GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I voted in favour of the mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund. This vote is the realisation of the fast legislative work that has been done since the proposal was presented by Commissioner Barnier on 18 September. I would also like to thank him for his efforts in this matter. When the political will is strong enough, Europe can move forward quickly and effectively. I only regret that we did not reach the same result following the terrible storms in 1999, which hit France hard. Today, we can only welcome the mobilisation of this new European instrument of solidarity. The EUR 728 million will provide additional comfort for the families that have suffered as a result of the natural disasters in the summer. In my region and in several departments in the South of France, violent storms and torrential floods hit around 400 municipalities on 8 and 9 September, causing the deaths of 24 people and causing very considerable damage. Today my thoughts go out to those families, the elected representatives of those municipalities and all those, whether civil security forces or voluntary organisations, which have provided help and support during the emergency. They know the price of solidarity and appreciate, I hope, the gesture that Europe has made today. - Maaten report (A5-0378/2002)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the implementation of international legally-binding instruments, established by the United Nations, to promote and protect the rights of disabled people, in other words to protect their dignity, is surely historic. You have said so yourself, Commissioner. The European Union must, therefore, encourage the adoption of these instruments and play a full part in them. Disabled people wish to have a free choice when it comes to their lifestyle. They wish to be as independent as possible. Like all other citizens, they wish to be involved at every stage of the decision-making process, not only insofar as they themselves are directly affected, but also through the recognition of all their fundamental rights. I think that a Community policy worthy of that name must be based on the existing measures, as is already the case. Moreover, it must promote legal measures at all levels, as underlined in the Lynne report. Nonetheless, we are aware that although legal measures are necessary, they are not sufficient in themselves. We must therefore work hard to raise the awareness of all sections of society, unions, management and teachers included. Everyone must be encouraged to take account of the specific situations related to disabilities. This heightened awareness is also needed if the directive is to be transposed. Transposition is currently incomplete. The second point to note is that our political ambitions need to be brought into line, and financial programmes should be meaningful and appropriate to current needs. I could mention the great needs in the fields of education and schooling for example. I refer both to special and mainstream education. The two are not contradictory. We know some disabled people are excluded, dependent and live in poverty. We must respond with action to develop independence, solidarity and integration. On this subject, the report before us today explores a whole series of approaches to be followed through all aspects of daily life. These areas are detailed in the report. I believe that the European Union and its Member States must truly stand by people with disabilities. It is not a question of charity. It is a question of rights. It is a question of the effective exercise of citizenship. This is the simple demand of disabled people. In this European Year of People with Disabilities, I think the recommendations of our rapporteur will contribute to the current action being taken to ensure all concerned are truly citizens, just as we in this House are.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I have a question about the agenda you are proposing. On Wednesday, we also have the important Dimitrakopoulos-Leinen report. How do things stand on timing? Do we have enough time to consider this report as well, given how important it is for the future of the European Union? Both rapporteurs deserve to have a reasonable amount of time devoted to their report. Could you comment on this, please?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, we have just heard the USA declare that they want to make a massive commitment to space and again invest a great deal of money in it: settlements on the moon, a mission to Mars – pictures of which we see almost daily; this, I believe, is where Galileo is a very important and good sign for Europe’s economic and technological future. I am also looking ahead to this year’s European elections. People are always asking us in what ways Europe is benefiting them, and Galileo enables us to give them an example of how European forces can combine – for only together can we achieve such objectives – in the spheres of business and technology, in a useful way that benefits the future of the Europe in which we share. The problems have been described, and it is now urgently necessary that we make headway on the problems with implementation, including the ones that involve the Americans. A large number of obstacles have been overcome. Parliament has been constant in its support for the Commission, the Council has played its part, and now is the time to decide on the tenders. We have to waste no time in installing the system, so that we can work with it, and we have to create the right framework conditions, especially in the structures. This is where I wish to address a point that I see as important. When deciding on the future structures of Galileo, which we will be debating in this House, it is necessary that these should be effective, but it is equally necessary that Parliament should retain its share of responsibility and not allow this dossier to be taken out of its hands. Although I would ask that, when we come to discuss this, we should perhaps get more support from the Commission, I think that we have, together, demonstrated that Europe, the European Parliament, is united in its pursuit of this objective. Commissioner, this House has always been behind you, so in this matter too, we should make common cause in seeing to it that responsibility remains with Parliament.

Political group: PPE-DE
This report should be seen against the backdrop of the action plan for financial services planned under what is known as the Lisbon strategy, which aims to integrate markets and financial services by 2005 and to achieve greater liberalisation of movements of capital, to which we are opposed. On the basis of a recent Commission communication, which seeks to regulate the clearing and settlement of securities transactions, in other words, the functioning of the integrated securities markets, especially in crossborder transactions, and in the aim of liberalising movements of capital and of creating a single market for financial services, it also seeks to harmonise the rules, legislation and methods of clearing and settlement in the various Member States, taking account of the considerable national differences that exist in this field. Hence the desire to create a common European infrastructure and the proposals to follow the American example, exerting pressure on the Commission to study a similar approach for the European Union, also calling on the Member States, in the forthcoming revision of Directive 93/22/EEC, on investment services, to give investment companies from other States the right of access to national clearing and settlement systems. This is something with which we disagree. - Mantovani report (A5-0452/2002)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Our vote against this report is not an expression of opposition to the development of the Internet or to any kind of technical progress. Underlying the general considerations, however, various paragraphs hint at subsidies for private companies in this sector. This is suggested particularly in the report’s support for “partnership research ventures with the private sector”. As we are opposed to any direct or indirect subsidy seeking to use public money to generate private profit, we voted against this report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Budgets welcomes the proposed rapid reaction facility. We support this Community mechanism, which is designed to make resources available for urgent non-combat activities related to crisis management and conflict prevention. It is right and fitting that the European Union should help to preserve or restore public order and to facilitate dialogue, conciliation, mediation and the prevention of human rights abuses. All of this, however, can only be achieved or become achievable if the facility really is able to respond rapidly. That is why we emphatically support the Commission's proposal that implementation be based on the committee system, including the involvement of an advisory committee, with the emphasis on the word 'advisory'. Now over the years, as you know, the Commission – with Parliamentary backing, I hasten to add – has been pursuing a strategy of gradually transferring activities from the ambit of the common foreign and security policy, in other words from the second pillar of the European unification process, to that of the Community, the first pillar. This trend is continued by the current proposal for the rapid reaction facility. So far, so good. But the funds for this purpose must be allocated under Heading 4 of the Financial Perspective. And all Members of this House have been made aware by at least the last two budgetary processes just how tight our finances are in the foreign-policy budget. Every year, this allocation has been the subject of our bitterest budgetary wrangling with the Council. We have no need of a crystal ball to predict a similar situation this year. For that reason we have asked the lead committee to do two things: firstly, to call on the Commission and Council to outline their intentions and particularly to explain how they intend to divide up responsibilities between themselves in this field and how they intend to finance the relevant activities, and, secondly, to add a recital to the proposed text stating quite clearly that rapid reaction interventions must be financed within Heading 4. Should that be impossible, provision must be made for a revision of the Financial Perspective. In addition, we want an obligation to consult Parliament on each action to be financed under the facility. The rapporteur and the lead committee have complied with these budgetary wishes. For this we are very grateful to them.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, firstly I would like to thank the rapporteur for having reliably compiled all our views producing an excellent piece of work. The subject of emissions trading entered the debate on climate as part of the so-called flexible mechanisms. The European Union did not actually want these to be included in the selection, but they are now part of an international agreement, and regulations are being drafted in The Hague for these flexible mechanisms, of which the trade-off in emissions is an important one. As the EU has been a leading force in these international discussions until now, we must all certainly hope that this position of leadership will be kept up, and we place our trust in the Commission in this. For this reason, the European Union has decided to propose that we should adopt a system of trade-offs in greenhouse gas emissions within the Union as from 2005, and this is therefore different from what the Kyoto Protocol itself makes possible, which is that the international emissions trading is to start as from 2008. But within the European Union this system can be tried out and it can be developed. The Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market therefore also welcomes the Commission’s Green Paper and the fact that a framework directive is to be drafted based upon it. This emissions trading operation, to be carried out at EU level, is absolutely justified, as, otherwise, competition will be distorted. I wish, on behalf of the committee, to focus attention on the fact that a lot can certainly be done through a system of trading, but not everything. It is very important that emission trading are one of various ways to solve the problem, the most important of which are financial control mechanisms. It is also very important that the trade in emissions is monitored effectively, and I believe that we will also need environmental inspectors, which is the subject of talks we are now conducting with the Council.

Political group: Verts-ALE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. – Mr President, on Tuesday this week in the United Kingdom a Dr Harold Shipman committed suicide. He was not just a statistic; he was a health professional who was serving 15 life sentences for the murder of 215 of his patients. Therefore, Commissioner, when we are looking at professional qualifications and seeking ways of facilitating professional mobility, as we should, we are not just talking about job opportunity or filling vacancies, or even individual professional freedom. We should be talking about the protection of vulnerable individuals: simple procedures, yes; riskier procedures, no. In Britain, if you go to your doctor's surgery, you expect the nice new doctor from Italy or Lithuania or wherever to be qualified, and you assume that the proper checks have been made as to his or her integrity and experience and to ensure that the name does not figure on any blacklist for professional or other malpractice. The same applies to your dentist, your nurse, your pharmacist and to other professions, too, such as the architect who has built your house. Hence, we were horrified to realise that the original proposal would have allowed any professional to go to any other EU country and practise there for 16 weeks without any authorisation, checks or vetting. Dr Shipman could have come to a surgery near you. Having talked to British and European professional organisations, I therefore raised this in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, which asked me to produce an opinion. This was adopted unanimously. It struck out the 16-week provision, it added Article 152 as a legal basis for the directive, and it called for the setting up of a European database of professionals who have been struck off in one Member State, so that they cannot practise in another. These and most of our other amendments, I am happy to say, have been accepted by Mr Zappalà and the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. We are grateful to them. More importantly, patients and our constituents in every Member State will be grateful if these safeguards are maintained. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I must acknowledge the difficulties involved in producing a document in a situation of stress and constant change in the Middle East and it is therefore extremely difficult to update the document in this turbulent and tragic situation, in the knowledge furthermore that Mr Menéndez del Valle’s skill is always to bring positions together in an open spirit or at least to ensure that the ‘good’ sector triumphs – so to speak – the good in things and in life. Nevertheless, although this document promotes the application of the Roadmap, and its main aim is to promote the peace process, I do not believe it is an objective document. In the assessment of the facts I note many biases in favour of the Palestinian Authority, a position which will contribute to confusing and weakening Europe's role in future negotiations, since if we want to contribute to peace, we must have credibility in both sectors and this must be recognised. I believe that this bias is reflected, for example, in the successive condemnations of the Israeli Government and in the great silences on the behaviour of the Palestinian Authority, and I repeat, the great silences. For example, in paragraph 4 it says that the Palestinian Authority is congratulated on having publicly and unconditionally accepted the Roadmap, when we know – and we have evidence of this – that Arafat, having rejected peace in Taba, has refused to accept any measure which may undermine his power, both in relation to the organisation of a single security system and in relation to the transfer of powers to Abu Mazen firstly and now, to the Prime Minister designate, Abu Ala. Furthermore, we know that some of the recent attacks, which have created many victims, are directly or indirectly related to the martyrs of Al Aqsa and to events at the Muqata, and I am not accusing anybody here. And above all I am worried about certain paragraphs which are only going to serve to increase the tensions and reduce Europe's credibility, such as, for example, the ambiguity in relation to condemning Palestinian terrorism and the clear desire to separate it entirely from the Palestinian Authority or even worse alliances, more dangerous than those made between democratic parties in the open, documented by means of extreme tolerance towards terrorists, and the lack of a firm, clear and transparent security policy. Furthermore, apart from certain condemnations of Israeli methods – which I approve in the document, such as the construction of the wall, which I cannot accept, or the aggressiveness of the armed responses in Palestinian territory, as well as the destruction of infrastructures and other forms of reducing the Palestinian standard of living – I believe that the text does not insist sufficiently on the Palestinians’ commitment to accepting democracy and to build a government capable of taking on its responsibilities. And the first part of the Roadmap includes the development of the foundations for a democratic system.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like first of all to thank Mr Khanbhai very much for drafting his report and also for making it possible for us to cooperate so effectively with all colleagues. Agriculture and rural development are of central importance in the EU and developing countries alike. That is why I support and welcome the fact that 'food security and sustainable rural development strategies' is one of the six priorities listed for EU development policy. The multifunctional agricultural model and its underlying philosophy is, I believe, also the only right way forward for developing countries. We should continue to support the approach of making sustainable management one of the non-trade concerns. Let me remind you that the EU is by far the world's largest importer of agricultural products from poor countries. The Commissioner has already pointed out that the EU has substantially increased market access for the poorest countries in recent years. I hope that other industrialised countries will also follow the EU's example. The agripolitical measures in the developing countries should not focus exclusively on exports, but must above all guarantee the food security of the domestic population. The war on poverty must continue to be the overriding aim of development policy. An important precondition for this is to improve the infrastructure for supplying energy, for transport, for water supply and distribution and for health and education. Above all, however, improved governmental and administrative systems as well as democracy and the rule of law are necessary, as has already been said, to enable robust policy-making. Appropriate land reform and access to water and productive resources can enable the rural population to increase their standard of living and help to boost economic development. To support the process of building appropriate capacities in the developing countries, the European Community should provide more technical help for farmers and also pass on technical know-how, for example on renewable energies and in many other areas. A further essential aspect is, in my view, policy in rural areas, so as to stop migration to the slums, and it is also important that there be proper recognition of the work carried out by women.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Flesch, on the excellent result that she has achieved within the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, in consultation with the Commission and the Council. Consequently, no further amendments have been tabled for this plenary. All of this has been achieved within the space of six months, while the Commission has needed three years to draft a proposal. It is now important for the Council and Parliament to keep the momentum going. Indeed, the users have been waiting for this with bated breath. Mr Liikanen, I will then obviously expect from you a quick, practical and simple implementation which befits the Internet culture. The introduction of the “.EU” Top Level Domain is said to afford the European Union a higher profile on worldwide information networks, and it also represents added value for the Internet naming system in addition to the national domain names. Two elements are crucial in this connection. First of all, the organisation that keeps the register must be independent and must carry out its work in a transparent, non-discriminatory manner. All interested organisations must be represented in the register. Secondly, the Member States must establish in good time the domain names they want to use exclusively. Clear criteria are needed in that connection. That includes the first come, first served principle, as well as clear rules which can prevent abuse of the system. In the Netherlands, we remember all too well how the city of Amsterdam had to buy back the domain name www.amsterdam.nl for an extortionate sum of money, because that name had already been claimed by a pornography business. The swift advent of the “.EU” Top Level Domain offers an excellent opportunity to boost public confidence and that of businesses in online trade. This would encourage economic growth and the competitiveness of European industry, and hence employment. The legal framework of the internal market also plays an important role in this field.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the joint motion for a resolution on the Turkish bombing in the north of Iraq was tabled by five of the European Parliament’s political groups. That proves the importance our Parliament attaches to respect for international law and human rights in that part of the world and its extreme vigilance when a candidate country for EU membership, in this case Turkey, is concerned. Indeed, we cannot allow northern Iraq, which is an area of limited sovereignty by virtue of international decisions, also to become an area outside the rule of law, an area where anything goes and where, on top of that, the presence of observers is entirely prohibited. The legitimate fight against terrorism does not justify collective acts of punishment, victimising the Kurdish inhabitants of entire villages. Disproportionate reprisals of that kind should be banished forever from the military arsenal of a civilised country.

Political group: PSE