GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, as draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Development and Cooperation, I would like first of all to say that the European Parliament has scored a major victory in as much as the cuts in the Latin American, Asian and African poverty programmes have been made good. I would particularly like to extend warm thanks to the Commission and the Council for this. Latin America, Asia, Africa and the Balkans should be regarded as pillars of equal standing in our external policy and not played off against each other. This must shortly find expression – as is clear from the debate – in the multiannual programme. Secondly, it gives me great pleasure to note that there is support from the whole of Parliament, right across the political spectrum, for the concrete objectives for tackling poverty, as have been proposed by the Committee on Development and Cooperation in the 2001 budget, partly on the basis of the historical data provided by the European Commission; in particular, the doubling of the budgets for basic education and healthcare in the regional programmes for Latin America, Asia, Africa and the European Development Fund, amounting to a total of around EUR five million, is a huge step forwards. Output instead of input. We are counting on robust instructions and spending from the European Commission, in line with these objectives. I would like to thank Mrs Haug most sincerely.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, as the Union expands eastward to the countries of Central Europe and the Baltic, within just a few years’ time our relations with our eastern neighbours remaining outside the Union will become more and more important. The biggest potential for the Union to cement a state of peace in our immediate surroundings and to acquire new economic partnerships lies with Russia and the Ukraine. Unfortunately, this is not yet visible in the work of the Union. We like to find excuses for it, saying that these countries themselves still do not have the right economic conditions or political will to find suitable forms of cooperation. But we have already invested a considerable amount of money and resources in cooperation with the southern Mediterranean region, and we are still waiting for the results to materialise there. We also need a long-term approach to the East. I did not notice any mention in the President’s general report of our relations with the East, which perhaps was not possible within the framework of a broad overview. In recent years, the Union’s investment in Russia in terms of finance has been one tenth of what is being spent in the Mediterranean region. Just half of what has been spent on cooperation in the Mediterranean has gone to all countries of the former Soviet Union. This is out of all proportion with the relative importance of these two neighbouring regions. Forms of economic cooperation in particular must be concrete and feasible. Waste water from St. Petersburg and the surrounding area, with its population of some nine million, is flowing either untreated or via waterworks that function badly into the shallow, relatively salt-free and ecologically vulnerable Gulf of Finland. This has already resulted in harmful and lasting changes to the balance of nature, and the situation is continuing to deteriorate. President Prodi called for environmentally sustainable development. A sewage works for the Leningrad region would be one tangible and excellent example of a Nordic area of cooperation, and one which should now be got under way.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, you thought you were right to follow the procedure you adopted. On behalf of my group, I would like to say that we did not agree with your decision, but I do not want to dwell on that. I asked to speak because Mr Watson did. However, I certainly cannot accept that anyone – be it a member of my own group or one of the other groups – should take the moral high ground and accuse others of having unworthy intentions! (Loud, prolonged applause, heckling) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the reaction in this Chamber, the enormous support for what I have just said, is enough. I do not need to add anything else! (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the heat of the debate clearly shows that we are dealing with the heart of a real social issue and I would like to thank Mrs Buitenweg for having tackled it with her report. But let us be clear: are we not today acknowledging the failures of these three international conventions, the first of which is 40 years old? Are we not saying, today, that everything that we have done in terms of prohibition is meaningless? The major international meeting this April will decide to launch an evaluation of these conventions. This could be an opportunity to open a broad debate on the matter. The report we have here has considerable impact. It shows, for once, that we have reached a state of maturity and responsibility. It proposes, with reasoning based on pure good sense, an essential evaluation in order to put an end to the state of delirium or – dare I say it – the obscurantism which inspire certain individuals when discussing drug addiction. Talk of an evaluation and a review is not proselytism. We must conclude that the conventions are repressive, when we have just voted for a document which calls on us to move towards prevention and take more pragmatic steps. It is clear that the classification system which currently regulates various drugs is totally obsolete. How can we be endangered by a scientific re-evaluation carried out on the fundamental basis of the criterion of danger to health and society? Are the opponents of this measure, the defenders of zero-tolerance convinced so little by their arguments that they are coming to fear a simple evaluation? Let us be clear, that is, there is a genuine failure of all the policies we have developed; we should take the time to carry out these evaluations; we should put a stop to the stupid obscurantism which places cannabis and heroin on the same level. It is time to remember that the Member States are the ones which organise, ratify and write these conventions and that they may have now decided to reach a political position which is certainly more logical, coordinated and above all, more responsible in this field.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I believe that the quantity and quality of the speakers on the Charter of Fundamental Rights illustrates the importance this House attaches to it. Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I would urge you to see to it that the hearing you are to hold on the 19th with the President of the Convention, Mr Herzog, should not be a mere formality. It is not simply a question of listening to the President of the Convention, but also of listening to the actual problems which are being faced by the Convention at the moment, of asking what the final objective of the Charter is and of knowing how it is going to proceed. I believe that it would be of great help to the Convention if, in its conclusions, the European Council could make a statement on the future of the Charter, because it appears at the moment that its formulation has demonstrated that the Charter is of interest to the people. The participation of the NGOs, the participation of ordinary people, clearly show that Europeans are interested in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The institutional questions of the Intergovernmental Conference are enormously important, but they do not reach the people. I believe that the Charter of Fundamental Rights does reach the people. The Charter must be the soul of the European Union and, therefore, at a time when we are discussing enlargement, I believe that the European Council – which has promoted the creation of the Charter – must send a clear political message: the Charter is going to be a very important element of the European Union. The Charter will be the soul of the European Union of the future. Therefore, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I pray that in the Feira conclusions, which we will all read with enormous interest, the Charter will receive the boost that it deserves, so that the Convention will be able to complete its work properly. In that way we will fulfil the mandate of Salvador de Madariaga, for whom Europe would become a reality only when it is a reality in the minds of the citizens.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I have been fortunate enough to enter two new parliament buildings in the course of my political career. The first one was the Flemish Parliament around four years ago. In view of the fact that I was the official authorised to take responsibility for the buildings, I am well placed to draw comparisons between the opening of this building and the previous Parliament that I belonged to. I must say that I am in fact annoyed about the many shortcomings I have been able to discern in this building, with what I would say is almost a professional eye. I feel that the great interest in the building that is very much in evidence today bears witness to the fact that, to my mind, there was too little prior consultation with the Members of Parliament, with those who were to use the building. I think that there are lessons to be learnt from that for future reference. I want to make three points that may already have been made by some of my colleagues, but which serve to underline how important it could in fact be to bring about total change here. Firstly, the offices. I think our offices resemble a kind of glorified campsite. I think this is a classic example of the injudicious use of the space available. I therefore urge that adaptations be made, whatever the structural difficulties. But I think many of my colleagues will agree with me on this. Secondly, a great deal has been said about colours but I think that many psychologists would support my view that some colour schemes may produce severe depressive conditions, and that this particular colour scheme may be one of these. I hope not but time will tell. Thirdly, I feel that we are going to have to demonstrate greater efficiency and more streamlined procedures where the entrance to the visitors’ gallery is concerned. It has been brought to my notice that some people had to pass through five different security points this week, before gaining admission to the visitors’ gallery. And last but not least, we like to talk about transparency here. I believe it is important to talk about transparency, but I would also like there to be transparency as regards the cost price of the building, and I would also like to know what possibilities there are for recouping some of the costs arising from the building’s defects that have been noted here.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, as is evident from the Commission proposal and Mr Sjöstedt's report, what matters more than anything is for the Cartagena Protocol to be transposed into European legislation and for us to be able to enforce it. Biosafety and biological diversity are crucial and it is therefore essential that we should ensure that the Protocol becomes EU law. Do we, however, assume that it is sound as it stands, or would we like to use this opportunity to make an exception and be more rigorous than the Protocol? If it is the intention to implement the Protocol, that is what we should do, and it is important, in my view, for the sake of scientific research in the EU, not to close off the EU unnecessarily in one way or another from the rest of the world or make the work unnecessarily more difficult than in the rest of the world. Genetic engineering is a ground-breaking discipline and strikes me as very useful. As with all technologies, of course, the question is how it is employed. In addition, I believe that trade is necessary and boundaries need to be crossed so as to allow scientists to do their research. This is quite simply how science works, and as far as I can see, science hinders this research as little as possible. We must do what is needed and leave out what is not needed. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that we should implement the Protocol and that the report contains a few elements which are not conducive to this process. Further to discussions on the GMO reports which were held a couple of weeks, or even months, ago, I have already pointed out that I personally have a problem with traceable and non-traceable products, in other words, things which can, and cannot, be discovered. We have no intention of re-entering the debate, as it has already been held, but my group will definitely be endorsing Amendments Nos 51 and 50. This topic has been discussed among the Christian-Democrats. When restricted use and transit are at issue, the Protocol provides for an exception. I can therefore not see why we cannot do the same. Secondly, if the receiving country has already admitted GMOs, it is beyond me why we should re-apply for the same product to be imported and duplicate all the paperwork. These are unnecessary restrictions, in my view. It is, of course, true – and this is something I welcome – that we should provide the developing countries with as much information as possible, allowing them to be able to reach a sound verdict. What matters most is that we transpose the Protocol into EU legislation, but just as important is for the European Union not to become an island where little or no research may, or can, be carried out in this technology, which could be very useful in my opinion, both to us and to the people in the developing countries.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, first of all I apologise to you, the Commission and all my colleagues for being late, but I have come from another meeting and could not get here any earlier. Several accomplished speakers from the European People’s Party have already taken the floor to express the views of the group. Let me, then, give an overall view. First of all, I think, of course, that the Commission’s work is laudable and often extremely difficult. In this document entitled ‘Better Lawmaking’ there are barely two paragraphs on subsidiarity. This is evidently related to the difficulty of this principle, which we have even described as theological. Nevertheless I believe we have to insist that as it is in the Treaty it is a principle that can stand before the Court of Justice. It is true that we do not yet have a case based on a breach of the principle of subsidiarity, but it is there and we cannot ignore that. In other words, Mr President, the principle of subsidiarity is probably the principle that fuses, brings together and sums up what the building of Europe is all about, because ultimately it is nothing but the political will that is included in the Treaty. An understanding of the principle of subsidiarity depends greatly on what the political will is at any moment. I am therefore not very enthusiastic about certain aspects of the report, because I would have liked the report to have been more ‘communitising’ as regards the internal market, and on this point, especially, these are clearly not the prevailing winds in the report. As regards the rest, Mr President, the report deals with other issues that are not on the same level. Codification and simplification are important and laudable issues, but only a matter of good legal technique. I would therefore ask the Commission to provide us next year with a report on the implementation of the principle of subsidiarity with all its consequences, and another report on the implementation of good administrative and legislative techniques.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I think that you are right to refer to the arguments of the honourable Member who is talking about standards before status. That is an ‘either/or’ approach. Should we not, however, be aiming for a ‘both/and’ approach? Should we not be working on standards – and I share your opinion entirely – and the status of Kosovo at the same time? I think that a ‘both/and’ approach is a better one, one which offers the Kosovar people more hope and more opportunities. I just wanted to point that out.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, every day, people in Europe whose only desire is to make a future or new life for themselves or their families on our continent are abused and violated. Their longings are odiously exploited by all kinds of profiteers including those who transport these people to Europe and those who exploit their vulnerability within our own Member States. Many young women see their lives wrecked through prostitution and drugs. Others are exploited in hazardous occupations and are miserably remunerated outside any form of social protection system. People smuggling and trafficking in human beings must therefore be combated by every means available under the rule of law. This directive provides us with an additional opportunity to seize the big players. We naturally have a responsibility to help the victims and give them the opportunity of a better life. I believe that many of them may have reasons for remaining within the EU if they so wish, but that must happen through the customary channels. With the help of the victims, what counts is getting at the big villains. At the same time, a fair and sensitive balance must be struck between supporting the victims and tackling criminal activity – a combination of humanitarianism and the rule of law. Mrs Sörensen’s proposal improves the directive which can, however, be made better still. She herself mentioned a number of proposals. Of relevance in this connection are individual organisations and responsible state authorities, but what also matters is having the directive specify that victims be allowed access to the labour market, something which is not at present a part of this proposal. I want to second what has been said, to the effect that it clearly needs to be possible for people to extract themselves from the anxieties and serious problems that arise from their being so vulnerable. I want to thank Mrs Sörensen for a very good piece of work.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, the emission ceilings in the Commission’s proposal are very ambitious, more so than those agreed in the UN Economic Commission for Europe under the so-called Gothenburg Protocol, and so they should be. For my own part, I am ready to endorse the compromise prepared by the Group in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, according to which we shall comply with the Commission’s proposal except with regard to the area of ammonia emissions, as the proposal will not cause great problems for my own country, Finland, or our neighbour, Sweden, as has become evident on many occasions in this discussion. However, I also understand those views that advocate electing the ceilings proposed under the Gothenburg Protocol. However the voting goes tomorrow, I believe the Commission should continuously monitor developments in all Member States, and promote action to help industry to make the necessary changes. It is important that the environmental objectives are achieved as cost-effectively as possible throughout the whole Community. Air quality in Europe has improved considerably in recent years. Emission levels have decreased significantly, at least in the energy sector, in transport and in industry. In recent years, there have been more and more EU acts in the area of the environment and new targets have been set for industry. I think it is something of a problem that the targets are repeatedly changed before any proper assessment has been made of the effects, in practice, on the environment and the costs to industry of the legislative measures that have been adopted. Before further obligations are imposed it is important to ensure that the action that has already been agreed is implemented in the Member States in every respect. These two goals are not, in my opinion, mutually exclusive. Finally, I believe there should be international agreements on ceilings for emissions for shipping and aircraft, and, at this stage, they should not fall within the scope of the directive. Regarding long-term goals, I am of the opinion that there should be no strict deadline, but that Member States should endeavour, in accordance with their own goals, to meet the norms by the time stipulated or earlier.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to notify you that, at any rate, it is still possible to vote on the second part of Amendment No 1.

Political group: PPE-DE
I regret that due to the pressure of the agenda, there is only time to discuss three urgent matters. I endorse the view that Mr Katiforis and yourself have put forward, namely that when we talk about the plane-spotters, we should not interfere in national criminal law policy, but this does indicate, however, that there is good reason for better harmonising the penalty for crimes at European level, particularly in the light of the measures that have been taken in the wake of 11 September. The Liberals wanted to submit an urgent motion on this matter, but this was unfortunately overtaken by other priorities. In the case of other urgent business, an urgent motion or resolution is submitted more or less every month, and in this connection, I regret that we do not put a European issue on the agenda.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, my Group firmly supports this resolution. We owe a debt of gratitude to the USA for defeating two totalitarian regimes, for defeating national socialism and communism, and for establishing democracy and the rule of law throughout our continent. Nevertheless, the existence of the death penalty in the USA means that they could not join either the Council of Europe or the European Union. That means that we should tell even such an important partner as this one, in no uncertain terms, that they should finally abolish the death penalty at individual state level and all the more so at federal level. The American election campaign could provide a unique opportunity to send a strong message about this. Sad to say, just the opposite has happened, and the candidates are vying with each other in a populist way on this issue. However, we believe that the Atlantic Alliance is founded on democracy and the rule of law, so that the right to life should form the centrepiece of the legal system in both the USA and in Europe. That is why we want to state unequivocally in our Charter of Fundamental Rights that we support the right to life and that we are opposed to a culture of death as typified by the death penalty. Zimbabwe

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mrs Damião, the author of this report, is justified in her criticisms of the Commission as regards the delay in revising the current directive. The report quite rightly laments the Commission’s failure to comply with the timetable set by the directive and the fact that there has been no assessment of how effectively the directive has been implemented. The report stresses the need for a proposal for an urgent revision of the directive, and suggests inclusion of various measures, which we essentially support and agree with. As a matter of fact, in the discussions held in the Parliamentary committees, we tabled various amendments designed to guarantee the statutory right to take breaks from work for breastfeeding, to ensure non-discrimination in the workplace against pregnant women and women who have just given birth or who are breastfeeding, particularly in terms of salary, and to guarantee career progression and employment, with particular emphasis on the situation of working women who have temporary or atypical contracts. In general, the amendments were accepted, with the exception of the amendment on the payment of allowances during time off work and maternity leave, which must be equivalent to 100% of the previous salary and be taken into account for the purposes of calculating pension entitlements. I hope that Parliament will adopt this amendment.

Political group: GUE-NGL