GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, I would like to bring a matter to the Members' attention which gave rise to considerable debate when the agenda was being drawn up. The Group and certain other groups requested that the subject of euthanasia should be debated this week. Unfortunately, the Conference of Presidents rejected this request. However, we have refrained from requesting an amendment to the agenda, as we have been informed that some groups are in favour of debating this subject in the European Parliament in principle, but perhaps at some other time. We would therefore like to enter into a dialogue with these other groups, because we are not against debate and discussions, we actually want a debate. However, we are very disappointed that the Dutch minister, Mrs Borst, has not agreed to take part in these discussions and has refused an invitation to hearings. Nevertheless, that should not stop us from entering into a dialogue with the other groups and perhaps requesting that this should go on the agenda in March. I simply wanted to make this point clear, because so many questions have been discussed in this area. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, contrary to the assertion that has just been made, the present report, from beginning to end, refers to ‘Cyprus’, ‘Slovenia’ and ‘Slovakia’. I ask that these should be replaced by the states' official names in all instances where they occur. (Applause) Regarding Amendment No 38:

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, first of all I should like to say that I am sorry that Commissioner Verheugen has left. Obviously he had some other pressing business. I endorse everything Commissioner Verheugen said and I share his disappointment on this issue, because he really was one of the protagonists, who worked very hard to bring things to maturity, to the point at which we can initiate material reconciliation between the Greeks and Turks in Cyprus. When I was young, I suffered in my own country from the suppression of the freedom of the press and I feel pain and shame that today Greeks seeking their freedom are depriving Commissioner Verheugen of the right to address them and try to persuade them of what he considers to be right, he who fought so hard for things to reach a satisfactory situation. We want a yes vote. Politicians in Greece, all of them, have said that they want a yes vote, with Mr Papandreou leading the way. We want the guarantees heard here to be given with emphasis, but the greatest guarantee lies in changing the global situation. The Cypriots divided because they were divided by a now bankrupt colonial regime, because they were divided by the cold war. These no longer exist. The European Union has refuted all this and is inviting them into its fold so that they can live differently. Not in order to keep them divided. The greatest guarantee is within and they must bring it forth from within themselves. I shall end by reminding my compatriots in Cyprus of the words of the great Greek politician Eleftherios Venizelos, who said that the every nation seals its own fate and that whatever it does on its own whim is one less thing for its enemy to do.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. Cluster bombs, as we all know, are one of the most treacherous conventional weapons ever devised by man. Civilians and aid workers fall victim to these bombs years after the conflict has ended. The peace process often grinds to a halt because unexploded bomblets close off whole areas. Refugees cannot return, because the area is no longer inhabitable. These are the reasons why our group agrees with the statement made by the President of our Parliament and condemns outright the use of cluster bombs by the US army in Afghanistan. This bombardment will set the peace process and economic development in Afghanistan back years. I think it is irresponsible to continue this bombardment and I call on the USA to put a stop to it at long last. I also call from this platform on all countries, especially those who have signed the UN Convention on Conventional Weapons, to apply an immediate moratorium at their next conference and pronounce a definitive ban on the use, production and supply of these weapons. And I call on the Commission and the Council in its negotiations with the USA to urge them to subscribe to a ban on cluster bombs.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I thank Mr Cashman for his assiduous and inspired work in committee. Freedom of information and a culture of open and transparent administration are powerful tools for better government and for rooting out corruption and malpractice. Since it was Mr Prodi who presented proposals to us in January, we had hoped he would be here to reply to this debate. Indeed the Commission has maintained a curious silence throughout our deliberations, but we look forward to the Commissioner's remarks this morning. Mr Solana in the Council has made an audacious bid to be crowned the prince of darkness. But once this report is voted on today, Parliament will stand ready to negotiate with the Commission and the Council a code which will cause citizens to blink in the bright Strasbourg sunshine. Publication must be our presumption and the onus placed squarely on those who seek to withhold it. It is grotesque that in the European Union national governments make public policy behind a heavy curtain of secrecy. The freedom of information act foreseen in Article 255 will rip it asunder.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I have to point out to the Commission that it is not an amendment by the rapporteur, but an amendment by the Committee on Agriculture and, therefore, it is voted on in committee and, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, it cannot be withdrawn. Also, Amendment No 5, which would cause No 4 to lapse – which is the one that I hope the Commission will accept – only affects the Commission, not the Council. Its content is already regulated by the new Regulation 2390/99, which will be coming into force. Furthermore, the amendment does not include any additional obligation for the Commission. Therefore, I hope that the Commission will accept it, because we have provided all the means for this proposal to be approved at first reading.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I welcome the Council's response to the original question. I just want the Minister to re-emphasise that this proposed legislation is aimed at those who exploit and make profit out of people in a desperate situation and is not aimed at further criminalising the immigrant or potential immigrant. It is about stopping gangs making money out of immigrants. That is what happened in Dover. It was organised business that ended up with people dying in the back of a truck because people were making money out of them. That is what we must end. Would the Council also – and this is where I agree with Mrs Frahm – encourage the Member States to differentiate more clearly between asylum-seekers and illegal immigrants? At the moment it seems that Member States are beginning to forget their international obligations. We have an international obligation to treat asylum-seekers properly and to deal with them through specified procedures. Some Member States now seem to be confusing asylum-seekers and illegal immigrants.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, may I congratulate Mrs ΟαToole on her report, which throws into relief the dramatic changes which have taken place in the world of books over recent years as the result of new technologies. All of us who love books, both as readers and writers, must rethink our relationship with books from square one. A revolution has taken place which makes books even more interesting, even richer, even more indispensable to each and every one of us. At the same time, however, it means that there is vital need for us to develop European and national policies to address the problems caused by new methods of production and distribution. To the question of whether books should be protected from uncontrolled market forces we say yes, given the huge cultural importance of books and reading in our society, which we must strengthen as much as we can. The new prospects for spreading information and enlarging the reading public via the Internet are accompanied by the problems of intellectual property and the status of authors and the risk of large swathes of the population being left with no access to the new media. A lack of equal opportunities for the computer illiterate, rural areas and minority groups may prove to be fatal, especially where it compounds the considerable degree of illiteracy which already exists. The problem is so serious that there is even talk of yet another threat to social cohesion, a threat which needs to be dealt with promptly through decisive policies on the part of the European Union. But all the Member States should facilitate access for the young to books and encourage them to read during their education, because it is they who represent the future of the European Union and there can be no future without books, be they in hard or soft copy.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, except for photographs and fine words, the Africa Summit has yielded very little. Africa asked Europe for more market access and debt repayment, and got vague pledges in return. Europe asked Africa to respect human rights more, fight corruption and cease violent conflicts, and got vague pledges in return too. The solemn declaration of Cairo was signed by governments which are anything but generous regarding clearing debts and opening up their own markets. The document is also signed by countries where human rights are being violated on a massive scale, where women are discriminated against, where the little funding that is available is used to massacre other population groups and where corruption has taken on almost ineradicable proportions. Wealthy Europe must grant generous aid to Africa in support of democratic institutions, primary education and health care and must substantially lighten the debt burden. The African countries need to understand that, without proper government, none of their developments will come to fruition, and both continents need to realise that strict population policy is absolutely indispensable. On the photographs from Cairo, the African and European leaders may be rubbing shoulders with each other but, in reality, there is a yawning chasm separating the two continents.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my remarks today are chiefly addressed to the Commissioner, because, as we know, innovative measures have always been the Commission's main instrument of progress. They have been the testing ground where the EU institutions have been able to observe how progressive structural policies can best be implemented. If the Commission's proposal on these innovative measures were used to measure the rate at which EU policies are progressing, the result would be similar to that of the Nice Summit, namely a huge embarrassment. However, EU policies in the fields of the single market, employment and cohesion have been considerably more innovative and sophisticated in recent times. That is precisely where the Commission proposal falls down, for it is confined to only two areas of innovation. I say two because, although the proposal identifies three areas, two of them quite obviously belong together and will have to be jointly funded. Such a severe restriction as this has certainly never been imposed in recent years. Moreover, the area of activity in question is one that we have already been supporting over the past few years. So where is the innovation in that? This, I must say, is a great loss, because we shall need to draw on past experience for the new support period, and this experience will be unavailable to us if we take such a cautious line. Major assets, such as the experience gathered in the course of energy-saving schemes for small- and medium-sized businesses, will be cast aside. I could produce a far longer list. Why do we not use innovations to generate real innovative activity? The measures that are proposed are measures which we could support within the framework of the normal programmes. I believe there is no case whatsoever for allowing Member States to support non-innovative measures from the Structural Funds instead of fostering the policy and development of our Union. We have another problem too. The idea of programming rather than selecting projects is not bad. I would even support the idea, but it has not been fully developed. How are local players supposed to find their way through the administrative jungle if the same authorities that are making a hash of structural planning are now expected to take on this responsibility too? How is the Commission supposed to find out where local innovation is really happening if it does not have any control over the system? For that reason, I believe it is absolutely essential for us to ensure that the Commission finds a mechanism with which it can check whether truly innovative local projects are actually featuring in the programmes. I must say that I have looked in vain for this sort of mechanism in the draft communication, which is why this draft is a great disappointment to players at the local level and to me.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, first of all I would like to clarify for our colleagues from the future new Member States that we are voting today a budget of the EU of 15, which means that allocations we have voted for EU-10 in our first reading will be taken on board in the Amending Budget. Some EU-10 figures have been modified as a result of the conciliation, including an additional EUR 100 million in payments for the cohesion fund, compared to the amounts proposed by the Commission and the Council, that is Amendment 335 in block 1. I also have some technical corrections and precisions to make. Concerning Amendment 308 on OLAF, footnote 16 needs to be adjusted for the vote. Instead of two temporary A3 posts for the Supervisory Committee, it should read 'two temporary A7 posts'. On Amendment 378 concerning the Preparatory Action to support civil society in the new Member States, there should be a 'pm' entry instead of 'zero'. Last but not least, Members should be aware that a technical adjustment will have to be done in accordance with the vote, so that Chapter XX is coherent with the vote taken on the different policy areas. (Applause) *** Report (A5-0473/2003) by Jan and Neena Gill, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2004 as modified by the Council (all sections) (11357/2003 – C5-0600/2003 – 2003/2001(BUD) – 2003/2002(BUD)) and Letters of amendment Nos 1/2004 – (14837/2003 – C5-0570/2003), 2/2004 (14838/2003 – C5-0571/2003) and 3/2004 (14839/2003 – C5-0572/2003) to the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2004 Before the vote on Amendment No 1:

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the Commissioner made clear why, in his opinion, an opt-in and an opt-out system cannot operate in parallel in this directive. But I have to ask him another question. It is of vital importance for my group to know why it is possible in the electronic commerce directive. Perhaps the Commissioner can give us an answer to that.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Madam Vice-President, as the chairman of the non-standing committee for the improvement of safety at sea, I would like to extend warm thanks to the members of the committee and to the rapporteur, Mr Sterckx, for the extraordinarily sensible way in which they conducted their deliberations and for their excellent report. The committee worked consistently in an excellent atmosphere, and everyone attempted to resolve the problems in a sensible manner. Many thanks. My special thanks, obviously, go to the staff of the secretariat, under the leadership of Mr Darmis, without whose extremely professional administrative support the rapid but, at the same time, careful work of the committee, including the important trip to Barcelona, would not have been possible. The hearing of numerous experts with various backgrounds, representatives of the Commission, the European Agency for Maritime Safety, the Irish presidency of the Council, the General Secretary of the IMO and, not least, the acting Vice-President, Mrs de Palacio, in my opinion provided the committee with a broad foundation for its recommendations and assessments. We once again investigated maritime accidents subsequent to those involving the Erika and the Prestige and mainly concentrated on the statutory measures introduced since then at European level to improve safety at sea and their implementation in the Member States. Of the 56 conclusions, I would like to emphasise four of a general nature. I will not go into the details. I believe, however, that four conclusions are so important that they should be emphasised. The Spanish authorities have successfully stopped the leak of oil from the wreck of the Prestige and submitted a timetable for the further pumping away of the oil out of it, so that additional harm to the environment and fishing should be avoided. We still have the problem that the waste extracted from the sea in the last few months and in the last few years must be carefully recycled, but that is a special problem. Secondly, in our opinion, the Spanish courts should urgently bring forward the judicial proceedings in respect of the Prestige accident and change the conditions applicable to the captain, so that he can return home until they start. Thirdly, the new regulations resolved on with the ‘Erika I’ and ‘Erika II’ packages of legislation are essentially the right ones for achieving a substantial improvement in safety at sea. Fourthly – and this is the key point – there is still inadequate transposition of the safety regulations into the national law of some Member States, and therefore into reality. Accordingly, Madam Vice-President, we support the Commission in its investigations into the implementation measures, in particular with regard to the question of the provision of emergency resting places and crisis response places. Commissioner, stick to it, put pressure on the Member States, and this House will support you!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the fact that the EU observer mission has garnered great international acclaim reflects the fact that Mr Schori has done an excellent job in raising the profile of what we were doing there. I pay great tribute to him. There is no doubt in Zimbabwe that it has been a case of 'Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely'. Mr Mugabe has much to answer for. If the result may be said to have a positive side, it is the fact that there is now no longer absolute power. Much of the violence that took place before the elections can be based directly back to the leadership of Zanu-PF and to President Mugabe himself. The so-called war veterans – they must have been very young when the war of independence was on – have been paid to be on these farms. This is a grave problem which be traced directly back to the leadership. There were problems too with the fact that the postal votes, which were sent directly to the army in the Congo on Thursday, miraculously returned on Saturday, all in due form going into many marginal constituencies. Threats of violence against supporters of the MDC have continued after the elections. The Archbishop of Bulawayo has been threatened. All these things must be stopped. We cannot possibly support a regime that carries on this intimidation. The fact that President Mugabe wants to stifle inward investment by nationalising the farms, and threatening to do the same with the mines, will do nothing to resolve the economic situation in Zimbabwe. What Zimbabwe needs is much more inward investment from outside the country. This will not take place under the present regime. There is a great and wonderful opportunity in Zimbabwe now with the emergence of the MDC, for all races to work together. There is great hope for the future, but we must make sure that we keep up the pressure on Zimbabwe and especially on Mr Mugabe. We should take direct action against assets that President Mugabe owns outside of Zimbabwe. We must take the argument directly to the man who has created the problems.

Political group: PPE-DE
The right of the ordinary citizen to petition the European Parliament is one that was felt to be important enough to be part of the Treaties and I believe that it merits such standing. It is an extremely effective way for anyone to make direct contact with the heart of the European institutions on matters which may not be of political importance but which are of consequence to European citizens and residents. Some may question the benefit of petitioning Parliament, but the recent success of David Petrie, who had received support from the Petitions Committee and the European Parliament as a whole for his petition, in the Italian courts in gaining equal recognition for non-Italian lecturers highlight what a petition can bring about. My co-rapporteur and I have kept this very much in mind in our report. We have pushed for this right to be made easier to access and exercise, not only by exploiting new technologies and media but by reform of the procedures which govern petitions once they are received by Parliament and passed on to other institutions. The current system for petitioning allows petitions to be submitted electronically, but only as an initial form. Follow-up is done via post, and this can obviously create delays in the preliminary stage of proceedings, well before it comes before the committee. Alternatives such as electronic signatures and electronic correspondence need to be investigated if Parliament wants to keep up with the increasing number of petitions that are submitted. Clearer rules for treatment of petitions once they have been deemed admissible are also urgently required. The Petitions Committee can currently ask the Commission for information on a particular subject, but has very little say over the time the Commission or any other institution can take to provide an answer to the committee's questions, or even whether MEPs can have access to those answers once received. For example, we in the Petitions Committee are currently considering petitions on the Lloyd's organisation, but are denied the opportunity to view the response given by the UK government to the Commission's questionnaire on the matter. If the European institutions and Member State governments are serious about transparency in their working methods, then their treatment of petitions needs review. It does not help to see the very behaviour alleged in a petition replicated in its treatment. Member States in particular need to pay more serious attention to citizens claiming their European rights. The right to petitions should aim to strengthen the concept of European citizenship, protecting the four freedoms of those in the Union and ensuring that European legislation is properly and efficiently implemented. As we move into the 21st century, with a Union of possible 28 members and an increasing body of legislation at a European level, the role and process of the petition needs to change in order to maintain its importance and usefulness. - Maaten report (A5-0162/2001)

Political group: PPE-DE