GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I naturally could not start without acknowledging my colleague and friend, Philippe Morillon, who, as Mr Cohn-Bendit has said, cannot be here today as a result of electoral obligations in his country. We in my group are very pleased to congratulate Philippe Morillon because we think he does almost everything well, and I am therefore going to sing the praises of the two rapporteurs who have reached an agreement on a text which has won the almost unanimous support of the parliamentary committee and I hope that there will also be such unanimity in the vote in plenary, because relations between the European Union and the Maghreb and the impetus we are generally trying to give to the Barcelona process undoubtedly require a generalised political will, as we saw with the Valencia Ministerial Summit, since this process will no doubt meet with difficulties along the way. One of the keys to the success of this report has been the consensus reached by the rapporteurs in order to provide the report with a strategic vision of this relationship, thereby preventing – as Mr Cohn-Bendit has just said – getting bogged down in the debate on the internal situation of any one country in the region and I therefore call on the different parliamentary groups to ensure that we maintain this consensus and do not accept the amendments presented on certain specific countries, which the European Parliament will no doubt have to give its opinion on, but there will be other opportunities to do so. Furthermore, in the cases of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia there are various reports under discussion in other places. Like the rapporteurs, my group believes that this is not the place to begin this debate. On the other hand, I am glad that there have been amendments on three issues I consider to be essential to the report. The first is the commitment to the fight against human trafficking, for which the European Union must provide countries of origin with incentives, using association agreements and its policy of cooperation in order to combat the mafias which promote illegal immigration. Secondly, and in parallel, we must also commit ourselves to the development of those countries and therefore the fact that the European Parliament has not missed the opportunity in this report to promote the creation of a specific financial body for the Euro-Mediterranean area also seems to me to be worthy of praise. Finally, I believe it to be essential that we develop a parliamentary dimension for this Euro-Mediterranean relationship by creating a joint parliamentary assembly similar to the one which exists with the ACP countries. I hope we will be practical and that this formula will be applied in the debate next week in Bari. And here in this House I hope we conform to our duty of mutual loyalty which the rapporteurs have given an example of and that their work therefore receives the support of the whole House.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Madam Vice-President, first I should like to join Ojeda Sanz in thanking Mr Collins for his excellent report and Mr Schmitt for his excellent report. Both have presented us with a magnum opus. As far as the question of aviation safety is concerned, Commissioner, you have now presented us with a proposal on establishing common rules in the field of civil aviation and creating a European Aviation Safety Agency long after the single market was completed and other Commissioners had let the subject drop. This will at last allow us to replace the safety regulations adopted by bureaucrats in the Member States with uniform, European provisions accepted by Parliament. At last we can create a truly uniform European area of safety in the European skies. We hope that safety will be enhanced by strict and uniform controls. In this respect we support your proposal. The purpose of the amendments proposed by the committee, as Mr Schmitt rightly said, is to strengthen the technical independence of the European Aviation Safety Agency still further, without wanting to diminish your personal parliamentary responsibility. We trust that this agency will be able to start work in time to grant the symbol of the independent European aviation industry, namely the new Airbus A380, a joint project involving numerous employees, numerous engineers and numerous workers in European countries, the first uniform certification for European airspace. If it does, then I think we will have done both the aviation industry and safety a huge service.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I asked Commissioner Nielson a question to which I would like a reply. I asked him to explain his statement that the Americans are well on the way to becoming members of OPEC. I should like to hear what he has to say about this. I hope that you can give him the opportunity to give me a reply.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I am sorry, but our group objects to an en bloc vote.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The reason why I am unable to vote for this resolution is that it is mainly founded on the idea of protecting the expansion of aviation which, until recently, was deemed self-evident. To date, this expansion has posed a major problem for the environment, leading to increasing levels of pollution, growing insecurity and increasing pressure on public space for airports. Furthermore, aviation firmly had the edge on railways in terms of taxes, because kerosene is still not taxed, while all forms of travel on the ground are. Even before 11 September, there was every reason to search for possibilities to stop and reverse this expansion. The fact that the number of passengers has now dropped dramatically should not be a reason for supporting airline companies by granting even more tax money, but rather a reason for investing in the improvement of other forms of intra-European passenger transport. A surcharge on the aircraft rates which have taken a nose dive over the last few years due to competition can cover the dramatic upsurge in insurance premiums. There is no reason for injecting more public funding into aviation. However, that money is needed desperately to protect the position of the workers of airline companies. They thought for years that they had a secure, government-protected job in a growth industry, but the industry is now shrinking or even going bankrupt. (The sitting was suspended at 2.00 p.m. and resumed at 3.00 p.m.) IN THE CHAIR: MRS PLOOIJ-VAN GORSELVice-President

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I abstained in the vote on this document. It is an abstention which expresses my desire for what is a dream for many European workers to become reality. This document enables those who so desire – and that is a good thing – to have the right as employees of the European Commission to retire at 50 years old, providing that they have paid 10 years of contributions, and to receive an allowance of 60% of their last basic salary. Of course, I am happy for them, but I would prefer it – and this is why I abstained – if we could say the same thing to all the workers of Europe as well, who, in all our States, are told, 'You will have to work until you are 65 or 70 years old and for at least 30, 35 or 40 years, and the most you will be able receive is 40 or 50% of your retirement pension'.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too feel that these are just excuses. Transport problems provide an easy excuse. We all have difficulties with transport, whether we are coming here to Strasbourg or going to Brussels. There is ample proof of this in the statements made in this House a few months ago. One Member saw rats everywhere, and so on ... I think that we should now stop all this and start being serious and, as Mr Bourlanges has just said, we should take the bull by the horns and respect the Treaties.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we know that Russia’s international standing has been seriously damaged by the Chechen war. A full investigation of human rights violations involving international observers is also in Russia’s political interests. Except that the Russian government does not appear to be totally convinced of the fact. How else are we to interpret the fact that the UN envoy Mary Robinson was not granted access to Grozny and the filtration camps. The agreement which has now been brokered with Mr Kalamanov by the human rights envoy of the Council of Europe, Gil Robles, is a step in the right direction. But it will only continue to be credible if the two Council of Europe envoys really can work independently and move freely and independently around the country. We reject and shall not accept any unilateral interpretation of the agreement by the Russian government. If it should come to the point that the Russian government fails to keep to this agreement, the Member States of the European Union must bring intergovernmental proceedings against Russia before the European Court of Human Rights and ensure that there is an international investigation of the human rights violations, and I cannot but support Mr Paasilinna. We too are required to put a halt to the expulsion of refugees in our countries, as the German government has done. We too are required to grant Chechens political asylum in our countries. It would make a great deal of sense if the proposals by the German government were adopted by all the Member States.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, on behalf of the , I would like to express my grave disappointment with the manner in which the Group of the has handled this matter. I believe it is morally wrong that the representative of the was not selected, and I hope that the Group of the will consider this matter among themselves.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we in Parliament feel that gender mainstreaming in all EU policies is a given, which has certainly been much discussed; it has simply failed to be implemented. This is no longer a true reflection, however, of the situation in the Member States. Even with the existence of a regulation dating back to 1999, which sets equality of opportunity as a key objective of actions under the Structural Funds, it is nevertheless true that, with the exception of the European Social Fund, this concept has still not been incorporated by the administrations, either of the fifteen countries of the Union or of the ten enlargement countries. This is, however, an extremely important weapon in the Commission’s armoury for ensuring that positive actions to benefit women are implemented. At both the drafting stage in each country – as the Commissioner said – of projects to be funded by the Structural Funds, and at the stage of their being studied by the Commission, and even in the implementing report, the gender perspective must be integrated and evaluated. Greater participation by women in the teams that draw up and study projects to be funded and in drawing up indicators that enable effects and results in this field to be measured are crucial. I therefore support Mrs Avilés Perea’s report and hope that in the interim evaluation of the implementation of Funds earmarked for 2003 will show evidence of the results of the equality policy and that the programming for 2004-2006 is improved, with a view to achieving the following aim: the Structural Funds must be a powerful weapon for improving equal opportunities for women in the European Union.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, every time children’s rights are not respected, an act of violence is committed. Even if collective violence happens to be the most visible, daily acts of violence and problems between neighbours, which we might call small acts of violence, are very hard to bear for those who suffer them and it is in this climate that some children are born and grow up today. Violence is indicative of social problems that must be urgently addressed. Instead of corrective or repressive solutions, priority should be given to preventive solutions, creating a different kind of family setting, which would finally enable us to prevent pointless suffering on a personal and on a social scale and to practise a genuine policy of inclusion and socialisation from birth onwards. The important thing is not to try to draw up a catalogue of rights, but to make everyone aware of the importance of early childhood, in order to avoid a future society where, because they were denied their rights when children, young people’s only means of expressing themselves is to rebel. Humans are born helpless and in a state of dependence. Babies have nothing but their rights. They can have no obligations. Obligations come only with awareness, and awareness is only stimulated by means of education and there can be no successful education without respect for the baby’s dignity and for that of the child. We must support children’s rights in third countries, but also in our own States. We must also start to collectively think about children’s living conditions in the various European countries particularly in urban areas, and initiate a form of collaboration as well as financial resources in order to help families in difficulty, particularly in the case of single-parent families or of vulnerable parents. Our goal is nothing less than to have well-balanced children. It is therefore our duty to protect and educate them.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the miracle of Bonn: the Kyoto baby learns to walk. The Kyoto protocol is not dead, as President Bush has stated, but alive and kicking. Kyoto is a baby that has learned to walk at the age of four. Most babies learn to walk around their first birthday. Better later than never, as we say in the Netherlands in this case. One thing that is certain is that the Kyoto baby needs to grow considerably in order to keep climate change under control. But that other environmental baby, the Treaty of Montreal of 1987, also needed fourteen years to combat the gap in the ozone layer effectively. The same will apply to our Kyoto baby. President Bush is already experiencing that there is much truth in the Dutch saying: he who breaks, pays. He who walks out of negotiations, loses. The Japanese Minister, Mr Kawaguchi, arrived in Washington today for a six-day visit to try to persuade President Bush to change his mind and participate. There are very good reasons for doing so. CO2 emissions are twice as high in the United States as in Europe. It is no surprise then that there should be studies, like that of Florentin Krause, which show that the United States, by pursuing a shrewd energy policy, could both meet the levels of Kyoto and achieve 1% extra economic growth. In order to step up the pressure on President Bush even further, my group and, fortunately, Parliament too, proposes organising CoP-9 in the United States in 2003. By then, the Kyoto baby will be a child of school age and will have to learn to talk, especially about the international trade in CO2 rights. In Bonn, American business seemed very interested in participating in that international trade after 2008. The companies felt that they had been left out in the cold by their own President. The European Union persuaded them by teaching the Kyoto baby to walk, but now it needs to learn to run. I would like to ask the Commission to submit the Kyoto protocol for ratification before CoP-7 in Marrakech, and to put the proposal for internal CO2 trade before CoP-7. Finally, regarding the transport sector, which is so difficult to curb, I would advise the Commission to publish proposals restricting the CO2 emissions from vans and trucks. In conclusion, I should like to express a word of thanks to the troika for the unanimous leadership of the European delegation and to the Belgian Presidency for its special balancing skills; to the Commission for the flexible and effective cooperation in Bonn, to the G-77 for the constructive attitude and to the environmental movement for its strikingly constructive contribution to teaching the Kyoto baby to walk.

Political group: Verts-ALE
EU policy towards the other countries of the Mediterranean is becoming more and more aggressive. Its basic objective is to turn these countries into its satellites, penetrate their markets and exploit their people and wealth. To be specific, the ΕU is calling for alignment on issues of 'terrorism', judicial and police cooperation, even participation in its actions within the framework of foreign policy and defence policy, offering training for the necessary political and military staff. At the same time, it is demanding privatisation and liberalisation, even in the service sector, while promising investments solely in the private sector. As if that were not enough, it is trying to force through immigrant expulsion agreements. Under these circumstances, talk of dialogue between civilisations sounds ridiculous and we wonder what purpose the proposed parliamentary conference will serve. The European Parliament resolution sticks to this line and, while giving lessons about human rights, says not a word about their flagrant violation in Turkey or about the occupation of Cyprus, while Palestine is dealt with in the usual way of sitting on the fence between sacrificer and victim. It is more than clear that the development of the Mediterranean will not come about through cooperation with the ΕU. That is why the MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece voted against the resolution.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the world must avoid war. How can Europe contribute to this in the Middle East? Not so much with words as with deeds. We must take as our starting point the people’s right of self-determination, something to which the Palestinian people are as much entitled as are the Israelis and the Chechens. We must not forget that suicide bombers will never be stamped out by military force or military occupation. People and nations who have nothing to lose but their lives will be ready to sacrifice those lives for a future with dignity, a life lived in freedom. Let us also not forget this issue in international relations. Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship is a disaster for the inhabitants of Iraq, especially for those who oppose it, particularly the Kurds and the Shiites. Let us hope he will be condemned at some point, but we must give him no excuse for war because of the oil issue, and Europe must make that very clear to the United States. We welcome the UN resolutions, as long as they do not automatically lead to war.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, we certainly endorse and support the outcome reached in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, presented to us by Mr Zimeray, because our Parliamentary immunity must be such as to allow us to use expressions, albeit as moderate as possible, of course, on political matters in every speech that politicians have to make in various different circumstances, whether they are made live on public occasions or reported through the general media. I would like to take this opportunity, Mr President, to point out certain aspects of immunity, all or, at any rate, some of which I would like to explore in greater detail, despite the fact that they have already been mentioned by Mr Zimeray. As we always state in the reports of the Parliamentary Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, our Parliamentary immunity is a European immunity and is therefore independent of national procedures. That is because this institution, the only European institution to be elected by universal suffrage, must be independent of any other European institution, as we always state in our reports. In reality, however, we adhere to the clear provisions of the Treaties, the Rules of Procedure and the Statute of Parliament, with the result that this is not the case. I will develop this point in my forthcoming speeches. In any case, I endorse what was said in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market: we recommend that the immunity of the Member in question should not be waived.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, there is a political dimension to this, which Mr Haarder mentioned. I had in mind the arrest of Mr Zakayev, the Chechen representative. Why has he been in prison for so long without any evidence being brought against him? This is a very worrying situation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is a pleasure to address you tonight on this important theme. This afternoon I had the fortune to chair a meeting in which we were discussing the proposed directive on the enforcement of intellectual property rights. In that discussion, what came out most clearly was that the biggest difference among the legal systems of the European Union is actually the difference concerning procedure, rather than the substance of law. Proposals for the approximation of procedural law are amongst the most difficult to achieve effectively. That is something that we need to bear in mind. As you well know, I represent an area of Scotland in this House. We, in Scotland, have the unique good fortune of having a legal system that is more or less half and half, i.e. an amalgam of the civilian systems of mainland Europe and the common law system of England, Ireland and Northern Ireland. Perhaps the Commissioner should devote her time to studying Scots procedural law as a potential bridge between the two great different systems of this continent. However that may be, in my Group we certainly support the idea of moving from conventions to regulation. Mr Medina Ortega is entirely right to say that the regulation is the right instrument to deal with these problems of harmonisation. Finally, in relation to small claims, all that is in the Gargani report is admirable. However, I should particularly like to underline, in regard to the service of documents, paragraph 6(i) that states: 'service should effected by specialised personnel with legal training capable of explaining every aspect of the procedure to the debtor'. Much of what we have done in the way of harmonisation is defeated at the moment by bad translation, lack of interpretation and lack of clarity. I beg to support that point.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I have learnt that the services of Parliament – I do not know whether this was under the instructions of the President – have prohibited a press conference by the President of the Court of Auditors of the European Union on this Parliament’s premises. I would like to register a strong protest, on behalf of my group. I believe that this type of behaviour towards the President of another European institution is an outrage and an affront to this House. I request that my protest be communicated to the President and I expect explanations with regard to it. (Applause)

Political group: PSE