GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the legislative proposals under the Rotterdam Convention being discussed are an important step towards ensuring the protection of human health and the environment in all countries from the possible dangers resulting from trade in hazardous chemicals and pesticides. Our rapporteur, Mr Blokland, has, as always, done a precise and excellent job, for which he deserves our thanks. The Convention has the objective of increasing shared responsibility and cooperative efforts among parties to the agreement in the international trade of certain hazardous chemicals, thus promoting environmental and health protection. At the same time the intention is to encourage the environmentally sound use of chemicals with increased transparency and information exchange. All these are aims worthy of support from the point of view of the EU’s targets, but some of the provisions now being discussed go even further than the Rotterdam Convention. For example, the rules relating to the timing and frequency of export notifications and the level of information required are clearly more advanced than the rulings of the Convention. That is how I think it ought to be too. Parties to international agreements on the environment are countries at different levels in terms of commitment and the levels agreed in the Convention do not necessarily go far enough at all with regard to the EU’s targets. For that reason, agreements on the environment in my view should always be implemented to a more ambitious degree in the EU than they would require in themselves. Only then would we achieve a dynamic that would help steer the negative development that we are seeing in the areas of the environment and human health in a healthier direction. The rapporteur’s suggestion that this proposal for a regulation should take into account the Stockholm Convention concerning POPs concluded in May last year should be supported. The objective of the proposal for a regulation is the protection of the environment and human health. That is also the main goal of the Rotterdam Convention. That is why the rapporteur, Mr Blokland, has arrived at the absolutely correct conclusion when he proposes that Article 133 of the Treaty that relates to common commercial policy should be replaced with Article 175 as a more suitable legal basis for the proposals. The legislative proposals thus also clearly come under the codecision procedure.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I wholeheartedly support Europe's moves to become an eco-friendly continent. This measure is yet further proof of the EU's commitment to greening up its act. Since 1992, the Euro-Flower logo has become a hallmark of environmentally-friendly products, ranging from washing machines to writing paper. However, consumers' enthusiasm for green goods has yet to be matched by industry. The measures contained in this 3-year strategy, however, should hopefully bring manufacturers on board. In the fight to clean up our planet, Britain's Labour Government has, of course, been at the forefront. At Kyoto, for example, Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott secured, against the odds, an agreement to cut global emissions. Britain is already well on the way to achieving its target of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 20% by 2010. Not content with that, the Government has recently raised the target to 60-70% by 2050. This House should challenge other Member States to match Britain's example. They will get their chance to pick up the gauntlet at the forthcoming Kyoto follow-up Conference in The Hague this November. Of course, protecting the planet means much more than just cleaning up the atmosphere. It means protecting the natural environment on the ground too. Again, Britain's Labour Government is leading the way. Its recent Wildlife Bill, for example, will give greater protection to endangered species than ever before. Furthermore, ‘right to roam’ legislation will give the British public the freedom to enjoy and appreciate our beautiful countryside. Madam President, coherent action is urgently required at local, national and European levels to clean up our land, sea and air. The Euro-Flower is just one element of the broader environmental strategy that is needed to save our planet. Our citizens want to see concrete action. They do not want to see mere hot air from politicians, which just adds to global warming. By harnessing Euro-Flower power, we can all contribute to a cleaner, greener world. – Recommendation for second reading of the Blokland report (A5-0056/2000)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Prodi for presenting the new members of the Commission and also for the considerable efforts he made to secure the accession of the ten new States. In its negotiations with the European Union, Slovenia attempted to use its very best people. In this we succeeded. The team conducting these proceedings within the government of the Republic of Slovenia performed its task with distinction, naturally with the consensus of all the parliamentary parties. The proposed candidate for the new Slovenian Commissioner is undisputedly one of these people and I am therefore delighted that he has been nominated. Dr Potočnik's team, and before him Mr Bavčar's team, based their success on the fact that all their negotiating positions had been endorsed in the Slovenian parliament, which was something unique and an example of great cooperation on both sides. Mr Prodi, the ten, or rather twelve, new players will strengthen the fine team that you lead. If this team also cooperates closely with the European Parliament, it will be even more successful and that is something we must not forget.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, many thanks for the explanation you have given here in the plenary sitting, although I believe that the meeting of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism was better attended than this sitting. But anyway, a symbolic presence counts for something as well, of course. I am left with a few questions. Chapter 4 is sound, except for 10 db, which is excellent. It appears that the re-certification or shifting of aircraft between categories has been regulated. If I have understood you correctly, it is now impossible to have a repeat of what we have experienced in the past, namely a shift from category 2 to category 3. That is now ruled out, if I understand you correctly. I welcome this. We must at least ensure that it is impossible to make changes for the worse at any airport. The situation must not be worse than it is at present at any airport. As you yourself said that the sensitive areas should be examined for each airport, things should therefore start to improve quickly, preferably as soon as possible, for a number of airports. But my question is, then, whether the agreements for classifying airports apply worldwide? Who lays down the standards? Does the European Union have a say in this? Can we be stricter? How do we go about this? What is happening about competition between airports? When we discussed Mrs Lucas’ report, we then stated that competition was one of the key points. Competition between airports at the expense of those living near airports and the environment is unacceptable. Do you know yet how we will tackle this in the Union? What will be the role of the local authorities? You stated that that would be done via the Planning department, but that is typically a local power. So how will you tackle this? As you can see, I have quite a few questions. Then there is the phase-out. If I have understood correctly, we have not yet accomplished this, and airport classification should help solve that problem. If there is no phase-out, in other words if those chapter-3 aircraft remain in the air until they reach retirement age, if I can put it that way, is that not too long? Should we not be somewhat more ambitious and introduce new aircraft onto the market more quickly? What is the state of play on a uniform method of measuring noise? Surely it is a matter of extreme urgency for both Europe and America to measure noise in the same way, in other words for the ‘footprint’ to be determined in the same manner everywhere. I also have a question on air pollution. You have said very little on this matter. What is stipulated in the air pollution agreement? One final question: what is happening with the directive on hushkits? Is it being repealed? Will you be making a proposal to revoke it, or will we simply retain it? Have the Americans commented on this at all? Does it or does it not form part of the package? I am still left with a few questions, but I believe we are on the right track. I hope that we can in any case find a solution in September.

Political group: ELDR
My understanding of what you said is that, if I can obtain more information on this specific case, I can come to you to resolve it or refer the matter to a national court. These are the two solutions.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the oral amendment that I wish to propose is actually something on which agreement was reached in the negotiations on the compromise resolution, but which was dropped in the final text and should therefore be restored. We propose inserting the words ‘and the Copenhagen criteria’ after the words ‘Helsinki European Council’ . (The President declared that there was no opposition to voting on the oral amendment) Regarding Paragraph 20

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as has already been said, with this initiative we are extending the experience we have gained through the Judicial Network in criminal matters to the civil and commercial spheres. First and foremost, we have focused on the importance of cooperation and exchanges of information between the Member States’ judicial authorities, with a view to creating an area of freedom, security and justice. The report by Mrs Keßler, whom I wish to congratulate for the quality of her work, warrants our support, particularly because it makes judicious suggestions, specifically on cooperation between this new network and the already existing network in criminal matters, on the participation of countries that have applied for membership of the Union and on the desirable and necessary transparency in the way the network operates. Above all, however, the report warrants our support because of its suggestion for improving information for the general public. It is worth bearing in mind that the ultimate aim is to ensure that European citizens can seek justice in the courts and authorities of any Member State as easily as they can in their own country. In order to achieve this objective, a public information system must also be in place which can inform Europe’s citizens of their rights. I believe that there is a lack of information and clarification in this area and this is another reason for welcoming the new competences granted to Commissioner Vitorino as the person responsible for generating improved communication and information strategies within the Commission. I hope that the qualities he has always demonstrated will enable improvements, which we can all see are urgent and much needed, to be brought to this thorny and delicate subject. Lastly, I wish to say a few words about the programmes that are also under discussion. With regard to their importance, we all agree with the rapporteur’s suggestion that it makes sense to finance the various programmes under one framework programme: dispersion does not bring advantages, and I think that, in this way, we would be able to make gains in terms of synergies and clarity. I should also like to hear Commissioner Vitorino’s opinion on this matter.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, the committee proposes to place a Charter of Fundamental Rights at the centre of the Union system, with mandatory effect upon the European Union, its institutions and the agencies. We do this because there is a great concentration of power at the centre of the Union and it is clearly necessary for the citizen to be protected from abuse of that power. We believe that the Charter will have three principal effects: first, it will reinforce the constitutional character of the Treaty; secondly, it will be a point of reference for those, including this Parliament, that wish to drive European integration forward with a greater degree of democratic legitimacy; thirdly, a Charter that is stylish and forceful will strengthen the profile of the Union for its present and future citizens. This resolution mandates the European parliamentary delegation inside the Convention. The Convention has already started the process of drafting the Charter upon the principal lines that we propose and upon the presumption that the final result will be binding. A strong vote for this resolution will assist the Convention to complete its task and set criteria for this Parliament’s final appraisal of the results. We should avoid becoming obsessed with the question of subsidiarity. The drafting of the Charter will certainly be informed by the application of that principle, but it is crucial that the Charter reflects modern European society with all its pluralism and with all its diversity. The effect of the Charter will be steady and gradual rather than sudden and revolutionary. There is also a controversy over the relationship between the new European Union Charter and the existing European Convention of Human Rights. We are proposing that the Union should itself sign up to the ECHR so that those rights inscribed in the existing Convention would form the solid core of the Charter. Madame President, our purposes are to write a charter that is so good that Member States will find it shameful to refuse to accept it within the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. The Charter represents a chance to build a modern post-national society, and marks a bold step forward from the sorrow and the pity of twentieth-century Europe. I strongly commend the resolution. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, on the present issue I represent a minority of the members of the Confederal Group of the . I consider that there is really no need for this directive and that it is unnecessary. I think it is absolutely excellent that we should have different rules about chocolate in different Member States. In this area there is no need for harmonisation at EU level. Instead, the previous system can be retained. If there is in fact to be harmonisation, which is what the Council of Ministers appears to have opted for, I think it is better to allow content of up to five per cent of vegetable fats other than cocoa butter. In that way, you can still have both sorts of chocolate and choose which you want to buy according to personal taste or national tradition. The alternative, that is to say of prohibiting other vegetable fats, means also prohibiting a large quantity of chocolate products which people like and are used to eating. I think that is completely unnecessary. What is, however, important is that chocolate should be clearly labelled, which is something I think has been provided for in the proposal, and that consumers should be able to choose which products they in fact want to purchase and eat. Nor is it certain that the Third World, all in all, would benefit from other vegetable fats being prohibited as added ingredients. For one thing, other tropical fats such as shea butter would be treated unfairly, and certain countries would in that way suffer. For another, the total market for chocolate products would probably decrease and thereby also, perhaps, the level of consumption of cocoa butter. My conclusion is that I should ideally like to see the old arrangement maintained, with different rules in different countries. However, since that is no longer possible, I think that the common position is acceptable.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I would like to thank the President-in-Office Mr Sasi for the comments he made earlier on during this debate. Firstly, he confirmed the continued cooperation between the Council and the European Parliament and his forthcoming visit to the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. But he also confirmed that in the IGC enlargement would remain at the core, at the heart of the envisaged Treaty reforms and, secondly, that the timetable would be adhered to. I believe both of those are important aspects. First of all, on enlargement, we are talking here about enlargement of a very different scale and nature to anything that has happened before, and that has implications for the nature of the IGC which prepares for it. We are talking in the main about countries from Central and Eastern Europe which have enjoyed, as we all know, 40 years of dictatorship when civil society was emasculated, driven underground and destroyed. Although ten years have elapsed and great strides have now been made, I believe that a good deal of confidence-building is still required and that we need the openness that many of us have called for in the preparation and the implementation of these reforms. As the IGC takes place there are two aspects, therefore, that we in the European Parliament should remember. One is that in the past, IGCs have not prepared public opinion until the Treaty reforms had actually been agreed, particularly in reference to Maastricht. This had unfortunate consequences in a number of Member States. I believe we should learn the lessons from that mistake of the past and realise that the importance of this particular enlargement, the re-uniting of the European family, is something which our public at home needs to be made aware of while the IGC is actually taking place. And I believe that openness should also extend to the applicant countries themselves. It would be most unfortunate if we as the institutions of the EU saw this merely as a bureaucratic or a constitutional exercise to our own interest and our own advantage. It is specifically for the purpose of enlargement that openness is necessary. Therefore I believe that, where possible, not only should our own domestic public opinion be engaged at all stages but also the public opinion of the applicant countries in Central and Eastern Europe. I appreciate that that is a break in tradition from the nature of a governmental conference as we understood it in the past. But as I say, this is a very different type of IGC and therefore we have to be imaginative in the way that we present ourselves to the public.

Political group: PPE-DE
I have three brief questions for Mr Moscovici. Firstly, will he come and speak to us as a militant on a future occasion? Secondly, is he aware that the recent Labour Party Conference passed a document which overwhelmingly said that they would work with its international partners and all stake-holders towards addressing the concerns raised by advocates of the Tobin Tax and introducing new mechanisms for international stability and better global financial regulation? And thirdly, as he says he can neither say yes nor no at the moment, is he willing to argue for the European Union to conduct a study of these matters so that in future we will be able to say yes or no, and be able to make some sensible contribution to the UN Financing for Development Conference that is coming up at the beginning of 2002?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it is an absolute thrill for me to be able to start this debate in the absence of the rapporteur. You will have seen my look of desperation as I was scanning the room for Mrs Thors, but I am nonetheless pleased to do the honours. I wanted to begin by extending warm thanks to her for the excellent cooperation and the sterling work she has done. This is still the case, of course. But I am still sorry that she is unable to attend. Convergence plays a huge role across the globe and naturally relates to both the Internet and the mobile sector, which will soon be closely interwoven. This is one of Europe’s great opportunities, but digital television also plays an important role. There is enormous potential there too, provided we meet three pre-conditions which I will briefly outline for you. My first pre-condition is that we need to do more in the field of standardisation and interoperability. What do I mean by that? Interoperability of the set-top boxes is intended to avoid a situation where before long, users are having to place a whole assortment of boxes on top of their digital TVs in order to continue to watch the various programmes. We need to avoid this at all costs. I therefore welcome with open arms the DVB group’s recommendation of the Multimedia Home Platform as a possible standard. This is a step in the right direction. It has to come from the industry. I think that we can guide this process along to some extent, but the initiative has to come from the industry. Given the developments in the DVB group, it looks as if the industry has made good progress. I therefore hope that the industry will continue to seek open standards, because there are all kinds of exciting developments underway which we do not want to sabotage. But if the industry cannot achieve an open standard or interoperability, the politicians can and must speak out. A solution must then be found on a political plane as a last resort. My second remark concerns open access. It is of utmost importance that open access be established and that the current must carry rules remain in place, because Europe is more than just a digital economy. It is also a cultural Europe. This is why I think that the amendment tabled by Mrs Thors with regard to her own report is sound. The must carry rules must continue to exist as long as they are proportionate and restricted to those stations which are intended to fall within the scope of Protocol 32 annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam. Finally, it is absolutely vital that the directive on television without frontiers be reviewed. I hope that our Commissioner will be able to include this when he presents the new telecom legislation relatively soon, because a total package is desperately needed in order to eventually move convergence along much further in Europe, both in terms of telecomms and digital TV, and I hope that this package will enable Europe to take a leading role, which is what we called for in Lisbon.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, once again the people of Mozambique are the victims of terrible floods: half a million people have been affected, with 80 thousand people displaced, dozens of people dead or disappeared and considerable material damage, particularly in the provinces of Tete, Manica, Sofala and Zambezi. In addition to destroying infrastructures, these floods are causing a shortage of drinking water and food as well as a real danger of epidemics as serious and deadly as the floods themselves. The tragedy and the scale of this disaster are such that the Mozambican authorities cannot act efficiently or in isolation to resolve their serious economic, social and public health problems, particularly because Mozambique is a very poor country. The European Union and, in particular, the European Parliament, cannot turn their backs upon this tragedy, nor must we limit ourselves to simply expressing our sympathy. We therefore call on the Commission and the Member States to increase emergency aid to Mozambique, and to coordinate their aid in conjunction with third countries and multilateral organisations. We call upon the Member States to define a structural aid programme for Mozambique, within the Council and together with the Commission. We also urge the international community to be unstinting in its efforts to allocate human and material resources, to mobilise the emergency aid which is so necessary, to adopt economic and financial measures to contribute to the reconstruction of the regions that have been affected and to revive Mozambique’s economy, which has been so badly hit. Humanitarian disaster in Mongolia

Political group: PPE-DE