GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I would particularly like to thank the rapporteurs and the Committee on Constitutional Affairs for having adopted a position in favour of the EU becoming a party to the Council of Europe’s Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. I hope that this position will be retained in tomorrow’s sitting, as it will be vitally important if we wish to avoid confusion with the many various schemes in respect of fundamental rights. I would like to raise the issue of reinforcing the political rights of citizens with the help of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. In my view, there has not to date been so much discussion on the subject. If, however, we were to examine what a citizen of the European Union today can actually do, how much he or she can influence the decision-making process, we would see that there are not so many opportunities to do so. Citizens can mainly stand as candidates in elections and vote in another EU country. But why should we not establish some new institutions and instruments, by means of this Charter, enabling citizens to have a real influence? Why, for example, could we not take up the notion that a certain number of citizens – let us say from three different EU countries – could formulate a citizens’ initiative that then could be channelled though the European Parliament? Why can we not look to the future and see that it will be ever more important for our citizens to be able to take part directly in decision-making in other ways too? I think it would be natural for this to form part of the Charter and very little has been said about this so far.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I welcome Mr Bradbourn's report. He can certainly count on my vote in tomorrow's plenary. I particularly support his view that modal shift should not be the programme's only goal. The programme should also look to reduce congestion, lower thresholds and increase accessibility. The goal of the Marco Polo programme should, in fact, be extended, so that the programme can also contribute to the search for and development of more sustainable transport systems. I therefore value this line of approach. Sustainable transport systems cannot be achieved by modal shift actions alone. We must extend these actions to other forms of transport, including not only inland shipping but also short sea shipping, and of course rail transport. Roads remain of crucial importance, with a reduction of traffic congestion by more efficient use of them being the starting point. This is extremely important. This brings me straight to the next point, which is savings in transport. I am pleased with the amendments that the have tabled before the plenary and I will endorse them. A great deal is to be gained from transport saving techniques. These are worth investigating within the framework of the Marco Polo programme. In addition, the important point is made that we must stay one step ahead of developments in transport. My objection is that only rather limited resources have been made available over a five-year period. The amount of EUR 150 million has already been mentioned, and this is precious little to follow up PACT, a programme that already proved successful. I had expected the budget to be higher, and that may, in fact, turn out to be necessary. Also, the Member States themselves need to make efforts in this area and must commit themselves to solving problems, so that new opportunities can present themselves for the economy. I hope that the Commission will ensure that good communication is established with society, so that it is possible to seize the opportunities that present themselves.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would like to ask the Commissioner, who is here today, and the President-in-Office of the Council to explain how they are going to apply the principle of equality within this enlargement process. In my view, following the Franco-German agreement, it is necessary to stipulate that the financial impact of enlargement must not fall to the poorest areas, who are beneath the Community average and who require sustained progress. Equally, the bill for enlargement must not fall to the richest. We must protect the whole of the enlarged Europe from any risk of impoverishment of any part of it. We must extend paragraph 24 of the Brok report to all areas and regions of the European Union, since enlargement must not have negative repercussions for any Community territory. I would like to say to the candidate countries that they must bear in mind that the defence of human beings, without exceptions, without discrimination, is today the backbone of the European Union. The exclusion of women, the exclusion of Romany minorities, are today the focus of our attention. There is no room in Europe for exclusion, for expulsion, for marginalisation, whether collective or individual. Europe, as from today, is entering into a new dynamic, which, since it is stronger and more powerful, must be more sensitive to its most distant and distinct elements.

Political group: PSE
I abstained on the final vote because although I agree with the principle behind this regulation, I cannot agree to the inclusion of Annex 1. This regulation speaks about International Terrorism generally and does not specifically refer to the events of September 11. Therefore it seems totally wrong for this Annex to be included which only refers to individuals and organisations who appear to be solely from the Islamic Community. I am also concerned that the evidence against the people and organisations listed in the Annex has not been seen by European Parliamentarians and therefore we have not been able to decide for ourselves whether those listed are guilty of terrorism or not.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the European Union’s relations with Latin America have almost always been characterised by a favourable attitude to the peaceful and negotiated resolution of all types of conflict, as well as trying to ensure that commercial, social and political relations take special account of human rights and the eradication of poverty and inequality. The recent conflict in Bolivia therefore reveals all the aspects characterising this situation. It is possible to establish a direct link between the abusive and unacceptable intervention of the United States, with its interference in the last electoral campaign in favour of Sánchez de Lozada and against Evo Morales, and the subsequent shameful delivery of Bolivian gas to the Americans, bringing the poorest country in America even closer to ruin. Our joint resolution attempts to intervene positively, strengthening democracy, defending the right of people to their own energy resources and condemning the use of excessive violence on the part of the previous government against demonstrators. Our group also criticises the Council for those statements – which Mr Medina has also mentioned – and proposes three amendments which we believe improve the joint text itself. Firstly, it demands that the President, who has resigned, answer to Bolivian justice for crimes he may have committed during his mandate. Furthermore, we believe that the European Union and its Member States should act in a coordinated way within international financial institutions in order to resolve the serious problem of Bolivia’s external debt. We also believe that we should call on the authorities to provide information for the families of people who have ‘disappeared’ and to quickly release those who have been unlawfully arrested. Finally, we believe that we should call on the Organisation of American States to take measures to protect the lives of the social leaders who have been threatened, such as Evo Morales.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, although the start of the peaceful reunification of Europe was symbolised by the fall of the Berlin Wall, we now know from yesterday’s Foreign Affairs Council meeting that it is on 1 May 2004 that the EU will enlarge towards the first ten candidate countries. We also know, however, that the transition, or rather the process of transforming the economies of the countries concerned, will take much longer. I shall simply point out that the official unemployment rate in a country such as Poland stands at 17% and that, in the year 2000, Poland’s per capita GDP was equivalent to just 39% of the Community average. Therefore, with regard to the transition process, I am hearing many of my fellow Members stress – and they are certainly right to do so – all the conditions that the candidate countries must still fulfil. For my part, Mr President-in-Office, I would like to ask you a very direct and very specific question about what the Council will do in response to the requests made last Friday in Warsaw by the governments of the ten candidate countries. I admit that I am no expert in this area, but I believe that their demands are perfectly legitimate: a financial package to generate macro-economic stability, a net financial situation which must be improved not just for 2004, but for 2004 to 2006 as well and, lastly, the full use of the Berlin budgetary facility. In my view, these demands are quite legitimate. Fearing, therefore, that I did indeed hear the Danish Prime Minister say this morning that he was not intending to renege on the positions adopted at the Brussels European Council, I would like to know exactly if, in response to the legitimate demands of the ten candidate country governments, you are going to make a better offer than the one made in Brussels, or if you are going to stick with what was decided at that European Council. I believe that, in addition to the general points that you mention, there are specific demands that must be taken on board and which I feel have been articulated – I repeat – quite legitimately by the governments of the candidate countries.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, last week we saw television pictures of the presence of the European Parliament, the Commission, Mr Solana and Mr Patten in Belgrade. We hope that these pictures represent the beginning of the end of the Balkan tragedy. I appreciate the fact that, for the first time, Mr Solana appeared not as the evil oracle from Euripides' ancient Greek tragedy Iphigenia, but as the good oracle. A starting point for a policy in the area to dull the feelings of those responsible in connection with any man-made disasters in the area should, I think, be decisively supported by the European Parliament. This House needs to send a message of support for stability, peace and the development of cooperation in the area. The people in the area must understand that there is no question of their becoming big or small, because poverty never makes people big and as long as clashes continue, the only outcome will be poverty and unhappiness and that is all they will share. In this sense, because stability, development and cooperation must be our prime considerations, this is the basic thrust of this motion. The people in the area must understand, as must we, that occupied protectorates in any shape or form never allow economic development, they never allow peace and they never allow countries or people in the area to be strengthened. Thus, the interplay of circumstances surrounding the visit, the interplay of circumstances surrounding the exchanges in Belgrade and the interplay of circumstances for us is an exceptional, useful and crucial interplay and we must help it. We need to understand that, if democracy, peace and cooperation are to succeed, we have to surpass ourselves. This motion, which defines a wide framework which can be used as a political framework for the next round of developments in the area, gives us the prospect of doing so and we should all support it.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur and all colleagues who have worked on this report for keeping this issue in the spotlight. The rapporteur told you a story about a woman called Margot Cameron who came to see me eight years ago. She wandered in, nobody would listen to her, and we sat down and looked at the problem she had and started campaigning. It is a success story, because here we are today looking at legislation that we are putting through this Parliament, which is great. I would like to tell you another story, which does not have such a happy ending. As I have said, this all happened eight years ago when Margot Cameron came to see me. We started campaigning and raised the issue at national level and finally took it to European level. By that time we had contacted groups throughout Europe and brought the issue to the Petitions Committee in 1998, though looking around this room and I do not see anybody who was at that Committee. I remember going to that Committee and arguing, along with the women, for that petition. However, I also remember the Commission saying: 'sorry guv, nothing to do with us – it is a Member State issue'. That delay set us back years. It was 2001 before we got any satisfaction out of the Commission. In that period 28 000 further operations were carried out in the UK alone. It is estimated that 20 000 of those implants have either leaked or ruptured during that period. What happened as a result of that delay? We let down not only the women who had signed that petition, but also a lot of women who had gone down the road of getting implants. This shows that we have to address these issues and problems more speedily when they arise and not let women suffer in the way they have in the past. Many Member States have banned trilucent implants and have banned saline implants. We have got to look in the future at a ban on silicone implants. Why? Because they affect people's health. If it were men getting the implants, there would be a ban tomorrow, but that is not happening because men are not getting them. I would like to make one final point. This report is entitled 'breast implants', but it is also possible to get silicone implants for other parts of the body, and they cause the same damage.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the floods that put Central Europe under such immense strain this summer were a huge natural catastrophe. The financial losses were colossal. The floods caused fatalities, injuries and distress. In such circumstances the European Union also has an obligation to help. For that reason, my group, the , supports the Commission’s actions and plans to help flood victims and help finance reconstruction, and is calling for a vigorous programme of further action. The distribution of competence means the EU’s responsibility is greatest in the area of agriculture. Thus, the measures the Commission has taken to bring forward payments of direct agricultural aid are right, as are their other plans. The Group furthermore believes the following measures are also the right ones: the partial reprogramming of the Structural Funds, a temporary increase in Community funding, and channelling the performance reserve to the flood area. There is also every reason to use the TEN funds for the reconstruction work. Action to help candidate countries also has the support of our group. It must be made possible to use the emergency aid reserve in the budget to repair the damage. Our group is in favour of establishing a European emergency aid fund. Technically it may be appropriate to establish it in accordance with a flexible instrument. Its purpose would have to be clearly defined and the rules made clear. Compensation would mainly have to come from the Member State’s national share and insurance companies. Our group is prepared to promote the fastest possible implementation of legislation and technical preparation concerning this fund. It is important that the European Union should make a more intensive effort to overcome climatic change, implement the Kyoto agreement and reduce greenhouse gases. It is important to promote the use of renewable energy sources. At the same time, we need to consider the risk of natural disasters, such as flooding, at different levels of the social structure, and try to reduce them.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, one last gesture is needed to save Amina Lawal. News reports from all over the world suggest that her final appeal hearing, before the Sharia court which condemned her to death by stoning, will take place tomorrow. Condemned for being a woman, found guilty of being a mother, Amina Lawal needs all our help, all our support. I appeal to you, therefore, Mr President, to protest on behalf of Parliament against this barbaric act, to call for the Nigerian Constitution to be respected and for Nigeria not to violate the international agreements it has signed. I thank you for this last gesture to save Amina Lawal.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, like the previous speakers, I believe that we should use the Sichrovsky case, which we are discussing today, as an opportunity to go beyond matters of pure routine and to reflect on the logic or otherwise of parliamentary immunity. The historical roots of this concept, that is to say the protection of the free mandate of Members against interference from what originally were often still very much monarchy-led authorities, now only serve as a partial justification for the institution of immunity. There must be no doubt that when it comes to statements made as a direct consequence of exercising our mandate or in connection with votes in this House, immunity, sometimes referred to as indemnity, needs to be fully guaranteed in practice. However, in cases involving actions and statements with very tenuous political connections, and in particular where protection against prosecution by the state is not involved, but rather the rights of fellow citizens in relation to Members, then we are pushing at the limits of the legitimacy of blanket immunity. In such cases, there is a risk that immunity becomes a privilege. If we in the European Parliament – in contrast to many national parliaments – still grant such wide-ranging protection, then every single Member should behave in such a way that we are justified in maintaining this practice. The generosity of this Parliament, which is rooted in fundamental considerations in this case too, which is as it should be, therefore also benefits those Members who belong to parties which do not take the protection of freedom of expression and freedom of information very seriously at home.

Political group: PSE
It was not a good idea for the Directive on the Authorisation of Electronic Communications Networks and Services to introduce further qualifications for when the Member States can levy what are known as usage fees for the use of radio frequencies. The additional qualifications introduced may mean an increased risk of limiting the Member States’ opportunities to draw up sensible broadcasting policies. I therefore voted against Amendment 21. Nor was it a good idea to approve Amendment 27 and, in that way, specify that the administrative charges for licences must not be based upon service categories or the territorial coverage of the undertaking providing a service. This limitation may do smaller undertakings a lot of harm. - Varela Suanzes-Carpegna reports (A5-0047 and 0046/2001)

Political group: ELDR
I have just one question concerning the group of countries that will now be acceding on 1 May. Will you until 1 May still be the point of contact for any minority representatives in those accession countries who still wish to raise a concern before then? Is that still within your field of competence? That is one question, and the second question is, who will be the point of contact in the Commission following accession?

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, this report tackles the issue of simplifying invoices. Here too, at last, is an attempt to improve the regulation of electronic signatures on invoices. I am for the use of electronic signatures, but I feel that we should work towards introducing them in votes where a signature is required as well. As you know, there are national referendums, and there are proposals for national legislation which are signed by the citizens. They have to be signed by a certain number of people, for example 500 thousand citizens. They could sign these directly democratic requests – these referendums and proposals for national legislation – electronically as well. This would be a sign of greater democracy in the nations of Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, my group has decided that the coordinators in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism must be elected at 3.30 p.m. Since I am one of the candidates, my presence there will be required. Could I ask whether Mr Pronk could read out my two-minute speech in my place when my name appears on screen?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I welcome the proposals to provide legal rights for passengers as well as the increase in denied boarding compensation and the right to reimbursement for delayed flights. The idea of new contract standards between carriers and consumers is not only welcome but long overdue. To be delayed is a nuisance. To be denied information as to the cause of the delay, with little by way of an apology or compensation, is unacceptable. Hopefully, with the support of the airlines and the work done by Mr Collins in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, things will now change for the better. We can never take aviation safety for granted. Today my colleague Mrs Cerdeira told me of the tragic crash last week of an old CN-235, converted from military use, on a Melilla to Malaga flight, with loss of life. I extend the sympathies of Mrs Cerdeira and myself to the relatives of the victims. Regarding the contributions of Mr Titford, I assumed he was speaking in a personal capacity. Only people with a bizarre outlook on life and a peculiar political perspective can downgrade the importance of aviation safety in the pursuit of their own nationalistic objectives. Safety should never be used as a political football. I condemn Mr Titford for so doing.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I wish to speak on this report because it is necessary for the European Union to find a more effective way to ensure that Member States who make commitments in relation to matters of life and death actually comply with those commitments. The report points out that during the 1990s the number of road deaths fell in the European Union by 26%. In Ireland, however, the fall has only been by 13%. We have the third highest accident rate in the European Union and we have the highest fatality rate in the European Union. The National Safety Council just last August indicated that as far as they were concerned they did not see any political commitment to actually dealing effectively with road safety. It estimated that of the 62 000 young people who sat the leaving certificate examination in June 2000 within eight years 1000 would be dead in unnecessary car accidents. This seems to me to be a grotesque situation and quite simply should not be tolerated by the European Union. If Member States make commitments to implement the matters which affect life and death than we have to find ways of ensuring that they comply with those commitments.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I want to make two brief points in this context. The first is that all week we have been hearing people talking about the decision to abolish the Friday sitting. Now whatever decision was taken and however we voted in that decision, a democratic decision was taken by the House and the next opportunity to change that will arise when we discuss the calendar for 2002. I think it is undemocratic to keep raising it. Secondly, if we look at the agenda for this week, we see that the agenda for Monday evening was free. So perhaps we could also look at ways of making better use of our time and using the Monday evening for debates. Then we would all be finished by Thursday afternoon and could go home and do our jobs on Friday.

Political group: PSE