GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, I would like to make an observation regarding Friday’s voting in Strasbourg. I think the fact that only forty MEPs voted on important issues on Friday has somewhat tarnished Parliament’s image. I am aware that it is not unusual for only a few MEPs to attend certain deliberations, but if voting is involved, then I think that this is extremely detrimental to the image of our Parliament. Forty MEPs voted on important matters. I know that quorum is not an issue – this is in line with the Rules of Procedure and there is nothing that can be done about that – but we should avoid this situation at all costs. I therefore wonder whether it might not be a good idea to refrain from scheduling any more votes for Friday in the future.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, some of the world’s governments are violating the fundamental rules in which the common values of the international community are enshrined. Article 18 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Since 1991, Islamic Sharia law has applied in Pakistan. The precepts and prohibitions laid down in the Koran are the supreme law of the land. The law against blasphemy has palpably impaired the largely peaceful coexistence of Muslims with Christians and other religious minorities. Freedom of expression and the freedom of the press have been severely curtailed. Once again, journalists – seven of them this time – have been arrested on the flimsy pretext that they allegedly distributed anti-Islamic writings. It looks once more as if the whole purpose of this is to make a public example of them. But it is far more serious than that, because they could be sentenced to death. We call on General Musharaf’s military government to restore the independence of the judiciary and to delay no longer in allowing the courts to conduct proceedings in accordance with sound legal principles. The Blasphemy Act must be repealed. It is being interpreted in an absolutely arbitrary manner and opens the door to all sorts of manipulation and malicious lawsuits. The death penalty is rejected by a great majority of the people‘s representatives, not only in Europe but also in a growing number of Asian countries. It must be abolished. The Group calls on the European Commission to review all its agreements with Pakistan as a matter of urgency and to revise them as necessary. We need cooperation agreements with the human rights organisations and with the regional non-governmental organisations. The paramount aim of our initiatives must be to ensure that Pakistan can at last resume its journey towards a free democratic system of government. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the introduction of a European visa policy is the occasion to debate an important issue, and here in this House we are today discussing the latest developments in this visa policy. Mr Lehne's report gives important momentum to this process and we support his report. He is already aware of this, so I do not need to thank him yet again because I have already done so in private. The matter I should like to address here, something which I have reflected on many times, because I am of Turkish origin, is the following. We considered whether we should table any amendments, but in fact we decided not to do so. We will not therefore be making any recommendations here on how the report should be dealt with. However, I should like to take the opportunity today – because otherwise no one listens to me – to voice my opinion for once on something which I am very uneasy about. In my opinion, it cannot be right for the European Union to offer Turkey a chance to accede while at the same time maintaining the entry restrictions. I am surprised that we cannot manage to find an alternative way to deal with the Turkey issue, particularly within the context of this harmonised list. I am aware of the reasons for this, but I should nevertheless like to use our Parliament as a platform. Around 3 million people of Turkish origin live in Europe and it is for this very reason that our Commissioner ought perhaps to consider in the future how we are going to resolve this problem reasonably and humanely in the coming years.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I should like to begin by congratulating Mr Blokland on this report. We know that waste incineration is a very difficult and highly technical area, but I think that a creditable piece of work has been done in connection with this report. Unlike Mrs Grossetête, I think that the common position and Mr Blokland’s report will, as a matter of fact, make a significant environmental contribution in connection with waste incineration, whether we are talking about hazardous or non-hazardous waste. I believe that we are, in this way, obtaining a good tool for preventing and limiting environmental damage in connection with waste incineration and for preventing and limiting the associated risks to human health. Moreover, there are also some good resources which are being put to use. I shall certainly support the demand that proper waste planning be carried out, with waste being duly sorted, so that we have a situation in which waste incineration is linked to the EU’s combined waste legislation, with the incineration problem correctly placed in the waste hierarchy. I also think it is good that we should now be told very precisely which plants are covered by these rules and also which types of waste are thus exempt from them. Regarding the very difficult question of defining coincineration plant, including cement factories – in connection with the handling of which there has been some quite aggressive lobbying – I want to say that I think we can support Amendment No 43, which I think defines the common position well. Finally, there is the absolutely crucial point about establishing emission limits in relation to air and water – whether we are talking about heavy metals or dust, ammonia, dioxin, sulphur dioxide or other hazardous substances. I think that defensible levels have been identified in this connection, and a reasonable balance has been struck between incineration plants proper and the combined plants. It is a balance that I hope will be maintained, including during the vote tomorrow here in the plenary sitting. Again in contrast to Mrs Grossetête, I want, moreover, to say that the levels set here for emissions are realistic. They are technologically feasible and they are, in actual fact, already being applied in a number of the Member States. The existing plants which do not at present fulfil the requirements are also to be given a good few years in which to be adapted to the new requirements laid down here. I hope therefore that, by means of the vote tomorrow, we can make our contribution to solving the health and environmental problems involved in waste incineration so that the enormous quantities of waste which we produce every single day do not cause more serious health problems or greater damage to the environment than is absolutely necessary.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it has been said here that some progress towards disarmament has been made, although the scale of this progress is hard to measure in relative terms, because the obligation to prove that weapons of mass destruction have been destroyed has not been fulfilled. We must remember that the inspectors are not private investigators – they are not budding Sherlock Holmes – they are simply information gatherers. We accept, however, that they have made progress. They have been able to do so simply because of international pressure, the last resort of which is the use of force. Let us recall that the inspectors did not leave the country in 1998 of their own free will, but were expelled because the regime thought that the danger had passed. We must also remember the victims, the thousands of people who perished in the rubble of the twin towers, the tens of thousands who have been eliminated in Iraq because they dissent or simply because they belong to a different minority, the hundreds of thousands who have had to go into exile in order to survive. I assume we all agree that we must do whatever we can to ensure that international terrorist organisations do not gain access to these weapons of mass destruction. I assume, Commissioner, that there are no doubts about this. I also wish to point out that, for the moment, everyone, except for Saddam Hussein, has acted with the utmost respect for international law. If decisions and votes are being postponed in the United Nations Security Council, it is precisely in order to reach an agreement that will enable us to continue to act within international law, laying down concrete conditions for disarmament and precise dates by which this is to be achieved because, as the European Council stated, inspections cannot go on indefinitely. In this context, unfortunately, the unity of action of the European Union’s Member States remains in disarray and I must ask Mr Papandreou and Commissioner Patten – and I know that this is not an easy task – to continue to seek agreement. And this agreement, Mr President, must be founded on the Member States’ will to achieve consensus, on respect for the opinions of others, on not attempting to impose on others policies based on faits accomplis and on abandoning strident attitudes. Simply saying ‘never again’ will not get us anywhere.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we endorsed the European Parliament’s strategy at first reading of the budget for 2000 and we now believe that the European Parliament cannot and must not lose face, because that would risk it losing credibility as well. I say this in the context of the perspectives that are being presented to us in the current phase of the process. I have no doubt that the latest proposal for a solution adopted by the board of the Committee on Budgets does not carry the negative burden from which the Council’s proposal suffers. Even so, it does not provide any grounds for enthusiasm and all the indications are that it might even be made worse by new, unacceptable commitments. In fact, and in the way this proposal for a solution was adopted, it can already be deduced from it that it is dropping the idea of a revision of the financial perspectives relating to heading 4 as well as the principle of new objectives being matched with new means. It is therefore and inevitably resulting in an extremely arbitrary cut under the same budgetary heading of a sum of EUR 150 million, which particularly affects food aid, cooperation, the Mediterranean and the TACIS programme. Apart from this, the ECO programme itself will also lose EUR 35 million in comparison to the first reading. It is obvious that we cannot be satisfied with this kind of solution and our vote will certainly reflect this. This is not a retreat by the European Parliament, but it will result in some priorities for the present financial year continuing to be paid for at the expense of previous objectives. I shall also add that this kind of solution will also reduce sums destined for some priorities that have already been stated, specifically for Timor, which has gone from EUR 30 million to EUR 20 million. We are obviously delighted that the heading that we proposed for Timor has been adopted and provided with appropriations, but as we stated at first reading, and now for even more reasons, we think that the appropriations earmarked for it are clearly insufficient. These are the reasons that cause us to see the present budgetary process as clearly unsatisfactory.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the issue raised by Mr Cohn-Bendit is an important issue which the European Parliament has worked on not only during this legislature but also during the last one. The Council, under the Swedish Presidency, even addressed its concerns to Korea. We agree with the idea of dealing with this issue by means of a Commission statement and another by the Council in November. Not on Thursday afternoon of this week, without the participation of either the Council or the Commission.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, the different effects of our budget decisions on women and men have scarcely featured in our debate today. For years, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities has put forward proposals during the budget procedure to take account of the different impacts of our decisions on women and men. We have been successful in the field of employment policy and the Structural Funds, where gender mainstreaming is now enshrined as a principle. In foreign policy, too, gender sensitivity is increasing. In the context of aid to Afghanistan, targeted measures have thus been introduced to reintegrate women into public life and restore their human rights. We have achieved successes in combating trafficking in human beings, which is a modern form of slavery. Violence against women has also become an issue in the budget. Nonetheless, the STOP and DAPHNE programmes must not be used simply to carry out representative events. Ultimately, just 13% of the projects can be funded, which is why the NGOs must be given direct assistance. Gender budgeting must become even more of a theme than is currently the case. The Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities is working on an own-initiative report on this issue. A word of criticism on the practice governing the allocation of funds as well: all too often – for example, in town twinning or the NGOs – it generates a great deal of resentment. There is much frustration among active Europeans. If on the one hand, we ensure that we do not spend any more on tobacco cultivation and we dismantle bureaucratic hurdles in this area, we cannot then put up similar hurdles in the way of the NGOs. I ask for your support. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the democratic deficit in Europe is being presented as the main problem. It is an unfortunate fact that the competences ceded by the national parliaments to Europe have not all as yet arrived at the European Parliament, the only European institution to be legitimised by elections. Responsibility for this must be borne by all the Member States that have to date refused to pass on these competences to the co-legislator, Parliament, in the form of codecision in the legislative sphere. The governments have thus gained for themselves at European level legislative and executive powers that would have been inconceivable in their national legal system. That is the real scandal of the democratic deficit in Europe. Are we then to commend the Heads of State and Government for, at the Nice Summit, setting out relations between the European Parliament and the national parliaments as being one of the four topics for the forthcoming Convention and the new Intergovernmental Conference? That would be to put off the governments' lack of capacity and willingness for yet another day. This is the fundamental misunderstanding that Mr Berthu has described in his minority opinion. Parliament must indeed seek to stand shoulder to shoulder with the national parliaments in order together to compel the governments to act in a democratic way. Parliament's two great groups are very much as one in this demand, and I am grateful to our group's Mr Gil Robles for his contribution to the Napolitano report, and to our rapporteur for his Amendment No 21. These show the right way ahead into the future. That which is feasible and appropriate must be done at every level. The national parliaments can and must monitor their national governments better and more effectively than before. We wish to encourage them to do so, both as regards the governments' conduct when European legislation is drafted in Council and in terms of the financial management and monitoring of funds granted by the EU. The European Parliament must monitor legislation at European level and play a part in shaping it. In conclusion, I can only say that we are grateful for the report and hope that it will also be taken seriously by the Convention. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, unlike Mrs Lulling, I do believe this proposal to be a valid one. Surely it is the case that whoever wants to practise good governance should not only draft appropriate laws, but should also ensure that these are complied with. And if we notice that Member States are unable to do this, then we should help them where we can. Incidentally, in Belgium, we are all too familiar with this. We have had monetary union with Luxembourg for years, and it has effectively encouraged cross border payment transactions aimed at avoiding tax on moveable goods. The citizens are all too keen to forget that they have to declare the income derived from moveables from another country to the tax administration of their own country. It can therefore do no harm to give them a helping hand. Ultimately, this can help prevent tax erosion and allows for a more naturally functioning internal market. It has always appeared judicious to me to set matters straight in this area, primarily within the internal market, and without necessarily making it subject to agreements with third countries. However, if I have understood the conclusions of Feira correctly, this is a stipulation which the Council does want to put in place. When I read the Commission proposal, it once again fails to state this in the text which normally should reflect the agreement of Feira. This is why I should like to ask the Commissioner once more what, in his opinion, are the advantages and disadvantages of including this stipulation, and I should also like to ask him if he could once again inform us of the current state of affairs in the negotiations involving third countries. Parliament would be interested to know whether these are promising, when they are likely to be concluded and how we should couple the timing of the implementation of this proposal with the results of these negotiations.

Political group: PPE-DE
No, this statute is not perfect. Yes, this text is only a compromise. No, this project does not provide a complete response to the lengthy battle fought over the best part of the last five years by the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party; but yes, I voted in favour: in favour of reform, in favour of the future, and in favour of setting the truly European aspects of this House in stone. For that is what is at stake: finding an end to the odyssey on which we embarked in 1979, in search of a common statute, a statute to do away with inequality and injustice. How on earth can we continue to justify the fact that German and Italian Members earn four times the wages of their Portuguese and Spanish colleagues? That is why I congratulate myself on the agreement reached on Articles 16 and 18. The former establishes the principle of equal pay for all, and the latter confirms Community tax as the benchmark. For all that, I regret the fact that this House did not, yesterday, state the rights and responsibilities of its honourable Members loud and clear. Neither did it adopt a totally transparent system for the refund of expenses, particularly travel expenses. The repeal of the effective compromise negotiated during the Belgian Presidency in October 2001 is also a bad sign. That compromise gave Member States the right to impose an additional national tax, should they desire to do so. These are all highly controversial questions, which threaten to delay the adoption of the Statute for Members until the twelfth of never.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I broadly welcome this proposal because it completes the former directive, it helps to avoid unfair competition and it takes account of safety issues. But we are concerned because we would prefer to be making progress on more environmentally-friendly forms of transport, such as railways, rather than continuing to increase road capacity. As far as the amendments are concerned, we support the transitional periods for buses still running, that is, Amendment No 1, and also for industry, to enable industry to comply with the new conditions. I would say to Mr Hatzidakis that the 24 months for industry is less than was allowed in the original 1996 directive when the transitional period was four years. This time, industry is happy with two years. They do not have to take it up, it is there in case they require that amount of time. In addition, we are in favour of the proposal to keep buses of more than 12, but less than 15, metres with two axles, still serving public transport in some Member States, since this does not, as far as we are concerned, jeopardise safety. Finally, we strongly support the Commission's position on Article 1.3b which corresponds to Annex 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of the 1996 directive. We believe this is the best guarantee for safety. The Group does not support Amendment No 3, as the proposed new test does not ensure proper manoeuvrability and does not therefore fully meet acceptable safety requirements.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, beyond any doubt, the enlargement of the EU by the accession of ten states is an event of historic magnitude. It is difficult to predict how history will eventually rate the first day of May in 2004. If one is to believe the politicians, the accession of the former Socialist Republics of Eastern Europe has not enlarged Europe, but completed it. Whatever our understandable and justifiable rejoicing at the fall of borders, we should not overlook the fact that many citizens of both the old and new Member States take a sceptical view of the future. Those who live in Prague or Budapest, where unemployment stands at only between 3% and 4% will take a different view of things from someone from Ostrawa in Northern Moravia, where some 30% are out of work. I have experienced celebrations that soon gave way to sober reality and disappointment, the after-effects of which are being felt in Germany to this day. In the course of negotiations, much was said about the implementation of the Copenhagen criteria, but there was no debate about the changes that bring with them grave social disparities, with poverty for the many and immense wealth for the few. Far be it from me to pour cold water on this solemn moment, but I know that there is in the long term nothing worse than self-deception, and that nothing does more political damage than the unwillingness to accept history with all its contradictions, bitterness and difficulties. This being my last speech to this House, I have a request to make. There must be no room in the European democracy for xenophobia, anti-Semitism or hatred of Communists, of whatever kind. Europe is more than the EU, and the European Union will have new neighbours. What the present time demands of us is that we be good neighbours. A week ago, I was in Riga and saw for myself just how much is required if trust in our neighbours is to grow. If we want to have a good future to look forward to in peace, then what is required of us will be peaceful communities, the bringing together of people, and coexistence in a spirit of solidarity.

Political group: GUE-NGL