GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I speak in my capacity as Secretary of the SOS Democracy Group to explain our opposition to the two resolutions on defence on which the Chamber has just voted. There is a range of views in this House about the military needs of the continent. However one thing that ought to be uncontroversial is that the defence of Europe should be primarily governed by strategic rather than political considerations. Yet this is the opposite of what is proposed in these resolutions. The ESDP, and specifically the Rapid Reaction Force, does not extend Europe's defence capability by one more soldier or one more bullet. All it does is to transfer the line of command away from NATO in the national capitals towards the EU's new politico-military structures. At best this is a pointless and expensive exercise in duplication, at worst it leaves Europe weaker by cutting its links with the one NATO partner able to supply air- and sea-lift capability, advanced communication satellites and accurate missiles. Again and again European defence ministers, including British ones, have been prepared to disregard the advice of their own generals in order to pursue joint European projects. Perhaps the supreme example of this thinking is the Eurofighter, an aeroplane which is becoming operative years late, billions of euros over budget, and which is effectively already obsolete. After all, in an age in which we are increasingly having to act out of area, what we surely need is an aircraft capable of operating from rough local airfields with low technological requirements for spare parts, capable of buddy refuelling and with a long loiter time. What we are instead getting is a plane conceived in the early 1980s as a way to defend the skies of central Europe against a massed attack by Russian MiGs. These two resolutions have nothing to do with making Europe more secure and everything to do with making it more integrated as an end in itself. Hence our opposition.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I almost feel like saying, “Phew”, now that we have at last come to the second reading on this directive which has given us so much work, and which has clearly also given a great deal of work to the rapporteur, Mr Florenz. I do not consider this directive to be at all satisfactory since it does not answer the real question over what is going to be done with vehicles which have already been abandoned and which, today, can only be removed at local authority expense, i.e. the taxpayers’ expense. The principle of ‘polluter pays’ is not being applied. Vehicles already abandoned have also been abandoned by Community legislation, in that they are not taken into consideration either in the texts on emissions or in this text on end-of-life vehicles. The only merit of this directive is that it looks to the future. It has not, however, been possible to solve the problem of vehicles currently being used but which are already old and which cost far more to recycle. On the other hand, we can be fairly confident for the future because we know the efforts that car manufacturers are prepared to make in order to find (a) materials that are easier to recycle and (b) to set up recycling industries. I should also like to stress the need to maintain a flexible approach to recycling, reuse and incineration, as far as the new particularly light materials are concerned which make it possible to reduce vehicle consumption and therefore emissions. This is a problem of compatibility between our directives on end-of-life vehicles and the former directives, including the one on auto-oil, which we voted on a few years ago. We must therefore congratulate the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection, on having the wisdom, in order to make things perfectly clear, to reintroduce the clause making an exception of the vintage cars which are part of our industrial and cultural heritage. In conclusion, let me say that this directive is not ambitious enough to solve the problems of present car numbers and it is rather hypocritical with regard to the fate reserved for the wrecks which still clutter our forests, lakes and gardens. Once again, the principle of ‘polluter pays’ is not being applied. The taxpayer is still footing the bill.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I have requested the floor in order to speak about Tuesday’s joint debate on fisheries. A major debate has been scheduled for that day and the Conference of Presidents has decided to include a Commission statement on the Fisheries Agreement with Morocco without a resolution. As you know, this is a very sensitive issue and I would ask you to clarify a few things, as the inclusion of this issue may somewhat distort the overall debate. I would ask you first of all to state at whose behest this was included, in other words, whether it was the Commission itself that made the request or one of the political groups. Furthermore, in accordance with the debate’s agenda, the normal course of action would be for the joint debate on the four reports to take place and then for the Commission’s statement to be made and a further debate on this to take place. Since it no longer appears possible for events to take place in this way, because the political groups have already distributed Members’ speaking times, I would ask that, in this case, the Commission statement should be the first item so that Members may speak in the debate and so that the Commission statement is not made in the middle of the debate, which would prevent all Members from being in an equal position to respond to this statement by the Commission.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, we remain convinced that the euro is a good thing. The euro is not a goal in itself, but a means to serve the European citizen, a strong economy, employment and the international status of the European Union. It is a means to promote more stability, more transparency, more clarity, more convenience of payment, more saving options and better investment opportunities. I will not repeat what the honourable rapporteur has already stated as to how we need to tackle the changeover of national currency units to euros in practical terms, but I would like to make two observations regarding her report. Firstly, the euro probably has only one drawback, namely the inevitable transitional period; that is to say, all the adjustments required to fully integrate the national currency units into the new tender. If we wish to limit the damage, then it is indeed important to keep the period of dual currency circulation to a minimum. If it is based on sound framework measures, there is no need for initial hesitation before taking the final and definitive step towards the euro. I therefore back the technical measures proposed by the rapporteur. I would congratulate her on the level of clarity displayed. Secondly, we are responsible for keeping the attention given to, and interest in, the euro alive. The present situation is not conducive in this respect. The introduction of the euro on 1 January this year enjoyed a great deal of attention, even a certain euphoria, but it all went quiet after that for the single currency. The euro is still too far removed from the European citizen. It is still a while before 2002, when the euro will be introduced as actual currency. This is too long according to public opinion. The appetite has gone. Moreover, this interim phase creates far too many insecurities. In short, we need to be able to maintain our belief in and enthusiasm for the euro during the warming-up stage as well, although ensuring at the same time that people do not lose interest before the euro actually takes off. After all, the euro needs to remain a success and we need to make every effort to achieve this.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, at one time, the Mongolian nomadic armies under the command of Genghis Khan instilled fear across the world. Today, the remote descendants of these feared hordes are condemned to abject poverty. Two harsh winters in succession will probably spell the end of a nation of shepherds and of economic developments in Mongolia. I hope that this debate will break through the indifference of the international community. In mid-January, I, together with Mr Maat, received the Prime Minister of Mongolia. We were taken with the openness and determination he displayed in approaching our Parliament. I would remind the Commission of the wish Parliament expressed last year to grant Mongolia the necessary emergency aid. Commissioner, I beg you, please grant Mongolia more structural aid and economic assistance through ECHO and TACIS. I will be much obliged to you.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Members of the European Parliament are elected as representatives of the Member States and they should receive salaries and pay taxes similar to members of the national parliaments (MNP). Attempts to differentiate between MEPs and MNPs will not strengthen any links between the two and extreme salary increases combined with EU taxation will alienate voters further. We strongly support any efforts to make the remuneration and allowance system more transparent and in accordance with prudent accounting standards. At the same time, we believe it is hypocritical to legislate on corporate governance while not being able to apply the same standards to an institution ultimately funded by taxpayers' money. We have voted against the Rothley report as a consequence of the attempt to establish the idea of MEPs simply being 'European' and completely removed from their national settings as well as increase salaries substantially, but without a thorough 'cleaning-up' of the allowance system, cf. Article 27.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I accept this oral amendment proposed by Mr Deva. If this oral amendment is adopted, my Group will support Amendment No 3. (The President noted that there was no opposition to considering the oral amendment) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0332/2001) by Mr Brok, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, on the progress achieved in the implementation of the common foreign and security policy (PESC) (C5-0194/2001 – 2001/2007(INI)) On paragraph 7

Political group: PSE
Mr President, in the matter of e-Learning I think we must above all realise that we are entering an entirely new world, that we are exploring new things and should not therefore keep to well-trodden paths. The Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities has once again found that women are still largely excluded from the Web. Internet activities and everything that goes with the New Economy are still not the brave new world so far as women are concerned, as, incidentally, was also noted recently at a major international conference in Hamburg. Eighteen countries contributed their experience. There is a digital discrepancy. The ratio of women to men on the Internet is in the region of one to four. It is true that access is improving, but among people beginning their studies there are still only around 20% women compared to 80% men. When it comes to the formation of Internet-related companies, the proportion of women is still vanishingly small. We are therefore calling for new access to be created specifically for women, for special software to be developed for women, because they use the Internet differently and because women are still lagging a long way behind in qualifications. If we want to act on the resolutions of the Lisbon Summit and create a knowledge-based society, we must pay particular attention to women. We must, for example, abandon coeducation in some matters. We must tread new paths here. I think it is particularly important that we catch up with the Americans. Here, too, we find that American women already have much greater access to the Internet. In some fields they have actually overtaken men. I think we still have a good chance of achieving something here with our action plan. I therefore ask that, in formulating the action plan, particular attention be paid to developing a greater and more specific involvement of women.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, there are just two questions I would like to touch on. The Commission is right if it thinks that a range of difficult issues remain to be resolved, and we can be grateful to the Presidency of the Council for coming up with a number of proposals on them. Now if Mr Poettering believes that governments – by which he means the governments of the Member States – must now make the effort to come up with a solution, then I do indeed agree with him, but, on the other hand, I also want to make it clear that the same is true of the governments of the candidate countries. I know that Poland has a pain threshold. I have deep sympathy with Poland, and especially with its present government, but we too have pain thresholds, and I do think that both sides have to acknowledge the necessity of compromise in this area. Nor should the candidate countries fix the measuring rod so high up that it is no longer possible to jump over it. Secondly, let us look at procedure and the institutional issues, in which the President-in-Office of the Council has described Parliament as having an interest. Mr President-in-Office of the Council, we have already spent some considerable time today discussing this in another context, and we are not dealing here with an interest, but with our rights and also with the Council's undertaking to talk to Parliament from the very outset. If it had done that, our situation would be an easier one. Mr Napolitano put forward a few arguments in favour of the procedure being changed at some points, and, much as I respect him, I am not convinced. My personal opinion is that every country, from the first day of membership, is entitled to a Commissioner, even if a Commissioner without portfolio. I take the view that, especially when there are ten new Commissioners, this House must also have the right of at least overall approval. Such overall approval could only, of course, be given with the involvement of the relevant nine new Member States, as it would be perverse for us to vote on a Polish Commissioner when the Polish MEPs were not allowed to. This brings us, of course, to the detailed procedure for the new Parliament. I can see the legal arguments where the Intergovernmental Conference is concerned, but I do agree with the proposal for its virtually full involvement, as, at the end of the day, these countries too have to vote on it and ratify it. One thing I ask of the President-in-Office of the Council: talk to the new candidates and negotiate with them! They are meant to be fully involved. Before you come to a decision, though, talk to us in this House, and then it will be easier for us to come up with a joint solution!

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I want to begin by saying a big thank you to Mrs Roth-Behrendt for her skilful and very consistent work on the directive. I certainly also enjoyed working into the night with Dagmar. It looked very difficult at the beginning. There were a number of Member States and also parts of industry that did everything to block decent rules concerning animal experiments. Thanks to Mrs Roth-Behrendt’s and others’ stubbornness, however, acceptable results were in actual fact achieved in two areas. The first of these was in relation to animal experiments. We are now to have bans imposed on animal experiments and on the marketing of new products developed by means of animal experiments. Where most experiments are concerned, the ban will apply in six years’ time; but, unfortunately, the bans on three areas, or methods, of experimentation will only apply in ten years’ time, and then with a risk of the deadline’s also being extended. It might of course be said that both deadlines are too far in the future. That is also what we have said here in Parliament but, as we know from the negotiations, there were some Member States that simply blocked the experiments concerned being halted more quickly. It is now crucial that the Commission be consistent in following up the issue. I am able fully to endorse Mr Davies’s observation. Compliance with the current directives has not been sufficiently well monitored, and this has inflicted quite unnecessary suffering upon millions of animals used in experiments. There has most definitely been an acceptance of laxity in developing alternative methods, and that laxity must cease with this directive. The second major result concerned ourselves as consumers. First and foremost, we are obtaining a ban on the use of a range of carcinogenic substances and on the use of substances that impair our reproductive ability. We are to have special safety requirements in relation to children; allergy-producing ingredients are to be labelled; and details are to be provided of the shelf-life of individual products. I believe that, overall, there has been a breakthrough in relation to unnecessary animal experiments and that there has also been a breakthrough in terms of public health and consumer protection in the cosmetics area. Overall, this is a constructive outcome, and I would once again call upon the Commission to be consistent in following up this matter. I also believe that it is necessary for ourselves in Parliament to monitor such follow-up from the sidelines.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, last week, in the Andalusian town of El Ejido, we saw scenes which were inappropriate to the European Union in the year 2000. This was acknowledged by the Commission President, Romano Prodi, on 9 February when he confirmed that what had occurred in El Ejido went against the very principles of the European Union. These events have caused us great pain and shame and have awoken our fears given the extreme racism, xenophobia and intolerance demonstrated. It is incomprehensible that ways of coexisting and ensuring mutual respect cannot be found between two communities which are mutually beneficial. The only way to prevent these events happening again, in a place where there are large communities of immigrant workers, is through social integration. This requires a firm economic, political and social commitment from the competent authorities. We are all immigrants. For generations human beings have not always remained within the borders of one nation state but have constantly migrated. Geographical mobility is not an invention of the twentieth century and neither are its economic and work-related causes. We are all immigrants, if not ourselves personally, then through one of our relations or ancestors. However, instead of producing these events which we are condemning, migration must generate social, cultural and economic enrichment. What happened in El Ejido is unfortunately not exclusive to this one town of the European Union. We must therefore firstly condemn clearly and emphatically the brutal racist and xenophobic outbursts of certain inhabitants of El Ejido against immigrant workers in the area. A whole community should not have been held responsible, criminalised and attacked for one regrettable but isolated incident. Secondly, all the authorities must act immediately. Coordination between them is the key to combating this type of xenophobia and racism. In particular, local authorities and mayors have a direct responsibility to prevent any demonstration of racism or xenophobia, especially when this involves violent and aggressive acts against people and their property. These authorities must also help to achieve difficult agreements between the parties involved and must not hinder these, as has happened with the mayor in question. Thirdly, the political parties must assume direct responsibility for the political actions of their public officials. They must prevent any individual action or declaration which is contrary to the principles and values of coexistence and tolerance expressed by the European Union. Finally, the European Union must be responsible for monitoring the application of its principles. It must prevent any racist or xenophobic demonstrations in its territory and support and collaborate with national, regional and local authorities and non-governmental organisations and associations in the application of these principles. This must occur within a framework of constant action to combat racism and xenophobia and to encourage the integration of all immigrants resident in the EU.

Political group: PSE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Petitions. – Mr President, I apologise to the rapporteurs that I was not able to be here at the beginning of the debate, but I would wager a euro that nobody has yet touched on the subject that I will raise on behalf of the Committee on Petitions. Deep in the Buitenweg report is Amendment No 2022 on Budget Line 250 and this makes a new proposal to allow in certain circumstances, individual expenses to be paid to particular petitioners if they feel it appropriate to come to Parliament to put their case. I want to thank the rapporteur for accepting this report and the committee for passing it. Parliaments, you know, have various responsibilities. They decide who is to be the government, of course, that is not a responsibility of this Parliament. They decide budgets, but you know, we have only partial budgetary powers. We have no powers over taxation, we have no powers over 50% of the expenditure more or less devoted to agriculture. Parliaments decide legislation: that is a power we have to share with the Council of Ministers and we have no powers of legislative initiative. But parliaments also have a responsibility to protect the rights of the individual citizens in dealing with the bureaucracy and that is a responsibility that we discharge in this Parliament through the work of the Committee on Petitions and the work of the Ombudsman. I would say to Parliament this afternoon that the money spent on petitions and the EUR 3 million that we make available to the Office of the Ombudsman is money that is extremely well spent. It works out at less than EUR 0.1 per person per annum, so it cannot be said to be a great deal of money, but it is money that is being spent on real European democracy and we want to ensure that we keep that up and that we see that we do more in future years.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, coming back to a point that was raised earlier on: 9 May is, as you know, Europe Day and Parliament will be closed. There is, however, a meeting of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market being held on that day. Will members of the public be allowed to attend that meeting as observers or will they be barred from entering the Parliament?

Political group: PSE