GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, my group very much supports the report by Mr Kirkhope. It is very important in that it has not changed the spirit of the Dutch proposal, and we will be voting in favour of it. The creation of networks or contact points in each Member State for war crimes is extremely important. It is important that there is contact with the police and judicial authorities in order to facilitate cooperation in the Member States in relation to war crimes. This is exemplified by current developments in international law, and in particular the success of the UN tribunals on the former Yugoslavia and on Rwanda in tracking down and prosecuting persons who have committed war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. This action is attracting more public interest and support than ever before. There are cases where people who have committed crimes against humanity have more or less escaped unpunished – for example the Pinochet case – and there are other cases where a blind eye is turned to war crimes and to major international human rights abuses until the occasion arises when it is politically correct to challenge them. We have to challenge these abuses from the very beginning. It is important that this report is not aimed at establishing a central coordination department. The initiative basically leaves implementation up to the Member States, which must then supply information about the places that have been set up. The initiative also highlights one of the important problems, data protection, which can develop with the transfer of data and information. We also must never forget that data protection is an extremely important issue and it must not be left out of any of these debates.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Schmitt's excellent draft report puts us on the right track, but we are still not quite at our destination. There must be safer air travel, at least within the EU, and its safety must know no frontiers. That is our objective. One of the key elements in achieving this objective is an Aviation Safety Agency that is capable of guaranteeing a uniform and high level of safety in the air on its own responsibility and with good organisation. Well-organised, sole responsibility is the key word. Parliament must continue to insist, whatever the Commission's supervisory responsibilities might be, that they remain of a supervisory nature and that the Commission and others do not make themselves out to be co-designers of all the details. It is not only in the well-known proverb, but also in this present instance, that too many cooks spoil the broth. We MEPs must therefore continue to insist, and do so over and over again, on the agencies being as independent as possible, and, for example, on the Agency's Executive Director having an important role internally and not just externally. So we want other directors of the Agency to be appointed on the proposal of the Executive Director and hence on his responsibility. There is something else that we want and need – legislation in force as soon as possible, so that the agency can take up its role in the service of greater safety in the skies of Europe with the minimum of delay. We therefore hope that we will quickly agree on a common document with the Commission, but above all with the Council as well. In its amendments, then, Parliament has been quite deliberately restrained where we believed that this common ground might be endangered, and we hope that the others will now join in too in search of this unity. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, at the European Council in Lisbon the desire was expressed to harmonise and standardise the capitalist format for all Member States of the EU. The Lisbon method was the opening up of markets and only one way to act was proposed. It is the coordination of economic and social policy by placing special emphasis on the role of the private sector. We might agree with the rapporteur that only an inadequate analysis of whether the same method suits all has been carried out. Different countries have different public services and operate on different principles regarding social welfare. In the Nordic welfare states public services are understood broadly to include pensions, healthcare, schools and childcare. The Catholic countries, with their traditions of care within the family, should not come and tell us in the Nordic countries that our taxes are too high. The privatisation method expounded at Lisbon is not going to provide better services in our part of the world. EU declarations do not create socially secure life. For that reason in the eyes of the rightist hegemony the free Member States might lack the desire – and, in fact, it is only right that they do – to act on declarations that would pulverise people’s basic social security.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to give the following explanation of the vote that I cast in the debate concerning additionality. I would like particularly to underline the point in the motion that Parliament fully endorses the Commission’s statement that the spirit of additionality, as well as the letter of the law, represents a key consideration and is vital to ensuring that programmes have a maximum impact on the ground. In that light it is absolutely unacceptable that the current policy allows Member States, after submission of region-based plans, to reallocate funds internally yet still formally comply with the additionality principle while defying its spirit. This matter urgently calls for review by the Commission. Since the debate – yesterday in fact – I have received a very courteous and helpful letter from Mr Barnier indicating that the Commission is moving our way on this. I am very glad about that. I should like to congratulate my colleague, Mrs Evans, for setting up this marvellous debate and getting this superb result today.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Gill, Mr Mulder, this year is another in which our committee has concentrated its attention on the central issues of security on the external borders and complete freedom of movement, which are of great importance in terms of the finance allocated to the Budget areas within our committee's remit. It is unfortunate that, this year again, I have to observe that we have still not progressed much further as regards the complete realisation of internal freedom of movement. It is for that reason that we urgently need the requisite funds to secure our borders and defend ourselves against the trafficking of human beings. We continue to need unambiguous common rules for legal immigration. The reinforcement of Europol and Eurojust, along with the fight against terrorism, continue to be among the European Union's most urgent tasks. Our objective remains what it always has been – the creation of a common judicial area, by which means alone we will succeed in winning the public over to enlargement and convincing them of its advantages. It is with specific reference to enlargement that I want to draw attention today to the increasing cost of internal security in the European Union of the future. The EU will have to spend a good deal more money on both Eurodac and Eurojust if we want, for example, to achieve an equally high standard of protection on the new borders when the EU has enlarged to include twenty-five states. Schengen, too, will, in future, result in further increases of expenditure for the EU, which will, as I have said, have a total of 25 Member States. What all this means is that the internal policy budget will have to be topped up if the European Union is to do justice to its objectives and tasks, and if the area of freedom, security and justice is not to have a merely theoretical existence. It is for this reason that I appeal to my fellow Members to support the amendment we have tabled today on the guidelines for the 2004 Budget procedure and the amendments that will be brought in during the forthcoming debates on the Budget.

Political group: PSE
To reply to what you said to me, the regulations are already in place. European Parliament rules have been drawn up, and we are not abiding by them.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President-in-Office, the priorities you have proposed here today deserve a general welcome and just a couple of comments that I shall make. Your varied and complex programme indicates that there is now a programmatic acquis for Europe, a common heritage of ideas and objectives that will increasingly make the Union a necessary institution for Europe and the whole world. First of all, this programmatic acquis requires that we should have the rules and institutions that will enable us to achieve our common objectives and, even before that, it requires that trust should be restored in the grand design for the integration of Europe. In recent months we have seen too many signs of a selfish attitude towards the European adventure, reducing the Union to a self-service institution in which each country periodically reassesses its membership on the basis of its own short-term goals. The breach of the Stability and Growth Pact by France and Germany, which ECOFIN permitted on 25 November, or the vetoes from all sides that prevented the European constitution from being adopted are just the most blatant examples of a kind of Euro-selfishness that must be firmly stamped upon straight away, before everything becomes more difficult in the Europe of 25. Mr President-in-Office, please make every effort for the Intergovernmental Conference to conclude its work by approving the Constitution during this Presidency. I am sure I can say that Parliament is with you in wanting to achieve this Constitution, based to a great extent on the work of the Convention, as soon as possible. It is an event that all sincere pro-Europeans are waiting for. It is with the primary purpose of giving new impetus to the grand design for Europe that I should like to raise two points about your programme of work. The first is the scant attention paid to cohesion policies, and the second is the urgent need to develop true physical integration for Europe, promoting mobility everywhere within its area through the implementation of the European transport network. The cohesion of the whole of Europe and the involvement of all the regions in the sustainable European process are an expression of that solidarity which I believe is fundamental if European citizens are to identify with the process that we are carrying forward. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
I welcome this report, which calls for action to guard against industrial accidents in urban areas. Tragic events, such as those which occurred in Toulouse, France, and in the Netherlands, are sorry evidence that present legislation is not working effectively to protect European citizens. Only when the EU attains a harmonised assessment of the dangers presented by dangerous substances can we be sure that everything is being done to guard against potential disasters. Finally, I welcome the call to introduce punitive measures against owners who fail to comply with existing and future legislation. Moreover, since sub-contractors account for a large part of this industry, it is vital that such measures go far enough so as to include them. – Quisthoudt-Rowohl report (A5-0203/2002)

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, thank you very much for your detailed reply. I would like to ask a supplementary question: what is the position on funds already spent? What proportion went direct to the Chechens affected and what proportion was channelled via Russian institutions, authorities and organisations?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, at this stage it is obvious that this parliamentary initiative is born out of a general sense of concern in this House about the slowness, and even paralysis in some areas, in implementing agreements reached within the framework of the Barcelona Conference, almost four years ago. For some reason or other, these agreements have not been implemented. It would certainly be cause for satisfaction, and would be a significant step in the right direction, if this debate were to persuade the Commission to promote a more active attitude to the relaunch of the Euro-Mediterranean association agreement. From reading Parliament’s joint motion for a resolution, which we will probably approve tomorrow, we can certainly observe specific proposals which we can use as a starting point. I am sure that we all agree on the strategic importance, which is crucial for the European Union, of its Mediterranean influence; politically, since, being neighbours, we are required to build a relationship which goes beyond the constitution of a simple free trade area; economically, because I am convinced that opportunities for mutual benefit are being created which we are not taking sufficient advantage of; also, socially, because the problems of the extent of economic inequalities and of the great pressures resulting from migration require coordinated and structural solutions and, of course, we also have to mention the question of security. From this point of view, Parliament is justified in repeating its request that the European Union make a more decisive contribution to the peace process in the Middle East, especially given that the parties in the conflict requested this explicitly during the recent visit to the region by the President of the European Parliament. We are convinced that, in order to be successful, a European Union common foreign and security policy must be based on the concept of balance in order to respond to the sensibilities of all the Member States and, therefore, of all the citizens.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, for about ten years there has been a wave of violence across Egypt. Despite this, all we have observed, both from the international community and from our own European institution, is a long silence. It is true that Egypt plays a fundamental part in the peace process in the Middle East and its geopolitical situation means that nobody dares to speak up about distressing matters. We can only be delighted that a debate has finally been held on this country, a country that is at the heart of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership. Nevertheless, it is regrettable that the debate is being held because of such an unfortunate current situation in that country. Of course, we support the efforts of the Egyptian government to combat the rise of religious fundamentalism, but this battle against the extremists cannot justify infringement of the rights of the Egyptian people, particularly their political rights. It cannot draw a veil over attacks on human rights such as freedom of expression and fundamental rights. In this regard, we condemn the fact that this country has retained the death penalty. Finally, we would ask the Council to make provision in the MEDA programme for specific measures in favour of social and economic development, the development of democracy and the promotion of tolerance between all the ethnic and cultural minorities that make up the richness of Egyptian society. China

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I would not describe the response as being schizophrenic in nature, I would just like to know, as we all would, whether the strengthening of relations between the European Union and Turkey is a high priority for the Council, and whether it is such a high priority that those conditions set by the Council to ensure this strengthening of relations are actually being brushed aside. You said, Mr President-in-Office, that Turkey’s position had changed. How has Turkey’s position changed exactly? Turkish forces still occupy the northern part of Cyprus, political rights are still being violated, Öçalan is still in prison and Kurdish people are not even given recognition. You also talk of some promise of negotiations. Indeed, there is such a promise, as regards the Cyprus issue, but it would cost Turkey nothing to begin negotiations, to talk for 15 minutes and then to have done with it. At the same time, this would give the Council good enough reason to say “There! We have now made some progress on the Cyprus issue”.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I would advise the Commission not to be so sure of itself or, more importantly, of its forecasts for the future. I tabled a question on the danger of BSE in December 1995, three months before the scandal broke. The Commission replied to the effect that there was absolutely no problem and no cause for concern. So a little modesty is in order, I think. I also have a question for the Commission: have you measured the cost today of the current policy of cheap meat-and-bone meal and the cost of doing away with it and supporting vegetable production? I am no longer so sure that meat-and-bone meal, together with the cost of controls and the risks, is any cheaper. Thirdly, the whole House is talking about controls. When did the Commission carry out controls? Does it have the capacity to do so? Which countries have been referred to the European Court for failing to apply the law? For example, Madam President, for failing to comply with beef labelling, on which I acted as Parliament's rapporteur. Does every country apply it? I have yet to see labels in Athens. Has the Commission referred anyone to the European Court? I am sure that we would be most interested in knowing so that we could continue the debate. As far as the rest is concerned, for once, I agree wholeheartedly with what the honourable lady members, Mrs Ainardi, Mrs Auroi and Mrs Grossetête, said.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, this annual report clearly shows that Europe is not providing itself with the means to implement its trans-European transport networks policy. But apart from the simple budgetary and financial considerations, in more general terms, it is the Commission’s general guidelines in this area that are worthy of criticism. We do agree, of course, with the principle that it is necessary to create trans-European networks for the people of Europe, for the movement of people and goods, for economic and social cohesion and for rail alternatives to the all-powerful motorway. We cannot, however, accept the method that has been imposed or the solutions that have been proposed. Are all the fourteen projects that have been accepted relevant or essential to the needs of local populations? Have they been devised in association or in consultation, or is the rationale of the trans-European networks, as the report implies, only based on the free market? It is, moreover, not by chance that out of the fourteen projects, the seven whose timetable and financing are still in doubt are precisely those which do not only answer to the demands of profit. The most negative aspect, however, seems to be the financing. It is based on the principle that public funds cannot be increased, which is a moot point. It therefore proposes to have recourse to private funds, in the form of partnerships, and this, moreover, is an essential element of the project. This approach to rail transport raises the issue of public service. Clearly, if private operators are involved in the financing, they will aim for maximum profit. We must make use of private companies because they profit from the infrastructures, but in the form of tax deductions and not by them having an interest in the capital of railway companies. The idea of a European public rail service must be developed and we reject privatisation and access to the capital of rail companies, including for new projects. Once again, Europe is responding to a genuine need on the part of the people, the need for a high-quality European rail transport network, which is outstanding for both passengers and staff, with a race for profit.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to begin by congratulating Mrs Zorba on having taken this very interesting initiative to dedicate a report to cultural industries. In fact, today we are seeing the emergence of cultural industries with an ever-increasing economic dimension, which also play a vital role in Europe’s cultural diversity and identity. One of the problems raised by this report is the total absence of a precise definition of cultural industries and of any European industrial strategy in this area. The Commission must look at these issues and put forward proposals to us, perhaps by way of the Green Paper. In future, we will have to increase aid for cultural industries in projects for the economic development of regions and towns, through the Structural Funds, and also by encouraging private and public partnerships. Similarly, the European Union will have to establish support measures for SMEs and independent enterprises, which play an important role in the area of artistic creation and production. Finally, I would like to emphasise here the importance of the printed word, and in particular of the regional daily press. That is what best guarantees linguistic and cultural diversity and is the most overlooked of the Union’s cultural policies. It is vital that when the Commission is drawing up its Green Paper it should at long last put forward proposals to actively support this sector, which is also essential for pluralism. In the same vein, the Commission will have to propose specific measures to combat media concentration. In conclusion, I feel that it is now time to mobilise our efforts to ensure that the proposed UNESCO convention on cultural diversity can soon see the light of day. More than ever, we must promote a European cultural spirit in order to encourage creation and bolster cultural diversity, without which Europe would not exist nor have any influence abroad.

Political group: PPE-DE