GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the President-in-Office of the Council conveyed a moment ago in a positive and constructive manner that he is prepared to join forces with us. We extend a very warm welcome to you in our midst in this Parliament, Mr Frattini. Commissioner, you also quite rightly mentioned the name of the Dutchman, Arjan Erkel, a moment ago. I am very indebted to you for this, because Arjan Erkel, the head of the Médecins sans Frontières mission in Dagestan, has been missing since August last year. He was kidnapped, and it is especially important that this abduction should receive the Commission’s, and also the Council’s, attention. We know that Arjan's father has been keeping everyone informed about this case for months now, and I hope that it will have a positive outcome. We were going to return home via Chechnya after the trip we recently made with four MEPs. I have to say that it was quite a depressing experience: compared to Bosnia and Sarajevo – I can draw a comparison with the war situation at the time – Grozny and Chechnya are actually worse off. We, and also the Americans, in particular, have a dangerous tendency to define this Russian war in the way that suits us best, hence, along the lines of 'if you do not criticise our war, then we won't criticise yours'. We in the European Union should be careful about doing this: it is not only rebels and terrorists who are fighting the Russian armed forces, there are also others that most definitely fall within the category of resistance fighters. The Chechens are not wrong by definition, and nor are the Russians. The fact is, however, that many citizens in Chechnya, on account of the action taken by the Russian troops, tend, in their desperation, to veer to the anti-Russian camp. We ourselves were able to make out from conversations on the streets that there are justified complaints from people who saw their friends being beaten up and who therefore know that others are too scared to go to work in Grozny, because the risk of random, extremely rough action from the Russian military is enormous. We can somewhat identify with this situation if you know that many of us have a colonial history in our own countries, during which time all kinds of things happened that did not come to light until much later. In the case of Russia's action in Chechnya, matters come to light quicker, which is good. This is why I should like to urge both the Commission and the Council to employ all political and diplomatic means available to us in order to curb the violence in Chechnya. Indeed, this is desperately needed, and we cannot even be all that demanding.

Political group: PPE-DE
The opportunities provided by the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) and the contribution they make to changes in society are self-evident. The aim of the information society is also effectively to provide information that is immediate and at prices that are feasible for all citizens. Imbalances remain between men and women in the field of training and employment in the new ICT and I therefore voted in favour of the report. - The European Commission and the Member States must draw up policies that will help to increase the participation of women in ICT. - ICT must be integrated into education from the most elementary levels to higher education and vocational training. - The Structural Funds must be used to provide courses for specific training in this field that will enable women to enter or re-enter the labour market. These measures must also be implemented in the candidate countries and in the developing countries in order to increase women’s opportunities in the labour market, and to ensure that information is exchanged in various areas.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this Parliament has discussed the situation in Colombia many times. The situation in Colombia is that of a latent civil war in which, over several decades, the violence has taken on a structural nature. This latent civil war was complicated a great deal as a result of the development of drug trafficking, with Colombia becoming a country where drugs are produced and transported to the rest of the world. In that situation, there are various groups who use violence. I am referring not only to the paramilitary organisations and the guerrillas, but also to the drug trafficking organisations. At times, even military units use violence and violate human rights. In a situation of this kind, the attempt to establish peace zones, for example through the peace communities established in the rural region of Urabá, has faced great difficulties. In fact, recently there have been murders in these communities in Urabá, specifically in the region of La Unión. Their leaders have had death threats, and death threats in Colombia are something to be taken very seriously, because they tend to be carried out. There is really not very much this Parliament can do. We of course support the efforts of the Colombian Government and other organisations to achieve peace, and we reiterate our desire and interest in the European institutions cooperating with the Colombian Government in helping to maintain peace.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as we were at second reading, I was unable to register my opposition to the Swoboda and, more importantly, the Jarzembowski report. The Council and the Commission had struck a certain balance by taking account of the specific situation of small networks and remote islands. Parliament, in its perennial quest to go one step further and faster than the Commission and the Council, has wheeled out its regulating steamroller and wants to put all the networks in one basket. We have been told that liberalising rail transport will give us far more services. Everyone knows this will only apply to main lines with a heavy volume of traffic and that competition for public services will concentrate on profitable lines; the rest will have to provide public services under conditions which are sometimes less than favourable. I am against this ultra-liberal logic and was anxious to register my opposition.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on behalf of my group I have the pleasure of welcoming Mrs Grossetête's report. I particularly want to stress a clause which she mentioned in her own speech: recital (e) says that on the eve of several successive enlargements the conduct of the current Member States of the Union in the application of Community law must be exemplary. And so indeed it must. Alas, we know that it is not so in all cases. I have on more than one occasion in this House referred, as others have done, to the shocking case of the foreign language lecturers in Italy who first received a judgment in their favour eleven years ago. The law of Italy has not yet been brought into conformity with it, to satisfy their rights. We are tested by our will in favour of the individual, the citizen, seeking their rights under Community law. No rights are more important than those against discrimination and those in favour of freedom of movement. If we do not satisfy these we let ourselves down in the face of our own aspirations. I have received disturbing correspondence this week from a number of sources in Germany, suggesting that a similar problem may be building up concerning self-employed foreign language teachers working there, where laws are being applied retrospectively for the convenience for the state with apparent injustice to the teachers. I shall be following that up and we may have to look into it again. I cite these two exemplary cases simply to stress the importance of Mrs Grossetête's report and to thank her personally for her own intervention in the former case which I am sure will move it forward. I apologise for the fact that I cannot stay to the end of this debate owing to exigencies of transport between here and Edinburgh, but I am delighted to have had the chance of participating so far.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, let me just reiterate the point that, as I recall it, the Conference of Presidents resolved unanimously – something it very rarely does – to ask the Chairman of the Convention to join us for this part-session. I do not know whether an official summons or invitation was issued, or whether it was declined. That may well be the case, but I would like clarification – which we are not going to get right now – as to whether, if the Conference of Presidents’ resolution was unanimous, that resolution was implemented as regards our procedure, and I would be obliged if we could be given more precise information on the subject on Thursday morning. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I do not wish to make an explanation of vote. I am simply here to listen to colleagues' explanations of vote, in particular Mr Fatuzzo's, and I would earnestly request that you do something about the level of noise here. This shows an unacceptable lack of respect for those who are making explanations of vote.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, with your permission I will just say a few additional words, which perhaps have more to do with practicalities and less to do with the substance. Firstly, I should like to compliment Commissioner Lamy most particularly on the superb cooperation which we are enjoying and – I think that I speak for everyone – on the excellent manner in which he is representing the European Union in the run-up to this forthcoming trade round. His task will certainly be a difficult one. The right balance needs to be struck between, on the one hand, representing European interests and, on the other, ensuring that the other countries, our negotiating partners, and in particular the developing countries, are brought on board. Personally, I believe that this round will, more than any other, be able to send out a message to the world that it is possible to reconcile trade and politics. I trust, Commissioner Lamy, that you are in a position to achieve this, working together with your colleague Bob Zoelleck, but also with the many other negotiating partners that you have. It will not be an easy task. However, everything bodes well. I am grateful to you for consistently encouraging Parliament to play a more significant role in trade policy. Regrettably the Council has not taken the same step. Like you, I hope that we will be able to achieve more in this respect in the future. Incidentally, I should also like to thank all those colleagues in this House who have always supported this policy. I should, moreover, like to remind you, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, that you also have a task to carry out in Doha, namely organising the meeting with all of the trade ministers. We have a good tradition of arranging for the European Parliament's delegation to meet the ministers attending the trade round. I would earnestly request that you organise this meeting again this time and also ensure that we have a debate and that it is not just an occasion for a chat or seen as a bit of an afterthought, as the Council is wont to do, but that it really is an occasion for serious dialogue. In addition, I should also like to inform you very briefly – my colleague, Konrad Schwaiger, mentioned this – that the parliaments will also have a joint meeting in Doha. The invitation will be extended jointly by the President of this House and the President of the IPU. I hope that we will make progress there. Here, too, we need your support, Madam President-in-Office of the Council. We have always had this support from the Commission. Thank you once again for cooperating with us.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, first of all I should like say on behalf of my group that we are very disappointed at the failure to include in the resolution a call for all European Member States and EU applicant Member States to give their full support for the new agenda coalition resolution which is now on the table of the 55th United Nations General Assembly. This resolution which, incidentally, is supported by the European Parliament and by my own country, Ireland, sets forth a new way of thinking for effective measures to forward the cause of a nuclear-free world. The American decision is deplorable and it sends out a very dangerous signal to the rest of the world as regards nuclear disarmament. The recent case in Scotland which has re-endorsed the International Court’s ruling that nuclear weapons are illegal is also interesting and has to be taken on board. We also have to look at NATO where there needs to be a review because, as far as I can see, the US has demonstrated quite clearly its contempt for the whole issue of nuclear disarmament at an international level. These are issues which have to be taken on board. Finally, the European Union should look again at its policy of supporting NATO and the Western European Union. Both military organisations are committed to nuclear weapons, weapons that the International Court has deemed illegal. We are supporting illegal weapons and we really have to look at this.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to say a few words on the joint resolution, which will, of course, be passed. First, I want to express our regret at the euphemistic wording adopted. To talk of human rights violations, refusing to set words such as assassination, torture and disappearance down in black and white, is a serious matter. You all know full well that, for the victims, an official institution’s refusal to acknowledge the atrocity is, in a way, another sort of torture because it prevents them from mourning, from recovering from this period in their lives, as every post-traumatic treatment centre for the former victims of Latin American dictatorships will tell you. Secondly, it would be unacceptable if we failed to call on the Chilean army to stop interfering in the judicial process in Chile. Some groups have argued that we should not be talking to the Chilean army. That is not correct. Unfortunately, we still need to talk to the Chilean army because the current Chilean constitution gives it the right to take part in the work of the Senate in Chile.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today we are debating a successful European project which five years ago still had a host of detractors and which has earned the right for its fame to spread beyond a handful of experts. Since 1997, around 10 million new jobs have been created. This is not enough, in terms of either quantity or quality. We agree, however, that the Employment Guidelines need to be made more efficient; they must not be extended, but they need to be more transparent and they ought to have more binding force. We do not wish, for the time being in any case, to change the pillar structure. However, we do think that it ought to be overhauled. In previous years, Parliament has often offered new suggestions with this in mind and also pointed to shortcomings. We also want the guidelines actually to be implemented. We are aware that some Member States put up so-called passive resistance to the Commission. For once this too needs to be clearly stated. The assessment of the first and fourth pillars was favourable. With your permission, I should like nevertheless to examine this with a more critical eye. On the basis of my own experience in the Member States I would say that the first pillar – employability, which deals above all with further education and training – is still far too haphazard, arbitrary and shortsighted. We need continuous professional training, and at the end of the day this means employees having a right to further training, and not only when they are 50 or 55 years old, but also when they are only 30 or 35. The fourth pillar – equal opportunities – has been warmly praised. I believe that the considerable success we have been able to see here is also due to the fact, Commissioner, that equal opportunities policy has been supported on several occasions by anti-discrimination legislation. Entrepreneurship and adaptability are still judged to be deficient. It seems to me that many employers still have not even realised that they too are expected to show flexibility and make changes. The European Social Fund is certainly an effective instrument, but we Europeans should also link it to the fulfilment of certain obligations by the Member States. We will probably not be able to manage without European sanctions in the long term. Commissioner, my group stands by your side. The national employment plans are often still seen as secret government documents, their contents unknown to national Members of Parliament and the public. That is why, for the sake of democratic legitimacy, we need codecision at EU level and legislative proposals to provoke debate and decisions at national level. As social democrats we will be happy to support you in this quest.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am extremely pleased, and satisfied about the fact, that we are now to obtain a directive on public access to environmental information which is completely in line with the Arabs Convention. I also think that the rapporteur, Mrs Korhola, is entirely correct in reinstating the majority of amendments from the first reading, as they were adopted unanimously by Parliament. They are also excellent in helping to improve the Commission’s proposals. The new Article 7a, on the quality of environmental information, is one of the most important amendments. As has already been said, the person requesting information must be able to rely on the information’s being relevant, up-to-date and exact, as well as on the methods which have been used to produce it and on the forms of analysis employed. I am not, however, happy about the decision by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy concerning the cost of what the authority can take out. That is why we have tabled Amendment No 48. I hope that our British colleagues and other groups will be able to see this as a compromise proposal and that they will also vote for it tomorrow.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by warmly congratulating the rapporteur and Parliament's Conciliation Committee, whose stubbornness has in the end produced a creditable result. Almost two years of negotiations with the Commission and the Council within the framework of the conciliation procedure have at last enabled us to reach a compromise on regulations on the labelling of compound feedingstuffs. When this House votes tomorrow on this directive, it can do so, I believe, with its mind very much at ease. I see this directive as proof that Parliament must in future have a right of co-decision in agricultural matters as well. As we are all aware, the crucial issues were the open declaration, the positive list and an evaluation report. Parliament's main concern was to lay down exact regulations on labelling that would provide for compulsory details of both the quantity and quality of ingredients. Even with the Council, which did not originally share this position, a compromise text could eventually be agreed on, according to which the ingredients must now be stated by percentage of weight with a margin for error and according to which farmers must be given the exact percentages if they request them. This binding statement of permissible ingredients is the only guarantee that consumers can in future have greater confidence in farmers' products, and we farmers know how much we need consumers' approval and trust. The positive list to be produced by the end of 2002 should make that possible. On the positive side, I would like to make the additional observation that Parliament must also be involved in any future amendments to the directive.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I voted for the Davies report on the amount of ozone in the air. I am imagining myself in the year 2030, Madam President. The European Parliament has been moved from Strasbourg to Rome. Two elderly Members meet: Mr Fatuzzo and Mr Chris Davies. I say: ‘Do you remember, Mr Davies, when codecision still existed?’ ‘Of course I do,’ replies Mr Davies, ‘I had drawn up a report on ozone in the air. Just think, if we had still had codecision and that rule now, in 2030, thirty years on, we would have had to produce another report on the new requirements on ozone in air. I am pleased to say that the European Parliament has changed its rules and now we decide whatever we want on our own, without the Council.’ Only a dream, of course, Madam President! - Recommendation for second reading by Mrs Myller (A5-0456/2001)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on behalf of my group, I should like to thank the rapporteur for his recommendation for second reading. He is very familiar with the situation in Turkey. He is aware of the problems of this country and of the people who live there. It is no secret that Turkey cannot be democratic in our sense of the word until such time as the economic and social problems there have been solved. It is also widely appreciated that Turkey will not be able to get on top of these problems alone and without our aid. The demands contained in the rapporteur’s amendments – he talks of the protection of minorities, rightly demands the abolition of the death penalty and calls for a solution to the Kurdish problem – are in no way conditions designed to stand in the way of aid. Instead, they are valuable proposals for the necessary democratic reforms in Turkey. At the very end of the day, Turkey will benefit from these reforms being put into practice. To that extent, we support the rapporteur’s recommendation and thank him again for the work he has done.

Political group: Verts-ALE