GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I share the opinion already expressed by many in this House. I have to say that during the Convention, in which I was proud to take part as an alternate member, I respected - though I did not always agree with - the positions taken by the United Kingdom Government representatives. They made their position clear, they sometimes took an unpopular stand, but on the whole they stood on a given ground and we reached a conclusion and compromises. Sometimes I would have liked them to have taken a different line, for example, a stronger line in relation to the unsatisfactorily readjusted sections on fisheries in parts I and III. As Mr Corbett bravely pointed out, although governments could have voiced reservations or come forward with different views on matters that were central to the discussion at the Convention, nothing was said. Both Mr Duff and Mr Méndez de Vigo made the point that these matters were extensively, not inadequately, discussed at the Convention. Now, suddenly, on the core issue of the budget, the ECOFIN Council and, I am afraid, the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer with it, says that the Convention's entire proposal makes no sense and that a completely new order needs to be brought about. That, surely, is about the most unsatisfactory way of conducting things that can be imagined. I criticise the UK Government – it is not the only government at fault – but we should all be calling upon all governments involved to get their acts together and get this thing finished reasonably quickly and on the basis of the Convention.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, could I ask Mr Bolkestein to explain to Mr Watts the difference between privatisation and liberalisation?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we live in a world characterised by great material wealth, but the wealth is unevenly distributed. At present, more than three billion people are trying to survive on less than two dollars per day. Eradicating poverty is a moral imperative, but it is also an issue directly linked to our common security. We live in a world in which countries and people are increasingly interdependent, which is more divided and in which there is greater danger of tensions, large-scale migration, damage to the natural environment and increased crime. All this can of course also be linked to desperate acts that can lead, for example to terrorism. It is against this background that we must view not only the forthcoming conference in Monterrey, but also this autumn’s world summit in Johannesburg. On both occasions, rich and poor countries will have an opportunity to agree upon a long-term plan to eradicate poverty step by step. The rich nations must offer increased support. The poor nations must determine their priorities when it comes to work on combating poverty, greater respect for democracy and human rights and a more vigorous fight against corruption etc. I think the consensus document referred to here today is weak. No amount of fine words and eloquent rhetoric can eradicate poverty. The spirit of this resolution is therefore that the EU should make every conceivable effort in Monterrey to ensure that specific pledges are made on increased cooperation and transfers of resources, debt cancellation and generally increased aid in a range of areas. One particular issue is that of work designed to increase the production of the global, or ‘public’, goods to which Commissioner Nielson refers, that is to say efforts to protect the climate, combat deforestation and develop vaccines and medicines to combat infectious diseases etc. Through this resolution, we are sending a clear signal to the Commission, to the governments of our Member States and to the international community that, as parliamentarians, we take these issues extremely seriously and desire more than merely words in Monterrey. We want to see practical results.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by congratulating Mrs Cederschiöld on the excellent report she has presented, which the European People’s Party supports and will vote for. We are facing a problem of considerable topical interest, which has assumed worrying dimensions and which has today become a form of organised crime, with a transnational nature, which must be responded to at Community level, because the new information and communication technologies have a fundamental impact on the daily life of the citizens and on the economy of our societies. It is therefore crucial that there should be rigorous protection against potential abuses or criminal acts. Hacking, in whatever form, is an economic risk, risks a loss of confidence in electronic commerce and also poses a threat to individual privacy. The targets of these attacks are not only network operators, Internet service providers and electronic commerce businesses, but also private persons who have no commercial intentions. The protection of information systems is a crucial element in creating an area of freedom, security and justice. We must, however, guarantee that no restrictions are imposed on fundamental rights and freedoms, that fundamental principles of law are not changed and that individual acts that take place purely as a result of mistakes in the use of new technologies are not punished. As I have already said in this plenary, security is and must be only one tool for safeguarding these fundamental rights and freedoms. The Cederschiöld Report contains five essential points: firstly, the approximation of criminal law in the Member States in the field of attacks against information systems; secondly, stepping up police and judicial cooperation in this field; thirdly, enhancing prevention, promoting a culture of security, making actors aware of security risks to information networks; fourth, the existence of flexibility in criminal law on unimportant issues or those of lesser importance, thereby avoiding imposing binding, criminalising measures at European level; fifthly and lastly, and this demonstrates special consideration for young people, to allow judges the possibility to acquit minors who are charged for the first time with this type of offence, and who did not commit this misdemeanour with the intent of causing damage or procuring an economic benefit or creating prospective profits for a criminal organisation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this Parliament would not be able to function without aviation, which according to some might not be such a bad thing. But we need to focus all our efforts on how we can minimise the effects of the rapid growth within this sector on the environment. I would like to highlight a number of points. In my opinion, the European Union should support the ICAO process. Only within the context of this international body is it possible to discuss tighter rules for noise generated by aircraft. We should however urge caution. Proposing new standards has a huge impact on the European aviation industry as a whole. In concrete terms, a standard considerably stricter than the current one would mean that out of the present European fleet of 3,300 aircraft, 1,067 would need to be replaced. Such a rapid and forced decommissioning would make it practically impossible to replace these aircraft with new ones, due to, among other things, the small production capacity for new aircraft. We only have two manufacturers. The consequences for European aviation are not hard to imagine. It would need to surrender part of the market to its competitors, and it is very questionable whether this would benefit our safety. Furthermore, it would lead to a considerable reduction in employment, with all the problems that this entails. Air fares would go up. I am very aware that this would be a bonus for some, but do remember that, for airline passengers who need to travel short distances, there is still no real alternative, contrary to what one of my fellow MEPs just stated, to the effect that we would all much prefer to see such passengers travel by train.. Member States and my country in particular, the Netherlands, are extremely slow in introducing high-speed trains which could form a viable alternative for short-distance travel. Aircraft manufacturers should be put under considerable pressure to build cleaner and quieter aircraft. That is why the new standards cannot be put on hold forever. We will try to exert this pressure at international level but we will run out of patience at some stage. Finally, I would like to say a few words on noise-sensitive airports. In my opinion, measurements should be taken in a truly objective manner and complaints from those living in the vicinity should not be the only point of reference. An international standard needs to be established, but some airports, which do not cause any pollution whatsoever to those living in the vicinity, should be exempt so that they are not hindered in their development.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to unreservedly endorse what was said by the previous speakers. Yesterday, in this House, we held a press conference in which all the political groups took part. We wrote a joint open letter to a specific newspaper in Germany and set out our view of the allegations. Only if each specific allegation is specifically refuted will we all jointly be able to restore the popular and public confidence in this House; what is at stake is the standing of every single one of its Members, the standing and integrity of the European Parliament itself. I therefore ask that each allegation should indeed be examined specifically, as Mr Schulz has proposed.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Professor Tsatsos has interesting, valuable, progressive views on the constitutional venture of the European Union. If these views had passed into the report and the motion which he drafted together with his colleague Mr Gil-Robles, I believe I would have voted for it. However, there prevails in the motion a concept of rounded corners, of compromise at any cost and of a ‘realism’ which is completely devoid of the democratic spirit of the articles written by the Greek rapporteur. Unfortunately, the European Parliament is thus behind even the European Commission on top institutional issues, such as, for example, the number or the role of the commissioners or the presidency of the Council. Thus, despite the useful ideas in the motion on issues such as the role of the European Parliament and the national parliaments, the development of social policy or referenda, I abstained from the final vote.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, it does indeed cause some confusion when two people have the same surname and not even the parliamentary staff are able to distinguish between them. Our post also gets mixed up sometimes for the same reason. Following the horrific events of the Second World War, the United Nations refloated the idea of setting up an international criminal court. Further impetus was given to this initiative by the violations of international law in Yugoslavia and the massacres in Rwanda. Some people are asking where the International Criminal Court will have jurisdiction compared with the courts which already exist. The ECJ in Luxembourg rules on the application and interpretation of the treaties of the European Union. The International Court of Justice in The Hague rules on international disputes. The International Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg passes judgement on violations by States of rights arising from the Human Rights Convention. The International Criminal Court is being set up for the four particularly serious crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression. Until now the United Nations has authorised special courts, for example the ad hoc criminal tribunals for the crimes committed in Yugoslavia and Rwanda. In the future, the International Criminal Court will send out a clear signal that perpetrators of any of these crimes will be prosecuted and punished. War criminals will no longer be able to hide behind the borders of sovereignty. The new Court is an important achievement for the international community which will allow it to close loopholes in criminal prosecution. I should therefore like to call on all of the Member States to ratify the Statute soon, and I would recommend adoption of the resolution.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the biggest single project between the EU and Russia is the creation of a common European economic area. It has been hard making that a reality, as it has been a matter of a bilateral project between the EU and Russia. At the same time both sides have been developing relations of cooperation with other states. Thus, Russia has recently concluded an agreement with Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan on the formation of a common economic area. The EU has its own separately agreed arrangements with these countries. In my opinion it would be wise to try and bring together these arrangements for cooperation by establishing a broader, multilateral, economic area of cooperation, with the involvement of not only the EU and Russia but also that of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan as well as any other of the Newly Industrialised Countries willing to participate. Where appropriate the European Economic Area, which was established between the EU and EFTA, could be taken as a model. An arrangement agreed along such lines would be well suited to the EU’s evolving broader European policy. The EU’s new, broader European policy also offers opportunities for the development of cross-border cooperation where the EU shares a border with Russia. The Commission proposal for a new financial instrument for neighbourly cooperation will eliminate those problems which we have had harmonising internal and external financial schemes. The Russian authorities must familiarise themselves with the new financing scheme in good time so that we can be sure it will work right from the start. Finally, my greetings go to the Russian Government. Can you ensure that human rights are implemented in Chechnya and do your very best to seek a peaceful solution to this region’s problems!

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I voted for Mr Martens’ important report on education and training, but I hope that the pensioners of the different sectors of European industry will soon stop playing cards or sitting at home in front of the television, counting the days they have left to live, and be used, if they so wish, to pass on their knowledge to workers, especially young workers. For example, pensioners from the banking sector could teach new employees how to manage the bank’s money and achieve good results, and a similar process could be introduced in other sectors: there should be more pensioners in vocational training and lifelong learning. Report Olsson (A5-0467/2001)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to raise once more the case of the plane-spotters in Greece. You will remember that they were arrested on 8 November 2001. At their trial on 26 April 2002 many of them were sentenced to terms of imprisonment, but at their appeal on 6 November 2002 those present were acquitted of all charges. That, eventually, was the good news. The bad news is that, over four months after their acquittal, their bail money has still not been returned. At GBP 9 000 each, this is a considerable amount of money and I request that you draw this matter to the attention of the Greek presidency and ask it to take urgent action to redress this regrettable state of affairs, which is causing hardship to the plane-spotters and to their families. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the earthquake in Turkey is clearly one of the most dreadful disasters of this century. Nothing further need be said about the number of victims. We also know that in Turkey in the near future there will be tens of thousands of homeless people who must continue their lives in the earthquake region for years without prospects. In these conditions it is naturally very important to reflect more intensely on how we could more preventatively approach this situation regarding earthquakes and Turkey. It can never be early enough to initiate fundamental thinking on the earthquake and its consequences. There is urgent need for international dialogue on this Turkish disaster to determine the best course for the reconstruction of the country. This dialogue could begin between the European Union and Turkey. I support what Mr Swoboda said just now, but given the situation we currently have in Turkey, i.e. the willingness to use its relationships with European partners, we should first – in today’s motion for a resolution – speak about aid for Turkey in a much more concrete manner, and show our Turkish friends that we are there for them if they need our assistance, and also convey the impression to them that, they will not be seen by us in a sweeping way as adversaries, as was so often the case before the earthquake in Turkey. The proposal of my Group would be that now, in addition to considering how we can best help Turkey in its reconstruction, we must also give additional thought to how we can offer Turkey some prospects for the future. While engaging in these reflections, we should also deal with Turkey much more openly and clearly show that, as far as the prospects of EU accession are concerned, we would be genuinely willing to accept Turkey as the thirteenth applicant country, should Turkey approach us. We will have enough opportunities to take advantage of this in the next three months.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the mother of a victim of the bombing who was interviewed on television asked 'How is my child to blame?' Why should women, children and defenceless civilians always be the victims of military action? Over 32 people were killed and 40 were injured in the bombing of Kurdish villages by the Turkish military in Kendakor on 15 August. This is a bloodbath and a crime against humanity. It is a sign of the Turkish Government's attitude towards peace and towards the Kurds at a time when the Kurds had made a peaceful gesture. As a spokesperson for the Turkish Ministry for Foreign Affairs has confirmed, Turkey from time to time carries out operations against the PKK, who have now, for the third time, declared a unilateral ceasefire. I would like to know why arms are being delivered to Turkey right in the middle of the pre-accession process, and why arms factories are being built. Why were the human rights organisations and World Peace Day banned on 1 September? Is it really possible to accelerate the democratisation process using weapons and arms? The answer is no. The best way to achieve peace is a peaceful solution of the Kurdish problem and respect for human rights. Why is that mothers always have to suffer? Can we not help to foster fellowship and peace between the Kurdish and Turkish peoples? I welcome the MEDA programme, which states that all state, legal, political, cultural and social discrimination against the Kurdish population by the Turkish Government should cease. Granting EU financial aid to Turkey should be tied to solving the Kurdish problem, and this aid should be devoted to overcoming the economic and social underdevelopment of the Kurdish region. Bombing civilian populations should no longer be allowed in this century. I wish to condemn this inhumanity and want to see an end to this crime. Those guilty of such crimes should be condemned. I call on the Council and the Member States to consistently condemn the bombing of Kurdish villages and to make representations to the Turkish Government for them to start negotiations with the Kurds' democratic representatives for a political solution as soon as possible. That is the fast track into the EU.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I would like to thank the President-in-Office for a very long, detailed and serious reply. Because I do not speak Portuguese I shall study the reply before the next question time and come back to you on it in April. For now I would like you to give me a very simple reply to a very simple question of principle. Do you accept that for legislation in a democratic environment, in which we are in the European Union, the public, whom the laws affect, should be able to see and hear what their elected representatives are doing to pass the laws? I do not think it is the case in the Council that the public is actually able to see and hear everything that their representatives say and do when passing laws. Would you accept that principle?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I had informed the services that I should like to table an oral amendment after Article 39. I should now like to ask you whether this is still possible. That is very kind of you. We have at the moment a situation in which, among others, the Dutchman, Arjan Erkel is still being held, with no indication as to his whereabouts. This is why I should like to table the following oral amendment, which is in line with the rapporteur's views. I will read it to you in English. It is to be inserted after Article 39, and reads as follows:. 'condemns the continuous abduction of civilians and foreign nationals in Chechnya and calls upon all parties concerned to secure the immediate release of all hostages.'

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, firstly I would like to thank and congratulate the rapporteur for an excellent report and for the fact that most of the amendments put forward by the Committee on Budgets have been included in it. The European Development Fund came from the desire on the part of the Member States to help regions in Asia, the Caribbean and the Pacific develop. At present all EU Member States participate in the funding, although the way they do differs slightly from how they contribute proportionately to the European Union budget. The management of the European Development Fund is confusing. The agreement on the fund has to be ratified by all EU countries and two thirds of the recipient countries. This generally takes years. As a result there have been delays in its implementation and fluctuations in the degree of financing. The funds are managed by the Commission, but the authorities in the ACP countries implement the projects. One problem is the weak administrative capacities of the recipient countries. There is poor parliamentary control. The European Parliament grants discharge, but it is difficult to clarify administrative procedures and clear accounts. A consequence of this confused system of management is inefficiency. Because each development fund is meant to be used in its entirety, the result is that what is left over from previous funds is transferred to subsequent funds. At the same time there has been an increase in outstanding commitments, which now stand at EUR 11 billion. At the same time the same countries are being granted development aid out of EU budget funds, to the tune of approximately EUR 700 million in 2002, for example. These funds are managed in accordance with the EU’s Financial Regulation. They are made available during the budget procedure, the Commission is responsible for how they are used, and the financial statements come under scrutiny during the discharge procedure. It is important for EU development cooperation and in the interests of the ACP countries that the management of the European Development Fund can be simplified and made to work more efficiently. That is why the Commission’s initiative to integrate the EDF into the EU budget is right. That way administration would be simplified and made to work more efficiently, the funding procedure would be stabilised, and future financing via the EU would be harmonised as one whole process. For that reason, the Committee on Budgets supports the Commission proposal on this matter.

Political group: ELDR