GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I have two questions. I shall try to be very brief indeed. The first question concerns the implementation of the precautionary principle. As I have understood it, there has been a certain lack of clarity in some respects as to how this is to be understood. Is it the case that a risk assessment is firstly to be carried out, including a cost-benefit analysis? In that case, I am rather concerned, because the idea was really that a cost-benefit analysis should not be used as a tool for deciding whether the precautionary principle should be introduced. Instead, the precautionary principle should come first. My second question concerns the burden of proof. I remember Margot Wallström being introduced as Commissioner in the Committee. At that time, she was talking about the desire for a reversed burden of proof. In other words, a product’s manufacturer is to demonstrate whether or not the product is hazardous. I want to know whether this also applies in the document which the Commission has presented now.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, any dictatorship leaves behind it a trail of victims, murdered people, tortured people, people who have spent years in prison and many people who have had to go into exile. There are many Chileans, for example, who now live in Europe as a result of the dictatorship of General Pinochet, who came into power by overthrowing a democratic government, who established himself over the dead body of President Allende and who, after a long dictatorship, lost power because the Chilean people were not prepared to continue supporting him. And, on one occasion, General Pinochet decided to come to Europe and, as soon as he set foot here, the European judicial authorities set out to ensure that General Pinochet took responsibility for his actions. The Chilean Government guaranteed that in Chile General Pinochet would have a fair trial and General Pinochet has indeed now lost his immunity and the Chilean judicial authorities are initiating proceedings against him. Here we cannot replace the judicial authority once it has legal power over the case of General Pinochet, and we welcome the fact that the Chilean Government has also decided to allow the judicial authorities to operate. The only thing we can do here is to support the Chilean Government at this time and, taking advantage of the presence of Commissioner Patten, to ask him, as the previous speaker, Mr Salafranca, did, for a new agreement to be sought with Chile which will help continue to strengthen democracy in that country. I think that it is a good opportunity to strengthen our links with the Chilean Government, to enable the Chilean Government to authorise the judicial authority to bring proceedings against General Pinochet and, at the same time, to take advantage of this opportunity to give our support to the Chilean Government. I recall that in the European Parliament mission to Argentina, former President Alfonsín said to us that sometimes democracies only remember other democracies post mortem, that is, when there is no longer democracy. Now that we have democracy in Chile, let us help that democratic government and democratic nation.

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, I would like to thank you very much indeed. However, the reason for my question was firstly so that you would provide a list of what is currently expected. I have a list here from five years ago which provides some deadlines. This list was drawn up by your predecessor, Mrs Wulf-Matthies and the deadlines specified at that time have not been met. I would therefore like to know what is happening. The second point obviously relates to quality. We have constantly called for a blacklist of companies or individuals whose work was of a poor quality, so that they can no longer tender for contracts. This is a very important point. With regard to the cost – the comparative cost – I would like to know how much it costs per kilometre to build an underground system in Barcelona, Athens or Paris for instance, so as to be able to judge the state of Europe’s finances. Commissioner, I should like to end by saying that I am not very committed to the Olympic Games. In actual fact, I am rather against them. Since, however, we have scheduled this train, a train that is unforgivably delayed, I would like an explanation.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the previous speaker made it easy for me because he spoke in detail about Akin Birdal who was the leader of the human rights organisation in Turkey and who is mainly known for calling for a peaceful solution to the Kurdish question. In 1998, he survived an assassination attempt by right-wing extremists, but since then his health has greatly deteriorated. He is now in prison again, at the very time that a number of our MEPs visited Ankara. From Mr Schörling’s statement, it appears very clear that this is in no way coincidental. It is real provocation. Through this kind of action Turkey alienates itself from Europe. The gulf becomes deeper instead of the other way round. If Turkey wishes to heed our call, then it can only respond by releasing Mr Birdal because this is out-and-out provocation. This is not the only instance of human rights violations that concern us. I understand that a press bureau in Amsterdam has been ransacked and that this was formally sanctioned by the Belgian judiciary. In the meantime we also know from incidents in Belgium who is really behind this. Human rights are unambiguous, human rights are the same everywhere and Turkey must also be aware of that, otherwise it will never become a Member of the European Union.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the Commission’s proposal to reduce refunds for processed agricultural products and to make inward processing easier carries considerable risks. I shall highlight just three of them. The first is that this proposal is not driven so much by the restrictions imposed by the WTO, but particularly by the well-known budget restrictions currently being applied in the European Union, specifically due to the need to reallocate means and resources to commitments that the Union has given in the field of external affairs, notably Kosovo. These objectives are not under threat. They will have to be addressed in a transparent way during the major debates on the European Union’s options. What is not acceptable is that little more than a year ago, the Financial Perspectives up to 2007 were approved, and now, a few months later, resources that had been earmarked for agriculture are being withdrawn. The second risk is that the increasing use of inward processing could put us in the extremely dangerous situation of no longer producing many agricultural products within the European Union, since it would be more profitable to import them in their raw state, process them and re-export them. Only a few sections of society would benefit from this and it would spell disaster for agricultural communities. In the long term, the European Union’s dependence on external supplies in a sector as strategically important as food production would make the Union as a whole extremely vulnerable. It would therefore be a foolish mistake to think that the practice of inward processing could be a lasting solution. The third risk relates to our negotiating strategy for the Millennium Round. This week, the Commission has approved a document on the competitiveness of our exports, which reveals its fundamental position on the various types of export aid. The Commission’s position is quite clear: the European Union will not in future accept reductions, within the WTO, only in support for export refunds – there will also have to be reductions in all types of support provided by our main competitors in the international markets, ranging from export credits to food aid and state-run businesses. All this will have to be 'put on the table' and reduced under the GATT rules. The European Union’s stance on this issue is totally correct: all types of aid which have a similar effect must come under the WTO rules, not only the refund system used by the European Union. It is in this context of external pressure that the European Union is applying in the framework of the GATT, that is, the WTO negotiations, that it seems to be a mistake to have presented this proposal at this time. To conclude, I should simply like to thank Mr Souchet for the tremendous job he has done, which we greatly appreciate.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the question that was asked directly concerns the French situation and the answers that have been given make this quite clear. Although it is quite true that the French government has not yet begun, even now, to incorporate the European directive on liberalising the gas sector, it is nonetheless true that in practice, the conditions for exercising free competition have been met. It is not quite accurate to say today that the French gas market is not open to competition. The French government has opted to incorporate this directive in a measured and gradual way, which provides a greater opening for the major eligible clients, including the chemical, electrolysis or steel industries, for example. This position is no different, however, from that of the German government, which expressed its views at the Stockholm European Council and thereby sought to demonstrate its concern to develop an alternative in Europe to what here we would call the British blueprint for totally liberalising the energy sectors. Ladies and gentlemen, let us make no mistake about this. What is at stake here is maintaining a public service in its role as a tool for social and territorial cohesion. We take the view that incorporating the European directive must, therefore, be an opportunity to produce a precise, updated and ambitious definition of what we mean by ‘public service’, which is a concept we have often debated in this House. I would also like to talk about energy policy, environmental protection, sustainable development, security, social and territorial solidarity and also about local development, about developing balance between geographical areas and about everyone’s right to energy. For all of these reasons, Commissioner, I ask the European Commission to quickly carry out a preliminary assessment, even before the second phase of liberalising the markets begins, so that we can preserve the European energy public service sector. I have also taken good note of the European lesson given on this matter by my British fellow Member. Where the dispossessed are concerned, however, Mr Purvis, those who would not benefit, as you say, from the gas sector being liberalised, I can reassure you today that, in my country, no one needs to suffer as a result of the situation in place there.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on 27 January, the Commission stated that the EU's proposal on the WTO negotiations was compatible with our current advocacy of substantial and progressive liberalisation on a fair and even-handed basis. It is furthermore stated in clear terms that ‘the actual measures involve the fair sharing of agricultural burdens and the developing countries, too, should be given greater opportunities.’ That is a logical development in view of the fact that, in the EU too since the 1992 CAP reform, liberalisation keeps making advances in the implementation of the GATT resolutions. The good ship WTO is steaming ahead, with undertakings in the agricultural and food industries swimming in its wake as best they can, as, every time the consumer spends a euro on groceries, the farmers get only an average of 25 cents. The liberalisation of agricultural trade has its advocates and its opponents. There is unanimous agreement that developing countries should be given easier access to the European Internal Market, yet, despite liberalisation – or, indeed, as a consequence of it – there has been no definite improvement in the situation as regards world hunger; indeed, as the motions for a resolution point out, this has got worse. It is not clear what sort of permanent and comprehensive body of Europe-wide legislation on non-commercial matters might be able to maintain the balancing act between, on the one hand, the maintenance and improvement of European agriculture's competitive position on world markets and, on the other hand, the protection of insufficiently competitive agriculture at a time when it is being made more multifunctional for the benefit of society. My mind is quite open as to whether the European agricultural model, combining multifunctionality with a policy of subsidies, can be implemented with any international legitimacy. The great danger is already present that this will prove no long-lasting protection and that the abandonment of European subsidy policy will then begin in earnest, because there will as yet be no political majorities, and where they do exist, they will be compromises. On the other hand, the WTO's fundamental categories do not include issues of rural development, environmental protection and animal welfare. What is true of enlargement must also be true of the WTO negotiations, the principle being that nobody should be any worse off. The situation before the negotiations and after them will be considered in that light, so we can look forward to the result with some excitement.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Britain has made phenomenal strides in recycling over the last ten years, but most of that has come from the business cycle, now we have to move to the domestic waste stream. Householders will move towards separating glass, paper and plastic from general rubbish, and business will have to work with local councils to fund new equipment and set up new installations to deal with the flow of materials. A realistic timetable for implementation is five years, any attempt to compress that time will result in spiralling costs. A 2007 target date will cost an extra £143 million, bringing the costs of meeting the new targets from £397 up to £540 million over a five-year period. That means bottle banks, trucks for doorstep collections and building new waste transfer, storage and handling stations, all of which takes time and money. These EU packaging rules require a step change in recycling activity from British business, consumers and local councils. Introduction of the necessary changes in an efficient and cost-effective way needs a little more time. For these reasons we have abstained on those amendments seeking to advance the compliance date beyond 2008.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am concerned by the statements on the so-called Millennium Round. They say that we should extend our policies of liberalisation to an ever-greater number of sectors and countries, including agriculture and services essential to development and essential to improving the quality of life of our citizens, such as education and health. The President of the Commission made his intention clear when, in his speech during the investiture process, he said that it was necessary to continue restructuring the single market and to promote liberalisation. He specifically emphasised the continuation of the process of liberalising the goods and services sectors. This means that we are no longer only in the process of liberalising the exchange of goods, as happened with GATT. The multinationals now want to go much further. They want to take over public sectors which are essential to our citizens’ lives and which have until now been the responsibility of the State. This is a very dangerous road to go down, as the consequences of applying the WTO rules have shown, causing as they did, an increase in social inequality, unemployment, and world poverty. It is vital that the forthcoming negotiations do not go any further down this road, but take the road of solidarity and cooperation instead.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, by some mistake my group was not able to speak during the debate and so I will restrict myself to delivering an explanation of vote, which I am very happy to do having been the rapporteur of a report on the subject of old age dealing with the communication ‘Towards a Europe for all ages’. I feel that the European Parliament’s undertaking to present a report today, a report endorsed by all, moreover, is extremely positive, for it overturns that wholly negative preconception of elderly people as a burden, a dead weight carried by society, which, indeed, fails to accord them that attention we would wish them to receive. The elderly are ultimately a resource and must therefore be considered in positive terms. European Union and world policies must start to be more attentive to elderly people, to show more appreciation of the humanity and culture they have to pass on which is extremely important for the younger generations, culture which can be manifested at the level of work for elderly people who are still active, culture which is expressed not least in terms of awareness and familiarity with history, which humanity must consult increasingly closely if it is to avoid those huge errors which are currently being made, especially at the level of world stability and peace. I feel that this resolution contains extremely positive points relating to the European Union’s active policies on elderly people, in terms of both free time, work and rights of citizenship, and, most importantly, in terms of the potential for action still possessed by the elderly which they can most certainly use to the benefit of the community as a whole. Therefore, in expressing our support for this resolution, I feel we can say we have also made a contribution to the events in Spain and to the Second United Nations World Assembly too.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, summer follows summer, bringing disaster after disaster. Last year, it was floods which plunged Europe into mourning. This year, it has been a heatwave, bringing a health crisis in France and an environmental disaster in Portugal and on our Mediterranean coasts. These worrying freak weather conditions may be the result of global warming, which, it is a well-known fact, is itself exacerbated by the greenhouse effect caused by CO2 emissions. In any case, everyone is now aware that we need to be more careful in our dealings with nature. We must also be more compassionate in our dealings with each other. In Paris, it is said – and the figure is frightening – that over 800 people died whom nobody grieved for and whose bodies nobody came to claim. The draft resolution tabled by our group, the Group, contains a number of extremely positive recommendations, and I want to mention just a few of them here. As regards health, in particular, the Commission must help the Member States to guarantee to all people the rights proclaimed by Article 35 of the Charter, namely the right to have access to preventive health care, even under exceptional climatic conditions. Where Portugal is concerned, we ask, Commissioner, that the Solidarity Fund be applied above the emergency level to genuinely help the country to bandage all its wounds. In order to reduce the greenhouse effect, we must encourage the Commission to ensure respect for the Kyoto commitments. Transport policy has a substantial part to play in this field. We must promote the most energy-efficient means of transport more. As our fellow Member, Mr Dhaene, explained earlier, some of us came from Brussels to Strasbourg by bicycle, arriving towards the end of the morning. The aim was, of course, to promote the use of bicycles. Cycling must be provided for in the trans-European transport networks. That would make it possible to help the authorities concerned to create or improve cycle paths which link the Member States of mainland Europe. As part of the trip, during the final section of the route, we rode along the canal between the Marne and the Rhine. The scenery is magnificent, but we noticed that the canal is underused for goods transport. We must encourage this kind of transport more, for it causes less pollution than road transport. Lastly, I would like to mention one last proposal made in our draft resolution. It is to create a European civil protection body: the ‘casques verts’. Their intervention in environmental disasters would encourage the Member States to shoulder their responsibilities. In short, we must stop beating about the bush where sustainable development is concerned and take practical action. That is what our draft resolution is trying to say. IN THE CHAIR: MR PROVANVice-President

Political group: Verts-ALE
Major changes to European culture that will happen as a result of digital technology are welcome. However, continued good public service broadcasting is essential. Guaranteed access to public service and public interest content will be a vital guarantor of universality. It will also be a key driver of digital take-up, extending its appeal. For public services to be universally available it is necessary to ensure that whichever digital system people may use they can be guaranteed access to the information that is essential to a well-informed society. Public interest considerations suggest there will be a need for access to this content through all major delivery platforms, whatever access regime is finally decided upon. 'Must access' rules will be needed to ensure universal availability to public service content on other major distribution systems, and to memory in receivers where that forms a significant gateway. 'Due prominence' rules will ensure that public service content and channels can be easily found on proprietary electronic programme guides. Digital TV is the only convergent technology without basic interoperability. Regulatory measures will be required to promote interoperability between the networks and devices that will be used to access digital TV and interactive services. Interoperability can be achieved through declaration and licensing of those key standards, interfaces and authoring tools necessary to reach the end user. This will promote interoperability without undermining innovation. Third parties will need access to this information at the same time as the gateway owners' own services. It is important to get the right balance between the EU and Member State levels. It is right that the regulatory framework for infrastructure should be established at EU level and implemented nationally. National regulatory authorities will need the freedom to apply infrastructure regulation according to specific national circumstances, but be ready to justify this at the EU level. Content issues will affect infrastructure regulation. Where this occurs, the Member State should be free to set its own priorities. As we are already in a world of television without frontiers, it is important in the context of Ireland that public service broadcasting, both North and South, recognises all the cultural divisions that have agreed to parity of esteem under the Good Friday agreement, which had such a strong democratic mandate. - Report Van Velzen (A5-0145/2000)

Political group: Verts-ALE