GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, access to environmental information is a fundamental right and I am glad that the rapporteur has sought to restrict the use of confidentiality. This can be misused so that information which should be available is restricted under the guise of confidentiality. The report explicitly mentions the Internet and that account should be taken of future development of information and communication technologies. It requests Member States to create publicly accessible databases where environmental documents would be held. This makes it easy for the public to access and locate information and is very welcome. In seeking to reinstate Parliament's original amendments, the rapporteur has moved to strengthen the position of the citizen. I very much welcome this and voted in favour of her report.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I would like to thank Mr Zimmerling for his work on this complicated dossier. Although it was clear from his report that he got to the bottom of the issue, I as a Liberal fail to agree with him, because I believe that, where possible, legislation should be whittled down a minimum. In various Member States, it has transpired that resale right is superfluous and causes distortions on the internal market. Rendering this legislation compulsory would immediately and seriously harm Europe’s competitive position in terms of art compared to other markets, because resale right outside Europe is non-existent. This is why I am of the opinion that the international art market will move outside of Europe as a result of the directive. Finally, I believe that the present proposal does not offer any protection to young, fledgling artists in general, but only to a small group. By voting against this directive, my group would also like to give out a political signal that we should not waste our time laying down superfluous rules.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would like to extend a greeting, like you, to those of our male colleagues who are in the Chamber because, as Mr Mussa said, the disease in question does indeed affect men as well. When it affects us, it affects our spouses, families and children. Moreover, the psychological climate surrounding this disease is not without impact on the lives of those around us. Although, as the rapporteur stresses, it is difficult to compare the available data in the absence of uniform standards, they do show that breast cancer incidence fluctuates from one country of the European Union to another. As already mentioned, then, the disease is one of the main causes of death for women between the ages of 35 and 55, which is why it is essential to define early detection and overall care of patients as European priorities. That is what Mrs Jöns’ report makes clear to us. It recommends the implementation of detection campaigns carried out in multidisciplinary clinics (this is very, very important), providing medical care if necessary, of course, but also psychological and social care, delivered before and after treatment by highly-trained staff. This can sometimes be another great asset in treating the illness. In France, a cancer steering committee published a report in January 2003, which has very recently allowed the President of the Republic to draw up a national plan for an anti-cancer campaign. The French report bears remarkable similarities to your own, in terms both of its findings and the objectives it proposes. Taking into account the physical and psychological stress caused by breast cancer treatments, and in order to ensure the best possible quality of life for women, it is essential to act pre-emptively, through suitable information and prevention policies, to encourage women of all ages to undergo regular screening. For this reason, we can only agree that there is a need to coordinate national policies, pursue the development of European mammography guidelines, intensify research, review the problem of gene patenting by the European Patents Office and establish registers other than the national ones currently in existence. Mrs Jöns’ report, as adopted by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, seems to respond to these objectives. That is why the Group of the European People’s Party has decided to vote for the motion, for I have to say that it shows a certain amount of courage. Furthermore, since we are lucky enough to have a woman Commissioner here today, and since we know that the fifth framework programme has set aside EUR 400 million, why not make cancer a major priority in Europe from 2004, Commissioner? That would be a proactive response to Mrs Jöns’ call for a conference.

Political group: PPE-DE
I welcome the report by Mrs Torres Marques with great satisfaction. She has made a relevant study of the technical difficulties that we still have to resolve in order to prepare properly for the introduction of the euro. We should not bury our heads in the sand and ignore the problems that are far from being completely resolved and public opinion is far from being ready. That is why, today, following the example of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of the European Commission and of our rapporteur, I also believe that the reduction of the three year transitional period could give rise to very considerable technical difficulties that may jeopardise the process of the smooth transition to the euro. The technical obstacles that would present the greatest difficulties in reducing the transitional period are, in particular: the time limits for manufacturing the notes and coins in euros; the considerable scale of the changes to be made to computer systems and also the fact that the change to the euro for public administrations was planned for 2002 in order to take account of the complexity of the changes to be made in this sector. Beyond these technical obstacles, making the transitional period shorter would jeopardise one of the strengths of the success of the euro which is the confidence associated with the economic and social factors (whose preparation is still inadequate) around a timetable that is precise and respected. I even say this myself as someone who was initially in favour of a tighter timetable. With the same concern for the smooth transition to the euro, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs made a proposal, one that I support, which aims to allow the consumer to start changing his national currency into coins and notes made out in euros from the beginning of December 2001. In the same way, the supply to the banks of coins and notes should start well before January 2002 and the supply to retailers and public administrations should occur from the beginning of December 2001. Furthermore, from the second week of January 2002, retail businesses should only give change in euros rather than in the national currency. I also agree with Mrs Torres Marques when she rejects a legal obligation and only advocates a recommendation in this regard. As far as the period beginning 1 January 2002 is concerned, where two currencies will be in circulation at the same time, a period which, under the terms of the Treaty could run for up to six months, I share the opinion of the rapporteur and the Economic and Financial Affairs Council that this period should be reduced to two months. For this, we should step up the active information campaigns for our citizens. I shall conclude by stressing a problem that is continuing intolerably and which concerns bank charges and exchange charges. This contributes to creating unease among our citizens as to the actual advantages of the euro. I have, moreover, warned the Commission and the Council by means of written questions, but I have not received any reply to date. This is serious at a time when the euro is going through a crisis of confidence.

Political group: PSE
By changing the legislation on structural assistance in the fisheries sector, the Commission is trying, purely and simply, to put an end to public aid for the building of new vessels. It is crucial that public aid for the renewal of the fleet should be maintained. I therefore want to give the rapporteur my unequivocal support. I consider that addressing the shortage of fish stocks is not just a question of scrapping vessels. Funds for modernising the existing fleet cannot simply be redirected to scrapping vessels, thus bringing into question already adopted budgetary measures that will be in force until 2006. Reducing the fleet is perfectly compatible with maintaining public aid. We cannot, however, hide our heads in the sand. Regulatory measures are needed to prevent public aid from leading to an increase in fleet capacity. I therefore support the creation of a single register of vessels (classed by segment, capacity and power), the purpose of which will be precisely to control the growth of the fleets. I am in favour of tighter control with dissuasive penalties, namely the loss of public aid for fleet renewal, against those Member States that do not comply with the reduction in capacity laid down in the multiannual guidance programme.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is becoming increasingly clear that problems relating to public health and to healthy food truly are European problems, world problems, and not just one Member State’s problems. For that very reason, support must be given to the efforts made by Member States such as Belgium, which is endeavouring to keep the consequences of the food contamination episode to a minimum and to guarantee safe and healthy food. I would even go as far as to say that these efforts must be continued at a European level. I consider there to be four priorities arising from the dioxin crisis experienced by my country and these are as follows: firstly, Belgium has set up a federal food agency which will become operational at the end of this year. I believe that the same course should be pursued at a European level, but that there is no need to set up a new body in the process. The work can be incorporated into the existing office in Dublin. Secondly, notwithstanding the European Veterinary Committee’s decision that it is no longer necessary for PCB tests to be carried out on Belgian meat, Belgium continues to carry out these tests on meat destined for export. I therefore believe that tests of this kind must take place throughout the European Union. Thirdly, supervision must be carried out on the basis of the same quality standards. It is not permissible for Member States to still be using different standards for ascertaining food quality. This distorts competition, which is to the detriment of those who play the game by the rules, if I can put it that way. European legislation must provide a quality labelling system and must ensure that tests and quality standards are the same throughout Europe. Lastly, a European financing system must be established. It is not acceptable for one Member State to bear the brunt financially for a crisis such as the dioxin crisis. There are a number of amendments to next year’s budget on the table that will be able to provide the necessary financial room for manoeuvre. We hope that these will be adopted during the next plenary session and that you, Mr Prodi, together with your Commission, will give it the legal basis it needs.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, European citizenship was one of the great achievements of the Union Treaty adopted in Nice in 1992. In accordance with the judgments of the Court of Justice, the rights of European citizenship, including the right to free movement and residence within the Union, were fundamental rights of European citizens, whose recognition did not require any legislative implementation. In accordance with this legal basis, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market considered that there was no reason for the establishment of restrictions of an administrative nature, either for entry into a country or for free movement and residence. Much progress has been made in the field of legislative organisation by means of the Schengen Agreements, but it is the case that certain countries are still resisting this progress and are not participating in it. Therefore, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market hoped that this proposal for a directive would represent an effective step forward by removing all the restrictions in terms of administration and content to a citizen’s ability to establish themselves in another Community country. This was the purpose of the amendments adopted by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. The amendments of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market were not accepted by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, and the rapporteur would naturally like them to be maintained, but has not insisted, in order not to jeopardise the agreements reached in this field. I would like to draw attention to an amendment, however, which could to a certain extent respond to the concerns of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. I am referring to Amendment No 23 – which introduces a new Article 4(b) – which says that ‘This Directive shall not lead to the withdrawal of existing rights established by the legislation of the European Union or Court of Justice decision’. I believe this amendment is essential if we do not want to move backwards in terms of the rights of European citizens within the Union.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on 26 March, ten humanitarian workers from the United Nations and Médicins sans Frontières were taken hostage by a militia leader in Somalia, which should give the international community some idea of how far into the abyss this country has fallen. When banditry or acts of war – I am not sure how to distinguish between them in this case – afflict missionaries, even those working for peace and charity, which these Westerners are, and when these become bargaining chips for the warmongers, civilian populations are using this type of violent action to make the most desperate appeal for help to the international community. What sort of situation can this anonymous mass of people be in, if even those who are helping them are harmed in this way? What can be the cause of their complaints? Were these people not able to contact us in any way other than by kidnapping 10 UN and MSF workers, who are exemplary in their commitment but subjected to intense media coverage simply because they are from the West? The hostages have now all been released, but this appeal must not be allowed to fade away and we must give the most effective and committed reply in response. In other words, we must take immediate action to ensure that humanitarian workers can work in safety in Somalia, this long-suffering country, and provide a long-term policy of support to democracy and human rights against a background of national reconciliation. Somalia, which is in a desperate situation, must be put at the core of the European ideals of democracy and solidarity.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, both of these regions of the world, the European Union – or Europe – and Asia have opened up channels between each other and moved closer together. As sensational as the first ASEM Summit was, relations in very many areas are in fact now perceived as normal. It is particularly when I think of cultural relations and of the very fruitful work of the Asia-Europe Foundation in Singapore that I sometimes realise that there are more encounters involving schools, students, scientists and also managers than involving politicians. That is why I should like to recall once more here that this European Parliament once said – and on one occasion it also made this a reality – that in the same way that there was a summit between governments there should be a summit between parliaments. I believe that it is absolutely essential for contacts between parliaments in Europe and Asia to be intensified and that, before the next ASEM Summit in Copenhagen at the latest, we should put in place a stringent process to monitor these important joint political initiatives, even if some of them are based on conflicting principles. I really believe that this is essential because both regions are playing an important part in reforming the United Nations and also the World Trade Organisation. It is also in both regions' interests for progress to be made on security for their people and mankind in general. I am thinking here both of food safety and the fight against organised crime. There really is no limit to the forms which cooperation might take here, and in this respect Europe really needs to move forward. We are fortunate to have been able to initiate a process of reflection on security policy in ASEAN and throughout the Asian area. A further matter which is of concern to me is that we should help to combat trafficking in human beings. We are now faced with a situation where millions of people have been abducted, and they are no longer only women and children but also men. I think that both regions of the world have a responsibility here to put an end to this form of freedom of movement on this earth. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I have asked the Commission in Dutch and in English whether it will include aeroplanes in this. It can be easily measured using data from only a few take-offs. Commissioner, can you answer 'yes' or 'no' as to whether you intend to do this? Could you please answer this question?

Political group: Verts-ALE
In this joint debate on human rights, the report under consideration here analyses the instruments available to the Union to promote these rights in the world and their concrete application between 1 June 1998 and 30 June 1999. As you know, the EU’s international action to promote and protect human rights is based on several instruments, including the CFSP and development cooperation. With the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the European Union has become more visible on the international stage thanks to the appointment of a CFSP High Representative, in the person of Javier Solana. The Treaty of Amsterdam has made respect for human rights one of the main objectives of the EU’s common foreign and security policy. The European Union has many instruments available in this field. There are the common strategies (a new instrument created since the Treaty of Amsterdam and designed to enhance the overall coherence of EU action at international level), the common positions (which define the EU’s approach to a particular matter) and the common actions (which relate to certain specific situations and involve immediate reactions, on the model of humanitarian aid). There are also specific and horizontal actions relating to a given policy. They include, in particular, the fight to abolish the death penalty. Finally, what is known as the ‘human rights’ clause, which has been incorporated into most cooperation and development agreements with third countries since the 1990s, enables the EU to keep up the pressure, in respect of human rights, on the countries with which it is linked. This clause does not change the fundamental nature of these agreements but does enable both parties to reaffirm respect for certain common values and principles as the precondition for any form of cooperation, economic or other. Yet the rapporteur feels that the current European human rights policy is fragmented and needs to be replaced by a coherent common strategy marked by closer interinstitutional cooperation. Obviously I agree with that. I think initiatives such as establishing an advisory group to discuss the strategic aspects of human rights activities, comprising representatives of the EU institutions and the Member States, together with human rights specialists, would lead to greater coherence and therefore effectiveness. In the same context, the proposals that the EU should develop its own indicators to gauge respect for human rights, that a special European Parliament envoy should be nominated for prisoners of conscience and that a human rights website should be launched on the Europarl site on the Internet, are well worth considering. The report also emphasises that the EU strategy must give priority to systematically abolishing the discrimination suffered by women. I want to express my unconditional support for that demand!

Political group: PSE
Does the Commissioner acknowledge that there are questions of urgency in some of the research involved, as well as the fundamental debate on first principles and that this should not be an area in which there is unnecessary filibustering by any ethical committee or group?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mr Schmitt for his contribution, which gave guidance on the report on which we will be voting today. In principle, I think that it is important for us to only regulate on a European level things that actually have added value. These are things that we really need to organise properly in a European context. I am therefore very critical of the turn of phrase Mr Schmitt has chosen, and with the direction of this report, which is, I think, doing too much damage to the authority recently obtained by the European Commission with the intervention of the European Court. I myself would like to see the Commission have ample authority in this area in order to ensure that all bilateral aviation agreements between the EU and third countries are concluded according to the same principle. This would prevent the unnatural fragmentation of the European aviation market and ensure that the many bilateral agreements are consigned to the scrap heap from now on. The oldest open skies agreement in Europe, the one between the Netherlands and America, is not covered by this decision as it dates back to 1991 and therefore precedes the setting up of the internal market. This agreement, however, will not remain tenable if all other similar bilateral agreements are no longer considered permissible. I remain so critical of some of the amendments in this report, however, that if these are adopted here, I can imagine that the Dutch Government would insist on a new decision by the Court, as a result of which the current arrangements with the United States would be delayed for a couple of years. I am very worried about Amendment No 13, which allows Member States to disregard a comment from the Commission on bilateral agreements with third countries. Amendments Nos 2 and 15 permit the monopoly rights of specific airlines to remain unaffected on certain routes. Furthermore, Amendments Nos 3 and 16 entirely deprive the Commission of the verification procedure which enables it to object to bilateral agreements between the EU Member State and a third country. Amendment No 5 also gives the Council the power to overrule the Commission by way of the comitology procedure. Furthermore, Amendments Nos 6 and 7 give Member States the opportunity to allow national interests to play a major role in the conclusion of new bilateral aviation agreements. The airlines themselves will also be the victims on account of Amendment Nos 4 and 18 as they will be poorly informed about any new negotiations or the transparency of what has been agreed. In short, I had the feeling that we would have to put up with the decision of the European Court, but it now seems that real, honest, open competition in the European aviation market is not yet so important and that we apparently want to curb this authority. So I am sorry but I hope that we do not accept the amendments, otherwise I will be compelled to vote against them.

Political group: ELDR