GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, rarely can a Presidency of the European Union have been so burdened with challenges and chock-full of events. These challenges are, in essence, the Intergovernmental Conference and the preparation for enlargement, which are of course interconnected. The events are the problems currently being experienced by the euro, the surge in oil prices and, on a different level, the hopes for a transition towards democracy in Yugoslavia. In other words, the French Presidency's task is no easy one. We, as elected representatives, are at least as responsible for encouraging it to make progress in the face of adversity as we are for relaying the messages that we receive from public opinion in each of our countries. These are, first and foremost, messages of concern at the economic and social problems that we are experiencing, in spite of a period of sustained growth stemming from years of efforts by all our fellow citizens. During this French Presidency of the Union, we expect a firm unified response from the 15 Member States to these issues, which are of prime concern to our fellow citizens, one that will enable a rapid reversal of these trends. Should this fail to materialise, we should not be surprised if public opinion proves sceptical about Europe, or even rejects it. Then there are messages of encouragement concerning the IGC negotiations in preparation for the enlargement of the Union. These are, as we know, very tricky negotiations and raise fears of a setback or a watered-down agreement in Nice which, as you have already acknowledged, Mr Moscovici, would be even more serious. The European Parliament, and the peoples of Europe it represents, expect the extraordinary European Council Meeting in Biarritz to mark a leap forward, a political wake-up call for the Heads of State and Government. The policy of one step at a time no longer suits the scale of the challenges that confront us, but your determination on both counts is evident in your statements. Let us restore a human dimension to Europe. Incorporating the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaties would be a major step in this direction. Let us, as a Europe of 15 Member States, organise ourselves in order to be able to welcome those countries who are knocking at the door into the fold under respectable conditions. Let us at last find the clarity of vision to define the borders of Europe. I started by mentioning the events in Yugoslavia. If only we could draw from the courage and perseverance in adversity shown by our friends in Serbia, Europe would be able to make better headway and be more readily understood and supported by its citizens.

Political group: PPE-DE
Thank you, Madam President, this ‘debate’ speaks volumes about the chasm between Europe and its citizens. While we know that there is little public support for enlargement, there is hardly a critical noise to be heard in this House. This confirms the impression that this is the umpteenth European project that is being forced through by a European elite instead of holding an honest, open dialogue with genuinely concerned people. Honourable ladies and gentlemen of the Council and of the Commission, these people are not only rightwing-populist and anti-European types, they are also ordinary citizens with real concerns. In order to give this honest dialogue a shot in the arm, the is asking why the EU is granting asylum to people from countries with whom we are round the negotiating table? Either those countries are safe, in which case we should not accept any asylum seekers, or they are not safe, and they need to be taken to task over this in the framework of the political criteria. The is taking the asylum obligations arising from the Geneva Convention very seriously. We want a humane and just policy. How can we achieve this following enlargement? This is our question.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, since the Commissioner has now indicated that he will be adopting so many of Parliament’s amendments, I have one pertinent question for the Commissioner. Does that also mean that you will now first be fine-tuning the specific programmes which you have drafted earlier before they can be discussed in Parliament?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, colleagues, a happy new year and millennium to you all. I am speaking for the first time in this plenary part-session, so this is quite exciting for me, a little like first love, although that did last longer than two minutes. I would like to briefly comment on the Commission’s proposal to amend the directive on the transport of dangerous goods by road. It is good that this directive should be established now, as, otherwise, Member States would have to amend their national acts for a very short time, a period of transition, which would again mean unnecessary costs and which would once more increase concern with regard to EU bureaucracy. The Commission’s proposal, however, does not take account of all the facts, such as the cold climate that prevails in the northern regions. Consequently, I have tabled some amendments to Mr Koch’s intrinsically excellent report, which have been adopted by our committee. My amendments concern the frost-resistance ratings for tankers carrying these dangerous goods. According to the Commission’s proposal –20°C would have been sufficient. On the shores of the Mediterranean, it is hard to imagine that in Lapland temperatures can fall considerably lower than that. There is support for the EU in Lapland also, so let us remember them. I have thus proposed that the frost rating be lowered to –40°C. This would be necessary to keep safety standards at the level they were in northern regions previously. I hope my proposal will be taken into consideration in tomorrow’s vote.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I shall not now echo the compliments paid to Mr Lamy or he will start to blush. I take it that he is aware that this House is also grateful for the part he played and for the way in which he involved the European Parliament delegation. With your permission, I shall comment on the consequences of the failure of this ministerial conference. What conclusions should we draw in terms of continuing the work? One thing is certain: whether there is another ministerial conference now or whether work has to proceed on a step-by-step basis, never again can another working round be allowed to open without there being a clear agenda which has been put to the vote and agreed. This must surely be one of the consequences. If we are now to continue the work solely on the basis of Article 20 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, what then are our responsibilities under the agreement? I am convinced that they are perfectly obvious: Article 20 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture contains the condition that, amongst other things, non-trade-related concerns are also to be taken into account. For this reason, at every step, at all the negotiations, the precautionary principle must be constantly reiterated; it must be put repeatedly on the agenda as if this were a Tibetan prayer wheel. Each of the speakers here keeps repeating the words: consumer protection, precautionary principle and environment policy, but then we also need to make this clear. We also need to make it clear that environmental standards and food safety are often hotly disputed here, that it is only with difficulty that we achieve this here in the European Union, that the legislation is controversial, and that if we have adopted it, it is because of our responsibility to the people of the European Union – to whom we are accountable as elected parliamentarians – and not for reasons of tactical protectionism. We also need to make this clear. From now on, it must go without saying that extending individual parts of the WTO rules or overhauling them completely can only be possible once this institution is at long last democratic, once it is transparent and once it is less authoritarian. Perhaps the failure of this first WTO Ministerial Conference is also a huge blessing in disguise because the arrogance and lack of democracy has been exposed and now we have an opportunity to change it. The time is right to do so!

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I think I also speak for the Committee on Constitutional Affairs that I chair, in expressing my appreciation of this Commission initiative. Moreover, this initiative is consistent with recommendations made by Parliament itself in its resolution of 18 November. I have also heard Commissioner Barnier’s clarification of relations and links with the European Parliament during the implementation of this programme. If I may make a suggestion, Commissioner Barnier, would it be possible for the communication to say something more on this subject, in addition to the straightforward and slightly clinical phrase which indicates that it will be carried out in conjunction with the European Parliament? It would be helpful to stress this convergence of intentions and efforts because I can see a particular problem with coordination, specifically between the Commission initiative – which certainly does not only address members of national parliaments, but also members of national parliaments – and our committee’s programme. Following the working meeting of 1 February, which Commissioner Barnier referred to and which benefited from the weighty contribution of the Commission, the committee intends to take stock of developments at the Intergovernmental Conference at all of its meetings. We therefore hope to benefit from the capable and consistent participation of members of national parliaments at all of our meetings, and this will be a channel which will ably supplement the ones in the Commission’s initiative.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to first congratulate both rapporteurs for their excellent work but my comments will be addressed to the Duff report. Mr Duff took a difficult report on a subject that was triggered by a particular case of high controversy and which remains a particular case of high controversy and where my side of the House still differs substantially in its views from many of those on the other side of the House. Nevertheless, in taking on that case, Mr Duff managed to produce consensus by focusing on the procedures and not on the particular case, and he did this with considerable skill. If I may return a compliment to him that he paid me earlier this evening, every parliament needs an Andrew Duff. My group can therefore support what he has done: the clarity with which he has drafted these new Rules and the innovations therein – the innovation that opens the door for us, as a parliament, to assert the immunity of a Member where no request has been forwarded to us to waive it, but proceedings have been started in a Member State, or may be started, and the innovation that there may indeed be more than one national authority that is competent to request the waiver of immunity. All that, in my opinion, is to the good. My group will, therefore, be voting for his report but we are still debating paragraph 8 of amendment 2, where we do have a fear that, in essence, it contradicts the previous paragraphs in the report, and where it opens the door to Parliament becoming involved in the substance of a case rather than in whether or not there should be a waiver of immunity. That wording is one on which we may request a split vote and vote against. But we are still open to dialogue with the rapporteur on this because we know what an excellent job he has done. IN THE CHAIR: MR PUERTAVice-President

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as my fellow Members have stated, water is a limited natural resource that citizens have a fundamental right to access and use. We cannot, therefore, support the amendments that talk of water as being a commodity or those which talk about the private management of water. And we will be voting against these amendments. However, I do believe that the rational use of water is an absolute necessity, as stated in Mrs Flemming’s report, and also a moral responsibility for Europeans with regard to those populations that have an enormous water deficit. Article 9 of the framework directive which, as the Commissioner knows very well, required a great deal of time and discussion time to complete, provides for the recovery of costs. The same directive, however, and the report by Mrs Flemming, as other speakers have mentioned, state that different regional, social and climatological situations should be taken into account, which leads on to the need to adopt water-saving measures in order to prevent leaks from water production and distribution systems, and to ensure the maximum re-usage of purified water, as well as the improvement of irrigation techniques. In order to achieve this, the public, and those who work in the three sectors affected: domestic, agricultural and industrial, need to be informed. The quality and purity of water must also be improved. Commissioner, there is still a high level of nitrates in water and this should be addressed, as we have always said in the European Parliament. I would like to finish, Mr President, by saying that it is hardly surprising that, in the context in which we are speaking, there should be clear opposition to the Spanish National Hydrological Plan, approved, it is true, by a majority in the Spanish Parliament, for it is based principally on the use of reservoirs and the transfer of water in rivers such as the Ebro that could have a disastrous effect on an ecosystem that is unique in Europe. Furthermore, the planned reservoirs are located in Special Protection Areas. For this reason, it must be said, Commissioner, that, without wishing to condemn my own country in particular, we must pay more attention to how European funds are used.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Globalisation in the neo-liberal sense means that the companies that produce the cheapest goods always win. For some time, this was seen as a huge advantage to the consumer and a form of justice. It is increasingly becoming evident that many of these products can only be so cheap because of appallingly low wages, unhealthy and unsafe working conditions, dismissal of workers as soon as they are surplus to requirements for the shortest period of time, child labour, the destruction of nature, pollution of the environment and torture of animals. The Committee on Employment and Social Affairs rightly notes that the World Trade Organisation makes it extremely difficult to do anything about these wrongs. The solution is seen as the EU manifesting itself as a superpower in order to be able to enforce better rules. I am generally not in favour of the EU acting as a superpower, but where it concerns enforcing better standards for labour and the environment compared to the low standards in America and the developing world, I wholeheartedly endorse this role. The question is whether an invitation to the European Commission, the Council, the Member States and the employers’ organisations to follow the International Labour Organisation during the forthcoming WTO negotiations is all that is required, or whether we are also prepared to protest against a permanently unwilling WTO.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I can identify with the criticisms and fears that have been referred to, among them the lack of Parliamentary control, the need for improvements in information policy, and transparency. With all due respect, Commissioner, there are still, between confidentiality and absolute transparency, many practicable ways ahead. This is a reproach directed at the Member States and also at the Commission. Rather than providing elucidation about the various demands or the degree of willingness to deregulate, the documents available tend to be more of a playground for those who interpret these things. Commissioner Lamy, you began with a report full of atmosphere, propagandising for the European model, and referring to the interest of developing countries. I would have liked it if Parliament, in its resolution, were to have more to say about the developing countries. What you said at the outset about privatisation, though, is not something that this House should accept without demur. A chain of consequences follows if you give people what they want. I do not want Brussels to be the venue for a debate on a liberalisation introduced to Europe through a back door called GATS. Both my esteemed colleague Mrs Fraisse and Mrs Hieronymi have already voiced the most important things about art and culture, matters which are of political concern to me as well. It is perhaps enough for me to say that it is to you that we owe the distinction between working defensively and working offensively. Thank you very much for the report you have put before us today. It is now for us to move into the second stage, taking the offensive in the same way and joining as one in this debate, using every possible means of action available to us in order to create an international and binding instrument to protect and promote cultural diversity.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I asked to take the floor for the explanation of vote on the Hulthén report too. I did not hear it announced, and in any case, it does not matter, I can have a reply afterwards. I voted for this attuning of the institutional aspects of the European agreement between the Communities and their Member States on the one hand, and the Republic of Hungary on the other. I would like to emphasise that this once again shows that, before proceeding to enlarging the European Union, we need to consolidate existing relations between the Member States, even political ones, after which we can consider extending them. Even here, we find ourselves in the position of having to revise some institutional clauses in order to take into account the enlargement we have already carried out. - Grossetête recommendation for second reading (A5-0080/1999)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is an awkward situation, this tenth anniversary of the elections of the NLD in Burma. Awkward because the Burmese junta was successful in obtaining international recognition. I refer, naturally, to Burma joining the ASEAN. It is quite possible that the other ASEAN Member States decided in favour of this with the best of intentions and in the hope that this would kick-start the democratisation process in Burma. We have to ascertain, however, that this is not how it worked, that this attempt failed and may well have brought about the opposite effect, judging from the smirks on the faces of the Burmese rulers when they hosted the ASEAN meeting of Ministers for Economic Affairs earlier this month. In our opinion, relations between the European Union and ASEAN should not suffer because of the problems within Burma. These relations are too important for this. It does mean, however, that, if this situation continues, we will need to discuss the situation in Burma in our contacts with ASEAN. However, we have to ascertain at the same time that our own sanctions were not that effective either. It may be opportune to consider whether we can take so-called intelligent sanctions against Burma. After all, sanctions should just focus on the one goal, namely the reinstatement of democracy in Burma.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, many countries in the European Union, and particularly my own, Portugal, are experiencing cases of the exploitation of people from Eastern Europe who, having come to find a better lifestyle, fall victims to organised gangs which exploit their suffering. The exploitation of human beings, men, women and children, is an abhorrent phenomenon, whatever its purpose may be: for clandestine work, to work in the sex industry or for any other reason. We therefore have a responsibility to fight this scourge and to create the necessary legislative instruments. This was our aim and we tried to reach a common definition of the elements of these types of crime, and attempted to establish minimum thresholds for the maximum penalties that could be imposed. We also sought to define rules of competence and of police and judicial cooperation. I wish to congratulate Mrs Klamt, Mrs Karamanou and Commissioner Vitorino for the commitment they have demonstrated in these matters. Issues related to the trafficking of human beings and the sexual exploitation of children must indeed be one of the main priorities of the European Union’s political agenda. We must step up the fight against the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography by improving the measures adopted by the joint action of February 1997 and by ensuring that there can be no safe havens for the perpetrators of sex crimes against children when we suspect that they may have committed a crime in a country other than their own. We must also complement the work that has already been undertaken by the Union and the international Community. Amongst these, we should highlight the fact that, in December 2000, the United Nations protocol on trafficking in human beings was adopted under the Convention on transnational organised crime, which was signed by 81 States. Our Parliament’s approval of these proposals would constitute a clear demonstration of our will to wage an effective fight against these unacceptable violations of people’s dignity and human rights. I am delighted that the Council has reached agreement on the basic principles of the proposal for a Framework Decision on the fight against trafficking in human beings, but I am sorry that it could not reach consensus on the level of criminal sanctions.

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, you are proceeding with the utmost caution, and that is an approach which I support. With reference to the argument of subsidiarity, I should simply like to tell you that, in my opinion, it is also important to put forward the argument of citizenship in fiscal matters. After fifty years of building Europe, it is unacceptable that the citizens of Europe should not be equal in the eyes of the law simply due to their being classed as resident or non-resident. The concept of citizenship is common property, on behalf of which we must move beyond failures such as Helsinki. I have three specific questions that I would like to ask you: My first question is this: do you anticipate that the instrument you are proposing might be applicable to the integration of financial markets and the requisite tax regulation thereof? My second question is: does the instrument that you are proposing in the area of environmental taxation provide for qualified majority voting? My third question is: would the instrument you are proposing enable the Council to put an end, by qualified majority decision, to the tax havens which exist within the European Union?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I simply wanted to add my voice to that of Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi before the vote started, to say that I regret very much the absence of the Council from this debate on such important votes on matters of the Third Pillar. I should like you, Madam President, to express to the Council our wish that they be present at such votes in future. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, honourable Members, efforts to set limits for pollutants produced by waste incineration and to introduce specific control procedures are indeed a positive step. It is unacceptable for pollution to be transferred from the air into water and the ground. The directive makes some headway in that direction. Nevertheless, the problems inherent in waste incineration still remain, since it is the actual burning process which produces toxic substances, including dioxins. This applies even more to domestic waste which contains negligible quantities of toxic substances before it is burned. Treating dangerous and non-dangerous waste in the same way therefore exacerbates the problem. What is more, the cost of installing and operating incineration units is far higher than the cost of mechanical recycling or sanitary landfill. In a nutshell, the legislative proposal under discussion will not solve the problems inherent in incineration as a waste management method.

Political group: GUE-NGL