GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Today, I have taken a firm stand in favour of extending the EU’s Action Programme to prevent violence against children, young people and women (Daphne II) from 2003 to 2008. Our main objective must now be to make the necessary funding available in good time for 1 January 2004 and to avoid a long drawn-out conciliation procedure. The financial framework needs to be extended to EUR 50 million, as demanded by the Group of the European People’s Party in order thereby to be able to fully meet the requirements and needs in the candidate countries. I hope that this measure will be adopted without delay in order to avoid a conciliation procedure between Parliament and the Council and so that a realistic financial perspective can be put in place. The proposal for legislation also envisages the development of filters to prevent the dissemination of paedophile material, and provides for the situation of street children, especially in major cities, to be ameliorated. As a whole, then, Daphne II is on the right track, but it will be crucial that the available resources be put together in the most appropriate and effective way possible, so that both funds and actions may have a direct effect on those for whom they are intended, rather than petering out in various channels.

Political group: PPE-DE
I voted for this motion for a resolution. I am delighted that the European Parliament has openly committed itself to encouraging the Turkish Government and the Turkish Grand National Assembly to publicly acknowledge the genocide that the Armenian minority was subjected to before the establishment of the modern state in Turkey. Parliament had already undertaken the road to recognition as early as 1987, and the adoption of this amendment demonstrates Parliament’s consistency in this area. However, this resolution does not answer what is a real question: what borders do we really want for the European Union?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I must confess that the President-in-Office of the Council was not very clear on this question. I have listened carefully to his words, which at times seemed contradictory insofar as Libya would be invited to participate, but does not appear to be contemplating a change in the situation. In any case, I would like to ask him the following supplementary question: is there a will to work towards a rapprochement? Are there any plans to improve mutual understanding between the European Union and Libya? If things go well, what agreements could be reached? Would these be the same agreements as with other North African countries within the context of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership? What would be the likely timetable for action?

Political group: PSE
We have been discussing this programme for too long, with all the consequences that that delay implies, as all this effort has not been reflected in the budget agreed in the conciliation procedure – EUR 520 million for seven years, whereas the European Parliament’s original proposal was for EUR 980 million – which is quite frankly less than the programme requires. On the other hand, whilst the accession of the candidate countries will give more young people access to the YOUTH programme and there will be an even richer exchange of experience, I have some doubts about whether the budget for the programme is enough to guarantee the success of this initiative. Although the initial phase of this programme has been positive, its scope is very limited, as it relates to just one facet of the youth policy that we need, which should actually tackle the various issues affecting young people – such as education, employment, housing, health and culture – across the board. The references to ways of solving the problems of discrimination and to the age range for participation in the programme – 15-25, although there are some exceptions – are also inadequate, given that the average age for completing higher education is very close to the upper limit, which should be raised to 30 years. Lastly, it is important to strengthen the role and obligations of the bodies responsible for promoting the programme in each Member State, to make sure that it is promoted as efficiently and as quickly as possible.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Chapter VII (General Provisions), Article 51(2) of the draft Charter of Fundamental Rights states, ‘This Charter does not establish any new power or task for the Community or the Union, or modify powers and tasks defined by the Treaties’. It therefore also lacks any real significance in terms of people’s rights. The debate on this Charter has been eagerly applauded by EU federalists who wish to see it as the beginning of a constitution for the European Union. I nonetheless see a great danger in this Charter. It is in danger of undermining the Council of Europe’s work on human rights and of leading to a situation in which human rights are dealt with in different ways in European countries in the future. I am voting against this Charter because I do not want it at all. That does not mean that I am opposed to human rights as such. I believe, however, that these rights can be guaranteed by bodies other than the European Union. I believe that the draft Charter is a bad product which ought not to be taken any further.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, this report refers to the fight against doping in sport. Unfortunately, the international sporting authorities have not been able to halt or even combat this extremely serious scourge. Doping in sport is like a priest who sins or a tone-deaf musician. It is unthinkable that in sport, which stands for honesty and competitiveness, there are athletes who win because they use drugs. I therefore voted against this report because it does not go far enough in calling for a genuine change in the fight against doping. We should set up a European anti-doping agency instead of waiting for a world-wide agency to do what an individual state cannot achieve. How can so many countries be persuaded to agree?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, like many other things in this world, if we were designing from the beginning a common agricultural policy today, I doubt very much it would take the shape or form we presently have. When I first became a Member of this Parliament, the Union was a lot smaller than it is today. There were 9 countries with 20 million farmers. Today the Union is much enlarged and there are only 6 million farmers. So we have not succeeded in our original aim of maintaining the population in rural areas. Nevertheless, the people of the European Union have not seen the common agricultural policy as a great failure. They recognise that it has given us security of food supply. They recognise that the quality of that food has improved over the years and, in spite of the fact that, from time to time we have scares and always will, the consumers of the European Union are relatively happy that we have given them a safe product. I would like to point out that while we spend, relatively modestly, something like 0.4% of the GDP of the Union on this policy, the farmers, for example in Denmark and the United Kingdom get an average of about EUR 19 000 per capita, but if you go down to the bottom of the list, the half a million small farmers of Portugal get EUR 1 500. So it is not a socially just policy. Ireland is somewhere in between at EUR 11 000 per capita. We have not succeeded in establishing a socially just situation. Nevertheless, and in addition to having done what I said, we have also saved many rural areas; many habitations in towns, villages and communities have been saved by the policy. We must re-design it in a way that will make it more socially just. We must not forget that the business of agriculture is about producing food in the first place and we must ensure that food is safe. Two things worry the farmers of Europe at the moment: the excessive paperwork they are required to do and the restrictions that are being imposed on them. Food is being imported from other areas like, for example tinned food, chicken and other things, for which they cannot guarantee the safety and they are not happy about this. The third thing is that we cannot see the future because we cannot get an agreement with the Americans. We have to establish a system by which traceability of food, wherever it comes from, will be assured and we have to reach an understanding with our competitors in the world markets.

Political group: PPE-DE
The South of France has just suffered an unprecedented natural disaster. We are now beginning to assess the scale of the damage, which has been considerable. Seven people have died and around 100 000 have been affected by the disaster. Tens of thousands have been forced to shelter in gymnasiums or other makeshift accommodation. In the town of Arles alone, a third of the population has been evacuated. Thousands of jobs have disappeared under the water. Hundreds of flooded businesses have had to close their doors, plunging their employees into the uncertainty of temporary unemployment. The Camargue, with its fragile eco-system, is completely submerged: 250 km of dykes have been damaged, 560 hectares of farmland are under water, over 1000 animals have drowned, the entire rice sector has been destroyed. Damage in the region has been put at more than EUR one billion. Europe must show solidarity, in accordance with Article 2 of the regulation establishing the Solidarity Fund. This is an unprecedented disaster, as the region has fallen victim to the River Rhône’s ‘centennial flood’ – the most serious for a century. On behalf of the French Socialists, I ask the EU to make funds quickly available. Those stricken in the Rhône Delta expect nothing less.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on 27 June 2003 the Commission published a new proposal aimed at guaranteeing the sustainable recovery of the Northern hake stock and its reduction within what is considered the safe biological limit, a precautionary level of biomass which is set at 165 000 tonnes. The first innovation, which we should be grateful for, is that the Commission has finally decided to separate stocks of hake and cod into two different plans. There was no other choice following the clear improvement in hake stocks, a direct result of the management measures applied by the sector over the last two years. When we move on to the analysis of the measures proposed, we discover that the Commission is not taking account of the best scientific information available, nor is it dispelling the doubts of the fisheries industry, since once again there has been no dialogue with the scientists and the proposal has been drawn up without the serious participation of professionals. The Commission is working on the basis of scientific opinions the content of which it does not specify and which, as the rapporteur, Mr Souchet, quite rightly says in his explanatory statement, has not been revealed to the Committee on Fisheries either, despite our having requested it. The precautionary biomass should have been established on the basis of these scientific reports which do not exist. Neither does it appear that this biomass is in proportion to the state of the stock affected, since the latest independent scientific reports and observations of professionals demonstrate that it is not below the safe biological limits. Neither do we have scientific evaluations from the IC which guarantee to us that the reduction of fishing effort proposed will lead to an effective reduction in catches, nor an evaluation of the effects of the technical recovery measures – which I referred to earlier – which have been applied for two years and have had such good results. Neither does the Commission’s proposal seek a balance between biological recovery and socio-economic repercussions. Once again, I must point out that the approach is based on exclusively biological considerations and does not take account of the socio-economic context when recommending the re-establishment of stocks within one year, rather than adopting a progressive approach, based on multi-annual TACs, and this is incompatible with the capacity for survival of the companies in this sector. The technical measures, which, as we have said, have produced good results, are completely overlooked. What Mr Souchet proposes in his report, namely the replacement of this recovery plan with a multi-annual management plan, is the result not just of the – I believe correct – analysis of the European Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries and of our own debate, but also of the guidelines already defined by the European Parliament itself and Mr Souchet in relation to the management of fragile stocks: the application of simple and flexible rules, such as multi-annual TACs, rather than rigid systems with uncertain effects, such as measures based on the fishing effort.

Political group: PSE
The previous directive proved to be relevant and effective in enabling, firstly, products to be standardised and the internal Community trade in vine cuttings and plants to develop substantially in recent years. It now needs to be revised to take into account developments in phytosanitary regulations and scientific and technical progress, particularly in the field of in vitro propagation. The draft text presented by the European Commission, as amended by the European Parliament Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, proposes some interesting advances. I shall cite the most significant here. The current draft rules out any possibility of any of the Fifteen Member States enjoying a unilateral exemption from the terms of the directive. This provision, which was not laid down in the initial version of the directive, is preferable as it makes it possible to avoid barriers to trade and to facilitate the movement of propagation material within the European Union. The material produced by in vitro herbaceous cutting propagation techniques, which by now have been sufficiently mastered were, of course, not covered by the 1968 directive. The new text introduces provisions recognising special characteristics. While research into a propagation material that is more efficient in health terms is of benefit to the user, it is important that this approach does not create a barrier to trade. The draft amendment seeking to guarantee freedom to market throughout the European Union material that complies with the minimum requirements of the directive should be approved unreservedly. Finally, we must ensure that the new provisions on genetically modified varieties are in every respect compliant and compatible with existing texts, or texts in preparation, in this field. Should this regulatory mechanism need to be expanded or clarified, it would be preferable to delete the provisions relating to this point from the draft directive. We have reason to believe that the new or updated terms of the proposed directive offer a satisfactory response to the expectations of workers in the vine nursery and wine-growing sector and that they should contribute towards improving the quality of the proposed material and make it easier for the competent authorities to supervise the movement of vine cuttings and plants carried out by the institutions responsible for this. The regulations proposed by the directive, moreover, favour the production of diversified plant material by offering the best health guarantees, which is a basic requirement, in order to effectively support the restructuring of the Community vineyard sector, which is a key point in the new COM in wine-growing.

Political group: PPE-DE
The IGC still seems to be experiencing problems with the extension of qualified voting within the Council. Perhaps we should shift the focus to the issue of extending codecision with the Parliament. Parliament has proved itself a mature partner with the Council in the codecision procedure where it presently pertains. Parliament has also proved itself a serious partner within the drafting of the Charter, and it would be especially refreshing should British Prime Minister Blair publicly recognise that fact. At present the spread of codecision is neither logical nor does it accord with precise criteria. Although the previous Treaty made some progress in extending the formula, it also brought in the crazy formula of codecision plus unanimity for citizenship, social security, the rights of the self-employed and also cultural policy. The Treaty of Nice should stop that practice and extend codecision to some thirty further policy sectors, including competition policy, farm and fisheries, structural funds, state aids, trans-European networks, research and development and also citizenship. At a time when crude balance of power questions are proving fairly problematical for the IGC, surely it is sensible for it to focus on building up cooperation and trust with the Parliament and developing post-national European democracy as fast as possible.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, all the signs indicate that SARS is here to stay. In the developed western countries the situation remains under control, as things stand, but for the poor, less developed countries it might turn into a new scourge on a huge scale, one which, both directly and through its economic impact, will increase poverty, misery and the death rate. The epidemic is already now threatening what was already poor economic growth in Asian countries and, through a series of reflex actions, the entire global economy. We must also prepare for what will be a huge demand for humanitarian aid. The epidemic has been going on for only eight weeks, but one thing is certain: the decision-makers have a major role to play. There has to be a guarantee of global stability and order, because that will be crucial from the point of view of health care systems and prevention. In Finland, just one case of the disease has been reported: it was someone who fell ill having returned from a trip to Toronto. A high-ranking health official in Canada, however, has been quick to deny the possibility of infection. In a report in the Toronto Star, for example, it says that unless someone had managed to slip into a hospital to see a SARS patient in quarantine it was totally idiotic to claim that anyone had caught an infectious disease in Canada. Opinions such as these vividly bring to mind the attitude of leaders of the former Eastern Bloc countries, which was that people could not catch infectious diseases in their countries. It is incredible that the Canadian health authorities should succumb to a childish, face-saving quarrel about where the disease has come from. This sort of attitude does not help anyone. If cases of the disease are found, the health authority should have other things to do than protect its country’s business and tourism. At a general level, this shows how badly the authorities in the Western countries have prepared themselves mentally for the spread of new and dangerous infectious diseases. The extraordinary meeting of the EU Member States’ Health Ministers, with its recommendations for action, was nevertheless an important first step, but we expect more. The EU needs more powers when it comes to infectious diseases. One more detail with regard to the SARS situation deserves comment. Italy was dissatisfied with the decision of the Council of Ministers concerning action to prevent SARS, and decided to break away temporarily from the Schengen Agreement so as to be able to conduct checks itself on the state of health of people coming into the country. Whether the decision by Italy was necessary or a case of over-reacting, it none the less shows how flexible major EU agreements can be in exceptional situations if a Member State is able to propose its non-compliance with them justifiably. In this respect the EU has passed a practical test with good marks.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, by imposing recycling standards on waste electrical and electronic equipment, the European Parliament is boosting efforts to make this industry more ecologically sound. It is essentially the environment that has won through in the battle between the supporters of an innovative industry in electrical and electronic goods and the conventional manufacturers who slammed on the brakes so they could delay the date on which they would be responsible for recycling waste. Although we can congratulate the rapporteur on having chosen to deal with these products, we regret that the Commission has not taken the opportunity to deal with electrical and electronic waste and chemical substances associated with it. With regard to this second report, the Group of the deeply regrets that, out of 70 substances, only two are to be banned, when breast milk is sometimes contaminated with chemical substances from these products, such as brominated products, to levels which exceed WHO standards. Despite this harsh comment, the primary innovation of this report is that it places individual responsibility on the manufacturers, as they will become financially responsible for their products, both products that are already on the market and future products. The environmental considerations contained in the report are gaining ground, and there is growing political awareness of the danger of increasing amounts of industrial waste, particularly electrical and electronic waste. Ultimately, now that this has to happen, everyone will benefit at the end of the day: manufacturers, consumers and the environment. The report by Mr Florenz on waste electrical and electronic equipment has therefore benefited from some substantial environmental gestures, which confirm that industry in Europe must work with the aim of creating an environmentally-minded culture, for citizens and for politicians.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I am speaking to ask the Presidency to communicate with the honourable Member Mr Hans-Peter Martin and ask him to submit to the same procedure that Mr Schulz and other German colleagues have agreed to submit to with regard to the accusations made against them, particularly in the Austrian press. (Applause)

Political group: PSE