GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Savary, firstly we should do this without a debate, but it is good to have a debate so as to spend some time highlighting all that has gone well. There was proper consultation. You requested proper consultation with the social partners, the railway sector, but you have also set an example yourselves by consulting everyone properly, with the consequence that we have a product with which we can do something. What we are speaking about here is really a so-called railway package. Part one was the liberalisation, the deregulation of international transport which we spoke about last time. Part two is interoperability, in other words, that transport can take place between countries with different systems. Part three is still to come. I already brought this matter up last time. As far as part three is concerned, we are of the opinion that the emissions standards and also the use of energy as regards the railway package need to be improved. We understand that this is not just the responsibility of this Commission and also that Commissioner Wallström is going to work hard at it in the near future. Everyone knows that the standards for trucks and lorries have been raised, in other words, the relative advantage for the railway is declining, and that also means that, assuming that this type of transport is better than others, you have to work at the emission standards. I should just like to bring up a few other small points, small in a certain sense. What we are now going to see is that gigantic investments are necessary here. Gigantic investments – they have already been mentioned in recital nine – which are to be borne by both the government and the sector. The government, which means that at the same time we are dealing with another package, as has just been mentioned, of external costs. There will have to be a specific form of assistance to keep this sector at such a level that it is competitive on the one hand, but is supported on the other hand. That sounds like saying the same thing twice over but we should pay attention to it in our debates on the White paper. The second thing I ask myself is whether there has been societal consideration and whether the Commission has studied the qualifications of people in the railway sector who are particularly needed in order to facilitate this interoperability. I am unaware as to whether this study has been released yet and what it has produced and what it is going to mean for the future. A specified language must be spoken. Which language are we going to speak? English, as in international shipping or aviation? So, will English also be the language of rail transport? If that is the case, I immediately propose that from that moment onwards, we only speak English in Parliament as well. That will make all communication very easy.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, you did not draw attention to the fact that this month we are celebrating the 30th anniversary of the accession of the United Kingdom, Denmark and Ireland to the European Union. In the case of the United Kingdom, this accession has brought tremendous benefits to the citizens of the United Kingdom, creating jobs through increased trade, bringing in considerable investment, creating jobs, and benefiting our citizens through increased travel opportunities and education and employment. It has also particularly benefited the United Kingdom in relation to the social agenda, in particular the role of women, where the women's cause has been furthered in the United Kingdom, largely due to European legislation. This should therefore be an occasion to celebrate. You mentioned Roy Jenkins in your opening remarks. He, with the late John Smith, was responsible on the Labour side for ensuring that Britain became and remained a member of the European Union.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I welcome the Commission proposal. It is a genuine and honest attempt to try to meet the demands of the public with regard to this issue. The rapporteur's reports have been a genuine attempt to improve that proposal. It means that we are a step closer to having proper and rational use of GM technology within Europe. I hope it is a step closer to getting the moratorium lifted so that we can start to approve new GM products which will be of benefit to all and utilise the new legislation, of which I was the author last year. It gives much higher protection than the legislation which is currently used in the crop trials now taking place in the European Union. We have to continue to ask questions. Is this really giving the public what they want? When members of the public contact me, by email, postcard, telephone or personally, they do not say 'please give us the chance to eat food that contains less than 1% GMO'. They say 'please give us the chance to choose to eat food that has no GMO in it, that is GMO-free, so that we can make a genuine choice between GMO and no GMO'. I do not believe this proposal does that. It will label food that contains a substantial quantity of GMO, but it will leave on the shelf in the supermarket many different substances and products that are not labelled, but that contain GMO. The public will be misled; the public will be confused; the public will again not have confidence and trust in the labelling systems that we propose for their benefit in this House. We have to think again. I doubt whether this proposal, in its present form, unless it is well amended, is going to be of positive benefit to the public. We have to tell people the truth about what is in their food. Ninety-nine percent of the truth is not honest; it is not good enough; it is not the necessary 100%. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Aceh never wanted to belong. That was the case under Dutch colonial rule, and that has actually never changed. For geographic, ethnic, religious and in particular economic reasons. Revenues from natural gas are an ongoing source of tension. Should this go to the Indonesian Government or to the military, the rebels or the inhabitants themselves? The population has been terrorised, both by the Indonesian military and by the GAM rebels, since 1976. From my own experience I know how dangerous it is just to travel from one place to another in this territory. Over the years, negotiations between the GAM and the Indonesian military have never delivered anything significant. The actual reason for this could well be that both parties have an interest in allowing this anarchistic situation to continue because they both earn well from it. After the last negotiations failed, the Indonesian Government proceeded to launch a large-scale military offensive which could easily degenerate into terrible excesses on both sides. The Jakarta Government has sworn that it would respect human rights, but who is able to observe that in this mountainous jungle terrain? It is therefore of the utmost importance that international observers go to the area that is adequately protected by the military. The European Union must exert all possible pressure on both the Indonesian Government and on the GAM and urge them to arrive at a peaceful settlement with fair arrangements concerning the distribution of minerals. Military solutions have never lasted in Aceh. It is particularly regrettable that Papua’s Special Autonomy Act has been withdrawn and has been replaced by a new law that divides the territory into three provinces. It finally seemed as if a solution had been reached which would make everybody happy and would guarantee stability. But Mrs Megawati has paid too much attention to the military and does not have the political courage to implement her own will. The Papuans no longer want to belong either as a result of this policy, and that cannot have been the intention.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, as regards the formation of Parliamentary Groups, our group expressed itself quite unambiguously at the time this Parliament was constituted. We are grateful for this confirmation of our understanding of the law. Further to certain remarks by Members, I would again like to make it clear that our Rules of Procedure, decided on by this Parliament, make a clear distinction between Members belonging to a group and pooling their rights in it, and those who do not belong to a group. Members without a group should quite clearly not be discriminated against, but that does not mean that they, as individual Members, enjoy complete equality of treatment with the groups. Rule 30 of our Rules of Procedure expressly states that Members not belonging to a group have the use of a Secretariat with all other details being decided on by the Presidents. That is now the legal position as handed down by the Court of First Instance, and we should proceed in accordance with it in the coming months. * * *

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this resolution on Chechnya is the most far-reaching there has ever been at international level and that is a credit to this House, for in the first war too, we contributed decisively to a peace agreement being signed. However, I am disappointed that our amendment, which on the basis of the human rights clause in the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement of this agreement will be placed on ice in the context of this war, will not be adopted by the House. I have the impression that we need much stricter measures than in the resolution we have so far shown to arrive at a cease-fire at all and to ensure that the bombing of the civilian population can finally cease and for it to be declared an internal problem. I believe that today at the OSCE meeting – this subject is being discussed at the same time over in Istanbul -, it is necessary for there to be a real possibility that will lead to peace negotiations, for the problem in the Caucasus cannot be resolved in the way the Russians want and I therefore feel it is very important for us not to just stand still, but that in particular the Commission also takes up this appeal and threatens to take action such as freezing new TACIS agreements so that it actually affects them and is not just something here on paper. It is a matter of great concern that I should like to make quite clear once again on behalf of my Group. For us the resolution does not go far enough, but it is a first step – hopefully to a peaceful solution in the region.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, on the voting slip which we have in front of us it says that Amendment No 85 is identical to Amendment No 99. I should like to point out that this is not actually the case. The two amendments are significantly different, especially in relation to the Nuclear Conventions of Paris and Vienna. In Amendment No 85, the paragraph which is under the IMO provisions is not under the nuclear provisions. In Amendment No 99, it is. I know this is slightly confusing, but it is a confusing directive! They are not the same and therefore should not be voted as identical amendments.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, freedom of faith, conscience and religious creed and freedom of expression and association are the most elementary fundamental rights that can, and must, be granted to every individual in this world of ours. They are part and parcel of our democracies, and we expect them to be applied everywhere as basic principles so that the dignity of human life is truly respected throughout the world. For a while it looked as if the situation were taking a turn for the better in the People’s Republic of China too. Sadly, in more recent times this appears to have changed, and progress seems to have not only been halted but even reversed. For example, I greatly regret that, while the People’s Republic of China has signed important documents such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the process of ratifying and implementing the two covenants has yet to be completed. That is a great pity. This process needs to be reactivated. I therefore appeal on behalf of my Group to the People’s Republic of China to respect people’s civil liberties just as we endeavour to do in our democracies. May I add a postscript to the honourable Member Mr Dupuis, just to mention to him that the Falun Gong say that they are not a religious institution. We should also respect the way in which institutions define themselves.

Political group: PSE
I fully support this report which recognises the diverse advantages that sport has to offer, from improving social skills and integration to working with and including voluntary organisations. Here in the EU, we constantly reiterate the need to promote integration: sport is the ideal way to achieve this. For too long sporting activities have come second to so-called formal education. To relegate sporting activities is to deny the host of benefits that sport brings; it is something at which all people can succeed, regardless of class and race. So, the promotion of sport also bolsters and enhances other Community projects, ranging from the fight against racism and social exclusion, to the inclusion of disabled people. Since so many of the EU's goals can be partially realised by promoting sports, the EU must promote sport as a functional as well as recreational activity. Lastly, once Member States begin to co-operate more in this domain and demonstrate how they have mainstreamed sport into their education systems, we will finally come to realise the full potential that sport has to offer. Ojeda Sanz report (A5-0127/2002)

Political group: PSE
The Torres Marques report is on European tourism. I can only vote for the motion, Mr President, in view of recital O of the report, which states that pensioners are to be considered as tourists who should be assisted. However, I would propose, Mr President, an ad hoc programme for promoting tourism among the elderly, which I would like to call the ‘Ulysses senior programme’. Why this name? I am sure you will have read the Divine Comedy, Mr President, as we all have. The great Dante Alighieri writes in the Divine Comedy that, after crossing the Pillars of Hercules, Ulysses set off again across the sea for further adventure. Ulysses was certainly a pensioner when he crossed the Pillars of Hercules: after spending a whole lifetime fighting at Troy and getting home again afterwards he was an old man when he set out again. That is why I feel that there should be a programme promoting third-age tourism and that it should be called the ‘Ulysses senior programme’.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I want to follow that up. Grateful though I am to you for this statement, I have something to ask of you. These are serious accusations, and serious accusations touch upon people’s honour and integrity, even if they are found to be baseless. If there is any substance to these accusations, the actions to which they refer must be punished. We are always being accused of looking after our own interests, so that if something is made available to you as President, that is not seen as investigating it sufficiently. So let me again ask you to consult not only this House, but also, where necessary, other authorities outside it; the Court of Auditors, for example, which could certainly check to see whether or not Members are obeying the rules. That is why I believe it is in the interests of all of us that these accusations should be brought out into the open and examined by an authority competent to do so. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I, too, wish Mr Fischler a speedy recovery and am also in favour of us not deferring this morning's debate. The subject is simply too important. Getting this report, with its 400 amendments, through the committee was a really tough business. The large number of amendments was certainly not attributable to the involvement of Mrs Miguélez Ramos, whom I respect as a colleague and who has done exemplary work in producing a balanced report, and I would like to thank her once again for this. Some will mock and ask themselves what all this expense is for, but I cannot emphasise enough what significance this report has for the future of fisheries in Europe. A common fisheries policy has been in place for just about twenty years, with all their highs and lows. Fisheries swam through many a trough. Brussels cannot be made to bear all the responsibility for that, however. On the contrary, not every Member State and not everyone in the fishing industry is pulling their weight, and it is for that reason that the CFP has not fully met the high demands made of it. This year, we are at a crossroads in the truest sense of the word. In which direction do we want Europe's common fisheries policy to go in future? I can assure you that Parliament's recommendations will fall on good soil at the Commission, as this cooperation between the institutions in the interests of Europe's fisheries, and for their benefit, must be carried on, and it will be. Now that the Commission knows what this report recommends, it can submit its reform proposals, which we await with eager anticipation, and so I hope there will be a large majority. One thing, though, must be clear. This will be a voyage over a rough sea for, as I have said, there are massive challenges ahead. Let me briefly highlight a few things that I see as vital to Europe's future fisheries policy. Firstly, without fish, there will be no more fishing industry. This equation may be simple, but it is true. We must give even more attention to the maintenance of healthy stocks than we did previously, because only healthy marine eco-systems guarantee sustainable management with a future ahead of it. After all, we all – here in Parliament and out there on the coastline – want a viable fisheries sector, and one that is viable not only for today and possibly tomorrow, but for the decades yet to come. Secondly, we know too little about how the marine eco-system is interlinked, and so there must be more intensive research. Thirdly, it is a fact that there are insufficient fish in European waters, and so we must also fish outside them, and to this end we need agreements with third states. These are expensive and are costing more and more; they will probably be too expensive as soon as tomorrow. We have to strike out on new pathways here, even if this will require greater involvement of those who directly profit. We owe this to our taxpayers. Time is passing too fast, not only the time I have to speak, but the time left to reform the CFP. Let us, by the end of this year, find a common and sustainable solution in the interests of our European fisheries.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I wish to thank Mr Dimitrakopoulos for his work on this report and for the scheme he has brought forward. However, my Group and I will be voting against the report if Amendments Nos 6 and 7 are not adopted. We think they are important. The quality of a democracy is measured by its respect for its minorities. It is very important to note that the d'Hondt proportionality, which governs the composition of our Bureau, does not, and cannot, guarantee that all political positions represented in Europe – far less represented in this House – will take part in the decision-making. This is all the more objectionable when the rule is that parties seeking funding need only be heard on some issues rather than on all issues that come before the Bureau. These are points I take very seriously. It is also important that in discussing the funding of political parties it is necessary that all voices should take part, even though we accept that the d'Hondt proportionality means that only some of the parties should be participants as voters on the Bureau. I hope these amendments will be accepted, because if they are not we will certainly vote against the report. As I have said, politics is also about the representation of minorities. I slightly disagreed with what Mr Dimitrakopoulos just said about political parties being institutions, which build in with parliaments and commissions, etc. Above all, in the political tradition to which I belong, political parties are voluntary associations of like-minded citizens. All the better that they should now become voluntary associations of like-minded citizens collaborating right across this great continent. However, voluntary associations are not the same as institutions, even though the maintenance of satisfactory democratic politics requires, in contemporary circumstances, that there be some public support for political parties. I speak in this House for the , for the parties representing minority nations within Member States – regions, as they are sometimes called: not very accurately, in my judgment. The increase in size of the Union, with the welcome arrival of many small states, makes it ever harder for a party like the , which has been in existence for many years, to satisfy threshold requirements of the kind that are now being set. Every time we come to this House it appears that the hurdles are set yet higher in favour of the large political groupings, while neglecting the fair and legitimate interests of minorities. Therefore I call upon the House to accept this report only if at least Amendments Nos 6 and 7 are adopted.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Eurostat states quite clearly that around 18% of the European Union’s population live on less than 60% of the average national income. This represents around 75 million European citizens. In general terms, over the last ten years, the national poverty rate has ranged from 10 to 11% for Denmark and the Netherlands to a very worrying 24% for Portugal. To this we must add the fact that more than 10 million people depend on assistance from social welfare systems, in a situation which is growing worse in most Member States. This report is extremely important because it aims to improve the circumstances of the most underprivileged, thereby representing one more step towards strengthening social cohesion. For this I wish to congratulate the rapporteur. This is an ambitious programme of Community action which, in line with the Commission’s proposal, will be given budgetary appropriations of EUR 70 million and should remain in force for a period of five years. This budget should be increased, bearing in mind the processes and the realism that are necessary in this field. There must be further dialogue with non-governmental organisations and with other social partners, aimed at vigorously detecting the most concentrated areas of poverty and social exclusion and at defining the most efficient and effective ways of combating them. We must nevertheless issue a warning about the inadequacy of the NGOs' financial control mechanisms, and demand a better system of financial management equal to the task of ensuring that public funds are spent in a sensible and rigorous way. The beneficiaries of this programme should be the victims of poverty and social exclusion, and we must prevent this from becoming in practice merely a means of financing bodies which investigate the problems of poverty and social exclusion.

Political group: PPE-DE