GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission has responded very quickly, and I should also like to thank Mr Adams, who has performed sterling work in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. My thanks are also due to the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. As we know, the legislation on chemical substances, the Water Framework Directive and the Directive on plant-protection products already refer to certain dangerous substances, defining and categorising them. The present proposal for a resolution and the list deriving from it must ultimately be brought into line with these existing directives. Because of its far-reaching economic and legal consequences for agriculture, and for all other sectors of the economy too, the Commission should therefore ensure that the necessary process of identifying these priority hazardous substances is based on hard scientific facts. It is imperative to act on a sound scientific basis rather than on the basis of suspicion. The Water Framework Directive has given us a time frame that extends to the year 2004. We now have a broad consensus on this issue throughout the EU. We need not be carried away by our emotions. Zero emissions is not a realistic aim. We need clarity, built on sound scientific foundations, if we are to take the right action. Water, ladies and gentlemen, is one of our most important and most sensitive assets. Let us not forget that.

Political group: PPE-DE
The European Parliament has delivered an opinion on the Commission guidelines for the INTERREG Community Initiative concerning cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation. I want to defend an amendment tabled by my group on the maritime aspect of this Community initiative. This does not involve the concerns about the future of the Atlantic Arc but rather the need to integrate the principle of maritime borders into strand A on cross-border cooperation. In the Commission guidelines, few maritime areas are eligible for INTERREG IIIA. The amendments to the Decourrière report aim to make INTERREG more maritime-oriented. This is an important development which must be supported as it is the future of the EU which is at stake. I am aware of the Commission’s reluctance on this subject as it announced during the symposium on the presentation of INTERREG III last November. However, I must point out that preventing the recognition of maritime borders amounts to denying the existence of an area which has great potential for projects and innovation. One example of this is the ‘Celtic’ area which encompasses the territories of Brittany in France, Cornwall and Devon in the United Kingdom and Cork and Waterford in Ireland. This is an area whose locally-based economy is characterised by dependence on the fishing industry and the importance of the agri-foodstuffs sector. It also has excellent cultural and relational links, through twinnings for example. INTERREG III, strand A, would allow the regions in this area to advance a number of structural projects needed to develop small and medium-sized undertakings and to promote research and technical development through knowledge transfer. The European Commission should therefore be able to participate in the construction of port and airport infrastructure to provide links between regions. This policy would have important economic consequences for the fishing industry in Brittany in that catches could be unloaded at Irish advance bases in order to then be transported to the Breton agri-foodstuffs industry. The integration of the maritime border into strand A would finally allow the western periphery to be recognised as a unique and important economic area which is confronted by the ‘continentalisation’ of the European Union. This would show respect for these peripheral areas which are rather concerned about enlargement to the east. The maritime world has great potential. We therefore must not leave it out of innovative and pilot Community programmes which will allow the new geographical and economic map of Europe to be defined.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to support the proposals in the Perry report, but first I should like to point out that Commissioner Bolkestein has indeed provided a great deal more recent information and clarification on the subject. However, the problem remains, as my honourable friend Mr Koukiadis has highlighted in such a proper and constructive manner, that we do not have clear answers to the following: the British government was obviously very late in transposing into national legislation the directive which should also have applied in Great Britain to the issue of the private insurance which would also cover the Lloyd's case. Similarly, there is doubt as to whether it transposed it correctly. In addition, questions arise as to if it is applying it correctly and consistently ensuring it is complied with. A large number of names, who are, as it were, the shareholders – it is a very particular regime – were obliged, because they were not informed or information was withheld from them and as a result of the omissions by the British government which I referred to earlier, to use all their assets to pay compensation for insurance risks of which they maintain they were ignorant. Thus, many of them were ruined, we are talking about huge assets, while despair led some of them to suicide. The victims include some of my fellow countrymen, Greeks, the dramatic protests of whom have been accumulating for 2-3 years now in my office and in the Committee on Petitions of which I also have the honour of being a member. The efforts by the Committee on Petitions to be fully enlightened by the Commission about this tragic affair and by the British government – we have held a meeting in camera – are not bearing fruit, at least not when it comes to informing us. Adequate answers are not being given to the questions which we have repeatedly formulated and this silence on the part of the British government, which refuses to notify its answers to the Committee on Petitions, has also been supported by the Commission. Thus, we cannot form a clear and full picture of exactly how this complex affair stands and to what extent there is responsibility by reason of negligence and/or abuse on the part of the British government as the result of delay, imperfect transposition and erroneous application of the directives on private insurance. The above comments, which may wrong the British government and the European Commission, do not appear to have affected either one or the other to date. The European citizens believe that their voice should be heard and it is an opportunity to restore the credibility and validity of the European Union and of our institution vis-à-vis the citizens. If we move without transparency and without account being taken of the citizens' side, then we fail as a European institution at a crucial turning point in the overall development.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I wonder if you have seen the exclusive report in today's edition of Le Figaro. It contains an interview with a Corsican terrorist under the headline ‘Armata corsa: menace terroriste sur Paris et Strasbourg.’ The terrorist belongs to the Armata Corsa organisation. The interview appears on the front page of today's Le Figaro and says that the Armata Corsa is threatening direct strikes on Paris and Strasbourg if its demands, which include the release of prisoners, are not met. The newspaper says that it has published the article in order to alert French public opinion to the immediate danger threatening it and it also states, by way of information, that emergency measures have been taken in Paris in order to deal with this immediate threat. It says nothing about Strasbourg. I should like to draw the bureau's attention to this major issue and ask if it knows anything about this and if it has made representations to the authorities in Strasbourg for additional measures to be taken to protect Parliament because it seems to me that anyone who so wishes can enter the Parliament building and I fear that we may have to deal with highly dangerous and unforeseen circumstances.

Political group: PPE-DE
The WTO, which was created in order to speed up the liberalisation of trade, has become one of the essential pillars of the new world order. Not only does it support globalisation, but it is also committed to giving it form and the force of law in order to impose dictatorship by the market. It actively contributes to the establishment of neo-liberal policies which find their expression in attacks upon public services, the right to employment, health and food safety and upon the environment. Unfortunately, the European delegation subscribes to the liberal way of thinking. It advocates an extension of the WTO’s powers, which is completely rejected by the associations and organisations that have become involved, who are instead calling for both an assessment of the WTO’s last five years and a moratorium on the forthcoming negotiations. We support this approach which is a first step towards radically questioning the capitalist world order. This is why we cannot vote for the Schwaiger report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The proposal for a regulation will suffer from the same weaknesses as the Dublin Convention since the basic principles are, fundamentally, identical. The greatest burden is now placed upon the countries of the east and south, which must receive the highest numbers of people applying for asylum. The report makes some progress, however, and puts forward some positive points that must not be dismissed and that is why we voted in its favour. A single Member State is responsible for the asylum application, the concern for family unity is given greater importance, and the personal details of asylum applicants and the members of their families are still relatively protected. Replacing the Convention with a regulation is therefore subject to interpretation by the Court of Justice and monitoring by the Court and by the Commission, is a further step towards achieving an area of freedom, security and justice. - von Boetticher report (A5-0078/2002)

Political group: PSE
Thank you for your reply. I shall take your advice as regards the figures for 1999 and 2000 which, I should point out, the Commission was unable to give me even yesterday because it did not yet have them, even though it is 2001 and the Member States naturally have a duty under the Schengen Agreement. I should like to ask you specifically: if and insofar as a Member State naturalises a person or persons, can that person, once they have obtained a passport or an identity card from the Member State, live anywhere in the European Union? If it later emerges that they should not have been naturalised, is the Member State which naturalised them obliged to pass this information on to the other Member States so that the person who has no right to live in the European Union can be located? And if it has this duty towards Europol and the other Member States, my question is this: has the Greek government provided this information? We have proof that there are people who have obtained Greek nationality but were not entitled to do so.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I believe that the work carried out by the Commission and also by the rapporteur, Mr Veltroni, contains many important elements. It is clear that a great effort has been made to introduce new issues and to take new steps in European audiovisual policy. However, I believe that we still have a lot to do on certain points, both in the Commission and in Parliament. We are very much lagging behind in relation to the huge changes taking place in the audiovisual sector, particularly as a result of digitalisation. To fail to act would be like an ostrich burying its head in the sand. I am sure that that is not what we want. We all know that digitalisation began about five years ago and therefore this work on audiovisual policy is timely to say the least. There are five points I would like to highlight because I believe that sooner or later they will have to be reviewed: First is the definition of public service. This is important if we want to have a public service in Europe in an environment which is truly competitive – and this can be seen from the audience for public services – and also for the good of the private audiovisual service. There are still many issues to be resolved: one of them is the separation of the requirements established for each of these. Secondly, it seems to me essential that there be a review of the “Television without Frontiers” Directive. In this respect we are behaving like the aforementioned ostrich. Thirdly, we must define in some way – and I believe that this document does not deal with this adequately – what is to happen with interactive TV services, what is to happen with the Internet on television. The fourth point refers to the transfer from analogue TV to digital TV and its consequences for users in terms of the use and acquisition of new terminals. Lastly, there is the implication of the laws on competition and mergers. The audiovisual policy should tackle these points and also go into more depth in the field of competition.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as an MEP for Galicia, I would like to express my solidarity with the people of Timor, my total condemnation of Indonesia’s genocidal repression and my concurrence with all those who recognise and defend the Timorese people’s right to self-determination as expressed today in favour of independence. I request that the institutions of the European Union support the extremely urgent dispatch of a civilian mission and a UN security force, of a size which reflects the gravity of the situation, to ensure that Timor is established as an independent state, which will require a great deal of time. During this time, the UN must maintain its unequivocal support, and the European Union its vital political and economic assistance. In accordance with its historical responsibilities in Timor, the UN and the European Union’s protection of Timor is imperative, not just in the face of the current aggression, but also in the face of any future threat by Indonesia. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the EU’s enlargement, to include ten Eastern European countries and the two Mediterranean countries Malta and Cyprus, is upon us. Negotiations involving the European Commission and the governments of those twelve countries are now under way. Three major stumbling blocks in these negotiations are the environment, agriculture and free access of employees of the new countries to the labour market of the old Fifteen. With regard to the environmental aspects, I have drawn up a report on behalf of the Committee on the Environment. Only once before has Europe faced a similar dilemma. This was nearly ten years ago when the GDR became part of Germany. The European Commission then spelled out that the internal market rules would apply as from day one of the GDR joining the EU. Very often, Europe’s environmental rules were subject to five-year transitional periods. In that situation, West Germany backed the former GDR financially on a massive scale, by no less than DM 150 billion annually. The ten new countries in Eastern Europe can only dream of having a rich sugar daddy such as that. At present, the EU spends approximately EUR 500 million annually on the environment in the twelve new countries together. In order to meet all 200 environmental EU requirements, all Eastern European governments together need to spend another EUR 120 billion. In this light, it is understandable that they are applying for longer transitional periods of ten to fifteen years in order to accommodate those expensive environmental requirements. This means that the environment in Eastern Europe will not undergo any noticeable improvements until fifteen to twenty years from now. This is an unacceptable period of time. It is logical that the Environment Ministers of the new countries will be putting the brakes on after their countries have joined the EU, whether their political persuasion is green or conservative. They will argue that they should first of all introduce the old EU environmental requirements before Europe adopts new environmental requirements or tightens existing ones. In order to solve this dilemma, the Committee on the Environment has proposed that the inexpensive cheap environmental requirements, such as environmental effects reporting, environmental information, animal welfare, the habitat and bird directives, should be effective from day one and that five-year transitional periods should be introduced for the expensive environmental requirements. Environmental aid will need to double in order to help the new countries. If longer transitional periods prove necessary after all, the European Commission should table these requests to the Environmental Committee. The proposal which has attracted most controversy is that which stipulates that the old, soviet-type nuclear power stations have to be closed down from day one. In the negotiations held so far, it has been agreed to leave this type of extremely dangerous power station, such as that in Lithuania, in operation until 2009.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would firstly like to congratulate Mr Wuori on this magnificent report. I believe his report is up to the challenge of responding to economic globalisation through a proposed globalisation of political and social human rights, since they are indivisible, and democratic principles. The essential thing is to know whether the European Union has the instruments to implement that globalisation of rights and, above all, whether it is prepared to use them. Take, for example, the European Union’s role in the United Nations and the Geneva Commission, which is often weak and even contradictory. Also, what can be done within the World Trade Organisation which, by the way, is going to meet in Qatar, a world leader in human rights, as the whole world knows. Also, in the use of the democratic clause with third countries, in which the European Parliament should have a clear role, regulated by the Treaty, and, of course, in bilateral dialogue and in the use of the code of conduct on the export of arms, a code which is still nothing more than a proposal and a suggestion and which does not stop Member States from committing aberrations by selling arms to countries which systematically violate human rights. The rights of peoples are also human rights. In this regard, I believe that collective rights cannot be forgotten either, starting with the right to self-determination. I would like to fly the flag here by asking the Government of Morocco to fully respect the rights of the Saharan people who live in its country’s occupied territories.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on a point of order, firstly as Mr Schulz will well know, as he sees the lively debates in our group which go on in public and in private, we have already attracted one of his members, Mr Balfe, who is a member of our group now. We welcome any others who wish to cross the floor because we would like to have an overall majority in this Parliament, as we have in the Quaestors! Secondly, Mr Schulz is quite right that we need to fill up the time. Perhaps that is why Mr Poettering is looking a little pale, perhaps it is overwork. As far as time is concerned, while we are in Strasbourg we should use it to full effect, otherwise it just influences the other part-sessions where we then have to do things that we would not otherwise do.

Political group: PPE-DE
I shall begin, first of all, by warmly congratulating Mr Katiforis on the audacity of his proposals! I shall continue by deploring the excessively cautious approach of the right wing in the European Parliament which, by adopting a whole raft of amendments, has robbed my colleague’s work of its substance! This report, let me remind you, is based on the Commission’s annual economic report for 1999, the first of these to be published under the euro system, which, consequently, is more concerned with the single European economy than with a series of national economies. The European Parliament had the option to take this opportunity to put forward imaginative and ‘proactive’ proposals, according to the rapporteur’s own description, with a view to giving European Union economic activities a new orientation. One observation is unavoidable: Europe has unparalleled potential for economic and social progress which, for reasons that still partly escape us, remains largely unexploited, hence the highly interesting suggestions made in the initial report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to regenerate economic activity by setting ambitious goals (an employment rate of 75%, an upturn in growth, etc.) and by setting aside sufficient resources to achieve this. The initial proposals suggested that the Council in particular should bring in measures with a view to ensuring full employment which would still be consistent with price stability and the budgetary balance of the entire economic cycle. It is not in fact a matter, as some would have us believe, of challenging the policy of stability we adopted some years ago. Some measures, particularly on tax, must be adopted to encourage private and public investment. We must get the programme of Trans-European Networks, as proposed in 1994, back on track, we must initiate a major research and development programme in order to ensure that investments necessarily have an innovative content. Why do we think that investment should not be used as an instrument for managing demand but should rather be practised for its own sake? We must encourage better management of working time and the dissemination of policies of good practice within Member States in order to increase levels of employability, particularly among the most disadvantaged sectors of the working population. Some measures such as retraining, in the form of lifelong training, seem particularly relevant. These must be an integral part of the on-going institutional transformation which must support the transition to a knowledge-based economy. A proposal of this type brings us back into line with the thinking adopted for the Special Summit on employment which is to take place in Lisbon in March. All of these measures, which are too proactive in the eyes of some of those on the right, have, of course, been brushed aside. I must condemn this! An amendment referring to taxation on speculative capital transfers also suffered the same fate.

Political group: PSE
The representatives of the European Council and of the European Commission have not concealed their concern about the disagreements which have emerged at the Intergovernmental Conference within the framework of the discussion about the new 'Constitutional Treaty' of the ΕU. However, the disagreements are about completely secondary issues which do not change the reactionary nature of the text. They are concerned about the role of the foreign minister, without any of them contesting the militarisation of the ΕU and its cohesion with ΝΑΤΟ. No-one is concerned about the further cession of national sovereignty, but they are concerned about exactly how the power is to be redistributed. Not a word against the deification of the 'market economy' or against the strengthening of repressive mechanisms, while the European Parliament is only worried about the role reserved for it. In other words, everyone is fighting their own corner. In all events, some concern is being expressed about the outcome of the referenda (where they are being held), which shows they are worried about increased grass-roots dissatisfaction, despite the misleading propaganda and the results of the referenda so far. The peoples do not need a 'Euro-Constitution'; they hardly even need a European Union. They must step up their fight to defend and broaden their rights and demolish the structure being constructed by the exploiters in order to finally change society.

Political group: GUE-NGL