GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, President of the Commission, the Helsinki Summit will go down in history because of the decisions that were taken there. The meeting showed the way for development in Europe far into the future. The European Union will move beyond its borders once and for all at the start of the next millennium. The progress made from the start of talks with the six new candidates for membership, and the acceptance of Turkey as a candidate for membership has been an inevitable part of the European policy to reinforce stability and strengthen prosperity in our continent. At the same time we have to give yet more consideration to how ready the EU itself is for enlargement and what sort of timetable might be involved. The pace of enlargement has to be in accordance with how prepared both the applicant countries and the EU itself are. Otherwise, we will all be sorely disappointed. The future challenges of an enlarged EU, or even one the present size, will not be solved at the next IGC. We have to prepare for a wider agenda now. However, it was important to decide on a new IGC to resolve the questions which were unresolved at Amsterdam. The Helsinki meeting also bore witness to the fact that there is a need for a broader adoption of the rules for qualified majority voting. Despite failures at Helsinki, we have to move on quickly to find a solution to the tax issue. We will not be able to prevent even greater inequality in societies and among people unless profits from capital are subject to a minimum rate of taxation within the entire single market area. The European Parliament has continually called for greater transparency for all the EU institutions. A lack of transparency has been a particular source of trouble for decision making in the Council, and Finland, as the country holding the Presidency, has initiated new practices to increase transparency, practices which we would hope will become established before proper rules are drafted. We also made headway on environmental matters. The integration of environmental policy with all policy areas and making it feasible to sign the Kyoto Agreement more quickly were important steps forward. But one disappointment has to be recorded for this autumn: the failure to review the rules for Members and assistants. I know, of course, that the Presidency is not to blame for this. The Presidency has been active and willing to find compromises; the problems and guilty parties are unfortunately to be found in this Chamber.

Political group: PSE
This largely technical report seeks to update and extend the scope of the Joint Action and to improve the exchange of information, risk assessment and control of synthetic drugs and narcotic drugs on the basis of current procedures such as the ‘early-warning system’, the mechanism for assessing the social risks to health, amongst other things – by a scientific committee – and the procedure of monitoring by Member States. It is hoped that, in future, we will not simply implement the rapid response mechanism but new synthetic drugs will also be monitored, in the long term, by means of an ongoing procedure for exchanging information. I share my group’s view of the rapporteur’s intention in highlighting the aim of simplifying the structure of information exchanges, proposing a set of amendments that seeks to make the entire process more effective. Consequently, this report broadly warrants our support.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I voted against in the first case and abstained on the second part of item 9 because: - it is not clear whether the Naples Conclave will result in the idea of one Commissioner per Member State. In fact the alternative to what was agreed in the Convention, based on the requirement for one Commissioner per State, will lead to the re-imposition of the requirement for two Commissioners for the more populous States, which not only differentiates between States, whereby the large States count for twice as much as the others, but also favours the creation of concentration of powers into twelve Commissioners from these States to the detriment of the others; - the amendment puts forward a false idea of equality, which is in my opinion more likely to be achieved with the rotating equality in which each Member State can choose whether to belong to the College of Commissioners with or without voting rights, on an alternating basis according to the specific composition of the successive Commissions. This gives countries equal opportunities as regards time, with none having more rights than any other.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, first of all, I too would like to voice my very great pleasure at the Commission's Communication, the prior deliberations, and the positive decision. Above all, I would like to express my thanks to the two Commissioners who are here today. I believe, and I say this also in my capacity as Chairman of the Delegation to the EU-Slovenia Joint Parliamentary Committee – Slovenia being Croatia's immediate neighbour – that we have taken a major step forward, and it is a positive step. I have one specific question: are any efforts being made by the European Commission to assist the two countries of Slovenia and Croatia to resolve their border issue in the Piran Bay so that a solution can be reached here as swiftly as possible in a European spirit? Let me make one further comment in conclusion, which refers back to Commissioner Verheugen's statements: we have duly noted that the Council is grateful for guidance. As Parliament, we often wish that the Council would show greater receptiveness to the House's guidance. However, this comment is directed at the Council itself, not at you.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we must take a very firm stand against the human rights violations and acts of aggression in Nigeria; about that there can be no doubt. In contrast to Islam, which is a great world faith, Islamism is a criminal ideology, and a very clear distinction must be drawn between the two. We have to be careful, though, not to consider these things from one angle alone. As we know, most of the states in West Africa are artificial creations drawn on the map by the colonial powers, so that peoples in the South are divided, two examples being the Ibo and the Ewe, who are Christians and animists and live on both sides of the border. The same can be said of the peoples of the North, the Hausa and Fulbe, most of whom are Muslims and also live in a variety of states. This simply happens to be the way these states’ borders were drawn; never, throughout history, have they corresponded with the ethnic realities. This is something that has to be clear to us, and this is something for which we Europeans really do share responsibility. The resolution quite rightly refers to the state of Plateau. It is in Plateau that these ethnic groups collide, and the situation is made even more acute by economic inequalities and migratory flows. The whole place is a highly unstable melting pot and could easily explode. It also has to be borne in mind that Nigeria is a multi-ethnic state, one of the most populous countries in the world and probably the most populous in Africa, and that there are massive oil interests at stake there, so it really does call for extremely sensitive handling and subtle thinking. That notwithstanding, what I would like to say to Mrs André-Léonard is that it is taking sophistry a bit too far to say that there is fundamentalism in both the Christian and Islamic camps. There is no Christian fundamentalism in Nigeria. There is no Islamic fundamentalism there either; there is, instead, on the one hand, this complex conflict situation, and, on the other, Islamist ideologues attempting to exploit it for their own ends. If we are to address this situation, we need sound knowledge of these countries’ history and ethnic make-up; only then will we be able to support the peace process and prevent Nigeria from disintegrating in a bloody war compared with which the carnage in the former Yugoslavia will seem trivial. That, as has been said, is why our task is to get actively involved in the peace process, but to do so with precise knowledge of the realities of these countries, on which we can draw in our deliberations.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on Monday I raised a point of order concerning Zimbabwe and you suggested that I raise it with the Presidency of the Council today. I notice that there is no scheduled discussion of the situation in Zimbabwe. The situation there is worsening day by day. We have had the very distressing situation of Mr Mugabe appearing at the UN World Food Conference in Rome in spite of an EU travel ban. What is the European Union doing about the situation in Zimbabwe? Can I ask the Presidency-in-Office to ensure that this matter is discussed at Seville and included in the Presidency conclusions there, so that the international community is seen to be taking effective and robust action against this disgraceful regime in southern Africa?

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, with regard to the presentation of the report of the Court of Auditors, it is clear that, at the moment, this report – which previously attracted very little attention – has become an important item in the press. Certain Members and groups have expressed their concern at the occurrences of leaks to the press – a concern which I share – and I think that we should ask the Court of Auditors, as well as the other institutions, to respect the time limits. But it seems to me that the punishment which some people have tried to impose on the Court of Auditors is absolutely out of proportion because if we remove from the agenda all the issues which have suffered from leaks, we will end up with no agenda at all. We have to be more rigorous in our behaviour. I believe that the reasonable thing to do, bearing in mind, furthermore, that the report of the Court of Auditors has a series of consequences for Parliament’s activities – and I am thinking particularly of the approval of its management – is to present what has happened to the President of the Court of Auditors and get him to commit himself publicly, apart from giving the relevant explanations, to an investigation to try to control this issue, and to improve the system of distribution and provision of information to Parliament. However, in any case, I think that in the end it we will be the ones who are penalised through this behaviour. Therefore, I believe that the sensible thing to do is, tomorrow, after the presentation which the Committee on Budgetary Control is going to make today, to present this report to Parliament.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the report aims to divert goods transport from the road to rail, inland waterways and combined transport with the aid of subsidies. I find this fundamentally questionable. For one thing, Article 87 of the EC Treaty quite clearly states that subsidies in this form are not permissible. For another, we have guaranteed a situation whereby subsidies will have a diverting function. I find this fundamentally questionable. I also wonder why, ten years after liberalising the transport markets, we are now starting to use taxes and subsidies to divert and control. In principle, this cannot be positive for the future of the transport market. – Kessler Report (A5-0094/2001)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I should like to congratulate Mr Alexander de Roo on his tenacity in the fight against noise pollution. Noise pollution is very disturbing and can form a threat to health. Health is tied in with the environment and with the way in which we pollute the environment. The Sixth Environmental Action Programme is right to devote much attention to this aspect. This attention must lead to specific measures. The guiding principle is to reduce noise to a level at which it does not threaten public health. In this connection, the guidelines and opinions of the World Health Organisation should be taken into consideration. Noise pollution is local and certainly does not transcend borders. Solutions must be found by local, regional and national administrators. We should be careful not to regulate too much at EU level. Excessive ruling from Brussels is in most countries not appreciated – with good reason – but in few cases, European attention is certainly justified. First of all, Europe must step in when the noise source exceeds limits, for example in the form of products. There are already European rules in place for noise pollution, for example pertaining to the noise standards for lawnmowers. Noise emission standards for certain products, such as cars, pleasure boats, lorries, trains, aircraft and industrial equipment are essential. A second reason for European intervention is the making available of reliable and verifiable data. The European Parliament pointed at the lack of data on various sources of noise a long time ago, and a common method must be found for measuring and assessing noise. And this forms the very essence of the Commission’s proposal. Thirdly, general principles must be formulated, such as: the polluter, or noise-maker, pays. This kind of principle must be transposed in our legislation. Citizens must – and that is, in fact, the most important point, in my opinion – have clear rights. In the case of serious complaints about noise pollution, the right to investigation should exist and, if necessary, action should be taken.

Political group: PSE
The Pirker report has the merit of being frank. It presents immigration as a simple problem of merchandise linked to the needs of the capitalist system. In effect, the report regards as positive the view that immigration should be envisaged from an economic viewpoint, as a function of the needs and capacities of Member States. Article 23 could not be clearer. Each Member State has the freedom to define the skills profile and number of workers required on the basis of the needs of its labour market. In other words, the proposed Community policy on immigration is a quota policy. By adopting such a position, Europe shows that it is still a long way from recognising the right to immigration. What we have here is residence permits restricted by the requirements of the bosses and the fantasies of the demographers. Even the issue of keeping families together is going to be subject to different rules for each group of immigrants, which is the exact opposite of freedom of movement, freedom to select one’s place of business, and the right to live with one’s family. Massively overexploited, immigrants are the victims of liberal deregulation. I shall end by saying that only the general regularisation of the position of illegal immigrants plus citizens’ rights will enable us to combat effectively the modern slavery which we are being invited to support.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, after the dark period of colonialism and dictatorships in the developing countries, I feel that it is positive that we are talking today about elections in these countries, even though their social and civil structure is weak, as is the concept of democracy. It is difficult to distinguish between the parties, given that every culture and every society needs to select its own representatives. I do feel, however, that we must reiterate the need for transparent elections, for we must promote the development of democratic awareness and culture just as we must promote the growth of civil society. Moreover, through the instruments available to us, the Cotonou Treaty and the ACP/EU Joint Parliamentary Assemblies, we must propose systems and methods of democratic control, ensuring they are appropriate to the current level of civil society in those countries. We will be able to move forwards if we succeed in getting across the message that democratic growth, the safeguarding of human rights and the creation of a pluralist State – and therefore of consensus within a pluralist society – will enable this country to grow, for it needs so badly to be actively included among the world’s civil societies.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as draftsman for the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, I have no problem asking this House to vote in favour of the amendments tabled by the Committee on Budgets on the initiative of either our committee or the general rapporteur, Mrs Haug. I observe, in particular, that following our requests, the Committee on Budgets has proposed a substantial increase in the credits made available to the European Fund for Refugees, funds which the Council had rather imprudently, not to say rather stupidly, cut. I should also like to point out and to endorse the very clear increase in appropriations earmarked for funding measures to combat and prevent discrimination. This has been a priority of the European Parliament and the European Union as a whole since the Treaty of Amsterdam. Finally, I am delighted to note that, in the field for which my own committee is responsible, no less than four new budget lines have been proposed for our approval. The first of these is for the implementation of a pilot project intended to fund an information campaign within the fifteen Member States against the criminal scourge of paedophilia. The second is for aid to victims of human rights violations in need of treatment in specialised institutions. The third is intended to fund measures in preparation for a programme to combat drugs trafficking, and the fourth sets up the funding for actions to be carried out conjointly with third countries, primarily Morocco, with a view to better controlling the flow of immigration. Let me express just one regret, in conclusion. The Committee on Budgets did not see fit to adopt my own committee’s proposal to increase the resources to be made available to the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia based in Vienna. I think this is a mistake which must be set right. At a time when racist and xenophobic acts are gaining ground, scandalously, in a number of European Union countries, I think it crucial to boost the financial means needed to set up a technically reliable network for the collation of information throughout the Union. I think that, were they to support this amendment, my fellow Members would be setting in place a technically fair and politically timely act.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I think it would be difficult for myself and the other speakers to find words more appropriate or of more use than those used today by the winners of the Sakharov prize, especially Mrs Peled-Elhanan and Mr Ghazzawi. But we must go on. Let us follow their example. I think that the Groups should congratulate ourselves on the agreement reached with regard to the recommendation, but it should be of concern to us that, even though we are not part of the conflict, it should have cost us more than what is reasonable to reach it. During the discussion, the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party attempted to give priority to both the agreement and a balanced position. However, I think there can be no doubt that our greatest demand is to be efficient, given that our purpose here is not to be conflict analysts, but to be politicians with responsibilities within the framework of the European Union. From this point of view, I think that the clear position that has been taken with regard to the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli Government is logical and in line with the position of the Council. However, while insisting on this required level of efficiency, I would like to associate myself with the opinions already expressed by Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck and Commissioner Patten, that there is much need for international action, that the conflict must stop and that the basic approach well established by the Mitchell report must be followed. In this respect, I would say that it is not sufficient to remain observers and apply pressure. In a conflict there needs to be strong advocates. The European Union, the United States, and, obviously, the UN and Russia, are all strong advocates, and it would be difficult to name another moment in history when it has been possible for them to act together in a such an efficient and balanced way. However, I believe, without a doubt, that this should be our priority: to be able to act as forceful and powerful advocates, if this is a possibility for all of those involved, for the gravity of this conflict requires this.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I thank the Commission, the presidency and all my fellow delegates for the excellent cooperation which we have enjoyed and which has greatly impacted on the conference. The conference has shown that, over the past couple of years, we have indeed made progress and we have done so in many areas. For example, women are taking part in peace talks, improvement has been made in the field of women’s health problems, employment for women has improved in a number of countries and violence towards women has been put on the agenda in a number of countries. As such, we can trace the progress that has been made, although new problems have emerged in the meantime, of course. I am thinking of the problem of AIDS in women. In some African towns and cities, up to 40% of pregnant women suffer from AIDS. There is also the problem of trafficking in women, rape of women during armed conflicts, etc. Consequently, Beijing +5 could not afford to just focus on the progress that was made in respect of decisions taken at Beijing. Beijing +5 also had to incorporate a number of new issues into the text, which it did, after a hard fight. In my opinion, we have three tasks within the European Union. Firstly, as a European Union, we should remain the driving force behind the Member States. We played this role very distinctly in the past and we must continue to do so in future. It will be evident from the Fifth Action Programme and the financial resources used for this purpose whether the European Commission is serious about applying the Beijing Platform in years to come. But it is not only vis-à-vis our own Member States that we have a role to play, we also have a responsibility towards the candidate countries, those which we as MEPs have brought together in New York. We have proposed to continue the cooperation with them and asked the Commission, during the screening activities it carries out in the context of the acquis communautaire, to assess the achievements with regard to the Beijing Platform too. We also have a role to play vis-à-vis third countries. It is dreadful to have to listen to the problems which women face in third countries: genital mutilation, killing if they have been unfaithful or if they had sexual relations before marriage and all these kinds of problems. It is the most atrocious form of violence perpetrated against women. In my opinion, the aid which the European Union grants to third countries should definitely be conditional on what these third countries need to do in order to solve the problems faced by women. Finally, I would like to make it clear that I am a Catholic, but an open-minded Catholic. I was greatly shocked by the news that the Church which I belong to has associated itself with the most fundamentalist groups which exist in society. It was shocking, mainly because my Church offers so few opportunities to women within its own structures. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE