GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I congratulate Mr Harbour on his first report. For a new Member he has done very well on this. He gave a clear explanation of what the report is about. I would like to pick up on a couple of the aspects he touched upon. These relate to the question of safety. Safety was pertinent to this report all the way through. At the very end it picks up the question of safety of two-wheeled vehicles. Perhaps not many people here realise that there are more accidents involving motorbikes in the vicinity of roundabouts than anywhere else on motorways or roads. Why is that? It is because of diesel spillage. Mr Harbour recognises that in his first amendment. He states quite clearly that diesel spillage is a danger to users of two-wheeled vehicles. So we have to look at why there is more spillage of diesel around motorways. It is because of missing caps or ill-fitting caps on fuel tanks. As these commercial vehicles go round roundabouts the fuel tends to spill out and motorbikes following closely behind skid on the greasy surface that diesel leaves. Therefore, the second amendment tackles this whole question of the ill-fitting caps and, sometimes, no caps at all. I congratulate him on that. I should also like to point out that motorcycling is enjoying a boom at the moment. There is a revival in motorcycling. I do not know why. I look around this room and see that most of us are probably approaching middle age. Maybe some of us hanker back to our younger days and fulfilling the role of Dennis Hopper in the film Easy Rider. I do not know, but anyway motorcycling is enjoying a revival. I welcome that, and if there is increasing usage of motorcycles on the roads, then we have to make those roads safer. Therefore my group will fully support Mr Harbour’s report.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, hearing the other speakers, I note that we all agree on the facts. The harsh and tragic figures are there for all to see. The 50 poorest countries spend twice what they receive in aid in order to pay off their debt. An average of 40% of the budget of poor countries is dedicated to debt payments. Not only does that undermine their economic development, not only does that significantly reduce their ability to provide basic social services, such as health or education, but it creates a sort of slavery which benefits Western societies. In fact two thirds of the debt is generated by interest on earlier loans, loans taken out to pay for the things we sold them, which multinationals sold them. This is highly reminiscent of the exploitation of agricultural workers in some countries who are forced to buy from the boss’s shop at inflated prices and who are then forced to work for the rest of their lives for scant wages in order to pay off their debts to this shop. What action are we taking to prevent this? The G7 countries announced amid much publicity a debt reduction programme, but conditions are such that it cannot be applied. This initiative remains subject to macroeconomic reform programmes under the aegis of the IMF or the World Bank, which run counter to the objectives of eradicating poverty, due to their restrictive effect on the ability to spend on social services and job creation. Some major countries have announced that they are going to cancel debts, but this is selective, linked to the interests of certain parties, and is achieved to the detriment of development budgets. The indebted countries were expecting a strong message from the Conference between the European Union and Africa held in Cairo recently. They were given plenty of fine words, but no practical action. What initiatives do the Commission and the Council propose to take at European or international level in order to further relieve or cancel the burden of debt in order to aid the poorest countries? How does the Commission plan to ensure that the appropriations made available by cancelling the debt are properly invested in eradicating poverty and in sustainable development? Finally, what is the Commission’s reaction to the requests presented by some civil society organisations in the countries of the south for improvements in monitoring the macroeconomic adaptation plan, by organising conferences on national development, in order to give public opinion in these countries an opportunity to define national priorities and projects?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the Air Quality Framework Directive of 1996 provides the basis for the act now under discussion and three earlier ones. The framework directive lists the air pollutants for which limit values, target values and, where necessary, alert thresholds must be laid down. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy accepted 60 amendments to the Commission’s proposal and in this way it, as well as other issues, were brought more in line with the three earlier directives on the quality of ambient air. This integrated package on the quality of ambient air now being finalised will be an effective way of preventing air pollution in the EU, except in one important area: small particles. At the present time it is difficult to measure the tiniest particles of all and for that reason it is in practice impossible. It is the human body, however, that is most defenceless against these smallest particles. Whilst larger particles get trapped at different points in our respiratory organs, the smaller ones get straight into our lungs, and there they remain. The risk to health is obvious. The Commission’s technical working groups are, in my opinion, the right place to assess the risk of particles and the possibility of measuring them. The experts in different areas in these working groups should formulate opinions on individual pollutants, based on current knowledge, and so present data that proposals for directives can be based on. As the package of four directives on ambient air quality is now being finalised, the working groups should be given the task of dealing with the problems relating to small particles with the aim of establishing common methods and assessment criteria in the Member States. This would be an essential addition to the list of Community objectives to improve air quality and promote public health in the Member States.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the challenge confronting us is how Europe can do more for crisis prevention and management, and the proposals which we are debating are the only way we can achieve that more effectively. I congratulate the Commissioner on the lead he is setting for greater efficiency not only in aid, but also in this area. I thank him particularly for his undertaking to examine my proposal for a European public security force, because there are several organisations across Europe which could offer experience, not least the Royal Ulster Constabulary in Northern Ireland. I want to address a word to people in London. It is reported in the newspapers that certain people in London are saying they would end the EU's involvement in the defence process. To London I say: you cannot do that; be realistic! You could possibly end the UK's involvement, but you cannot stop what the European Union is doing. Please face reality. This is a valuable new development in which we are involved and which we are debating. We must try to shape it positively. I look forward to further debate on these questions, being Parliament's rapporteur on the Rapid Reaction Facility that we will be dealing with later in the year.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I rise concerning Rules 7(1), 7(2) and 8(4) of our Rules of Procedure to ask whether you or your services have received a communication from the British Government informing you that the Conservative Party has asked to change one of three names on its list, which would remove the name of someone elected in the East Midlands region in the European elections last June. The change would be to remove the name of Mr William Newton Dunn and replace it with Mr Javed Arain, the fourth-ranked Conservative, who is here with us today in the public gallery. You will no doubt know that the system of proportional representation was used for the first time in the UK in the last European elections and the people who voted in these elections voted for a party whose views they agreed with, not for an individual. Perhaps if no communication has been forthcoming you could contact the British Government to ask for their official, legal position. Finally, under Rule 7(3), I ask that the committee responsible, mentioned in this rule, look into the credentials of Mr Newton Dunn to see whether he has, in fact, proceeded in accordance with the Act of 20 September 1976, as detailed in our Rules of Procedure.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I do not want to address all the issues raised in the Commission’s proposal for a directive on data protection in electronic communications. Most of the proposals are well-founded and necessary, and have our support. This also applies to the work of the rapporteur, Mr Cappato, whom I would like to congratulate on his work. There is one highly controversial issue, however. What is our position on direct advertising by e-mail? At present, there are four Member States in Europe which have opt-in systems, which means that commercial e-mails are banned if they are unsolicited, and are permitted only with the prior consent of the recipient. Most other Member States have an opt-out solution, with individuals having to register on Robinson lists if they do not wish to receive commercial e-mails. We therefore have two options: Amendments Nos 42, 43 and 44 proposed by the Committee and the rapporteur call for an opt-out solution as a minimum standard, supplemented by Amendment No 61, which provides for review after three years. Countries which have an existing opt-in system can continue with this as an “add-on” to the minimum standard. Amendments Nos 53, 60 and 62 call for an immediate introduction of the opt-in system which would then be compulsory for all Member States. There are good arguments for both opt-in and opt-out and we will hear many more of them in this debate, undoubtedly presented with passion. I confess that I tend to favour an opt-in solution. Nonetheless, there is a serious decision before us today, and that is whether to adopt option 1, i.e. opt-out as the minimum standard, thus maintaining the status quo in the Member States. Why do we have this situation? Firstly, we chose the opt-out solution as a minimum standard in the e-Commerce Directive a year ago, although this will also be reviewed in three years. It would be absurd, incoherent and contradictory to adopt a conclusive solution in this directive, whether it be opt-in or opt-out, just a year later. Secondly, no one can predict the precise course of events. No one can say with certainty what the advantages and disadvantages of the two options will be in the next two years. Trade practices, citizens’ information requirements, but also their security needs are undergoing rapid change. It is quite impossible to predict how the commercial sector will respond to the new opportunities afforded by direct advertising by e-mail. It may be tempting to make comparisons with conventional mailshots, but this is inappropriate. Let us remain faithful to our original approach, without drawing any hasty conclusions, and wait for the outcomes of this House’s wise decision – which was adopted with an overwhelming majority – on the e-Commerce Directive: opt-out as a minimum standard, and the option of opt-in for Member States, with monitoring of the two approaches. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
I am not in favour of suspending the Association Agreement with Israel. Europe has a moral duty towards Israel and cannot forget the responsibilities it has inherited from history. I condemn the policy of the Sharon Government as well as the suicide attacks. There is no military solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We must follow the way prepared by Itzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat, the way of negotiation and peace. Europe must make its voice heard and exert more influence in the Middle East. We complain that the United States is the only country that can do this. That is because they are present in Israel and are guarantors of its security. If Europe wants to contribute to the triumph of peace, if it wants a peacekeeping force under the aegis of the United Nations to see the light of day and help to ensure compliance with a peace agreement and the Security Council resolutions, it must be more present, not less present, among the Palestinians and Israelis. Breaking the Association Agreement will not help Europe to play its part and become the key negotiator it would like to be. The path towards peace is narrow and Europe’s role in this region is equally restricted.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it is important that the European Parliament makes its views known on the deteriorating human rights situation in Equatorial Guinea. Since March this year, opponents of President Obiang's regime have been arbitrarily detained and tried under deplorable and unacceptable conditions. Detainees have been subjected to brutal and inhumane torture and often prevented from contacting their families and lawyers. In some cases, detainees' family members have been arrested merely because of their connection to the accused. Independent journalists reporting on political trials have come under extreme pressure, while several human rights organisations report that deaths have occurred from injuries sustained from torture while in detention. The nature and timing of the arrests lead me to detect a cynical attempt by the authorities to spread fear in advance of the elections due to be held next year. I believe the Red Cross should be given immediate access to detainees, international monitors should be introduced and arbitrary detention must be brought to an end. Equatorial Guinea is in clear breach of every human rights convention it has signed. It is undermining its own commitment to the Union on democratisation and the full implementation of human rights. This Union must take a firm stand with the authorities in Equatorial Guinea and demand that prior commitments be honoured. To speak of justice in that country is to speak the language of torture and of systematic brutality. This betrayal of core human values serves to remind us of the often-tragic gap between words and action and human rights in many parts of the world. This House must meet the challenge of bridging that gap with vigour and authority. We demand that the EU as a whole makes its concerns known to the authorities in Equatorial Guinea and call for an end to the current abuse of human rights.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, during the Sierra Leone debate in December, I, together with a few other delegates, warned against the risks involving the Lomé peace agreement. This agreement not only lets the leader of one of the world’s cruellest terrorist movements off the hook but, to cap it all, also rewards him with the vice-presidency and authority over the diamond mines. But even that was evidently not enough for the rebel leader Sankoh. He turned the disarmament pledge into a farce. Murder, mutilation, abduction and rape simply continued as before. His strategy is very much akin to that of his godfather, Charles Taylor, in neighbouring Liberia, who, by means of terror, forces the population to vote for him in the forthcoming presidential elections and establishes a new Mafia state in the heart of Africa’s diamond industry. The UN peacekeeping force, mainly comprising ill-trained third-world troops, is in danger of heading for a fiasco similar to those back in Somalia, Rwanda and Srebrenica. Sierra Leone has made it clear once more that it urgently needs a permanent, international peacekeeping force which is well trained and equipped, and led by top commanders from the world’s best armies. It is a good sign that the rebel leader was arrested yesterday and that more than 200 UN peacekeeping troops were released over the past couple of days. But the question remains of how the rebels will react to this and how the peace agreement will take shape in future. In any event, the arms embargo must be supervised more effectively and perpetrators must be brought to justice. More than anything, however, an embargo should be imposed on diamonds smuggled illegally from the country, estimated at USD 60 million annually, which is what is at stake for the rebels in their warfare. I will call for a ban on these precious stones, which are stained with blood from thousands of innocent citizens, in my own country, Belgium.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for his sterling work and focus on three paragraphs towards the end of the report. Paragraph 24 addresses the need for increased cooperation between the EU and the UN, as well as between the EU and the OSCE. In this context, I should like to take this opportunity to ask the Commissioner responsible for external relations, Mr Patten, about his view on the methods for strengthening co-operation specifically between the UN and the OSCE. I would also like to draw attention to paragraph 27 on the proliferation of light weapons and small arms and the need for a joint code of conduct for arms exports. Last but not least, I would like to focus on paragraph 28 on the significance of education as a key element in conflict prevention. It is a real shame that we cannot have a debate here between the rapporteur and us Members of the European Parliament, as I wonder what view of humanity and what ethic and morals are to form the basis for this work on conflict prevention. Is it not the case that conflict prevention and democracy ultimately rely on reconciliation, compromise and the ability of each and every one of us to tolerate a defeat? Finally, on a slightly more personal note, as a member of this Parliament I was dismayed when around 200 Members filed out as Kim Dae Jung was about to speak. One of Asia’s very greatest advocates of democracy and human rights, Kim Dae Jung has paid a very high personal price for his fight for democracy. Two hundred Members walked out when he was due to speak. This is no way to maintain the dignity of Parliament. Rather, it brought shame on this House.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, this is a big day for Mr Fatuzzo, as the pensioners' ambassador par excellence. The main aim of today's report is in fact to investigate how we can help national pension systems achieve the three basic objectives of retaining their capacity to achieve the social objectives which they have set, staying financially viable in the long term and responding to society's changing needs. To put it plainly, they are being asked to adapt without reducing the level of protection or standard of services which they provide. Consequently, as our political group sees it, collective state pensions systems still take priority over purely private systems and are still one of the main ways of redistributing wealth, which is why they must continue to be funded by society as a whole. As I see it, the amendments proposed by the undermine this basis and the balance struck in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. Proposing that only health care and social protection should be funded from the state budget, with workers' pensions paid for solely out of workers' and employers' contributions, does away with any notion of solidarity. Similarly, expecting Member States to include the positive impact which reducing the pension burden on contributions would have on the cost of labour and increasing pro rata contributions would have on auxiliary pension funds in their strategies means, to all intents and purposes, that the entire burden of pensions is shifted on to the workers. On the contrary, the whole point of the reform should be to broaden the base of contributors and extend alternative forms of funding. Likewise, the proposal to ensure the reforms are democratically legitimate, by giving the European Parliament a more active role in commenting on national strategy reports and indicators to evaluate results and by extending the social dialogue to include representatives of pensioners, non-governmental organisations and women's organisations, is fundamental to the success of the reform process, which is why I feel that Amendment No 17 should be withdrawn.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, although I often agree with you, this is one occasion when I do not, as I take the view that you ought to have intervened at a much earlier stage. I have just heard impressive speeches to the effect that equal quotas in Europe are unfair. At that, I cannot but laugh; why, then do we have them? In Europe, we have to have comparable rules, and the ground rules have to be interpreted in such a way that the Member States can make a start. I was here in 1994 – as was Mrs Jackson – when we adopted the directive. If my schoolboy maths serves me well, that was twelve years ago. There are Member States that, since that day, have simply sat with their arms folded and done nothing whatever. This morning, I was at a big event in Frankfurt, along with several hundred others. They gave me a good telling-off and said to me, ‘Florenz, why are we, in Germany, in the Netherlands, in Belgium, in a number of Nordic countries, keeping in step and implementing these rules, while, elsewhere, they are doing nothing at all? You are a poor representative of your country if you allow this sort of thing to go on’. I have to tell you, Commissioner, you are the guardian of the laws, and you have to intervene at a much earlier stage. Mrs Corbey, I see it as almost shameful that we should be starting a dispute in this House as to whether the starting date should be 2008 or 2007. That is not what all this is about! What matters is that we should heighten awareness among the public and in the Member States of the fact that a recycling strategy means that resources are conserved, and that when we talk about the conservation of resources, we are talking about our children’s capital. In Europe, that has to be organised on a Community basis. I very much sympathise with those who say ‘yes’ to this, but are worried about the export issue. With my liberal approach, I do not go as far as that, but when it comes to exports, we cannot have the situation in which enterprises here develop recycling strategies, and then export the materials. Such a thing would surely be false. While I, of course, have sympathy with Member States that sort out care for the elderly before dealing with the packaging directive, I do accept that this is the rule.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I wish to speak to this topic on behalf of the rapporteur. I have been advised that he would have been quite happy to have this report put to the vote this week, one reason being that we know from experience that attendance is higher when we are in Strasbourg than when we are sitting in Brussels. This topic is of particular importance, one that has been under discussion for many, many months already, and our committee has put off voting on it over and over again, not least because it is so momentous and problematic. This time, though, we believe that the time for a decision on the matter has come and that it can be taken this week.

Political group: PPE-DE
I know the Commissioner has a personal commitment to anti-racism and the Article 13 package. It is kind of her to take this supplementary question. Very briefly, the Commissioner was unable to attend the UN World Conference on Racism but her commitment was conveyed there. The concern amongst NGOs and many other players in this Article 13 package is that while those Member States with race equality legislation... (The President cut off the speaker)

Political group: PSE