GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, I would like to make three remarks on this excellent report by my colleague. First, I hope the House will reject the amendments, tabled by some colleagues, to delete all the references to reproductive health rights. Not one speaker has explained what the objection is to the idea of people having sexual and reproductive health rights. We hear much in this House about rights –– shareholder rights –– and I fail to see how they can object to the concept of people having rights in relation to their reproductive health. Second, I hope the House will send a strong message to the United States that the Mexico City Policy is unacceptable and should be abandoned. It prevents real aid going to real people on the ground who need access to contraception, family planning and other health services. It is a damaging policy and I hope the European Parliament will convey that message. Finally, I very much support the amendments by Mrs Junker and Mr Bowis on the problem of vaginal fistula. Many of us visited the Addis Ababa Fistula Hospital in Ethiopia and met women who are affected by this very severe health problem, which has not been dealt with very often in Parliament. It is a serious problem and I hope the European Commission will look into how it can help to fund hospitals and outreach programmes for women affected by it. This is a problem which is totally preventable and by putting some money into it we could stop the unnecessary suffering of women. Since today is International Women's Day, this would be a good message to send, as this is a problem we can do something about.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as the first vice-president of the Parliamentary Delegation for Relations with Switzerland, Iceland and Norway over the last three years, I have been privileged to represent Parliament on several occasions at ministerial meetings on the Northern Dimension. I want to concentrate on process – that is what concerns me – and Parliament's right to contribute properly to the new action plan. I welcome the action plan and the effort that both the Swedish presidency and most recently, the Danish presidency, have put in to the Northern Dimension. Enlargement will represent a step change in the Northern Dimension. It will no longer be a matter of high foreign policy just about the relationship with Russia. It will be about many countries that will now be Member States and the neighbours will be different. It will involve matters that have to do with the EU's regional and environmental policy. That means that civil society and Members of this House and other elected representatives need to be properly and fully involved. At the first ministerial meeting I attended in Luxembourg, there was a commitment to have a Northern Dimension forum. It has yet to see the light of day. That ought to have happened a long time ago. I sense that there is some reluctance to fully involve this House in the Northern Dimension. I hope I am wrong. As this policy changes, I would like to see a much more regular system of annual reporting and involvement with this House, because the Northern Dimension concerns all our citizens. The environment and climate in the far north is important to European solidarity. I urge the Commissioner to involve this House fully.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, it is me again. International fisheries agreements with third countries have always been one of the key elements of Community fisheries policy. Half of our fisheries products, consumed fresh or used for processing, originate from waters outside the Community in which third countries exercise the right to exclusive use of resources. In economic terms, the European Union is an enormous market of more than 370 million inhabitants, an expanding market with a deficit in fisheries products. This situation determines the European Union's commercial policy in the field of fisheries. Given its volume, the Community market is the world’s main market for sea products. The Socialist Group therefore supports the conclusion of this agreement between the Community and Mozambique and congratulates the rapporteur, Mr Stevenson, who has produced a wonderful report. We have absolutely no doubt that this agreement will contribute to strengthening mutually beneficial relations with that Republic. It will not only contribute to the supply of the Community market but it will also mean - as Mr Piscarreta said – aid for the development of Mozambique’s fisheries sector, all within the framework of sustainable development. Ladies and gentlemen, we believe that strengthening commercial relations between the European Union and Mozambique, is not simply demagoguery, but might actually help to improve the lives of the Mozambican people. Surely it is good development aid policy for the so-called first world to buy from the developing countries their most valuable products, whether they are diamonds or prawns, and that the fruits of these sales should promote fundamental strategic sectors such as local agriculture. The Socialist Group therefore supports the amendments of the rapporteur, Mr Stevenson, and those of the Committee on Budgets. We agree with the wishes of the Committee on Development and Cooperation, although we regret that we cannot support its proposals, since they have not been presented in the form of amendments to the legislative text, as is always required in these cases. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
The Danish Social Democrats have today voted against the report on the convening of the Intergovernmental Conference. It is crucial for us that it should be possible for this Intergovernmental Conference to be concluded before the end of the year 2000 so that there are no remaining formalities, such as the weighting of votes in the Council of Ministers and the composition of the Commission and the European Parliament, which place obstacles in the way of the enlargement of the EU. We were therefore also very satisfied with the decisions which were taken on this issue at the Helsinki Summit in December. An unduly ambitious extension to the agenda at the present time would risk delaying the enlargement process. That is something we do not want to see, and we have therefore voted against any such extension. We nonetheless very much agree with our colleagues that there is a need for transparency in connection with the Intergovernmental Conference so that people are clear as to how the work is proceeding.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, first of all, I should like to congratulate the Commissioner on his new appointment. I hope that he shares our view that mobility in the Member States is more than necessary if we want to implement the Lisbon agenda. The Lambert report and Regulation 1408/71, on which the report is based, are, of course, important instruments in this respect. I am extremely anxious about the wariness displayed by Member States with regard to the implications in terms of their own tax and social security systems. Here, I think, it is worth giving them a push in the right direction in future. That does not necessarily mean that you need to get Parliament’s backing, but mainly that you do need it from the Member States. I should nevertheless like to thank the rapporteur and all those involved. Tomorrow, my group will be voting in favour of the Lambert report. I have to say that I have a great deal of admiration for Mrs Lambert. This regulation contains some valid points. The definition of frontier workers has been adopted; there are improvements in the field of pensions and also the families of frontier workers have not been overlooked. However, that is not all. For example, my country, the Netherlands, has yet again asked for an opt-out in certain sections, one being the medical treatment of frontier workers’ families. We have provided for this in the regulation, but the Netherlands has still asked for an opt-out. I see that as being unacceptable. I think that you should always be the first one to tell your country that it is acting unwisely. That, of course, also applies to other countries that are extremely anxious that, upon the EU’s imminent enlargement, a heavy burden will be placed on their social security. Madam President, Commissioner, I hope that we can, together, realise the ideal of mobility among Member States being promoted, and that first-generation frontier workers will be compensated accordingly and do not always have to fight for their rights. I gather that the President considers I have exceeded my speaking time, but I should very much like to have a good long talk with the new Commissioner about how we could bring this subject into the open more effectively. In my view, this needs a permanent monitoring committee.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I am not about to start arguing the toss with Mr Swoboda over where the Balkans begin. In fact, it was once said that the Balkans begin at the Rennweg in Vienna. But leaving that aside, the fact remains that this Stability Pact is of course adversely affected by the heterogeneity of its States. We have first and second wave candidate countries. We have countries such as Croatia and Macedonia that are about to overtake candidate countries. We have States such as Bosnia-Herzegovina and Albania in which the State is scarcely functioning, and then the two decisive challenges, namely Yugoslavia, or Serbia, where it is a question of doing everything we can to foster democratisation and develop a long-term strategy for the Europeanisation of Serbia. Secondly, Kosovo, where we will never achieve success unless elected political structures come into being there, along with a long-term vision of what is to happen to this region, which will never again be a Serbian province. We cannot afford to hang about over this issue any longer; otherwise all we will be doing is tinkering about at the edges, as it were. But that is not the only factor adversely affecting the Stability Pact, it is also suffering from a lack of credibility on the part of the international organisations and also the European Union, which owing to a confusion of competences, wastage, and mismanagement, are displaying traits that would be dismissed as being typical of the Balkans, were it not for the fact that this is happening in our own organisations. We are losing a great deal in the way of credit and respect in this region, and this respect and credibility are fundamentally even more important than the promises of funding that are made and then not kept. I truly believe we must put this situation in order in the European Union, primarily by strengthening the Commission’s role in the matter. Commissioner, I have a great deal of faith in your work, but I must say that we as a Parliament must also ensure that you are able to give this work more in-depth attention than you have been able to hitherto. What we need here is cooperation between our two institutions, so as to strengthen the EU and its credibility.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I would simply like to stress the value of the attitude that the leader of our group, Francis Wurtz, reminded us of just now. I welcome the statements by the Presidency of the Council and the position of the 14 countries which have rejected official contact with an Austrian Government that includes Jörg Haider’s party. The fact that we are stressing this is all the more important because, as you know, we essentially disagree with the policies made by Europe, with its economic and social policies, its democratic deficit and the Member States’ involvement in the terrible war in the Balkans. Our normal disagreement further emphasises our appreciation today: this is extraordinary because the danger of a resurgence of an irrational, neo-nazi element in Europe is extraordinary. This danger does not concern Austria, it concerns Europe. We are talking about us, not Austria. We know the social causes which contribute, along with unemployment and instability, to fuelling tendencies towards this; we know the accompanying cultural causes – xenophobia, racism – but with the inability and unwillingness of these extreme right-wing groups to settle accounts with nazism, we cannot fail to point out the possibility of an explosive mixture being created in Europe. Not only the Alpine region, but all our countries are involved: the conditions are being created whereby democracy and European civilisation may once again come under threat. The position taken by the presidency has shown that it is aware of this tragedy for civilisation. Europe is showing that it has not forgotten Auschwitz; Europe is coming face to face with the suffering of the past. Now, though, it should follow through with its actions, and the first to follow through should be the Commission, which, however, has been obscure and weak on this, making the value of the presidency’s position even more apparent. This is the change we must impose on the Commission’s action.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner Lamy, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to express the firm support of the Group of the European People’s Party for Mrs Mann’s report on regional free trade areas and trade strategy in the European Union. Let me add a few observations. By means of this report, we are setting out the principles by which we trade and cooperate commercially with the world’s regions. Of course, it also gives direction and a specific character to the many possibilities open to us there, which we also have at regional level. Our group works on the fundamental assumption that we are thereby able to build up free and fair global trade, and that those countries that have not so far had sufficient opportunity to engage in trade, have the chance, through the establishment of their own free trade areas, to share in this development. I see this – not only in view of what Commissioner Lamy said – as an important guide to the timeframe within which, in the aftermath of Doha, a renaissance of regional trade agreements around the world may perhaps come about. I get the impression the cooperation with certain countries – such as Singapore – can also be the key to regional free trade agreements with regions that are themselves not yet in a position, or not sufficiently advanced, to take partnership further. That is why we should be using the idea of cooperation with Singapore as the prelude to greater cooperation with ASEAN. The specific characteristics of the region present us with a broad spectrum of diverse possibilities, which must of course remain subject to the World Trade Organisation. The development of, for example, the West African market also requires, not only that we open our own market, but that West Africa should be put in a position to do better business with Central Africa and Southern Africa, as Mrs Mann pointed out in her report on South-South trade.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner Patten, ladies and gentlemen, thanks to the excellent work of our rapporteur, Catherine Lalumière, we are now able to present Parliament’s position in the run-up to the European Council in Feira. She has succeeded in describing a really accurate and balanced position with which a large majority of the political forces here in Parliament can identify. Thank you, Catherine Lalumière. The war in and about Kosovo has made Europeans realise three important things. First, that we need to give ourselves conflict prevention capabilities. So far, we have had neither the political mechanisms nor the instruments to prevent or settle conflicts. If we want to avoid war, we need to give ourselves this capability. I am delighted that you, Commissioner Patten, take this same view and look forward to hearing your proposals, the Commission’s proposals. Secondly, we have learned that we are unable to intervene independently on our own continent and in our own neighbourhood, even in the case of very limited military action. Thirdly: we have learned that we need to be independent from our American friends if we want to control the means to be deployed in a military conflict. In other words: if we are dependent on others when it comes to reconnaissance, transport, attacking capacity and other such aspects, then we are fighting their war, not ours. These realisations have resulted in the European Union’s at long last tackling and stepping up its efforts to define, organise and restructure a common security and defence policy. Today’s debate is the European Parliament’s contribution to these efforts on the part of the European Union as a whole.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, in a few days we shall have the summit in Thessaloniki, a city – as everyone is talking about history and civilisation – which was the second biggest city in the Roman Empire, the second biggest city in the Byzantine Empire, and which has always been the reference point of the Balkans. Again for historical and cultural reasons, we should remember that it did not simply host the large Sephardic Jewish community, but that it hosted it because it was expelled by the Spanish inquisition. Just as the Balkans hosted hundreds of thousands of gypsies, again expelled by the Inquisition. So much for those who want to keep talking about the cultural burden of Europe. Every Presidency is characterised by certain important elements. The Thessaloniki Presidency has two characteristics: first, it closes the cycle of the presidencies of the 15 and opens the cycle of the presidencies of the 25. Secondly, precisely for this reason, it is characterised by the results of the Convention on the Future of Europe which is under way. In this sense, therefore, it has two very important elements which it must promote, in order to open prospects for the future. The war in Iraq made us all, possibly to our slight surprise, discover a great many lacunae in connection with the development of Europe. It may also have had positive results, because it ultimately showed everyone, even if they do not say so now, that Europe cannot remain an economic giant but a political dwarf. The President of the Commission is absolutely right. That brings us to the Thessaloniki Summit. However, I should like to add two things, despite the fact that my speech appears to be going off at a tangent, to the second leg in Thessaloniki, the stability pact. The stability pact concerns the crisis in the western Balkans, in former Yugoslavia. It is an issue on which the efficiency and essence of European policy is being judged. In this sense, it is a telling issue and we cannot deal with it as a secondary issue, because, whether we like it or not, we consider the future of Europe and the Convention to be a primary issue. To come back to the subject of the future of Europe, it is obvious that the peoples are demanding democracy, efficiency and transparency. Democracy means parliamentary control. Efficiency means the ability to control what you are applying and transparency means that every citizen can see where his money is going and if the political objectives are being served. In this sense, the Community method and its variations must be reinforced. I believe that the Greek Presidency, by combining the dialectic of Socrates and Plato, which a number of speakers referred to, with the highly efficient Aristotle, will provide positive prospects and that a six month presidency of exemplary and exceptional efficiency by a country of medium size but with most able political cadres will be ratified.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, the Erika 2 package, like the Erika 1 package before it, is part of the attempt to establish reliable safety measures and protect the marine environment, the importance of both of which is recognised by one and all. That goes without saying. The package of measures which we are being called on to adopt today does, I think, strike the right balance and demonstrates yet again that we can only protect and improve European shipping standards by improving safety at sea and protecting both human life and the marine environment and I should like to congratulate Mr Sterckx on his tireless work over a long period of time to achieve the result which we have before us today. The Commission's initial proposal contained positive arrangements to improve safety at sea and reduce the danger of pollution from accidents. Ships are required to use a transponder and voyage data recorders or so-called black boxes. This has since been dealt with in the Watts report, which requires ships to comply with maritime traffic systems, improvements to be made to ship-locating systems and so on. In turn, Parliament approved 29 amendments at first reading which, I think, improved the Commission proposal and most of which, I should point out, were subsequently adopted by the Council, which took a constructive stance. However, a number of questions have yet to be settled and I therefore think we are right – and this is the point of the nine amendments approved in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism – to insist on keeping to a specific approach to point the way both to the Commission and to the Council. I should like to comment very briefly on three of these amendments. Amendment No 1 basically clarifies that a Member State may, in exceptionally poor conditions, stop a ship from entering port or even from leaving port, because ships in port sometimes represent more of a threat to safety and of pollution of the port itself. I think our Committee, the Committee on Transport, is right to assert that the decision as to whether or not the ship sails should be taken at the discretion of the captain, who must of course explain the reasons for his decision. We have tried in Amendment No 2 to take a more realistic approach to the cost of pollution or damage which the accommodating port may sustain; obviously ports will be more willing to accommodate ships in distress if they know that they will receive fair and immediate compensation for cleaning-up costs. Finally, Amendment No 3 basically endeavours to ensure that resources are immediately available so that the Member States can make the necessary arrangements to provide means and facilities in ports of refuge for assistance to ships, salvage and pollution response. And Mr Sterckx's proposed 18-month deadline is essential if these proposals are to become law in all the Member States of the European Union, rather than just a ‘to-do’ list.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, our sympathy and our solidarity go out to those people and regions stricken by the disaster, but good intentions are not enough, there must be compensation for the damage and losses covering both the restoration of the environment and the shellfish farms and fishing equipment. We are pleased to hear the Commissioner announce the urgent need to act and to offer compensation, and for this to be backdated. We also deplore the excessively lax application of vessel inspection, and we are in favour of creating a European coast guard authority, and also, in particular, of introducing more binding regulations and making double hulls mandatory. We further deplore the system of flags of convenience with regard to both merchant vessels and fishing boats. Finally, we were shocked to learn that the cargo was extremely carcinogenic, with a polyaromatic hydrocarbon content of more than 1 000 parts per million. This means that the 15 000 tonnes of cargo released into the sea include 15 tonnes of highly toxic products. This is not acceptable. We only found out too late and, as a result, medical inspection must be provided, paying special attention to the volunteers who dedicated themselves to restoring the environment. Finally, we think it absolutely essential to pay particular attention to preventing such risks, as well as to scientific research work in order to avoid and eliminate damage. A great many proposals have been made which warrant investigation. Solutions cannot be found at the last minute, when the disaster is already in progress. Consequently, the bulk of the action must be taken beforehand.

Political group: Verts-ALE