GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, in this great debate about human rights it is surprising how infrequently we hear children mentioned – the people who are least able to protect themselves in relation to human rights. Children are actually invisible in the EU Treaties. Animals have rights, children do not. Yet children are affected by the laws that the EU passes and the single market. The electronic revolution seems to have given more freedom to exploiters, the paedophiles and the pornographers, than to industrialists. In a twenty-first century where we regard ourselves as civilised there is still a slave trade in which children are bought and sold for sexual exploitation throughout the world. We have problems in the candidate countries. We have a scandal at the moment in Latvia which allegedly goes to the very heart of the government. We have pictures on our TV almost every day of child soldiers fighting in conflicts throughout the world. And of course, we have familiar tales of child labour. We have to take tougher action. We have to bring children up the agenda. This is not to say that the EU should start to be responsible for children's policy but we could start by ensuring that EU laws are child-proof. We should ensure that measures developed by the Commission have a specific children's dimension. We should ensure that there is somebody in the Commission with responsibility for child matters. In 1998 my own government appointed a child rights expert from Save The Children to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to develop strategies and practical projects in relation to children's rights. Why can we not do the same? We also have in Great Britain a Children's Select Committee able to investigate child abuses and to interrogate expert witnesses. Why can we not do the same? Can we make sure that the Charter of Fundamental Rights has a section relating to children? I know we have communications. We have action plans and conventions but what we want is action, not good intentions.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I can only assume that the Presidency which claimed to prioritise employment chooses to direct its attention to other matters rather than take part in our important debate on issues to be taken up at the European Council in Stockholm, but I am all the more pleased to see that the Commission is represented here today.

Political group: PPE-DE
Like all the Members in Chamber, I feel that the protection and safeguarding of human health are vital. I therefore consider that it is of the utmost importance to uphold the position calling for the introduction of both a minimum excise duty of 57 % and a minimum payment – EUR 70 – with the aim of increasing the sales price of tobacco. The measure is very important in that it will discourage regular consumers from using tobacco. Furthermore, it will have a preventive effect in that it will discourage those tempted to use tobacco for the first time from doing so. As I have already pointed out in a written question – reference number P-2140/99 – to the European Commission, I find it absurd that we should increase European financing and contributions to tobacco growers while, at the same time, declaring that we are working to combat smoking. I therefore call upon the European Parliament to support this measure and throw some light on the matter. Quite clearly, the proviso must be that the Member States, as Community bodies, also increase their endeavours to prevent, control and curb illegal trading and trafficking in cigarettes.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, this proposal is for us an essential proposal. If “fair and socially-balanced” is omitted, then unfortunately the majority of us will have to vote against this report. If it is dropped, then an essential part of the entire negotiations is missing from the whole report. I just wanted to make that clear once more.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, I too would like to start by thanking the rapporteur both for the enormous amount of work he has done and also, in particular, for his willingness to accept the suggestions, amendments and proposals of all the rest of the committee, to the point that I feel this report can be said to be a highly collegial report produced by the committee as a whole. Moreover, the current situation is clear – the White Paper and the Green Paper illustrated it perfectly: there is a great problem because of the environmental and social costs we have to bear and because of the attack on free trade that the difference in taxes and taxation systems in our countries imposes upon their economic systems. With this report, therefore, we have identified a possible situation, a road to take, and it is now up to the Commission to take it. I recall the benchmarks that we all share: greater proportionality with regard to use in the distribution of costs, attentiveness to social costs, but also protection of disadvantaged geographical areas and sectors of the population, 'yes' to environmental sustainability but, at the same time, reconfirmation of the right to mobility as a universal right. The only recommendation I would venture to make, Commissioner, is that all this is good, particularly the shift to the 'user pays' principle, but with the reservation that we cannot allow this principle to penalise the citizens or businesses. Shifting to the 'user pays' principle means entering into the rationale of providing a service for which a price is set, and we must therefore guarantee the citizens and businesses what they want and what they are willing to pay for: namely quality. Quality in the context of transport, in my opinion, means above all safety, accessibility and coordination of infrastructures. If we can provide this, then, at the same time, we will have overcome our present difficulties and set the wheels in motion for a new perspective for the future.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr Maaten's report makes constructive suggestions for the imminent introduction of euro coins and notes in the 12-member euro zone and refers also to the low level of public and small business awareness of certain aspects of the changeover. In particular in the report I support the comments on the need for frontloading the general public with notes and coins. I also welcome its emphasis on the role of local and regional public administrations in the changeover. It is essential that every effort is made to ensure that this so-called flagship event is managed effectively and that the changeover is smooth. Most of my comments, however, are based on a view from the outside, from Scotland, for the time being part of the UK. There may be some problems with public awareness within the euro zone, but we have a much bigger problem within Scotland and the rest of the UK. A Scots newspaper this week published a survey of public attitudes to the euro in Scotland and this showed a lamentable lack of awareness, which was directly linked to a low level of enthusiasm for the currency. The level of awareness in Scotland may be lamentable but it is not surprising given the attitudes of the political leaders in the Scots and UK governments in recent years. The new Labour London government has been afraid to show support for UK entry, or even to provide factual information, while the Conservatives have simply shown an almost deranged hostility to the euro and have attempted to mislead the public on the implications of joining. In principle my party favours the euro subject to entry terms suiting Scotland's economy and after a referendum, but ideally as an SNP member I would like to see Scotland an independent EU Member State being in a position to make the decision based on Scots priorities, while retaining domestic control over taxation. In the short term, though outwith the euro zone, there is also a substantial need for factual information campaigning on the implications after 2002 in our relationship with the euro zone, whether we ever decide to join or not. I welcome recent statements from some high street retailers in Scotland that they will be accepting euros in their tills, alongside sterling, from 2002. This can only enhance Scotland's position as a welcoming tourist and business travel destination, as well as familiarising Scots with the euro notes and coins. I call on the UK and the Scots governments to encourage the process of public information and to seek the support of the European Central Bank and the European Commission in encouraging Scots businesses to gear up for the acceptance of the new coins and notes.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Europe has a lot to offer Turkey and vice versa. That is why I agree with the Commission that Turkey should be granted candidate status and will be welcomed providing it fulfils the strict Copenhagen criteria. We must help Turkey with the preparation process. However, it is essential for Turkey to undertake radical reforms itself, not just in words but above all in deeds. Supreme authority must fall to the government and no longer to the military. As long as Turkey infringes human rights and Ankara attempts to resolve the Kurdish question primarily by military intervention, there is not the remotest possibility of its actually becoming a member of the EU. The resolution we have before us articulates this view, Madam President, particularly in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3. However, I consider paragraph 9 to be unacceptable because it suggests, unjustifiably, that Turkey is attempting to resolve the Kurdish problem by peaceful means. If only that were true.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the contentious decision of the Turkish Government is yet another example of Turkey’s total disregard for and blatant violation of maritime law following the Turkish Grand National Assembly authorising the Turkish Government to claim casus belli and to declare war on Greece should Greece exercise its rights to extend its territorial waters in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which only Turkey has refused to sign. In light of this, I would like to ask the Council if it intends to address this particular issue in its remonstrations to Ankara as well as at the forthcoming European Council in Helsinki in the discussions on EU-Turkey relations and the criteria which, as the Minister said, must be fulfilled.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to start by thanking not only the rapporteur for this initiative, as all of you have done, but also the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which has backed his initiative so strongly. As you may know, the latest Europacinema conference began here in Strasbourg last weekend, and it is continuing through today and tomorrow. The final panel discussion will be taking place in our rooms tomorrow. There have been many discussions and many problems to resolve, such as: What is the problem, why is there no internal European market? In discussing many specific problems, whether to do with nation-states or the subsidy issue, we came up against the same point over and over again, that the distribution system does not work. We have a European internal market, but it is not accepted that this product, film, can really circulate. It is at this hurdle that we fall. Now as always, there is a national logic to film promotion, which also applies to a film's success: if it was not a box-office success at home, it will not be an international one either. I have to agree with Mr Sichrovsky that an increase in subsidies would not help, but an increased subsidy from the country we both come from would help the market a bit. It would be wrong to demand that producers should take greater risks. There are no independent producers. First, we must promote this market economically, we must engage in business development, so that this market can emerge at all. Here, too, one of the demands the Culture Committee makes over and over again in many contexts would seem to be appropriate here. We must endeavour to make business development, whether it originates from large or small enterprises, tax-deductible. We will support this report not only for reasons of ideology, but also out of wholehearted conviction.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I would like to express a word of thanks to the Commissioner. It is very good to simplify the legislation, from five pieces of legislation to just one. But the Commissioner has also said that this is good for the Internal Market. This is unfortunately not so, because the Internal Market has to contend with very different things. Germany, Italy and a number of other countries have banned phosphates in detergents. In some other countries, such as my own, there is a voluntary ban. In other countries again, in particular the Scandinavian countries, the phosphates are eventually removed in the waste water purification system. In Southern Europe, and unfortunately in Eastern Europe as well, phosphates are permitted. You cannot therefore say that this is good for the Internal Market. All the groups have however reached a compromise on eight points and this is one of them. I am very happy about it. We say to the Commission that they must take another good look at the scientific evidence which shows that phosphates do indeed cause a problem, not just in the classical detergents. There are after all sufficient alternatives to them. This was the big problem of 30 years ago, that all those detergents contained far too many phosphates so that soap found its way into the rivers everywhere, causing foam and green algae. That problem has been overcome. Now however we have tablets for the dishwasher, which did not exist 30 years ago and which still contain very many phosphates, even in those countries that have now banned phosphates. This is why I have associated myself with the compromise. Take another good look and give the industry three years to come up with alternatives. It really can be done. It proved possible for the ordinary detergents, so it must also be possible for these dishwasher tablets. Then there is another problem. It is utterly ridiculous that dangerous substances, carcinogenic substances, are permitted in detergents! I am glad that the majority of this Parliament will very probably shortly be declaring itself in favour of them no longer being allowed in ordinary, everyday consumer products that everyone uses. Of course we are running ahead of the legislation on chemistry that is still to come, but it is not our fault that the Commission has waited so long to table this legislation. Indeed, we still do not have it and we are hoping across the whole Parliament, in all the political parties, that the Commission really will table this new legislation before the summer. Finally, on the subject of odours. Substances that cause allergies, not in everyone, but in certain people who cannot resist them, simply have no place in detergents. Okay, that is not what we have decided. What we have decided is that the detergent manufacturers must state very clearly that these substances are present. This gives people the choice of using them or not and will probably in any event lead to the big detergent manufacturers not putting them in any more.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, I wish to begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Hatzidakis, for the considerable openness and readiness to compromise that have characterised his work on this report. The transport of both goods and people on the roads is ever increasing. Movement on the roads is international and cross-border, and so too, therefore, must be the rules we lay down. A shining example is the legislation on speed limitation devices. When it came into force in 1994, it had met a certain amount of resistance both from the industry and from the drivers themselves, but this evaporated when the advantages became apparent. In a Europe in which more than 40 000 people lose their lives in road accidents, all kinds of methods must be tried in order to make the roads safer. Once speed limitation devices had been introduced, it was no longer possible to build speeding into systems under which the heaviest vehicles operated. This new proposal will lead to speed limitation devices also being used in lighter commercial vehicles and buses, and this will have further positive repercussions. Recently, there has been a marked increase in the frequency of accidents involving lighter commercial vehicles. Those of us in the Group of the support the amendments in favour of a longer transition period. One issue which, however, recurred in the debate on this directive, and which Mr Jarzembowski addressed, is that of whether there should be different speeds for different categories of vehicle. It was argued that identical speeds create congestion and bottlenecks on the roads. I do not believe that is the case. The fewer speed differences there are, the smoother the traffic flows, in actual fact. There are mathematical calculations to show this. It is enough to imagine a road on which vehicles are maintaining the same speed. In that case, the traffic flows more smoothly. That is why I demand that Amendment No 12 be rejected.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, let us send out a very clear and unequivocal message from this Parliament today that violence has no role of any description in solving the problems of a divided people. All that violence does is deepen the divisions and make the problem much more difficult to resolve. Organisations which use violence, should be told very clearly that their claim to be acting to achieve human and civil rights for people is completely false, because their method undermines the most fundamental human right of all, the right to life. The message we should send out is that there should be an absolute and complete end to violence. Following an absolute and complete end to violence, there can be dialogue and this dialogue should involve democratically elected representatives of all sections of the people. The objective of that dialogue would be an agreement that would enjoy the loyalty of all sections of the people. This is a straightforward and logical way of dealing with terrorism and those who genuinely want to solve the problem should have no difficulty in following that path. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we welcome this report so deftly piloted through Parliament by Mrs Wallis because, in the brave new world of e-commerce, there is going to be the same share of crooks and mountebanks as in the non-digital environment. For this reason consumer protection matters at least as much. It comes in two forms. First, it provides legal protection, and, secondly, it provides a means of enforcing that protection. Clearly, especially as regards small claims across international borders – in other words, between different legal systems – conventional court systems will be of limited real help, as Mrs Wallis has just pointed out. Hence we welcome this initiative to create a user-friendly, extra-judicial network across Europe. Indeed we believe it should go beyond the physical limits of the Union since the Net is no respecter of national boundaries. As is so often the case, the devil lies in the detail. We look forward to seeing that detail and wish its progress well.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this is the first time in fifty years, if you look back on fifty years of European history, that those responsible for Europe have had to judge a treaty which puts Europe back. Until now, all the treaties, each in their turn, have been treaties which push Europe forward to a greater or lesser degree. This is the first treaty which puts Europe back. For a long time, there have, in fact, been two stakes on the table and two historic stakes at that: the first is to build up European power and the second is to give those in charge of this power, those in charge of this European power, democratic credentials. Power on the one hand, democracy on the other. Then along comes the Treaty of Nice establishing European impotence for a long time to come; it brings impotence to the heart of the European institutions and it brings a lack of transparency, which is the opposite of European democracy. These were the two stakes, and both have been lost. Which is why the Europe of Nice will not work. What we are, in fact, offering the countries which we have invited to join us and which are joining us, and some enthusiastically so, is a fools' bargain. They are entering a house in which European impotence and a lack of transparency are the main features. That is why I fear, even though I hear what is being said about post Nice, that post Nice will fail to come up to our expectations. In Nice, we bought a one-way ticket, which is why the Méndez de Vigo/Seguro resolution is a critical resolution. I would like it to be even more critical, however, which is why I shall abstain.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to begin by paying some compliments on the work that has been done so far. I think, in fact, that some splendid things were put forward in connection with the Göteborg Summit, and I also think that the work which has now been done on the reports from the individual countries shows that it is only right to broaden the agenda. We must not just talk about the growing burden of the elderly and the economic consequences, but also about how we obtain a good pension system. I also think, however, that it is important that this work should not just remain work done behind closed doors between politicians, officials and experts. Moreover, I should like to ask the Commissioner what plans she has to put some impetus into a broader public debate about this coordination of pensions made to run in parallel. The open method must be open in the true sense of the word, so that the public is also involved. What will the Commissioner do? Will she give an undertaking that more efforts will be made to increase public... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, first of all, in keeping with the spirit of the speech made by Mr Hansenne, I would like to remind the honourable spokesperson for the Commission that it is the heir of the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community, which was not created to organise the burial of industrial activity in Europe, nor to catalogue the different ways of burying industrial activity in our regions, or to act as the social Red Cross for workers and regions that have been severely wounded. What I am saying is how much, like Mr Hansenne, we think that a Commission declaration was more necessary than ever, but we also think that it is largely inadequate. This is particularly true in my case, because I sent the Commission proof of Arcelor’s desire to set up on continental sites in Poland, while we have just recounted how in three European regions, continental sites are by their nature doomed to disappear. I will not say any more, Mr President, in order to allow my colleagues to speak.

Political group: PSE