GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, numerous speakers have stressed the importance of this environment directive. We actually ought to have been ambitious enough to make it the centrepiece of our environmental legislation. It is all the more regrettable that industry has managed to insert a series of exemptions in these provisions. Polluters actually ought to be answerable for the damage that they have caused and ought also to be obliged to take preventive measures. Given that there are so many exemptions and that only a very small number of accidents are covered by this directive, I fear that we will not achieve what we originally set out to do. As you know, accidents only qualify as such if those causing them are negligent or otherwise at fault, which means that damage to biodiversity caused by the use of licensed genetically modified seed is not covered at all. This is very regrettable. Furthermore, the fact that the notion of strict liability is linked to the list of dangerous activities in this way means that entire areas that pose a potential risk, such as mining and drilling for oil and gas, are also excluded, as is a large proportion of the consumer goods industry. The fact that there is no obligation to introduce general insurance for environmental damage is also a mistake in my view, because we have to ensure that when damage is caused to property and health, liability is not only restricted to Natura 2000 areas, but also applies further afield. Nevertheless, provided that the Commission sees reason, I hope that we will succeed in making this environmental liability directive the centrepiece of our legislation. I also hope that it will not remain full of holes like a Swiss cheese which would mean that it only applied in a very few cases, because if so we would not achieve our aims, which are to give industry incentives to take preventive measures and really to make the polluter pays principle the focus of our action. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
We consider that the establishment of an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice is of significance for the European Union’s future, and the Council’s initiative in raising the question at the summit meeting in Tampere is welcome. The particular resolution with which the European Parliament is dealing contains a series of important standpoints which Finland, as the country which is at present holding the EU Presidency, together with the European Council as a whole, ought to consider in advance of the summit. We therefore lend our support to the major part of the proposals which the resolution contains, but with the odd exception. In our view, paragraph 3 deals too generally with the integration into the relevant Pillar of the EU of police co-operation and co-operation in connection with criminal law. We think that there is good reason for seeing police co-operation above all as being between the Member States. With regard to paragraph 19 about providing Europol with opportunities in the operational sphere, we think that this paragraph is to be interpreted as meaning that any such development of Europol co-operation should be for the purpose of promoting the fight against cross-border crime, but must in that case take place within the framework of the Member States’ right to full control over police activity within their own borders.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, one billion people do not have access to drinking water and three million die every year from diseases caused by poor water quality or lack of water. There are 800 million starving people in the world and 24 000 people die of hunger every day. Twenty-eight million people are living with HIV in Sub-Saharan Africa, of whom 2.3 million died of AIDS last year. These figures are telling and are all too well-known. The Heads of State and Government, however, are absent from the World Food Summit in Rome this week. These same ministers were incapable of making specific commitments in Bali. The World Health Fund is sorely lacking in financial resources. Worse still, most of the conventions concluded since Rio, ten years ago, are still not being applied. This, of course, is due to the attitude of the United States Government and the multinationals. The worst polluters of the planet deny their culpability and refuse to take action with regard to the victims, the countries of the southern hemisphere. What are we Europeans doing, apart from pontificating as we did at Monterrey? How do we think dismissing our development advisers, as was proposed at Seville, will contribute to sustainable development? If the Johannesburg Summit fails, the European Union will have to shoulder its responsibility.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Sylla, who has brought a very difficult job to a close. As draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Women’s Rights, I should like to express our deep satisfaction with the comments and recommendations in the report on safeguarding and applying democracy and equality in daily life and practice, in the sense of a balanced participation of the sexes in democratic institutions and respect for the human rights of women. It is not possible, Commissioner, for women to be treated as human beings and citizens with restricted rights in twenty-first century Europe. It is unacceptable for there still to be professional sectors and areas in the European Union in which Community legislation, democratic rules and fundamental freedoms only apply to men. My committee has repeatedly condemned gender-based discrimination and discrimination based on sexual orientation or national or social origin. In other words, we condemn the different weights and measures which derive mainly from cultural traditions and social stereotypes and which today refer to dark and sad periods in the history of mankind. We insistently and constantly call for the self-evident: for human rights and fundamental freedoms to apply equally to men and women, with no discrimination whatsoever. Only then will we be able to talk of the universality of human rights and mainstreaming. I should also like to take the opportunity of today’s vote on the report on the DAPHNE programme to prevent and combat violence against women, Commissioner, to call once again on the European Commission and the Member States, to put combating violence against women, which is the worst form of violation of women’s rights, high on their political agenda. I do not think that any policy should carry greater weight than the protection of human rights.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it is clear that International Women’s Day has already been forgotten, as the rapporteur for the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities is, of course, the last to speak. In this capacity, though, I do think that we should not be any less strict with the accession countries than we are with ourselves in matters relating to the complete transposition of the European Union’s Community acquis in the field of gender equality. Rather than focusing on what is missing, then, we should show appreciation for the progress and the reforms that a country such as Bulgaria has managed to make, under difficult conditions, since its liberation from Communist dictatorship. After all, many countries that have been Member States for years are still having problems with properly transposing the directives on equal rights and opportunities for women and men, something that is, let me add, apparent from the Commission’s latest report on the Lisbon strategy for the Spring Summit. At this stage, then, in my humble opinion, we should be wary of delivering too many homilies to countries such as Bulgaria. Instead, we should be doing everything possible to help it, and countries like it, and to encourage it and them to proceed further along the right path, on which they have encountered these difficulties, so that – as we hope – this wonderful European country can accede to our European Union in 2007. The same applies to child protection, where there is certainly still much to be done.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, earlier in the day we had a debate about the rights of women in the European Union, and we also touched upon the question of the new candidate countries. In facing a decision like this about the Taliban regime, it has to be said that it has really been a luxury, purely and simply, to discuss the other issues, when one considers what is happening in Afghanistan. Ever since I first heard about the Taliban regime, I have been appalled. I find it completely incredible that such things can still be going on in the year 2000, and not only do we not intervene, but we cannot, in reality, do a vast amount about them. In war, there will clearly always be a large number of innocent people who suffer distress or die, and very often it is, of course’ women and children and old people who are totally defenceless in a wide range of situations. What is happening here, however, is in fact even worse. It is a far more systematic form of oppression than is to be seen in normal war situations. It is far more systematic and far more violent in relation to a particular group of women. It appears as if it is simply a question of groups of men who find themselves in a world in which nothing else counts but their own solidarity and their own oppression of women. I therefore also think it good that the decision should include some clear and explicit points about the position of women in particular and should draw attention to how necessary it is for us to try to help prevent the Taliban regime from continuing with its wholesale discrimination against women.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would like to add a footnote to the discussion. The privileges and immunities of Members of the European Parliament are still governed by a protocol dating back to 1965 and tailored to the Parliamentary Assembly as it existed at the time. In a letter to the foreign ministers, the Italian Presidency has alluded to the possibility of the protocols being revised, which it sees as desirable. That is something I would very much welcome. Next year, we will have had a directly elected European Parliament for twenty-five years. It is high time for our legal position to be regulated at European level. If not at the Intergovernmental Conference, then when is that to be done? I might say, by the way, that it is a matter of some indifference to me whether these new rules, which are necessary, are instituted under the Statute or by an act of primary legislation. I am not very concerned about that, and see it as a secondary consideration, but it has to happen, and if it does not, there will be no Members’ Statute either. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
It is nice to be the first Irish person to ask the Irish presidency a question. I have just come from the animal welfare intergroup, where they are also hoping that animal welfare will be a big issue, especially the transport of animals. Commissioner Byrne said that this issue was not the EU's responsibility and is not regulated under EU legislation. At one stage or another, EU subsidies contributed to the breeding of many of the greyhounds in Ireland. That has stopped now, but it is up to each Member State, as you said. It is up to the Irish Government to introduce rules on breeding and proper controls, and also to ensure that the owners of the animals are responsible for them, not just for the racing period but to the end of their life. In Ireland, when greyhounds reach about two years of age, the vast majority of them are considered by the Irish race industry to be burned out. They are sold off for next to nothing to Spain, where they are raced to death. They are subjected to appalling cruelty. Religious rights do not come into this. It is really an issue of animal welfare, and the Irish Government should introduce something to control the breeding of greyhounds and to ensure that the people who breed them are responsible for them up to the end of their lives. Some sort of identification mechanism, such as a tagging system, would also make it much easier to identify them. I have just spoken to someone who has just come back from Spain. They visited an illegal race track where they saw nine Irish dogs racing. So we must take responsibility for these animals, regardless of whether they are in our country or have been exported.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, many Members have highlighted the extraordinary nature of the events and turning-points of European politics that will occur during your Presidency, from the Constitutional Treaty to the Middle East roadmap, the preparations for enlargement and the relaunch of the Lisbon strategy. I certainly mean to recognise the historic importance of these events, but I should like to call your attention, Mr President-in-Office, to the very ordinary nature of the work done by the European institutions. We need to make step-by-step progress on many important files, and I refer in particular to the traffic and transport sector, which Mr Jarzembowski has already mentioned. This sector is in a happy situation, with the arrival of the Van Miert proposal, which has finally given us a new programme of new projects that are equal to the challenges facing us as a continent; your government’s proposal of an ingenious way to finance these projects; and the Commission’s proposal to increase European funding to 20%. This is certainly a scenario with significant possibilities, but we have to round it off, Mr President-in-Office. The Council has been a little remiss in the matter of liberalising port services, in the matter of the railway package and as regards the thorny, age-old problem of the Alpine passes. Tomorrow, Parliament will be voting for the umpteenth time on a call to shelve the ecopoints idea, and I hope this time the Council will agree to follow our lead. Then there is the air sector, and the maritime safety sector. Just an example, then, Mr President-in-Office, to remind you of the commitment which, I am sure, your presidency will be ready to demonstrate in these areas, particularly because every time we manage to make some progress with these files we shall be showing our fellow European citizens tangible proof that Europe offers greater opportunities, well-being and prosperity for all.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as has already been mentioned on quite a few occasions, the budgeting for 2004 is particularly exciting and particularly complicated because of enlargement and the continued reforms of EU budgeting. This is now the first year involving the activity-based budget, which will make it simpler for us all in future to interpret the political messages in the budget. I should like to begin by thanking Mr Mulder and Mrs Gill for their constructive and well set-out discussion documents for the work on the 2004 budget. The objective of this year’s budget has been to unify Europe, for enlargement means that there is a need for a range of new initiatives. In this context, I would especially mention the need for the Commission’s reforms to be implemented in such a way that the administration becomes genuinely efficient and is made sufficiently flexible for it to be possible, once and for all, to straighten out those problems that led to the Commission’s departure in 1999. If we do not get the problems solved now, matters will become so much the more difficult in an enlarged EU. It may be argued that enlargement will provide special opportunities for sorting out a number of problems. On the other hand, the difficulties in solving them will also be exacerbated. As Mrs Gill mentioned, that also applies, of course, in relation to our own institution, Parliament, which will no doubt have to be persuaded to tidy up its administration. It is important for us to set aside the necessary funds for the continued development of administration, training and social dialogue in the new Member States. That also applies to the budgets for the agencies in the spheres of training and the labour market. The last point I wish to make is that, upon enlargement, the EU will acquire new borders in the east. In the budget, aid to the former Soviet bloc countries is to be provided through the Tacis programmes which provide money for administrative development, training and the promotion of safety in connection with nuclear power stations. It is important for Tacis to continue to ensure that the projects are properly implemented. Nuclear safety, in particular, is a high political priority. I am delighted that, in this budget process, we can also welcome our future fellow MEPs from the new Member States. I think that, with their more detailed knowledge of our new neighbours, they will have some good ideas as to how, in the future, we can generally develop the Tacis programmes and also ensure that they are efficiently implemented. That is a strand of the debate and of the budget to which I am very much looking forward.

Political group: ELDR
I have not missed one day in any of the Parliamentary sessions since the election and, I believe, only two in the previous Parliament. It is therefore with some hesitation that I voted for the deletion of Fridays from the Strasbourg sessions. I have come to the opinion that agendas for the Friday sessions have been engineered to fill up the session and are becoming increasingly meaningless. It does this institution no favours when, on a Friday, there are fewer than a hundred Members debating a resolution which is of no importance. This Parliament must restructure its mode of operation to reflect the changed working conditions.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am sorry to rise to speak against my successor on an issue like this, but it seems to me that, just as we rightly ask the Committee on Budgetary Control to look at the allegations about the reform process that have been raised in some newspapers over the weekend, we should also ask the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to look urgently at this matter. What is at stake here is the possibility of the Americans coming back to us with a request for access to databases on European airline passengers which would ride roughshod over our own data protection legislation and indeed could form a major intrusion into the civil liberties of European citizens. It seems to me that, if the House does not take a position this week, then we are impotent. We ought to be stressing very strongly our opposition to what the Americans are requesting and our opposition to any potential agreement by the Commission to such a request. (Applause) (Parliament rejected the request) President. – The vote will thus be taken on Thursday, 13 March.

Political group: ELDR
GALILEO will not come into being until American competition has cornered the European market, which will be too late. Such a navigation system by satellite might have become part of a strategy to make Europe less reliant on the US. There are plenty of reasons for this. America is threatening us with increased global warming, again with an anti-missile shield dating from the ‘Star Wars’ period, with meat containing hormones, noisy aircraft, the ECHELON tapping system, a monopoly of patents and with a dollar which, as international currency, has for decades passed on the deficits of the American balance of payments to the outside world. At the moment, it is even threatening to drag us into a war against the third world. Restricted access of American products manufactured under poor working and environmental conditions to the European market might force America to pay more attention to labour, the environment, public health, animal torture, human rights and peace. Only in a confrontation of that kind could we possibly have a need for GALILEO. As long as such a confrontation is not forthcoming, the GALILEO project remains a contribution of the European taxpayer to industry in the field of electronics and space travel, and that industry is largely subject to military interests. It would be preferable to spend the money for GALILEO on environmental care and useful collective facilities. - Rübig report (A5-0234/2001)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Turkey is an important subject on which opinions are very much divided. After numerous discussion sessions and amendments in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, the resolution proposed by the rapporteur, Mr Oostlander, seems to me to be well enough balanced to be voted through. I shall vote in favour of it – provided, of course, that this balance is not upset by the adoption in plenary of new amendments that are unduly harsh on Turkey. Not that we need to be soft on Turkey in any way. Indeed, it is imperative that we insist on the radical reforms that the Turkish Government must implement if it is eventually to meet the Copenhagen criteria. This insistence and these demands, reaffirmed on countless occasions by the European Parliament and the Commission, have actually begun to bear fruit. Mr Erdogan’s Government, strengthened by the outcome of the last elections, and the Turkish Grand National Assembly have already adopted laws that move in the right direction. It is essential, of course, that these new laws are properly implemented in practice, and there is certainly a need for other laws and a new constitution. People’s mindsets, of course, have to be changed too, and that is never easy; in fact, it is the most difficult task of all. Progress has already been made, however, and we in Parliament, far from breaking this momentum, must encourage it to grow. One of the great merits of this process preparing the way for future Turkish accession to the European Union is that it encourages reforms leading to pluralist democracy, a modern economy and respect for individual rights. The last of these calls to mind the case of Leyla Zana, and it is my fervent wish that the reform process will lead quickly to the long-awaited just and equitable resolution of this situation. In short, the ongoing reform process has already been of great value in drawing us closer to Turkey and in forging increasingly firm bonds of mutual trust between Turkey and ourselves. The fact is that we are in greater need of these bonds. Our future, and particularly our security in the wider sense of the term, depends to a great extent on good relations with the great country of Turkey. We must therefore continue to cultivate these relations with vigour and conviction against a background of hope in the opening of accession negotiations at the beginning of next year.

Political group: PSE