money and yet even your report recognises the absence of any political will on the part of the Member States. The reasons are not technical, they are political – social even – in an economy whose sole purpose is to generate maximum profits. So where, in your economy, is the dividing line between dirty money and allegedly clean money? Are the profits from the arms trade clean money? Are the huge sums spent bribing officials in order to land public procurement contracts clean money? Are the profits amassed by western companies by making children under ten work in poor countries for a pittance clean money? In order to eradicate financial crime, we need to start by abolishing banking secrecy and business secrecy and grant any civil group the right to inspect the accounts of companies and their owners and shareholders. You, however, do not even seem able to contemplate measures such as this. You prefer to remain ineffectual against traffickers and the mafia rather than making people realise that there are plenty of other ways of making money which are criminal from a humane point of view, from the point of view of the general good, starting with companies that throw employees on to the street, condemning them to a life of poverty, in order to increase their share price and their shareholders’ wealth.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The way Question Time is run is not acceptable. Firstly, it does not start on time. We had group meetings; I was watching the screen and you jumped from Question 41 to 49. That makes it impossible for Members to be here. In addition, Question Time did not start at the time stated on the agenda. How are we meant to function in this way? It makes it virtually impossible for us and is not a fair procedure.

Political group: Verts-ALE