GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Commissioner, since your appointment you have adopted a very good habit of consulting and informing the European Parliament, for which we are grateful. We are also grateful for your support for the changes to the Treaty necessary to give us the powers we need in the trade area. Just as you are responsive to us, we have to be responsive to those who elect us. You know as well as we do that there are genuine and widespread worries about GATS. You have mentioned some of them: transparency, the feeling that a lot of unsavoury things are being done secretly; threats to EU jobs, which have prompted, I suppose, the dock workers' demonstration we saw today; threats to public services, with particularly acute dangers to developing countries; threats to the ability of Member States to regulate, and particular fears in the culture area, on which others will speak. At the same time, the European public is well aware – since 60% of them or more work in service industries – that there are possibilities for EU firms in widespread trade in services. So they face the dual interest which you have delineated. Developing countries have not rejected GATS completely. However, the fears about public services, regulation and extension and the fact that the developing countries do not have the capacity for the administration that an opening-up of service markets will require all mean that the implications of opening up trade in services need to be very fully assessed. I would put more emphasis on that than on anything else in our resolution. Before we go any further we want to know - not in a perfunctory exercise but in a detailed and comprehensive assessment - what this means.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I echo the sentiments of the two previous speakers in wholeheartedly welcoming this motion unequivocally to condemn the appalling human rights record of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and in particular the persecution of Afghan women in the name of religion and culture. Women have borne the brunt of tragedy in Afghanistan through years of war. They have suffered a multitude of human rights abuses: rape, sexual assault, forced marriages and prostitution. The intimidation of women has been used as a means of dishonouring and dehumanising entire communities. Since the Taliban regime took over in 1996, the plight of Afghan women has continued. A barbaric social code has been imposed, based on intimidation, humiliation and coercion of a female population that has been stripped of all its fundamental human rights. For Afghan women freedom of expression, freedom of employment, freedom to attend health and family-planning courses, access to education, all those things as we know them simply do not exist. Yet it was not until 15 October this year that the European Council took action on an air embargo and a freeze on funds to the Taliban. That was not as a result of the apartheid-style policies of the regime vis-à-vis women, but as the result of the Taliban protection of Mr Bin Laden. Nevertheless, I believe that this action should continue until the unacceptable discrimination against women in Afghanistan comes to an end. The first speaker put it very well in saying that this resolution can play a part in that process. It may be a small part, but we certainly have a responsibility as a Parliament to play some part in bringing this regime and its inhumane policies to an end.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to respond to the Commissioner's position by saying, in my capacity as rapporteur, that it corresponds completely with my recommendation to this House. Let me say, for the information of Members of this House, that, at any rate in the German version produced by our interpreters, whenever the Commissioner spoke of amendments, the word was rendered as ‘articles’. The numbers that the Commissioner has cited refer, however, to the amendments rather than to the articles of the original text. My group asked for these to be voted on separately, but I can withdraw this request. A mistake has been made. This means that Amendments Nos 13 to 23, which were to be voted on separately, can now be voted on en bloc. Before the vote on Article 6(8):

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Blokland for this report; he has had a very hard job to do. Drafting environmental legislation for the whole of Europe is a demanding task, as circumstances in Member States differ enormously. I myself come from a country where we have already opted for a policy that corresponds amazingly closely to the EU strategy on waste. Only Finland has already embarked on perfectly feasible practices, as you have heard this evening. Therefore, it is tiresome to see that the same mechanisms that are needed to guide those countries that have been lax in their attention to the matter of waste disposal, are forcing the more advanced countries to take a step backwards. This should not be happening. Mrs Paulsen, was right: this is exactly where compliance with the principle of subsidiarity is needed. If more stringent requirements regarding emissions are being illogically imposed on the use of waste as fuel than for other fuels, fuels classified as waste will cease to be used. There are no alternative proposed uses for waste: it would be deposited in landfill sites. That will add to the formation of methane, as a result of putrefaction of organic waste, and the greenhouse phenomenon. This holds true especially for the incineration of harmless sludge produced by the paper and cellulose industry. It is important that Parliament amends the proposal for the directive in this respect in accordance with the Committee’s amendment. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy adopted some proposals that, if realised, would make it harder to practise ecologically justified coincineration. For example, the limit values for emissions for fuel that is not waste in coincineration are required to be the same as for waste as fuel, even though the same material may be incinerated and give off higher levels of emissions, under EU legislation. Another example is the call for the ongoing monitoring of the ammonia content of gas from chimneys. That will add substantially to the costs of monitoring with no benefit to the environment, as the monitoring obligations have not just been imposed on those plants where ammonia emissions are generally produced. Investments that do not bring a value added element with regard to the environment mean less investments that are of benefit to the environment.

Political group: PPE-DE
A framework decision is legally binding upon the Member States. It is not, however, covered by the codecision procedure, and democratic control by the European Parliament is limited. Legislation of this kind must be covered by a democratic decision-making process. Serious organised crime must be fought by means that are effective but in ways that accord with the rule of law. For a country like Sweden, which has no constitutional court, the rule of law aspect is especially sensitive. The absence of a constitutional court means that people obviously have little opportunity to check up on what is, or is not, constitutional. Such control by the courts is also missing at European level.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the difficult circumstances which have accompanied the management of the 1999 budget, of which we are all well aware, have especially affected funds for external relations and, even more, aid to third countries, including the European Development Fund. For the Socialist Group, the good management of the European Development Fund is not only essential for reasons of correct and transparent accounting, but because this fund and all Community aid resources are essential if we are to contribute to reducing poverty, which is one of our priorities. We are therefore closely monitoring the Commission’s action in this area. The eventful journey of this report through the competent committees, leading to its approval, is a testimony to this interest. Last year we made our 1998 discharge conditional upon the orientation of Community spending towards reducing poverty and we improved the structure of the budget in this respect, in order to reduce the risks of dispersal of aid funds. This year we have delayed, on one occasion, the discharge, while awaiting a series of reports from the Court of Auditors. We are now in a position to approve it, now that the Commission has adopted a series of measures to improve the effectiveness of aid, in particular the creation of Europe Aid, but at the same time certain data leads to some reservations: in 1999 the level of payments from the EDF was disappointing when compared to the level of commitment appropriations and payments achieved in previous years, as Mrs Rühle has said. Initiatives such as the reduction of the debt of the least-developed countries are not being complied with in accordance with the commitments the Commission has made. Contracts funded by the EDF essentially benefit companies in the Member States, to the detriment of local companies and organisations. The Commission is not yet sufficiently directing its aid towards reducing poverty. We want simplification of procedures, integration of the cycle of cooperation, transparency in management, assessment in such important sectors as health and education. We will monitor compliance with the recommendations of the resolution we are debating today. The Commission knows that it has the support of the Socialist Group in its efforts to improve the management of the EDF and the Socialist Group trusts that we will see these improvements during the coming financial years, so that we are able to discharge the budget with fewer problems and conditions than has been the case so far. Thank you very much.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would prefer it if, for once, we could have a debate on Latin America following well-prepared discussions in the committees, rather than it being part of some urgent procedure or other. It seems to me that we only ever deal with events in Latin America on a case by case basis, but otherwise pursue a very reticent policy. It is a shame, because the continent merits more attention. As far as Peru is concerned, a number of speakers, and also our resolution, have pointed to the fact that President Fujimori’s forthcoming resignation offers scope for a fresh start. I am not so sure whether this will be the case though, because there have already been one or two disturbing developments on this front, and I will only be convinced once Fujimori has actually stepped down or been voted out of office. I therefore think it is extremely important for the European Union to get fully involved with this country, and with the situation in Peru, for example by maintaining an orderly dialogue with the forces of opposition. I would like us to send the delegation that we wanted to send to the elections – which then failed to take place for reasons we are all familiar with – to Peru now, with a view to supporting those who are working towards democratic reform in the country. And if that were to be the outcome of this afternoon’s sitting, I would be more than satisfied.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am speaking on behalf of Gerardo Galeote, signatory, together with General Morillon, of the resolution on this issue. I have arrived late for this debate, but I have had time to listen to some speeches and I believe we should return to the basic issues. I believe there are three basic issues: firstly, terrorism is the great threat to the Rule of Law and to open and democratic societies today; secondly, the United States and Europe share the same vision, the same social organisation and, of course, the idea that respect for human rights is the very cement of our organisation. Thirdly, we must clearly state that, if the European Union flies any flag, it is the flag of respect for human rights. On this basis, we clearly can and must raise our voices and, rather than ask, say, because asking would mean believing that the prisoners in the Guantánamo base are not being treated in accordance with humanitarian principles and the truth is that all the indications suggest that they are. I am not going to enter into the argument about whether or not the Geneva Convention applies to them. We in the European Union must say that, in the case of any doubt, the principles of the Geneva Convention must be applied, but that the Geneva Convention itself lays down a legal basis to resolve all those issues which may endanger the security of the organisation or the prisoners themselves, while a judicial tribunal establishes whether they have the right to protection under the Geneva Convention or not. So far, Mr President, I have the impression that they are being treated absolutely correctly and that therefore this debate is unfocused. This has probably been an error in terms of European public opinion – if not in terms of American public opinion –, a public relations error, because the truth is that it has been the United States itself that has published these photos which so offend our sensibilities. We must clearly continue, and we will continue, to be vigilant, but always on the basis of the idea that we are fighting this war together.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission’s study, which supports this proposal, is both terrifying and encouraging. It is terrifying because it presents a tragic view of the health situation in countries where the three major scourges of this century which we are discussing are concentrated: AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis claim more than five million victims every year. AIDS is the most recent scourge with, however, 90% of cases found mainly in developing countries and 70% in Sub-Saharan Africa: there are more than 40 million infected people. Malaria reappeared in the 1970s and claims one million victims each year. Tuberculosis, which has been eradicated from western countries, kills two million people each year, perhaps also, as with malaria, owing to the so-called developed countries irresponsibly lowering their guard. It is encouraging because of the figures on the new effort being made by all the Member States, which have appropriated EUR 600 million for research in addition to the 100 million stipulated by the Fifth Framework Programme. It is now important that this programme reaches the recipients directly, overcoming the usual problem of the extremely high cost of medicines, especially for countries which do not have the necessary budgets and which need considerable assistance. I would therefore reiterate a proposal which has already been put forward in order to cut these costs: the abolition of all royalties for medicines, making, if possible, not just the European Union pharmaceutical companies assume their responsibilities but those all over the world. In conclusion, it is important for our political activity not to be yet again an end in itself, restricted just to debate in this Chamber: for once, when the Member States and other countries, in conjunction, intend to take real action, let us give an example of pragmatism and responsibility. Certainly, the Charter of Fundamental Rights matters more than market rules.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, following your statement yesterday regarding the state of the air conditioning in the building, I have a slight problem in my position as Chairman of the Delegation for relations with Canada. I have a group of Canadian members of parliament coming to the next part-session in Strasbourg. I will have to take a decision on Monday as to whether they will be travelling to Strasbourg or Brussels. Bearing in mind the French position on the precautionary principle, can a decision be taken rather sooner than a fortnight on where we will be meeting next month?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would not want Mr Bolkestein to return home thinking that there are extremely mysterious goings-on in this Parliament. The first part of the amendment which the Commissioner mentioned remains unchanged, something which he, in fact, endorsed. We, too, thought that the second part was set out in a rather peculiar way, all the more so since it was not Parliament’s intention to set up a new institute. We have converted this part into a recital, which contains more or less the same question for redress procedures as the 1997 directive. With this, I believe that all mysterious elements have been removed, and we will thus all be able to concentrate on the second reading.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, may I join in the praise of the Presidents of the Commission and Council for having brokered the deal at Laeken. To have got a British Prime Minister to have signed up to the prospect of a federal constitution is an extraordinary thing. It is certainly unprecedented. I fear though that the size of the podium in this chamber will require strengthening and extension so that it can fit in Valerie Giscard d’Estaing and his entourage. The European citizen will feel truly privileged that we have such a grand praesidium to service our work. Thank you for the 60 questions or so. Frankly, I would have wished for more. First, there is nothing on strengthening the powers of the Court. Secondly, there is nothing on revising the formula of a qualified majority in the Council. Thirdly, there is nothing on strengthening the role of the regions within the political system of the Union and, fourthly and finally, we would have appreciated some critical self-assessment of the functioning and performance of the European Council itself. But we are blessed with a truly pluralist procedure – an exciting and novel one – and we retain the freedom within the Convention to ask ourselves questions. We will exploit that freedom.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I should first like to thank both the Presidency and the Commission. In my opinion, they have both done a splendid piece of work over a long period. I find it very encouraging that the timetable for the negotiations with the candidate countries looks as if it will be kept to, so that the negotiations concerning ten countries can be concluded by December under the Danish Presidency. The candidate countries have made a great effort to comply with the Copenhagen Criteria and implement the EU’s regulations. One crucial thing is now missing, namely a strengthening of the administrative capacity or management structure so that the legislation can also responsibly be put into effect. I would again praise the Commission for its action programme for developing administrative capacity. In my view, this has been a big help to many candidate countries. The ten candidate countries will probably be ready, but rather more doubts can be entertained about the EU’s own preparedness. I think this is cause for concern, not because of either the Commission’s or the Spanish Presidency’s handling of the matter but because we are in the grotesque situation in which the Fifteen have still not been able to reach agreement on a common position regarding the issue of direct aid to agriculture, and the divisions between the EU countries are particularly striking in this area. Until such time, furthermore, as there is a common position, we must stick to the Commission’s proposal in the area of agriculture, which I should like, moreover, to applaud. It is a sensible and very balanced proposal which can also ensure that the competitive situation for both Polish and other farmers is fair and just, without the EU’s funds drying up in the course of a few years. I think it is also right constantly to emphasise that enlargement and the forthcoming agricultural reform should be kept separate. In my opinion, it would be an historic mistake if the candidate countries were to be turned into hostages of the Member States’ own internal disagreements. I have great confidence that the Danish Presidency, together with the Commission, can take over the issue and that, jointly, they will do their utmost to remove the remaining sticking points so that the dream we all have of a Europe characterised by close cooperation can become a reality.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am as delighted as others are that we are having this debate today for the first time in our elected parliament in this session. It is long overdue, for the reasons which our previous speakers have already underlined. Relations between India and Pakistan are indeed deteriorating, with Kashmir being a particular bone of contention. Tensions are also being aggravated by the fact that these two countries are nuclear powers. Indeed, in the Herald Tribune of Tuesday, March 14, 2000, the headline reads: “Nuclear war between India and Pakistan is a real possibility”. For this reason alone, supported also by the well-known UN resolutions and the reference which has already been made to the constant violation of human rights, Kashmir is no longer a problem that can be swept under the carpet and not debated in this Parliament, as has happened for many years. It is increasingly an international problem and one where mediation will, in my view, become essential. So what can we do to bring long-term stability to this volatile region? We discussed this issue when we met with members of the US Congress in our normal framework of delegations earlier this year. The US is in favour of arbitration, but it strikes me that, when President Clinton visits these two countries next week, India should be asked to come to the negotiating table so that, together with Pakistan, it can find a long-term settlement to this Kashmir question. Equally, the European Union should, when formulating policy towards South-East Asia, raise the profile of this issue in order that we in the Foreign Affairs Committee can have a more substantive reason to have a debate in our Chamber in a few months’ time. As these two approaches are made, this two-pronged approach by the European Union and the United States is, in my view, the best way to start the process for long-term peace and stability in this region. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
I would like to remind the Commissioner that, about one year ago, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in favour of people living near Heathrow airport in London whose sleep was disturbed by night flights, who received confirmation that as it happens this was indeed a violation of human rights. This decision by the European Court of Human Rights could become case-law, to the advantage of people living near airports. I consider, however, that the European Commission should speed up its work to take practical measures with a view to preventing these matters from being resolved through the courts. What we need are effective European measures that would make it possible to decrease exposure to noise for people living near airports, particularly at night. Commissioner, do you not think that Article 1 of Directive 2002/30/EC, adopted in March 2002, which provides precisely for a reduction in the amount of people exposed to noise, should be more specifically followed by practical measures to reduce the level of exposure suffered by these people?

Political group: Verts-ALE