GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as you will recall, in the last Strasbourg week we had actually planned to have a debate to celebrate the opening of the Mont Blanc Tunnel. In fact even then we were already discussing the tragic accident in the Gotthard Tunnel. If we continue just to talk about this and do not take any measures then we will have to be prepared for the fact that there will be more accidents in these delicate and sensitive areas, in particular in the Alps. However, in my opinion, and on the basis of my understanding of politics, this is unacceptable. That is why we must do all we can to actually implement the proposals which the Commission has already rightly made in its White Paper. I have no doubt that specific safety measures are also needed in the tunnels. I have no doubt that stricter monitoring of working time, above all, is also required. I hope that we will soon conclude the conciliation on this and that we will then move on to implementing and monitoring the measures on working time across Europe. However, the fundamental problem is surely that there is too much freight rumbling through the Alps by road in heavy goods vehicles. This is certainly not – as time and again it is wrongly assumed, appealing to popular sentiment – about standing in the way of economic links and cohesion; it is simply about this cohesion, these economic links and trade in general being created in a way which firstly is environmentally sustainable and secondly minimises the risk of accidents. We will never be able to avoid them altogether, but we can minimise them and in so doing we can also above all give the railways a golden opportunity. I – and I myself have also produced a report on opening up international freight routes – am in favour of the railways being stronger competitors here. At the same time, I am however, on behalf of my group, also in favour of the transport policy, as postulated and laid down in the White Paper – I will say this once more in conclusion – being implemented quickly, in fact very quickly indeed, so that steps can be taken as soon as possible to avoid there being more accidents like the one in the Gotthard Tunnel.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as a result of the consensus achieved between the institutions in the trialogue held on 18 February, Parliament is now, I believe, able to give its assent to the Draft supplementary and amending budget No 1/2002, which deals with the financial resources intended for the special ‘Fund’ that will cover the spending of the Convention on the future of the European Union from the first day it begins its work. The work has been carried out swiftly and, in my opinion, well. Given the need to ensure that all the factors that might contribute to the effectiveness of the Convention’s works are put in place in good time, its budgetary framework has already been defined, in accordance with the rules of transparency and institutional balance. The particular nature of the Convention explains the specific characteristics of its legal and budgetary frameworks, revealed immediately by the very existence of the ‘Fund’, and by the fact that this is subject to exceptional financial rules. Particular account has therefore been taken of the temporary nature of the new body and the requirement for greater flexibility has been met. The factors I have mentioned form the basis of a specific interinstitutional agreement, which defines, in particular, the sum of the contributions from the institutions providing the finance, which are Parliament, the Council and the Commission, as Mrs Buitenweg already mentioned. Under the terms of the agreement reached in the trialogue of 18 February, the full involvement of Parliament is, therefore, guaranteed at all stages of the life of the ‘Fund’, (created by intergovernmental decision) – it must be stressed – particularly with regard to the processes of transferring appropriations and of discharge. The exceptional nature of the initiative and, as a correlation, that of the applicable rules is perfectly clear. I should like to conclude by thanking all my fellow Members for their cooperation, and I would specifically like to highlight the work of those who took part in the trialogue, Reimer Böge and Kathalijne Buitenweg, as well as the contribution of the Committees on Constitutional Affairs and on Budgetary Control, which helped to focus attention on certain aspects. I also hope that, by means of this budgetary procedure, we will remain associated with a Convention that could well make history.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I would like firstly to congratulate Mr Lagendijk on his report on the development of the current stabilisation and association process and on the future challenges in the Balkans. I believe this is a full and exhaustive report which truly deals with the whole range of problems affecting this region. On behalf of my parliamentary group, the , I would like to stress the following points: we fully support the process of integration of these countries of the south east of Europe and we highlight the need to fulfil the political and economic criteria laid down by the Union. Furthermore, the history of these countries – and specifically what took place during the final decade of the last century – has been very important and this demands cooperation from all of them with the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia – as other speakers in this debate have stressed – and this should be demanded of all the States. I would like to point out, in this regard as well, that the signature of bilateral agreements with the United States clearly restricts the effectiveness of the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia, and is not in line with the European Union's approach. What should the European Union do in these cases? Clearly, it should not accept any process of integration. The signature of agreements is an arguable issue and it would be good if on the basis of the discussion which has just taken place the compromise solution could be reached which would indicate that the European Union is not prepared to accept any agreement unless certain conditions are met. Furthermore, I would like to point out our group has presented certain amendments, suggested by a Slovenian observer Member, on Kosovo, on the responsibility of the Albanian population in Kosovo, so that it can decide on its future by means of the free exercise of the right to self-determination. We have also presented another amendment on the issue of fishing in the Adriatic. I would like to point out finally, Madam President, that the report analyses the situation of all the States and, if in any case it appears excessively critical – as we have been told by the representative of Macedonia, for example – it should not be understood as a lack of support on the part of the European Union, but as a contribution to constructive dialogue aimed at improving the situation of these countries.

Political group: ELDR
I wish to congratulate Mrs Pack on her excellent report, which I fully support. By adopting the Council common position, it aims to conclude an issue that I feel is of considerable importance: designating 2004 as the European Year of Education through Sport. Sport is acknowledged to be a major social phenomenon in Europe, and constitutes an extremely important educational tool. Like the rapporteur, I feel that the importance of the effect that the Olympic ideals can have on education should be emphasised. Sport contributes, in particular, to increasing the social skills of young people, such as team spirit, solidarity and fair play. I therefore welcome the decision to hold the European Year of Education through Sport 2004, which will make a positive contribution to reversing what has almost been the norm to date, and by this I mean Community action on sport which is restricted to pilot schemes and preparatory measures. I also agree with the rapporteur with regard to the need to adopt the Council common position as it stands, since it takes on board most of the amendments tabled by the European Parliament.

Political group: PPE-DE
I welcome Mr Wijkman’s report and his proposal for a regulation. Our commitment to combating easily communicable diseases, paying particular attention to poverty-related diseases, such as AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria and to improving levels of vaccination and healthcare by funding health programmes by the more developed countries, is crucial. Equally important is removing barriers, such as licences and patents, to access by developing countries to pharmaceutical products and international partnerships for developing new generations of products. It should, once again, be pointed out that 70% of people infected with AIDS live in sub-Saharan Africa.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to thank Mr Prodi for coming to the House today and also for coming before the Committee on Budgetary Control. I shall endeavour to be brief. Mr Prodi, concerning what you have grandiloquently termed the Eurostat Action Plan, I suggest this is merely chapter three of a work in which chapters one and two are lacking. The missing chapter one should have been entitled ‘facts’ and the missing chapter two ‘responsibilities’. This chapter on measures to be adopted would be chapter three. As I have already stated at the Committee on Budgetary Control, I believe these measures are absurd, curious and outdated. They are absurd because the person or body to be controlled is actually charged with informing the controller of possible infringements. They are curious because coordination committees are not what is needed to follow up allegations and seek the truth. Instead, compliance and immediate investigation of the truth are called for. Alternatively, the information should be placed before the judicial authorities. The measures are outdated because auditors have repeatedly stated the need to break away from the guidelines of Directors-General who have control over them. Further, this plan does not concern Eurostat alone. It applies generally to the functioning of the Commission. Mr President, I believe the sequence is wrong. It should be reversed. After all, information does not generate responsibility. Rather, responsibility demands information to be able to cope with commitments. With regard to OLAF, President Prodi, I suggest the introduction of some kind of ruling on admissibility. This would allow rejection of long, costly and useless proceedings detrimental to specific institutions or bodies. A number of recent cases of this kind spring to mind. None of them resulted in significant achievements.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner Verheugen, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to preface my observations with an expression of my own gratitude and that of my group, for this debate, and also for all the work of reporting on enlargement and of preparation for it, which I address to the Commission among others. To say this, Commissioner, is not just to pay lip-service, for we have indeed received all the information we needed whenever we needed it. We have carried on the debate in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, and I also want to thank that committee's chairman, not only for his report but also for all the cooperation that was involved. It is my belief that all groups and all the political forces on the committee did their best to accompany this process in a critical frame of mind and have helped to make it, and enlargement, a success. I have two specific points that I wish to address in addition to what my fellow-Members have said about the individual countries and also about the general aspect, which was apposite and intelligent. These have to do with two very real problems. My first point has to do with Cyprus, specifically with the UN Secretary-General's proposal on the subject, which has been welcomed by all sides. There is, however, one item in Annex IX that could lead to misunderstandings; I refer to the proposals relating to Article 1(1) on a referendum of the citizens in this divided country when the Basic Agreement is adopted. The questions in this referendum are to be answered with ‘yes’ or ‘no’. They deal firstly with the new structure of the state and then with Cyprus' accession to the European Union. It is my belief that the European Union ought, quite independently of this – I am glad that I can already expect something of you, Commissioner – to decide this question in accordance with the Helsinki accords, and Cyprus should have its say on the subject. The second issue has to do with Turkey. I would like to remind you that we are not debating Turkey today, but are engaged in the debate on enlargement, and, although Turkey has had candidate status since 1999, it is not one of the countries expecting to accede in the immediate future. The Copenhagen political criteria have still not been fulfilled, despite Turkey's great efforts in that direction, the great successes it has had and the great progress it has made. I therefore see no reason to talk in terms of this or that date. Let me tell you this, Mr President-in-Office of the Council: fixing a date is not an issue, at any rate not for us!

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to begin by pointing out on the positive side that the Stockholm European Council has emphasised the strategy drawn up in Lisbon, and has even added to and strengthened it in certain concrete matters. The importance placed on the Social Agenda is certainly very positive, particularly regarding the social security and health care systems, the setting of employment rates, the willingness to cut public subsidies (although I would have liked us to have gone further), the development of new technologies, or the decision to create a European Food Authority. In contrast, as regards the liberalisation processes, Mr Prodi, serious asymmetries are being created within the European Union, and this urgently requires draft legislation to regulate intra-Community investments, as almost all the Parliamentary Groups reminded Mr Bolkestein yesterday. I shall finish by referring in this context to the intention of creating a single European sky that has been put forward by both the presidency of the Council and that of the Commission, and I should like to say to Mr Prodi that we trust that the Commission will act in this matter with the determination and prudence needed in view of the commitments undertaken, and in any case in accordance with the Community acquis. Part of the Community acquis too, Mr Prodi, is the Gibraltar clause, which does not date back to the eighteenth century but to a 1987 agreement between the governments of the United Kingdom and Spain, within which we must push forward in order to finalise this agreement in Gothenburg. President. – As it is time to proceed to the vote, the debate is suspended and will be resumed at 3 p.m. IN THE CHAIR: MR PODTÀVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, democracy demands that we take decisions through a system of majority ruling. Democracy also demands that people have fundamental rights, which may not be violated by means of majority ruling. Such violations must be prevented in a constitutionally governed state. Privacy is a human right that cannot be abolished with an EU directive, a convention or national legislation. There is legal provision for the protection of privacy in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the European Convention on Human Rights. Representing the Council, Mrs Halonen said that it was necessary to identify certain new types of crime that had come into existence. But then it is necessary to recognise the existence also of crimes relating to the violation of people’s privacy, which intelligence agencies in the USA and the EU countries are guilty of 24 hours a day. I speak of electronic surveillance. In the European judicial area, prevention of this type of crime seems still not to be the object of political and parliamentary preparatory action or control, and merely takes the form of police co-operation. There are types of crime that remain outside the democratic system, which the preparation of the Enfopol 19 document is connected with. There are undemocratic issues that are connected with the so-called Ilets police co-operation. Undemocratic too is the Echelon programme for collaboration on espionage and the bilateral agreements between the security services in the USA and the EU countries. It is also a crime that American computer manufacturers and software companies install special ID codes in their products. It is a crime against people’s privacy, in addition to which it jeopardises the security of European states. We have to fight against such things and crimes of this type with transparency and by drawing public attention to them. I hope that Finland will move from words to deeds in this issue. At present, there is no visible prospect of an increase in transparency and public awareness during the Finnish presidential term: they only speak about it.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the author of the Cornillet Report has listed many areas in which, even within the territory of the European Union, human rights are totally or partially flouted. We shall be voting on several proposals which might represent a certain amount of progress. Even in those cases, however, we are anxious to express our reservations, insofar as these are recommendations, which the countries concerned will either observe or not, as they choose. Yet in matters concerning commercial law, the legislature knows how to be more stringent. In its explanatory statement, the report refers to the Charter of Fundamental Rights which was proclaimed at Nice, where much praise was lavished on a text which combines civil and political rights and economic and social rights as if they formed a consistent whole. Yet what are proclamations on employment rights worth, when company bosses have a ‘divine right’ to hire and fire? What is the point of having the right of residence, when the report itself admits that 11,8 % of the population of the European Union are living below the poverty threshold, and therefore do not have the means to provide themselves with suitable housing? We shall be abstaining on the whole of this report, because declarations of good intentions are not enough to constitute a policy that will benefit the lowest and most oppressed strata of the population.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The last of my three questions concerned the fact that we very often talk about human capital and about developing human capital in order to increase competitiveness. What practical proposals are there for developing human capital and for improving the quality of the work place so that we are not just dealing in generalisations? What, in practical terms, is being done at European level?

Political group: PSE
It is a fact that man’s strength and capabilities are limited. Working times may be harmful to the physical and the mental health of both individuals and families, which is why working times need to be organised so that the safety and health of workers are not put at risk. However, 7 million workers in the EU, in transport and fisheries and doctors in training are exempted from Directive 104/93/ΕC on the organisation of working time. This intolerable situation and the abuse of workers in the above specialist sectors as regards their working times is of a nature and is taking on dimensions which are such that rules must be imposed without delay, given that workers such as doctors in training in Great Britain work up to 72 hours a week. Extending the directive is essential, but it is not enough. The provisions proposed will be unable to protect the safety and health of workers effectively, given that there are still numerous exemptions and long transitional periods for implementing the directive. We must also bear in mind that the original directive did not stipulate the length of a working day (it stipulated a working week of 48 hours – an implied violation of the measure).

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, my group understands all too well that this subject is of an extremely sensitive nature. The present resolution has indeed turned out to be rather elaborate and should focus on the rape of the women. I am very much of the opinion that this subject should be dealt with in the topical debate, for it was revealed only recently, last week, in fact, that women’s rights have been violated not only in Africa, but in 23 countries across the world. In this light, we cannot just dismiss this subject as marginal. What we as Parliament should say about this is not so much that it has happened – indeed, it happens in every society, irrespective of religion, both in the West and elsewhere – but that it is being concealed under the cloak of charity. For years, the existence of a problem was simply denied. I believe Parliament should make a statement on this. I repeat, once again, that the text which is before us contains elements which do not belong in this resolution; we will therefore remove them so that it becomes an accurate resolution which deals with the problem of the violation of women’s rights across the world by Catholic priests. I hope that I will be able to count on your support. (Parliament rejected the request) * * *

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, may I point out that it is pronounced Duin, as in Duisburg. I know that it can sometimes be problematic, but I will take the liberty of pointing it out at this stage. Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to echo the words of thanks voiced by previous speakers to the two rapporteurs. I believe that we have now taken another major step forward in this ongoing debate, thanks in particular to Mr Mastorakis's report. I should like to comment on the two reports together. It will be clear to the Commission too that there are several demands that Parliament repeatedly underlines – including in the report – and I assume that a consensus could be reached here on the following: that we do not want renationalisation; that 75% of GDP is a good yardstick and that 0.45% of GDP is a minimum if we are to be able to implement a viable European structural policy. I should now like to say something on the outstanding points, which are also mentioned in the reports. Many people believe that a new Objective 2, whatever it looked like, could solve their problems. We have to be more honest and cannot say to each region: you will also get in under Objective 2, once it is restructured in some way. That is why we wish to make various proposals, and these are also reflected in the reports. The first concerns the regions that will suffer from the statistical effect, the current Objective 1 regions. For these, we need to launch a new programme – let us call it a 1b programme – that is generously funded, but above all – this is very important to the regions and we must take it into account – that has a legal framework that is comparable to Article 87, and which will enable them to use the aid to meet their region's specific needs. The second concerns the disadvantaged regions, which take centre stage in Mr Pomés Ruiz's report. Here we do not need a new Objective 2, but a very special instrument for these regions, which properly takes into account the special problems that we of course wish to acknowledge. We should not try to lump everything together here. The third proposal is for a real Objective 2 for those areas undergoing structural change. Here I would, however, make a strong plea in favour of ensuring that in this case the Member States are given as much freedom as possible to use the funds as they see fit. This triad is important. It is conveyed clearly in the Mastorakis report as it stands, which is why we will of course be voting in favour of it. A few changes are probably needed to the Pomés Ruiz report to achieve this, and we hope that we will be adopting those today.

Political group: PSE