GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, through mankind's own folly we have damaged the ozone layer which protects life on this planet and now we must do everything we can to undo that damage. There has been very little opposition to the principle of phasing out HCFCs and methyl bromide. The question in committee has been about the timescales which should be involved. All Members have been presented with a great deal of conflicting factual information which has made reaching a judgement difficult. Like the rapporteur, the Liberal Democrats want to ensure that rapid progress is made, that we see the maximum benefits in the shortest possible period. But the choices are not simple. There is a real fear that some of the well-intentioned amendments which have been tabled by the rapporteur may actually make the situation worse; in particular, that it will make it difficult for us to phase out across the world, and especially in the developing nations, the harmful CFCs which are so much more detrimental to the ozone layer than the items mentioned in this report. The benefits to be gained from these proposals are too small for us to take that risk. We support the rapporteur's aims and will be supporting most of her amendments but we are not convinced that she has addressed our concerns for the environment in their entirety.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I will not waste part of the one minute I am allowed to convince Members of the extremely grave consequences of the sequence of natural disasters which have taken place in Central America. However, I will use part of my speaking time to say that this has had short-term consequences. In brief: one and a half million people are suffering from hunger in the region, not to mention the long-term consequences for sustainable development and the climate. So far the European institutions have reacted by trying to alleviate the short-term consequences: with emergency aid and with deliveries of food, which have gone some way to alleviating the hunger in the region. So far we have been incapable of responding to the long-term needs or shortages. This resolution asks the Commission firstly to take account of these needs when drawing up the 2002 budget. Secondly, that it implement actions which will serve to accelerate and promote a sustainable development policy in the field of agricultural development, which will serve to prevent drought and the long-term consequences which I mentioned previously. Thirdly, I refer to section 4, relating to a policy of cooperation with the region in the long term, which would help to meet the needs which I stressed before.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I welcome this report and congratulate the rapporteur on the tremendous work he has done. This topic has been the subject of debate for a long time: sometimes heated, sometimes misrepresented, sometimes taken in the wrong way. I believe we need this, but it has to be realistic and it has to be workable. If it is not, then it will not work. Nine hours is about right. I do not think it makes much difference if we made it eight or ten hours, but we have to decide something. I think nine hours is right, but if it is not right, then we will revisit this at some stage in the future. But let us start somewhere! There is a difference between animals that are going for slaughter and animals that are continuing their journey, and there is a difference between cattle, sheep and pigs. Cattle travel long distances to go to agricultural shows, but these animals are well cared for by their owners. The problems start when the animal leaves the farm, goes to a haulier and moves onward. I know there are lots of differences between Member States and indeed between regions and I understand the concerns in remote areas, but we must address that. It has to be left to some extent to individual countries and indeed regions as to how they work their way through this. Animals should not be transported for long periods where at all possible, and the standards and the quality of lorries must be monitored very closely, especially the ventilation. Animals should always be slaughtered close to the place where they were reared. We should export on the hook and not the hoof. That is the reality of this. We should be limiting export on the hoof. I know there is a difference, but animals must be respected and they must be protected. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we do not disagree on the matter in hand, but we do urge that we go about it in another way. On Wednesday, we will be having a truly wide-ranging and very serious debate on Iraq and other important issues, and our group has made very careful preparation for this not only as regards speaking time but also as regards what is to be said. We therefore propose that it is not this week that we should have the debate on the International Criminal Court, but during the second September part-session. That would in any case still precede 30 September and the Council meeting, so we can have a prior debate concluded by a resolution. There is, then, no disagreement about this, but, when it comes to procedure, we favour the second September part-session here in Strasbourg rather than this week.

Political group: PPE-DE
Issues relating to police cooperation and to protecting our citizens are among our most pressing concerns. Police cooperation is essential if we are to provide the European public with a higher level of safety within the area of freedom, security and justice. Following up the conclusions of the Tampere European Council, the Portuguese presidency tabled an initiative, adopted in December 2000, which set in motion the first stage of the European Police College, as a network of the existing national training institutes of each Member State. The College is intended to train senior police officers by developing a European approach to the main problem areas in combating crime, preventing crime and maintaining law and order, in particular the cross-border dimensions of these problems. This report on the operation and future of the College notes some difficulties, mainly caused by the lack of legal personality. In spite of these difficulties, the College can be deemed to have done excellent work. I support these two initiatives, particularly the implementation, at legislative level, of the position adopted by most Member States, including Portugal. At this stage, it is preferable to retain the network structure of national institutes, but now with a legal personality, a governing board responsible for organising and running the College, and its own secretariat and seat.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we have made a considerable number of requests of the candidate countries – we have set a whole series of criteria – but from time to time it is good to reflect on our duties, and I should like to mention three of these. First of all we need to ensure that the public understands what is at stake. Here it seems to me that there is a lack of information in our countries. Secondly, we need to rethink cohesion policy, taking into account the points mentioned by the Commission in its second report. But we should have one priority: to bring the costs of enlargement under control. Finally, we need to reflect on the issue of federalism and democracy in an enlarged European Union. It is true that this is what the Convention is now doing on a daily basis. Nevertheless, it remains the key problem: we need more democracy in Europe.

Political group: ELDR
I support the Bradbourn report as the first step in reviewing Community guidance on the development of trans-European transport networks. For the future, we must attempt to achieve a thorough overhaul of this policy, both with regard to the trigger mechanisms – and here I mean the policy funding arrangements and involvement of the private sector – and to the TENs projects. In this respect, it should be said that the north-south axis must be upgraded to prepare for EU enlargement to include the countries of south-eastern Europe.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, my major concern is that the focus of EU action on crisis management is too often – I could say invariably – of a military nature, rather than on the longer-term conflict prevention which my colleagues have spoken about. I am pleased that the President-in-Office and Commissioner Patten understand the need to put in place measures to anticipate violent conflict and to promote what I would call a culture of prevention. Troop deployment, as we know, is expensive and very prone to failure. Of course, we need to be able to react rapidly, but the EU must improve its ability to use all the economic and political levers at its disposal and use them more effectively to tackle the root causes of tension, which the Commissioner mentioned earlier. Twenty-four of the world's forty poorest countries are either engaged in some kind of armed conflict or have recently emerged from it. In Africa, 20% of the population live in countries affected by armed conflict. Therefore I have to ask the Commissioner, how it is that the Commission's policy planning and early-warning units, provided for in the Amsterdam Treaty, have 20 members of staff, 11 of whom are engaged in working in Balkans whereas only one is assigned to the world's most conflict-prone region, Africa. I would be very happy if the Commissioner could look into that. Are there plans to have a more balanced approach in the early-warning unit? Secondly, would the Council and Commission not agree that we need urgently to develop common strategies for west Africa, the Horn of Africa, the Great Lakes region and for southern Africa? Finally, does the Commission agree that country strategy papers which have been drawn up under the Cotonou Agreement must urgently include an impact study of policies on conflict so that we can be assured that we know what might happen in the 77 countries which are part of the Cotonou Agreement.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin my intervention by agreeing with Mrs Berès’s complaint, because it really makes no sense to have held a debate, which is otherwise very interesting, on the Growth and Stability Pact and on the conclusions of the ECOFIN in Liège, to have debated ‘television without frontiers’ in the middle and now to hold what I believe to be a logical continuation of the first debate, the reports by Mrs Berès and Mrs Peijs, to whom I would like to say, on behalf of the , that they have our support and favourable vote. I feel compelled to relate this afternoon’s debate to the subjects of these reports, above all by referring to the current economic situation. It is clear that over the first few months of this year, the slow-down of the American economy has had more influence than was initially expected, and that the terrible terrorist attacks on New York and Washington have further worsened these prospects through needs for economic intervention which are truly new, urgent and no doubt justified. The strain of the situation, however, should not lead us to justify greater public intervention or, as the President-in-Office of the Council has said very correctly, to abandon or lose sight of the need to continue with the structural reforms which the European economy still needs if it is really going to be competitive on an international level. I trust that confidence will be recovered in the economic field as soon as possible and that the current special situation will be overcome, and we will shortly find that we have the same requirements that we had three months ago, that is, to consolidate the European economy, to make it more competitive in accordance with the Lisbon criteria, to strengthen coordination and, as we have often said to Commissioner Solbes, to have a genuine economic and monetary approach and policy, as the existence of the euro and monetary union demands. Ladies and gentlemen, this is my basic point, although there are other detailed matters which are sufficiently well-expressed in the respective reports by Mrs Berès and Mrs Peijs.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, it is now our task, in our capacity as politicians, to make decisions within a very difficult area of health. I say that, despite the fact that my ordinary profession is within the area of internal medicine. Far too little is known about the mechanisms of action of endocrine disrupters. Individual variation is very great. In addition, sensitivity varies from one period to the next during the human life cycle. Therefore, we cannot follow conventional routine and establish limit values for appropriate maximum exposure, since such limit values cannot be established in the case of endocrine disrupters. In our capacity as politicians, we must take the problem of endocrine disrupters with the utmost seriousness. I consider that the Commission’s strategy document in this area is very good. We need greater knowledge, research must be given priority, risk assessment must be accelerated and possible replacement substances must be identified. We need statements from the scientific committee. The public should be given objective information. We need consultation with Member States, with industry and with a variety of organisations. To achieve this, it is reasonable for the Commission to work on the basis of a priority list. As regards the proposal on the report from the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I have an important objection, for I do not share the view that voluntary agreements in general are not a practicable way to proceed. On the contrary, I feel that voluntary agreements can be a faster way to proceed than going down the route of legislation. Agreements such as time limits on use, restrictions on release onto the market and the phasing in of various risk-free products are often preferable when the circumstances have not been clarified, but where it is valuable to be flexible and to take measures rapidly. Finally, I would like to emphasise that the legislative methods must always be preceded by a comprehensive scientific assessment and recommendation from the scientific committee. These assessments and recommendations must be observed by us as decision makers. It is a requirement of political propriety.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, the population is concerned, because there are indications of a link between this depleted uranium in munitions and effects on people's health and on the environment. At the same time, however, we are aware that there is no proof yet of the existence of such a link. Not a single scientific study, not one of the studies that have been conducted in Spain, Italy or other countries, has come up with evidence. For this reason, following on from the remarks made here by the High Representative of the EU, Dr Solana, I should like to say that this discussion does not in any way amount to a rehabilitation of Slobodan Milosevic. The missions undertaken in Bosnia and in Kosovo by the troops of NATO and of EU Member States were missions against a war criminal. We owe an undiminished debt of gratitude to these people for having committed themselves in this way to the cause of human rights. Those who bear political and military responsibility also deserve our appreciation. Let me state that here categorically on behalf of my group. (Applause) We hear, however, that the deployed weapons set off chemical processes on impact, processes which result in the creation of uranium oxide, for example, and which may pose problems. Over the past few days we have been hearing about examinations conducted by the Pentagon in January 2000 from which it emerged that this ammunition sometimes contains small amounts of plutonium too. This entails risks, and the troops must be instructed to take particular care in areas where these munitions have been deployed. In view of these considerations, it is indeed necessary to conduct tests for safety's sake. These tests are not a sign of weakness but a sign of the credibility of democracies which investigate such matters and sweep nothing under the carpet. We owe that to the military personnel and the staff of non-governmental organisations who were involved, as well as to the civilian population of the region. We must establish whether there are actually effects on human health and the environment, so that we can either sound the all-clear or take such weapons out of circulation for all time. At the same time, it is also essential, during the period in which these weapons and their effects are being studied, that existing alternative ammunition be used which is equally efficient without having any of the feared effects. May I express my thanks to Dr Solana and the Commission for their willingness to keep the European Parliament informed, so that we can make our final assessment in due course on the basis of their information and thus guarantee the safety of our citizens and our troops as well as ensuring the credibility of any military operations we may have to undertake in future in defence of human rights.

Political group: PPE-DE
Transport is an essential sector of undeniable strategic importance for sustainable development and for economic and social cohesion throughout the Union because it transcends the economic and union interests of the sector and its quality affects the entire Community. We fully support the railways within the Union’s transport system and call for top priority to be given to urgent changes to the terms governing its expansion, nature and adjustment to market conditions. We advocate the responsible liberalisation of European railway management. We support the institutionalisation of a European Transport Fund. - Auroi resolution (A5-0016/2003)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, I thank you for this reply, which raises our hopes. At present we are looking for other more profitable ships and service operators to take the place of those that have now discontinued service, and the intention would be to combine passenger and freight traffic. Could you imagine how the Interreg programme you mentioned might help projects like these, which bring shipping services into operation? That project would have a clear impact on employment. For example, in Vaasa, the city I mentioned, 550 jobs have been lost in the last two years in the travel and tourism industry alone, which may have been the result of stopping duty-free sales.

Political group: PPE-DE
My group has just voted in favour of the Lucas report, because of the following considerations. A massive warming of the earth's atmosphere in coming years because of emissions of carbon dioxide and other harmful gases was recently forecast, once again by the World Wide Fund For Nature. This calls for an immediate response in the form of a rational policy and an economic system that is not solely geared towards short-term profit. With an estimated share of 15%, air transport is, of course, not the only cause of air pollution and by no means the most important. However, bearing in mind the forecast doubling of air traffic by 2015 within the EU alone, it is positively essential for the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament to take joint measures to limit the environmentally harmful impact of air traffic. These measures need to cover the whole range of harmful impacts, including emissions, noise, and poor air traffic management and town and country planning, and to take account of the economic interests of airlines in a balanced way. We support setting rigid limit values for emissions and noise pollution and the EU initiative being called for at the forthcoming 33rd ICAO Assembly. And should the outcome of the ICAO Assembly be unsatisfactory, we are therefore also calling for the EU to set its own limits. Measures of this kind can and must encourage the air transport industry to develop new technological solutions, and more efficient, cleaner and quieter jet turbines.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the reform of the trans-European networks, which has been mentioned in this debate, has no future. It does not appear to be underpinned by any real and sustainable concept of mobility for the whole of Europe; on the contrary, it is no more than yet another mixed bag of national interests. The proposals that have been tabled are the ones that it was thought would gain acceptance. These projects do not appear to have been analysed in terms of their benefits and optimum costs, and, in many respects, they contravene European environmental law. One of the things that make this clear is that projects given priority status are in breach of the Birds Directive, the Habitats Directive and the Water Framework Directive. Among them, let me mention only the Kresna Gorge and the bridge over the Straits of Messina. The concept of trans-European networks must be able to stand up to a strategic environmental assessment if the projects are to receive European funding. Only projects that pass this test can be supported. European funds must be invested in a sustainable way; they must also be capable of opening up ways ahead, enabling our children to enjoy mobility in the future. The projects we are planning are long-term ones. We firmly reject these misconceived plans, especially those to which I have referred.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Anyone establishing fundamental rights in the European Union must know whether these rights are being observed seriously by the governments concerned. It is to Mrs Swiebel’s credit that she has documented so well how much is wrong in Europe in the area of human rights. She correctly focuses attention on police misconduct, abuses in prisons, discrimination against ethnic minorities, failings in criminal proceedings and the vestiges of inequalities between men and women. This also applies to child labour, the access of non-EU citizens to the labour market, the difficulties people have in obtaining the nationality of the country in which they are now living, and the lack of the right to vote for those who have not yet obtained this nationality. EU Member States are apparently failing to ratify international treaties on national minorities, cross-border television, the revised European Social Charter and the status of adopted or illegitimate children. Minors are being used as child soldiers. Excessively authoritarian security measures that are now being justified with reference to the current threat of terrorism are threatening to become permanent. We are very much in need of this inventory so that we can put an end to abuses more effectively. It is striking that this report, which speaks for itself, was only adopted by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs by 25 votes to 20. Evidently there is a large minority in this Parliament that does not want to tackle the existing violations of fundamental rights.

Political group: GUE-NGL