GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the ecopoint system was agreed during Austria's accession to the EU. So what we are talking about is an existing, legally valid agreement which expires in 2003. The objective, as has already been mentioned, is to use more environmentally-friendly lorries in transit through the Austrian Alps and to reduce NOx emissions by 60% in comparison with 1992, which has almost been achieved. The agreement also sets an upper ceiling on the number of transit journeys, the so-called 108% clause. Now the Commission wants to abolish the 108% clause by the end of 2003. The rapporteur, Hannes Swoboda, rejects the Commission proposal and I concur with this view, although there is a conflict between Austrian and German interests, for example, here. But our concern here must be to act within the context of a European transport policy and that means having a taxation mechanism for ecologically sensitive regions. In all events, I should like to highlight three problems, as I have done in my proposed amendments. First, the number of journeys needs to be calculated correctly. A number of speakers have expressed doubts as to the accuracy of the statistics, because they also include some bilateral journeys. Care must therefore be taken to calculate the number of journeys correctly, so that sanctions are not wrongly applied. That brings me to my second point, sanctions. In 1999, as has already been mentioned, the number of transit journeys was exceeded by 100,000, resulting in a cutback of 150,000 journeys by way of 'punishment'. I think the current sanction mechanism is excessive and wrong because it hits individual road hauliers, even though it means state action. Something needs to be done here. And my third and final point. Our ultimate transport policy objective is to have a sustainable transport system which allows sustainable mobility in the long term. However, the Commission has so far omitted to present a conclusive overall concept for the Alps for 2003 onwards and we need one now as a matter of urgency.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, often in this Parliament – and I will surprise no one by saying this – our debates are not terribly exciting and we address rather complex issues. As Chairman of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport and having only just left a meeting of this same committee where we were voting without you, Mrs de Sarnez, I should like to say here that it was with widespread, indeed unanimous, enthusiasm that the Culture Committee worked on Mrs de Sarnez's excellent report. To be quite frank, when we saw the Commission document we thought the idea was excellent and we agreed that in some respects the Commission was almost being too cautious. Firstly, in respect of the budget. It is just as well that we were there to increase it a little. I might say straight away that this Parliament's Culture Committee does not consider the EUR 230 million to be sufficient and tends to think that it will have to be supplemented further. Moreover, if you think of the world today and the considerable number of large countries who, for reasons of international uncertainty, give the impression of being closed off, the fact that it is precisely under such conditions that Europe should choose to open up completely is of exceptional significance in our view. In the same way, we wanted to reinforce, consolidate and write in stone how valuable a degree such as the European Union Masters is. The Commission text tended to give the impression of any old studies leading to the award of a little certificate. We wanted to consolidate this qualification, this Master’s degree. In addition, Mr President, we thought it was very important to tighten up the wording on the learning of two foreign languages in this context. Where the Union's language policy is concerned, we have often protested in this Chamber about those governments who were not making it compulsory to learn two foreign languages in their countries. Some still do not do so. We will exert all the pressure we can in support of this policy and we are pleased to have found an opportunity to do so here. Finally, I should like to say that opening up European culture to students from throughout the world seems to me to be a wonderful initiative.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as Mr Medina Ortega said, we too must reiterate the unfortunate position of the conflict in Colombia, and highlight that in the Peace Community in La Unión, in the region of Urabá, there have been three murders since 1997. Fortunately, the Colombian Government has decided to pursue those responsible and punish them accordingly. But the fact is that, since 1997, there have been three murders, the most recent on 8 July of this year, and the Peace Community of La Unión and the Intercongregational Committee for Justice and Peace, including the Irish Franciscan priest Brendan Forde, have had repeated death threats, despite their position of remaining neutral and contributing to bringing peace to the area. We think that this situation again requires the strongest possible action on the part of the European institutions. Both the Commission and the European Parliament have a series of opportunities for this in cooperation with the United Nations Human Rights Office and also through the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Colombia. We urge the Commission, obviously in cooperation with Parliament, to provide the Colombian Government with all our political force and capacity for pressure so that finally the desired peace can come to Colombia and these tragic situations of assassinations, deaths and murders do not happen again.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, there is a risk of Central Asia and the Caspian Sea becoming the Balkans of the 21st Century. That is why it is imperative to stabilise the two major states of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan in particular. That is why I would like to ask you what you are actually able to do within your own sphere of competence, how the negotiations with regard to the partnership agreement with these two countries are going, that is, with regard to political relations that is. Of course, that falls within your remit; my next question falls within Mr Nielson’s remit in that it concerns environmental cooperation, in particular matters pertaining to water and the problems surrounding the cotton monocultures, which are the cause of great aridity.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I fully subscribe to the entreaties of Mr Van den Bos and Mr Van Hecke. With 200 000 fatalities in Burundi, Commissioner, there is clearly a need for a peace deal or a peace accord. However, I fear that the peace accord has been brought about because it suited the Heads of State at the time. Maybe they should have dragged the negotiations out a while longer in order to gather everybody around the table, because I am aware that as long as the key players, both on the Hutu side and Tutsi side, do not meet, there will be no real peace. I do welcome the fact that some movements, which were at one time some of the most implacable, have now gathered around the table. This is why I have good reason to believe this peace accord sets the tone for the future. I now wonder how the European Union can best fulfil the desire for peace expressed by so many people in Burundi. To start with, I believe we will need to step up the pressure in order to achieve overall peace in the Great Lakes region. I cannot shake off the impression that various African leaders are still too self-seeking to be able to work steadily towards peace in Congo and the Great Lakes region. A second point is the contentious resumption of aid. I have always regretted the notorious boycott of Burundi, particularly as it was so selective. I now hope that we can make some real headway by means of clearly-defined peace projects and development of democracy, which we can underpin with structural aid.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Following on from the question about the timetable, I should like to make a comment. Commissioner, you mentioned quite correctly that it has been helpful to have a representative from Parliament and how glad you were that Mr Howitt could be there. I am glad that Mr Howitt was there for some of the time because he was rapporteur for the Green Paper. However, I hope that you were also glad that I was there for some of the time as rapporteur on the White Paper. The intention is that I will be the parliamentary representative on 19 June, as an observer, to which I look forward. I believe that formal invitations will only be sent on 17 May, which is after Parliament has risen. It would be helpful if the invitations could be officially sent earlier. It would also be helpful – and perhaps the Commissioner could confirm this – if the invitations were accompanied by a draft of the proposals that will be discussed in June. I am sure that those who attend – and not just the observers – would wish to have as much notice as possible of the proposals for discussion rather than just find out what they are on the day they arrive.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I shall endeavour to explain myself clearly. I voted against this report and I was not alone in doing so. We did so with conviction on behalf of the European regionalists of the . We form part of the Group of the , but by taking this position we wanted to express our disillusionment over what is being discussed here today. This agenda is, of course, too restricted. Europe is very ambitious when it comes to enlargement, which is a good thing, but it is not ambitious enough to provide a real democratic structure that emanates from the regions and the people. We regret that all amendments that serve to incorporate this dimension into Europe have been rejected. We have had to conclude that, contrary to our expectations, the power of the large states will increase and the power of the European Parliament and the possibility of our regions being represented within it, will decrease. We therefore hope that the IGC will prove successful in getting vigorous reform under way. We had to vote against because we do not fully identify ourselves with the structure of this democratic Europe.

Political group: Verts-ALE
My question follows on from the last point Mr Seppänen made. This matter has been reported on recently in the UK and indeed a British Government adviser said that she would not recommend that her children eat French beef because, she alleged, in France older cows are still making their way into the food chain, parts from the nervous system are still being used in products such as sausages in France and there is still contamination of animal feed. There is also statistical evidence that there is an increase of BSE in France and Portugal. Will the Council ask the Commission to ensure that all necessary public health measures are being enforced in all 15 Member States, to ensure this disease is finally eradicated from the European Union?

Political group: PSE
I congratulate the last French Presidency on its plans for tough penalties across the EU on carriers illegally transporting third-country nationals into Member States. Illegal immigration and human trafficking is a key issue for the European Union, and we must work together to tackle this challenge. Whilst there is, of course, a strong case for genuine asylum seekers applying through the usual routes, the influx of illegal immigrants being smuggled into British ports, often by people-trafficking gangs, is alarming. We need to send a strong signal to the traffickers that no matter where they operate in Europe, the penalties they face will be harsh. The response to the UK-Italian proposal for EU teams of police and immigration officers to work in the western Balkans has therefore been encouraging. Truck drivers must be part of this operation and carry out thorough checks on their vehicles to ensure there is nobody on board. More disturbing, however, are the atrocious conditions that these immigrants suffer on their journey on trucks and lorries. Of course, the victims, arguably, are prepared to take drastic risks to enter the countries of the European Union. We should therefore be also looking at the root causes of this displacement, whether it is persecution in their home countries, poverty or other reasons. All of us are extremely fortunate to be living in prosperous, democratic countries, and I for one, certainly hope we can open our doors to those who do not live in such fortunate circumstances. These are simply common-sense measures that will help prevent people being smuggled into countries across Europe. The British Labour government is carrying out measures to speed up applications for asylum-seekers and is making the system fairer and faster, so that people will be encouraged to make official applications rather than risk their lives on lorries, ships and trains. - Wiebenga Report (A5-007/2001)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for her response to Mr Vallvé. I would also like to voice my support for his request regarding national teams, although I did understand your message, Commissioner. As regards cultural diversity, Parliament has adopted several resolutions, one of which I hold particularly dear: that of 1989, which recognises that the Catalan language has a somewhat special role among the minority languages and which called on the Commission to publish a number of fundamental texts in our language, Catalan. My predecessor in this role, Mr Gorka Knörr, who is currently the Vice-President of the Basque Parliament – whom I am replacing for that reason – had raised the question of Basque. Why does Catalan enjoy minor status as a recognised language and why can Basque not have the same status? Therefore, at the very moment when the Spanish authorities have shut down the only Basque newspaper, Egunkaria, I would like to ask you the reason for this difference in the status of Basque and Catalan.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, my feeling is that, after the rather lively discussion we had yesterday in the House with Commissioner Schreyer, the Commission ought to make a statement before the vote is taken. I thought you were informed about that and I would like the Commissioner to make a statement, at least, if that is his intention.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union's core concerns include the safeguarding of freedom of information and the freedom and diversity of opinion. These are among our fundamental values, to which, it is to be hoped, the Convention will give a prominent place in the constitution that will be our common possession. That being so, Parliament has, over past years, repeatedly done in-depth work on these issues and taken actual developments in the European Union and the Member States as a yardstick when measuring the extent to which these things have become reality. I do not think one can say that Parliament has been asleep. It is not only 1997 that should be mentioned here; I would like to remind you all of what we decided together in 2000 with our position on the fundamental questions relating to the communication and information society in the European Union, and would also refer you to our common position on the revision of the television directive in 2001. That was something on which we did not yield. The only thing is that we have to take a realistic view of how things stand. So far, the results are clear and unambiguous: we have no option but to draw distinctions. The media markets continue largely to be the national markets that they were previously, as is unmistakeably clear in the case of the print media. Secondly, it is the case that in the electronic media field, the television markets are still predominantly national in character. It must, thirdly, be clear to us that development has progressed further. Cross-border developments are increasingly taking place in the electronic media, especially where digital technology is brought into play. This is a question on which we have to focus, examining very carefully what consequences this development is having for the safeguarding of freedom of opinion and information and pluralism of the media in the European Union and in its Member States. That is why my group, that of the , has put to you a question with reference to this specific development. We are asking the Commission to draw up a Green Paper on the current situation to take up the question of the structural developments observable today in Europe's political, economic and legal media. We additionally ask you to table a proposal for our consideration on what you consider to be appropriate action in order to achieve the objective, which it is to be hoped is shared by us all, of safeguarding the pluralism of the media and of opinion in the European Union. I do think that, if we travel together in this direction, we will together take a significant step along the road towards guaranteeing diversity of opinion in the European Union. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, before I begin may I also recommend that while they are replacing the wiring they could paint all the black walls white or some other colour. May I begin by congratulating Mr Bösch on an excellent report and also congratulate the European Ombudsman on the work he is doing. I know that, though this was before my day, there was concern in the House about whether to have an Ombudsman at all, because it would then seem like a conflict of interests. But history has shown that this is not the case and that an Ombudsman does work very hard to protect the interests of our constituents and becomes a point of access for legitimising complaints and finding out what has gone wrong. I had the privilege of serving on the select committee on the Ombudsman in the House of Commons and that was a very powerful committee. We could summon anyone in the country before the Ombudsman committee, and the select committee procedure which I will discuss in two minutes is something that we could learn from. Citizens of the European Union should receive a positive impression when encountering the Community institutions. The question is, has this been achieved? I fear that the short answer is: 'no'. Clearly, as this report reflects, improvements are being made. I congratulate the Commission on accepting the four recommendations made in the special report on the Ombudsman. Access to official documents by citizens of the Union is a hallmark of a responsible and fully functioning democracy. The fact that applicants for Community institution jobs should see their marked scripts shows that institutions are confident in the way they run their application and selection procedures. It is a hallmark of a confident democracy if the processes by which selection is made is done openly and without any recourse to confidentiality or secrecy. In the select committees of the House of Commons we had the power to introduce a regime of monitoring of every level of the executive, not only the ministers in the same way we monitor the Commission sometimes in terms of them coming here and answering questions, but a two-hour session with the particular minister with officials in attendance where the elected Members could ask questions and be prepared to ask questions in detail and to get detailed answers. This is the beginning of opening up the process of government and making it transparent. In our resolution we talk about transparent government and we should start to implement it in the European Parliament.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the second EU/Latin-American and Caribbean Summit we are discussing today should be viewed in a positive light by a majority in the House. There has been progress, and positive signals have certainly been sent out. Specific agreements such as the association agreement with Chile have been finalised. The latter will result in the most ambitious and innovative free trade area to date, in line with the preferential agreement signed with Mexico two years ago. Our friends in Mercosur, the Andean Pact, the San José Group and the Caribbean should view the agreement with Chile as a further incentive for subregional integration. It is now up to them to make further progress in this respect, through specific actions, not mere words. The case of Mercosur and the crisis in Argentina are one example of this, but there are others. Latin American democracies are now more soundly based than they were two decades ago. Nonetheless, their institutional weaknesses must be made good if we are to prevent social imbalance and poverty from afflicting an increasing number of sectors of those societies and destabilising and threatening the democratic institutions. We ought not and must not rest on our laurels. We should instead forge ahead bravely as regards cooperation with specific countries and projects. Only a few hours ago, the people of Colombia demonstrated their determination and courage as citizens. They came out in favour of peace and coexistence. Sadly, however, terrorists continue to kill, kidnap and blackmail the people of that country and of Peru and Venezuela, whilst we continue to debate whether or not to include those who murder, kidnap or blackmail on the list of terrorist organisations. We are setting a disgraceful example of the use of double standards. I should like to point out to the Commission’s representative that the management of our development aid is not up to standard. Funding for projects we have committed to arrives late and sometimes badly. Well-founded complaints are received daily, together with examples that do nothing to enhance the Union’s reputation. Still more unfortunately, development aid is being withheld from large sectors of the population that simply cannot afford to be deprived of its benefits.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, a while ago, one Member quite rightly condemned cloning in this plenary and called for it to be universally rejected. What he failed to do, however, was to make a proper distinction between reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning. With regard to reproductive cloning, I am sure we all agree that this is an inhuman or dehumanising technique that must be rejected. The same cannot be said, however, for therapeutic cloning. A way must be left open for science, scientists and the scientific community to experiment in innovative fields that have enormous potential for medicine. The dogmatic individuals who are opposed to any type of cloning are the staunchest allies of those who would allow secrecy, charlatanism and trafficking to flourish in this field. We must agree on this fundamental point: if we want to obstruct science and research in the field of cloning, there will always be chancers and unscrupulous individuals who are willing to exploit this area of knowledge.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, I am not sure whether my ironic remark annoyed you. In any case, I apologise. I had no intention of causing offence. I would ask you please to answer my question. What guarantees can we give the people of Western Sahara, through the Council, that we will not allow their essential natural resources to be exploited by European Union multinationals during the course of the self-determination process? I would like to apologise again for any offence I may have caused and add that I did not understand your reply.

Political group: Verts-ALE