GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I am pleased to announce that the ’s vote is favourable to the reports by Mr Valdivielso and Mr Piétrasanta. However, I must admit that there are certain reservations in our group with regard to future budgetary proposals as a result of the difficulties which have arisen up until now in the employment of funds intended for the MEDA programme. However, this issue would lead us into a discussion of the budget, which is not the main subject of this debate. The main subject of this debate is political and the issue is the fact the Mediterranean is one of the essential elements in ensuring the peace, stability and progress of the European Union itself. Eliminating tension and promoting balanced development in the Mediterranean third countries leads to greater security, prosperity and prospects for the European Union. Therefore, Mediterranean policy must be a fundamental pillar of the Union’s external action, which will benefit the European Union itself. Furthermore, I believe that we must consider that officially, there are at least three Mediterranean candidate countries, and that, with regard to the conflicts which Mr Valdivielso has mentioned, the European Union has made a very significant contribution in recent years to solving them. We are very close to reaching peace agreements to solve them definitively and this obviously requires a significant economic contribution for which MEDA is the main financial instrument. The different aspects mentioned in each report must be taken into account because they make a wonderful contribution to achieving this.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, following the tragedy in East Timor, one of the most beautiful pages in recent history has been written. The principles of an ethical international policy have triumphed in East Timor. The example of this country gives us further hope that world history is not merely a succession of barbaric acts and cruelty. At a terrible time, in which fear and apocalyptic concerns prevail, East Timor represents a ray of light and hope. Elections to the constituent Assembly in East Timor have been the crowning glory of an impeccable democratic process that does honour to the United Nations and, above all, to the people of Timor. Not all is rosy, however, in Timor as you all know. It is a very poor country, has an economy to rebuild, a State to organise and health, education and social protection systems to create. Only with the help of the international community, specifically the European Union, will Timor be able to turn its independence into something marvellous and a fine example for the rest of the world. My own country, Portugal, will certainly devote a great deal of affection and support to Timor, since it has become both a Portuguese and a universal cause. (Applause) Colombia

Political group: PSE
Fundamental rights are at the heart of our political commitment: we therefore were unable to vote for this report. Last year, Parliament adopted a method comprising the adoption of the Charter, the establishment of means, including the network of experts, and a joint effort by three rapporteurs, in order to achieve a consensus. This method has not been followed and this report, furthermore, reflects the opinion of the rapporteur rather than an in-depth analysis: the whole Charter and nothing but the Charter, and therefore an article-by-article, State-by-State analysis. This was an opportunity for Parliament to gain control over the Member States. Nothing but the Charter, in other words, the articles as they are and not as one might like them to be. This report will not affect the Charter at all, since only a new Convention has the power to change its articles. I regret that the recommendations made in the report go beyond the Charter, and can only lament the fact that the search for a consensus has perversely been replaced by the provocative and exaggerated nature of certain proposals. Moreover, it is completely pointless to overstate the situation. This report could have been awaited by the press and feared by the Member States. Having failed to achieve a unanimous vote, however, it will be buried alongside other pointless reports.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in all the EU’s key documents, combating poverty is held up as the primary goal of development policy. It is undisputed that the EU spends substantial sums of money on development assistance and makes every effort to conclude a variety of partnership and cooperation agreements in the different regions of the world, for both sides’ benefit. What is also undisputed is that despite all these efforts, poverty in the world has increased, especially during the last decade, and there appears to be no imminent prospect of any change in this trend. This is especially worrying in light of the fact that this rising poverty is one of the sources of terrorism. Parliament has before it a number of reports covering extremely important aspects of development policy. What is at issue is no more and no less than the use of increasingly scarce global resources. Today, wars are still being fought over oil, as in the Gulf, but violent conflicts are already emerging on the horizon over water. The USA and other industrial powers declare those areas of the developing world where there is oil and gas and other strategically important resources to be part of their sphere of interest, which apparently even gives them the right to wage war, but it is primarily among the developing countries that water is a problem – either because the resources are inadequate or because access to water is denied. There is still time to prevent the impending catastrophe with a careful strategy and targeted expenditure. Mr Lannoye’s report identifies possible constructive approaches which deserve to be given greater attention. The situation in the health sector is no less precarious. Already, in some countries of the EU, the motto seems to be that if you are poor, you die earlier, because the reforms aim to establish a two-tier system, but the situation in the developing countries is far more acute. Millions of people in Africa are dying every year of diseases capable of being treated with drugs that have existed for years in the industrialised countries. The newly-negotiated WTO compromise on the import of cheap generic drugs comes too late, for a start, and, secondly, it is so hedged about with formalities that it has doubtful prospects of success. Mrs Morgantini’s report highlights problems concerning this aspect of trade in particular. The rapporteur and, indeed, the entire Committee on Development and Cooperation are seeking to bring their experience and authority to bear in order to combat growing poverty with all its manifestations and impacts. We expect the same and more from the Council and the Commission. The twenty-first century has only just begun, yet the signs point to storms ahead rather than peaceful co-existence based on solidarity. Development policy must be redefined with greater depth and scope, and a new approach is also needed if humankind is to have any chance of life and survival on earth.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, the report presented by the Committee on Women’s Rights was approved by Parliament at first reading, practically in its entirety. A new line, A-3037 N, was added to the amendments in this report, for women’s organisations which do not belong to the European lobby, but which do effective work for the equality and promotion of women. Both this and certain other proposals by the Committee on Women’s Rights have been removed by the Council, and therefore Parliament, making use of the rights afforded it by the Treaties, since they are not obligatory expenses, is presenting them once again for approval. We are thereby acting coherently, presenting the amendments which Parliament approved on first reading. Amongst these amendments I must also highlight line B5-331, Information Society, which is so important for the future, especially for women and their full incorporation into the labour market. I would lastly like to warmly thank Mr Costa Neves for the very important work he has done and his sensitivity in responding to the needs we had raised. I hope that the House will approve it by a large majority, because, as you all know, since the Treaty of Amsterdam entered into force, all Community programmes must include the objective of promoting women and achieving greater equality, not only in the European Union, but also in the countries with which we have cooperation agreements, particularly in the Euro-Mediterranean area.

Political group: PPE-DE
Here indeed is a sector which has highlighted the limitations and serious deficiencies of liberalisation. I am not, personally, a blinkered militant in favour of monopolies, whether public or private, but when I see the results achieved by private firms in this sector I am reinforced in my position as a defender of public service! If liberalisation continues in this area too, then there is a great risk that one day we will see entire regions with no postal service. For who can believe for one moment that private firms, motivated only by profit, will continue to provide services in high-cost areas unless the costs are borne by the already disadvantaged inhabitants who are not, therefore, in a position to take advantage of the service. I should add that today, at a time when Europe is revealing itself and is proving to be incapable of opposing the inclusion of Fascists in a government within the European Union, it is no longer acceptable to have an ultraliberalism which destroys public services foisted on us in the name of this same Europe. I am a European and even a federalist. To achieve this I was ready and I am ready to make certain sacrifices, but not just anything! Most especially, I am no longer ready to accept the formation of a liberal single market if Europe is not at the same time capable of defending the values on which it is based and which, in the 1960s, made me a committed European! *** President. – Parliament has completed the agenda. The Minutes of this sitting will be submitted for approval by Parliament at the beginning of the next part-session. (2)

Political group: PSE
Madam President, the legislative project under discussion is very important for the issue of air protection. It has a direct effect on the quality of the air we breathe, that is to say the air’s nitrogen dioxide content and the amounts of ozone being formed in the atmosphere. All this also has an effect on acidification and eutrophication. It will also reduce the number of particles in the air that are hazardous to health. All this can only succeed sufficiently well, however, if the action required under the directive is taken as quickly as possible. The most difficult challenge is the rapidly increasing volume of transport, which is predicted to double between 1990 and 2006. In my opinion, the rapporteur, Mr Lange, is quite right when he proposes that heavy goods vehicles should be included in a common strategy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from road traffic as quickly as possible. We have to respond to the race against increased emissions by speeding up the adoption of measures to reduce them. I therefore offer my strong support to the rapporteur’s proposal that new limit values be introduced as quickly as the latest technology allows and certainly not only once the Member States happen to approve them. In a market economy, money is the deciding force. Therefore we have to use financial pressure to push forward environmental values. Tax incentives have had a major importance in encouraging the use of more environment-friendly fuels. Using tax concessions as a carrot to replace heavy old commercial vehicles is well justified, as are tax benefits for environment-friendly vehicles. All this would serve to speed up the introduction of vehicles that pollute the environment less. I would now like to mention a change that would cost nothing. You yourselves must daily encounter situations where heavy vehicles such as buses and construction machinery leave their engine running at times when nothing is going on. Imagine how much we could reduce air contamination if we did not let our vehicle engines idle in this way. It really costs nothing. It is just a question of attitudes.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I understand the rapporteur's objections, but the vote on the amendments tabled by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development will not only be about money but also about a particular political line. The amendments go some way towards making it clear what the Agriculture Committee wants, and unfortunately we do not see ourselves in a position to withdraw them; instead, we will put them to the vote and we will see what the House makes of them. We in the Agriculture Committee believe that the views which they express are sensible and we cannot therefore withdraw the amendments. I hope that I am also speaking here on behalf of the other coordinators.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Roth-Behrendt’s report is excellent, and I am pleased that there are to be restrictions upon animal experiments. Mrs Roth-Behrendt also proposes a total marketing ban on animal-tested cosmetic products which is to come into effect five years after the adoption of the directive, even if no alternative testing methods are available. This strategy may be in danger of temporarily restricting product development in the cosmetics industry, but it will considerably increase the incentives for developing alternative testing methods that do not involve animal experiments. Nonetheless, the proposed ban on animal experiments is not in itself enough, because the industry could quite simply conduct its experiments outside the EU instead. That is why a marketing ban is also needed. Such a ban would prevent producers in non-EU countries from obtaining market advantages by being able to continue making use of animal experiments. Instead, competition would mean that other methods would have to be developed. As a liberal, I care a great deal about the rights of individuals. I take the liberty of also including the right of animals not to have to be exposed to unnecessary suffering. I also care a great deal about free, informed choice on the part of consumers. It is therefore important that, through detailed and accurate labelling, consumers should immediately be given a chance to adopt positions on matters themselves. In this connection, I would ask you to pay particular attention to Amendment No 39, which proposes that animal-tested products should be required to be labelled with the words, ‘Tested on animals’. With a marketing ban and a ban on animal experiments, together with other measures supported by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I believe we shall make significant progress, I am glad to say.

Political group: ELDR
Today on the Gothenburg summit resolution I abstained overall, and recommended to my UK Conservative colleagues to do likewise, since, although we fully support the references to welcoming the enlargement process of the EU and the calls for supporting reform of CAP and sustainable development, we had a number of reservations on other aspects of the report. These include, paragraph 3, which may be seen to suggest that the EU is not fully respecting the decision of the Irish people in their referendum to reject the Nice Treaty; paragraph 6 which recommends a controversial Convention model to take the negotiations forward to the next IGC; paragraph 25 which supports the tax package involving tax harmonisation and a withholding tax; paragraph 26 which recommends social-chapter-inspired works council measures; and paragraphs 33 and 34 which are supportive of an independent ESDP which could decouple us from NATO. Otherwise there are many positive aspects to the report, so overall an abstention was the correct position in the view of the UK Conservatives. – Randzio-Plath report (A5-0225/2001)

Political group: PPE-DE
All accidents are tragic for individual people and, of course, we extend sympathy to the workers involved in the incident at Tokaimura, their families and the 300,000 local people who were subjected to intense fear and worry for several days. Accidents occur in all industries, and we have just seen an appalling train crash in the UK this week. But accidents in nuclear installations, especially criticality accidents, are the most feared of all accidents. Rare though they are for obvious reasons, the potential consequences to very large numbers of people are extremely serious. That is why the nuclear industry has to be more careful than other industries. It will not survive as an industry unless the public believe in a strongly instilled and strictly enforced safety culture. Now that culture was breached quite clearly at Tokaimura this week. There will be an investigation. We hope and expect that the findings will be shared with us so that any lessons can be enforced everywhere where nuclear activities take place. Workers in the industry expect this, and the public most certainly does. Nuclear activity requires emergency plans, spot checks by independent inspectors and factoring-in of the possibility of error or negligence. That costs money but it has to be done. All installations in the supply chain are part of safety requirements. Any weak link is dangerous. A wide-ranging investigation and a public explanation are required by those whose concerns have been justifiably raised by this very serious incident indeed in Japan.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I would like to ask the Commissioner if he would advise us which of the amendments which have been adopted this morning he will accept before the final vote on the legislative resolution.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, my group had requested the inclusion of this point in the agenda. Allow me first of all to welcome the fact that there is virtual unanimity between the Council, the Commission and, hopefully, the Parliament, concerning such a crucial issue at a time when we have to take decisive steps in the development of the common foreign and security policy. Since we are always so self-critical, I believe that we should welcome this step. And, having said this, I believe that rather than debating amongst ourselves, what we have to do is address the American Senate, and especially its Republican majority, because this is not a debate against the United States, but a debate in which we specifically support President Clinton. What we profoundly criticise is that attitude of the Republican majority in the Senate which corresponds more to the former doctrine of the “clear destiny” of the United States, much more than to the moral, as well as military, leadership which they currently hold. I must confess – with some experience of relations between this Parliament and the Congress of the United States – that in the Congress of the United States we have many friends and connections but that we have at no time been able to timetable a positive debate with Senator Helms, who does not even seem to have an American passport and who considers, not only with regard to this issue but also with regard to many others, that it is his job to impose his laws on the world. Think also of the slow and delayed attitude of the United States with regard to UN funding. We have to point out to our American friends and partners the risk involved in this decision, because it encourages States such as Pakistan and India – with the risk of all-out war – to continue with their nuclear tests. It disturbs our relations with Russia and creates a situation which encourages those States which are on the threshold of having a nuclear capability to start again. I believe that this a blatant display of total irresponsibility. And in the Union, where we have all ratified the Test Ban Treaty, we have political and moral arguments to address to our American partners so that we can remind them that they have a serious responsibility to try to stabilise the world and that they can rely on our help if it is really possible to cooperate with them. This type of unilateral measure, which ignores the lessons of history, which puts a dramatic halt to the process which has taken many years and still needs to be promoted, is the exact opposite of what we should be doing. Mr President, I hope that our colleagues in the Delegation for Relations with the United States will remind our American friends of this as soon as possible.

Political group: PSE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Citizen's Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. – Mr President, first of all I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur on the excellent work that he has done, especially in watering down his initial proposals in order to achieve consensus, something that always creates momentum for reform in this House. That is exactly what we need, a momentum behind the reform so that we achieve it rather than just talking about it. I hope that the entire House will support the compromise amendments that he has agreed with various groups within the House. Of course, the amendments the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms placed before the committee responsible did not receive universal support. Nonetheless we were dealing with the Member States' possibility of making legislative proposals under Article 67 of the EC Treaty and the developments and gaps in that practice. We are similarly looking at the category of amendments that relate to responsibility of the committee in relation to the respect for fundamental rights in the EU. Although, as I said, our opinion was not carried in its entirety, I nonetheless will support and will urge others to support, the rapporteur. Let me add a note of caution, this revision does not refer to the interinstitutional agreement on confidential information and sensitive documents, known as the Brok Agreement, which is still under negotiation with the Council. I must urge the House to think very carefully before accepting the so-called Brok Framework Agreement, because it puts Parliament at a great disadvantage compared to any of the other institutions. It actually gives ordinary members of the public a greater right of access to sensitive documents in that any request must be duly considered. Under these proposals, Parliament is in an imbalanced situation in that we have no right to initiate access to confidential documents. With those caveats and those warnings, I urge the House to totally support the rapporteur's proposals.

Political group: PSE
It is important that a full, detailed declaration of the ingredients of compound feedingstuffs should become mandatory to guarantee their safety, by means of clear, transparent labelling which will allow stock farmers to make their own decisions on feed purchases. As we all know, back in 1997, in the aftermath of the BSE crisis, Parliament called for legislation to this end, and this call was reiterated after the scandal in Belgium last year when dioxins were found in feedingstuffs. It is also important that an exhaustive list of permissible feed materials should be drawn up and that manufacturers should submit on request proof of the composition of feedingstuffs on the basis of internal company documentation. - RC B5-0768/2000 (ASEM III)

Political group: GUE-NGL