GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, it is with a certain regret that we are again debating Kazakhstan, all the more because it is a fantastic country with fantastic inhabitants and perhaps even wonderful opportunities if you consider its economy and the fact that a fledgling democracy has been built up. That does, however, give us in the European Union a responsibility, in our cooperation with Kazakhstan, to talk about each other’s position as good friends, and that is what is now a cause for concern. Our point of concern is about the development of democracy and the further curtailment of the freedom of the press. I will quote you the example of Sergei Duvanov, a journalist who was arrested after he had published some critical articles; he was also accused of an indecency offence on pretty dubious grounds and was not given a proper public trial. There are therefore quite a few examples of intimidation. The second important point is that it is, in fact, becoming increasingly difficult to form political parties and to set up social organisations there, as ever more stringent requirements are being imposed and what is gradually happening is that these organisations are only being allowed to exist if they can demonstrate that they really have tens of thousands of members in each region. This does not promote the development of a democratic constitutional state. In view of the cooperation agreements we have signed, we, the European Union, are partly responsible for our relations with Kazakhstan. That point in particular causes us concern, but it also makes us more responsible for the implementation of the agreements and for Kazakhstan's continued development. For this reason I am asking the Commission and the Council very explicitly to pay attention to the situation on the basis of these cooperation agreements and to contact President Nazarbayev and the government in Kazakhstan with a view to finding a way, as a true friend, of improving the development of democracy and of paying more attention to human rights. True friends tell each other the truth; we must be able to do this in this relationship. I hope that the Commission and the Council do in fact intend to play this role on the basis of the treaties we have signed.

Political group: PPE-DE
I tabled a question to the Commission in October on the environmental hazards posed by DU, depleted uranium 238, shells in the Balkans and suggested that some of the emergency aid package to Serbia should be dedicated to investigating and, if proven, making good the toxic and radioactive damage possibly posed to the people of Kosovo. Commissioner Patten rather surprisingly replied that this was not a priority. In view of the recent EU-wide publicity and concerns expressed about DU shells and the hazards posed by the dust in particular if inhaled by soldiers and civilians, particularly children playing in the vicinity of where there has been bomb damage, have the Commissioner's views changed since then?

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I could almost echo the words of the rapporteur for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, Mr Busk, when he states that fisheries policy is, above all, a matter of international treaties and everything that takes place outside these. If we consider the maritime environment – and I am also speaking here in the capacity of shadow rapporteur for Mr Souchet's report, whom I should at any rate like to warmly congratulate on his report and the balanced way in which he has presented it – it appears that, where the implementation of environmental requirements in the fisheries policy is concerned, only a very small proportion is determined by fisheries policy. It struck me that the Commissioner said that if we consider the problem from different angles, then what it comes down to is that there are too few fish and too many fishermen. I wonder if, with regard to the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, this situation is so cut and dried, particularly in the light of the recent disaster with an oil tanker off the coast of Galicia. If we consider the maritime area covered by European fishermen, then this is only a very small fraction of the total area in the world that is used for fishing. As Mr Busk has already stated, this also means that it is of key importance for us to conclude sound treaties, particularly outside of the European Union, in order to find the right solution. At the same time, the Committee on Fisheries and also my own group, of course, recognise the importance of the fishing environment, especially since the environment, including the maritime environment, is decisive for the fishing industry in terms of what can be caught. This means that if the maritime environment is in a bad state, the fishing industry, in particular, will bear the brunt of this. At the same time, this sector feels under pressure and the difficult bit is to strike the right balance between economic and ecological aspects. It would be nice if the Commission's public statements gave more evidence of this very balance. A properly motivated fisheries sector can contribute quite easily to a better maritime environment, and this also applies to the legislation needed for this. On this score, I am pleased that Mr Souchet – and indeed the Stevenson report, which was formerly the Noriega report – devotes particular attention to aquaculture. There are probably also good opportunities for Europe here, provided that we get the chance on this score to let legislation in this area run parallel with the economy on the one hand and ecology on the other from the word go. I have to say that the Souchet report has been particularly well received in our group. We will therefore warmly advise Parliament to vote in favour of the report, assuming that, as the rapporteur has observed, it is essential to take sufficient account of the economic and social aspects of fishing in order to encourage the fisheries industry and environmental legislation. I would like to congratulate Mr Souchet on this.

Political group: PPE-DE
I would like to get my thoughts on the discussion between Mr Salafranca and the rapporteur off my chest. I think that the rapporteur has behaved courageously, and that it is a pity that it is so difficult to bring about change in the European Parliament.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I should like to start by thanking the rapporteur, Peter Mombaur, and congratulating him on his skilled reporting. And having heard the contributions made today by the honourable members, we really can say that the liberalisation of the energy markets has progressed faster and more efficiently than we expected in the last parliamentary term. That is the first thing. Mr Caudron, it is no longer possible to reverse this and that is how it should be. Secondly, the energy liberalisation sceptics have been impressively routed. The prices of gas and electricity have sunk as the result of competition, Mrs Vachetta, including to consumers. You insist on portraying the large undertakings as the winners here, but you are completely wrong, that is rubbish. Security of supply to consumers and to the economy has been maintained and the competitiveness of jobs has improved considerably, not deteriorated. It has improved thanks to international competition. We still have a whole series of problems to solve. Too little headway has been made liberalising the markets in individual Member States but we assume that the French presidency will make further progress here. Secondly, liberalisation must be controlled by the competition authorities and we have a European institution that can and does do that; otherwise private monopolies will replace state monopolies. Mr Mombaur pointed that out just now. Thirdly, we need the strict division between energy generation and grid management. Even the problem of charges and access conditions are, in my view, better solved by a regulatory authority than in voluntary agreements between major associations. Fourthly, regulated grid access with set prices, following the telecommunications example, is the best way of ensuring that small and medium-sized companies and smaller works departments receive equal treatment. Both mergers and state aid must be controlled and approved in the future. Professor Monti has announced this. I think that this is right in principle, but I think that his deadline of five years is too soon and I think that we need to extend the deadline to ten years, so that European industry has time to develop fully and invest with good prospects in this important future market.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, education is one of those areas of competence which is very much part of what goes on in a community, and so it should be. This competence must be carried out as closely to the population as possible, and that means that there will probably never be a need for a general European education system. But it is exactly because education is so important in the passing on, not only of knowledge and in the acquisition of skills, but it is also in the passing on of cultural heritage and in the integration of the individual into the social fabric that sound education is vital. Accordingly, we pour huge amounts of money into education and yet, there is an increasing need for European quality monitoring. That is why we would like to lend our support in this matter. Parents know that education requires a huge effort from children and students, but at the same time they expect to see results. In the old days, maybe attending a good school was sufficient, because it enjoyed our ideological trust. That criterion is no longer enough on its own, and has not been for a long time. Parents want quality education, and children who attend school want to actually learn what is important in life. Each one of us can ask the question how important common quality monitoring is in our own environment. What it did lead to in Flanders is a high level of self-evaluation in the schools. They sensed of their own accords that they needed to make a stand in the world of education. It has also led to increasing levels of care and concern across the borders. In Flanders, quality monitoring used to be a bit of a taboo subject, for example, for it was feared that this would breed hostility in the different educational networks. We now see that the opposite is true. The desire for quality monitoring in education has opened up the door to this large European Community and to the job market of this European Community. Quality monitoring has thus increasingly become a common area of concern. Today, I can show you the results of an enquiry which was held across the Flemish education system to check whether both primary and secondary education meet the common standards. It is quite striking how much media attention this enquiry received, precisely because they know that parents, students and the entire teaching environment scrutinise these results. After all, each school, each educational network, wants to come out of this enquiry smelling of roses, but at the same time, each parent wants their children to attend good schools. It has come to my attention that the world of education has been complaining about a lack of resources. After all, not only do we want our children to do well at school, we also want their schools to be well equipped, the environments to be safe, in other words the infrastructure to be up to scratch. Unfortunately, a great deal of resources are still needed in many countries in order to achieve this.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, last month, Parliament adopted a resolution condemning the kidnapping of eight Portuguese citizens by the LFEC. Yesterday, the LFEC released one of those hostages and I should like to welcome this positive gesture by the LFEC and call for it to be followed by seven more positive gestures, in other words, for the remaining seven Portuguese hostages to be released. We condemn hostage taking as a form of political action and I wish to emphasise this once again now. I would like you, Madam President, to act on our behalf in the following initiative: given that the Portuguese hostage who has just been released is in quite a poor state of health, we request that you ask the LFEC to give an international organisation, namely the Red Cross, immediate access to the seven remaining Portuguese citizens, who are still being held hostage in the enclave of Cabinda, in order to assess their state of health.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I shall concentrate mainly on the report by Mr Van Hecke who, I think, has, to his credit, focused on a small number of issues. The report concerns modern slavery and threats and violence on the part of terrorist groups. Slavery is on the increase throughout the world, including in Europe. Slavery is not a thing of the past. It is based upon a view of human beings that is as out of keeping with our civilisation and Christian culture as it can possibly be. It is based on the very opposite of the idea of people’s equal, unique and inviolable worth. The UN’s children’s fund, UNICEF has raised the alarm about the fact that 200 000 children in West Africa are victims of trafficking, with the cocoa industry responsible for a significant proportion of this. There is also evidence that child labour and trafficking in human beings are on the increase. It is mostly boys who work on the cocoa plantations of West Africa and often have to do the heavy work of harvesting the cocoa beans. The working day for these children is up to fifteen hours long. It is not only a question of child labour, but children are also sold as slaves by one cocoa producer to another. The Council, the Commission and the EU Member States must take action, and vigorous action at that. Mention should also be made of the trafficking in women and children that is taking place more and more in Europe. The countries most affected are Romania, Moldavia and the Czech Republic. Such trafficking is a great tragedy for those affected, who are exploited in a horrible way, above all within prostitution. The UN protocol on trafficking in human beings, added to the UN Convention Against Organised Transnational Crime, is an important tool in this area. The Member States and the candidate countries must now translate their words into genuine action in order to put an end to this loathsome trade. National governments, police and judicial systems appear passive, powerless and resigned faced with the task of tackling these fundamental issues of human dignity in depth and combating the sex trade and trafficking in human beings in similar detail. Such resignation is dangerous for democracy itself. People demand vigorous and determined efforts when it comes to solving these problems. Allow me also to emphasise paragraphs 52, 53, 54 and 55 of Mr Van Hecke’s report, which are about religious freedom. I find it completely incomprehensible that converting from Islam to Christianity, Buddhism or other religions is punishable by the death penalty in most Arabic and Muslim countries. That is not consonant with human dignity.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as you are aware, Bavaria, more than any other German Land, has an extraordinary affinity with Greece. This had its effect in the 19th century, during the wars of liberation. The first Greek king was a Bavarian, and it also has its effect in the present day, in that a particularly large number of people from Bavaria go on holiday to this beautiful country. There are particularly large numbers of Bavarian tourists in Greece. Therefore it came as a double shock to us to have to see these terrible pictures and hear this dreadful news. It was a shock because families suffered so badly as a result, and because we mourn the loss of human life, but it was also a shock because it revealed a flagrant disregard for safety. We must be aware that when something like this happens, the credibility of the European Union also comes into play. Time and again, we rightly complain that there is too much of a centralising drive in various areas. We criticise any attempts to formulate a common European tourism policy, which some people here want. That is something we can confidently leave to the Member States and regions. According to the principle of subsidiarity, tourism policy is something that should be devolved to Member State level. But what people in all countries must be able to depend on in equal measure, are safety standards. That is precisely why it is one of the European Union’s most important tasks to ensure that exceptions are no longer made where safety standards are concerned, as has obviously been the case here. We must be in no doubt that, particularly in an era of cross-border mass tourism, whether it be tunnels – where there was a spate of disasters last summer – or ships, which have been involved in a great many disasters in recent years, people expect to be able to depend on safety standards within the European Union. Human error happens all over the world. Greek sailors are excellent and famous for being of a high standard. But what we must realise is that when it comes to technical standards, there is, I am sorry to say, a degree of chaos in this region. This is the point at which the European Union and the European Parliament must take direct responsibility.

Political group: PPE-DE
The Cercas report shows what every worker already knows: the employers and the politicians who serve them, who want a workforce that will do their every bidding, want the employers to be able to set working hours as they wish, with no legal limits. Great Britain is the leader here. The rapporteur says that ‘there are currently more than four million workers whose working week is longer than 48 hours, almost one million more than before the introduction of the directive. There has also been an increase in the number of those working more than 55 hours, which is now over 1.55 million. Around 1% of workers in the United Kingdom have a working week longer than 70 hours.’ As to the worker’s individual agreement to work those hours, the cynicism of such a provision is underlined by this comment by the rapporteur: ‘it is common for these agreements to be signed at the same time as an individual contract’. The choice is therefore between working yourself to death and having no work at all. This general offensive against any labour regulations affording workers even the slightest protection from the omnipotence of the employers is a serious social setback. (Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, in its proposal, the Commission has tried to reform the pharmaceutical industry, or at least has tried to make a start on it. In the pharmaceutical industry, Europe is losing out to the United States. It is not for nothing that an increasing number of companies have decided to carry out their practical research and development in the United States. European legislation is too opaque, which dampens the companies' motivation to carry out their activities in Europe, and in order to counter this, better European coordination in this field is therefore necessary as a matter of priority. I am greatly in favour of opening up this fossilised market. We must therefore strive for more competition within the European market, and one of the ways of achieving this is, for example, by making generic medicines available sooner, something on which a sound compromise has been reached within the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. Furthermore, I would insist on the centralised procedure, which is carried out by the Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products in London, being reinforced so as to guarantee the equal treatment of all pharmaceutical companies and to give patients throughout Europe access to the same medicines. This centralised method also promotes all the objectives pursued by the Commission, such as a high level of health care, completion of the internal market, more transparency, improvement of competition and preparation for enlargement. I also set great store by the provision of information. It remains a mystery to me why the pharmaceutical industry is not allowed to inform patients about its products. I have said it before, but I should like to repeat it here: the European Union has thus been taken over by events and is discriminating against patients. At the moment, information of this kind is only available to people with a command of English and with access to the Internet, as this information is available in the United States. Patients who have no access to these resources are kept in the dark by Europe, and it is for this reason too that I think that the Commission's proposal to come up with a trial project is sound and is in any case a good first step. I do believe that by only making information on asthma, AIDS and diabetes available, patients suffering from other diseases are discriminated against, and I would call for this list to be extended. Finally, I should like to remark that the reinforcement of the role of patient organisations in this context is of course important at European level as well, including with a view to enlargement and to this centralised procedure. The Group of the has tabled amendments to this effect, which I should like to endorse.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, the 1995 World Conference on Women has given the worldwide fight for freedom and equality for women a shot in the arm. I would like to briefly outline three milestones. Firstly, the right to sexual self-determination has been recognised as an inherent component of the human rights of women. Secondly, it has been established that the argument of cultural identity cannot justify the on-going suppression of women. Thirdly, it has been stated that women’s policy is not about fancy things for women and a place in the sun, rather the gender dimension should be added to all policy-making decisions. These achievements, most of which I have listed, must be translated into concrete action. National governments carry most responsibility here and their commitment must be assessed. But hang on. What about the European Union? How is the common position on the follow-up to the World Conference on Women determined? How can the European Parliament carry out its task in this respect? The conference which the European Commission will organise next February can only help form opinion, it cannot determine policy. Under the rules of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, under which, indeed, the Member States coordinate their action in international organisations, initiative and power of decision lie entirely with the Council, in practice a small group of specialist officials who have the natural tendency to focus on their own mutual problems. I dare say this because I belonged to such a set-up myself for years, namely during the Beijing period. Such bodies move in the twilight zone of secret diplomacy. Openness and political responsibility, however, should be top of the agenda. This is why I ask the Presidency, by referring to Article 32 of the Treaty on European Union, to brief Parliament as fully as possible, but mainly also to consult Parliament in time. “In time” in this case means in any event before the so-called “preparatory conference”, to be held between 3 and 17 March in New York, because we are probably too late already for the ECE Conference in January. The Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities of this Parliament has the explicit responsibility to monitor the follow-up and implementation of international agreements, such as the Beijing Action Platform. This Committee cannot wait to give its input. It would preferably do this on the basis of tangible, current information and in a constructive dialogue with the Council and the Commission. Talking to a brick wall is, after all, not very productive. This is why I somewhat regret that, because of the strange set-up of this debate, we are having to make do without the Finnish Presidency.

Political group: PSE