GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I wish to begin by congratulating the rapporteur, Mr Wiebenga, on his report, which gets to the heart of the problem we are facing at the moment: temporary protection for people in the most difficult circumstances. I regret that Mr Nassauer has ignored what the rapporteur said about the use of language and has talked about 'burden sharing', because the issue is actually how different Member States accept their responsibilities and try to treat people in very desperate circumstances fairly. The rapporteur also referred, quite rightly, to the Kosovo crisis, in which Member States failed to take on their responsibilities and poorer states, such as Albania, were left to deal with large numbers of refugees. With the new mechanism that should be avoided. If there is a mass influx of refugees into the Community, Member States will have agreed in advance to share the responsibility. This temporary protection needs to cover not only spontaneous mass influxes into the Community territory but also non-spontaneous influxes, when people have been airlifted out of difficult areas by Member States, or perhaps other parties, and possibly assisted to come to the EU. We must ensure that appropriate provisions are in place. Another very important point on which my group has tabled an amendment, Amendment No 44, concerns the speed and the workings of the directive. When a refugee crisis occurs, it is absolutely imperative that the Member States act as quickly as possible. I applaud the rapporteur for introducing a time limit for the Council decision. However, my group has tabled an amendment to bring that forward. We do not believe that three months is acceptable. We are asking that it should be one month. I am fully aware of the logistical and organisational difficulties that this presents, but action needs to be immediate and an emergency Council meeting is a small price to pay for ensuring that those in need receive protection. Amendments Nos 45 and 46 concern the rights of individuals. When they are in Member States they have the right to asylum and protection. We should ensure that these people are not forced to return to their countries if that is going to create desperate problems for them. Member States must try to do more to integrate refugees into society. Young people should be put into education and adults given the opportunity to work as quickly as possible, so they can be seen as active and useful participants in society. We hope that situations like Kosovo will not happen again, but if they do we must ensure that we are prepared. My group will be supporting this with the amendments to which I have just referred.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, may I also add my thanks to Karl-Heinz Florenz, who has presented a very good report. What we are working towards is the environmentally-friendly disposal of old electrical appliances and, if possible, material recycling. Parliament attaches the utmost importance to the polluter-pays principle, which comes across very clearly in this report. I do believe, however – and here too, the Florenz report strikes the right tone – that great care must always be taken to establish precisely how these principles can be applied in each specific sector of the economy. Even the collection of appliances or small components requires the use of energy and can in itself be harmful to the environment. It is therefore important that we provide for derogations in the case of components which contain no hazardous substances, such as light bulbs, that we always look at the whole ecological balance and then consider whether it is appropriate to collect these things separately and use them for recycling or whether such action is perhaps not justified on environmental grounds. For this reason I believe that Amendment No 65 takes us in the right direction. We must apply the polluter-pays principle correctly. I see a problem in this respect at one or two points because, in the case of historical waste in particular, we are not talking about the polluter-pays principle when we say that all those who are operating in the market at the present time have to foot the bill for those who were perhaps manufacturing some product twenty years ago. Great care must be taken here, since not every segment of this market is transparent. We became aware of this in the committee. To illustrate the problem, let me mention that I devoted myself particularly to household light fittings, since large numbers of them are produced in my constituency. The manufacturers say, with some justification, that it is surely not consistent with the polluter-pays principle to expect present-day manufacturers to pay for the recovery of a chandelier which has been hanging in someone’s lounge and which was produced twenty years ago by some manufacturer or other who is no longer in business. It is not the polluter who has to pay – quite the reverse. If consideration is also given to the fact that such products include many grey-market imports from companies which do not adhere to the high European environmental standards – companies in China, for example – it becomes clear that the polluter-pays principle would be turned on its head if we penalised companies for conducting their business properly and being properly registered. For these reasons I ask you to support Amendments Nos 65 and 88.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Turkish Government has moved at astonishing speed to fulfil the European Union's political criteria so that the right decision can be taken in December for accession negotiations to be opened. We should recognise this and congratulate the Turkish authorities. In a very difficult international situation and in spite of terrorist atrocities in Istanbul, there has been a firm commitment to domestic change. Yet some might think that every time Turkey makes progress in a particular direction, the goalposts for European Union membership are moved. In its report a year ago, Parliament sent out an unduly negative message to Turkey and failed to recognise the scale of positive developments that had taken place in the preceding 12 months. This year's report is more balanced, but it still sends a lukewarm message. A number of the amendments tabled seek to reverse the decisions firstly of the 1997 Luxembourg European Council confirming that Turkey will be judged on the basis of the same criteria as the other applicant states, and secondly of the Helsinki European Council in 1999, which recognised Turkey's status as a fully-fledged candidate country. It is no longer right to speak of Turkey's possible accession to the European Union. Turkey's destiny is clear: in due course it will be a member. I hope, however, that by that time and by the time many of the young people in the public gallery here – including young people from St Martin's School in Brentwood, in my constituency – are firmly established in their professions, the European Union itself will have moved away from its obsession with political integration, into a somewhat looser community of nation states. Many of us are working with that in mind. The Cyprus question has been quite correctly mentioned. This was made a factor in Turkey's own EU candidacy – some might think wrongly so. However, all being well, what was a negative factor will soon have the reverse effect. Last night the Secretary-General of the United Nations put forward his final plan for overcoming the divisions of Cyprus. For too long international opinion has been distorted on this issue and the Turkish Cypriots have not had a fair hearing. The Turkish authorities in particular have worked hard to obtain a just settlement that offers the prospect of peace and security. I believe that what is now on the table will be welcomed by the people of Cyprus and I hope that they will give a positive vote in the referendum on 24 April. Finally, there is much to be done to bring about reform in Turkey, in particular in terms of human rights. However, much of what is being achieved could be thrown into reverse if a negative decision is taken in December. Mr Oostlander's message is still profoundly negative. I want to send a signal of positive encouragement.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it was with great apprehension that we read the McCartin report, which, I regret, we did not discuss until yesterday afternoon. Quite frankly, we were rather perplexed at the evaluations it contains regarding the agricultural sector, for, if the data and figures are to be interpreted so harshly for a sector which is undergoing such great, all-encompassing change as the world of agriculture is due to the common agricultural policy, we are concerned about the decisions to be adopted. Of course, the rapporteur, Mr McCartin, has recommended a path to take: a thorough review must be carried out of the agricultural sector and the rules governing it. It is regrettable that the codecision process on the decisions to be adopted for agriculture was not closed at the Nice Council. There will certainly be a great deal to do in that area.

Political group: PPE-DE
The proposal for a common prosecutor for financial crimes is the first step towards a common prosecutor for other crimes too, something I am unable to accept. In the present situation, there is no reason to establish a European Prosecutor. It is more important to evaluate what intergovernmental cooperation has led to. It is too early, moreover, to evaluate Eurojust, which appears to be operating well. It is also possible further to deepen intergovernmental cooperation in this area.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, do excuse me for arriving late. Unfortunately, I am still at a loss as to how to find my way out of the maze of garages by the shortest route. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to address a problem that is largely to be found in the Baltic States, in particular Latvia and Estonia. It concerns the existence of a relatively large Russian-speaking ethnic group, supplemented by people from Ruthenia and the Ukraine. The vast majority of these people are there as a result of a decade of occupation, which is why they keep themselves very much to themselves. In the course of the last few years, it has been possible to bring about a distinct improvement in the situation, due in no small part to the influence of the European Institutions. I would remind you that only a few years ago, the language law contributed to the negative assessment. I would also ask you to cast your minds back to the great difficulties attending the nationality law, which had to be amended and tailored to European standards. These legal hurdles have now been overcome, as a result of which, many Russian-speaking citizens are now prepared to recognise the citizens’ rights and duties, both in Latvia and Estonia, which are the countries worst affected. It is a process that is having very mixed success, but it still inspires great hope, because it will mean that these citizens will also become citizens of the Union in the future, and will therefore be called upon, in a special way, to establish ties with their homeland, where their forefathers come from. I have a shrewd idea that these citizens will become agents of cross-border cooperation in a future enlarged European Union.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to expressly thank you for pointing out that the rapporteur’s speaking time must not be used to express personal opinions – let alone in such a sharp way that is almost defamatory! I should like to protest that I as an MP, which is what I am – I shall be speaking on behalf of my group later – get what amounts to a ban on speaking for expressing an opinion on the subject that I have never concealed. I also have the right to sign for the group amendments that my group supports. Please also note that a rapporteur also has to maintain a certain neutrality and represent the opinion of the committee. I am speaking here as a Member of Parliament and not as the chair, and I have not signed anywhere as chair. I must ask that these be kept separate and that the work not be confused in this way. We actually have quite a good climate in the committee. I am rather shaken by the way things are proceeding here this evening!

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, much less vehemently but, I believe, just as justifiably, I would like to ask this Parliament to vote in favour of this urgent motion. We in the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs have been working on this issue for a year. On 5 September we voted in favour of Mr Watson’s report in which we asked for concrete Commission proposals in favour of harmonising penalties in the field of terrorism and establishing mutual recognition of sentences, which is known, inappropriately in my view, as the European arrest warrant. There have been passionate and interesting debates in our committee, and it is a shame that Mr Cohn-Bendit has not been able to follow them. (Applause) Work has been done in this Parliament in relation to the texts which the European Commission has been working on for over a year. I believe that we are all responsible adults and Members of Parliament, we know the background to the texts, we understand their political importance and we can make an effort to accept the inconveniences of doing a little work over these days, so that on Monday, before the Laeken Summit, in a perfectly correct manner in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, Parliament may give its opinion for the second time. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Year of People with Disabilities is approaching its end and it is time to examine the results. What do we see? Can a year really make any difference? Have we been able to achieve anything concrete that could help us to have an impact on the day-to-day existence and quality of life of disabled people? I would hope after this year some permanent changes will remain in the way at least some disabled people cope in their everyday life. A good example would be the use of assistance dogs throughout the Union, which, along with technical tools and information technology, mean greater scope socially, educationally, and professionally for people with visual, aural and motion disabilities. I will take this opportunity to thank Commissioner Diamantopoulou for her genuine interest and encouragement regarding this issue, which I hope will continue to make progress and extend throughout the new Member States too, possibly with the aid of EU funding. There is nevertheless the question of how to incorporate accessibility, non-discrimination, and full citizens’ rights for people with disabilities in major policy lines at all levels. Right now too we are introducing more major areas of policy for the future. I am involved in adapting a proposal for a directive on public procurement and we are now trying to settle two important issues for people with disabilities and the enforcement of their citizens’ rights. To what extent can we take the special needs of disabled people into account in planning the built environment and its other physical aspects and developing transport and other services? Another essential question that remains unanswered is the criteria for production methods. In my opinion, it is also mainly a matter of democracy. These two directives involve taking important decisions on just how great the power of decision of the local authorities should be. Furthermore, there is an implied danger under the new draft constitution that healthcare and other social services would be opened up to competition. How then would the special needs of people with disabilities be affected?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, thanks to action by the international community and previous resolutions adopted by Parliament on human rights in Nigeria, Mrs Safiya Hussaini, who was under sentence of death by stoning, has been pardoned. Even as we welcome this, we must remain vigilant. Other women are at risk of the same sentence of death by stoning, especially Mrs Lawal in the state of Katsina. The application of Sharia law affects women in particular, especially poorer women. These arbitrary judicial proceedings and the sentences passed on these women are contrary to the fundamental rights recognised under the international conventions ratified by Nigeria. We must denounce this selective judicial system which considers adultery a crime, which allows the men to walk free while the women are condemned, even if they are the victims of rape. Parliament must insist that the Nigerian Government prohibit any death sentence from being executed and institute proceedings before the constitutional court on the application of Sharia law. The Nigerian Government must abide by the international conventions on human rights which it has signed, as tangible proof of its intention to institute a process of democratisation and the rule of law, guarantee economic and social dialogue and foster dialogue between communities. We call on the Council, the Commission and the co-presidents of the ACP to use every political and commercial means at their disposal to ensure that the Nigerian Government applies and abides by these conventions and the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, having deliberated at its sitting of 15 and 16 May, agreed to recommend that the announcement in plenary of Parliament’s confirmation of the removal of Mr Jean-Marie Le Pen’s mandate be suspended. I repeat, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market recommended that this announcement be suspended until the deadline period that Mr Le Pen was given for appealing against the French Council of State had expired or until a decision by the latter. And I am quoting word for word from the letter dated 17 May that you yourself, Madam President, read in plenary. As you said, the Council of State rejected the appeal and we were duly informed of that rejection. There is therefore no longer any reason for delaying this announcement in plenary, which is an obligatory act according to primary law, specifically paragraph 2 of Article 12 of the Act of 20 September 1976. The request for a reprieve that you mentioned, Madam President, does not alter this situation, as it is not a legal appeal. As its name indicates, it is an act of the Prince, which does not affect the decree from the French Government which, in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, must be announced in plenary.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would first of all like to congratulate the rapporteur on the work she has done and also the Commission on such an appropriate initiative. Nevertheless, I would like to highlight three aspects which seem to me very important. The first is the importance of the audiovisual sector in promoting sport. We must not forget that sport contributes to forging an identity and bringing people together, as well as uniting sportspeople and spectators by offering the latter the opportunity to identify with their nation. Furthermore, sport is one of the fields of activity which most affects and touches on the citizens of the European Union regardless of their age or social origin, and therefore sport cannot and must not be discriminatory and all the citizens of the European Union must be able to see sporting events. They must not be a privilege for the few, since these events are of great importance to our society. The second issue is the need to control advertising slots, and I therefore fully support the rapporteur when she backs the Commission’s strategy of carrying out a study on the repercussions of television advertising and TV shopping techniques on minors. And the third issue I would like to highlight is my total support for the rapporteur’s request that the Member States strengthen dialogue and cooperation on all issues relating to the protection of minors and young people. We cannot aspire to a world without violence when our future adults spend the day watching increasingly violent animated cartoons, films and news items.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I welcome the Lisbon conclusions. In fact, seen from the perspective of employment and social policy and against the long procession of summits which preceded it, Lisbon stands out along with Luxembourg in terms of the potential it offers us. I stress the word 'potential' because, as others have said, we now need to look at the follow-up. Partly that follow-up is institutional. We will be looking very carefully, for example, at how the broad economic guidelines will be prepared, at just how successful the input of the Social Affairs and Employment Council will be in emphasising the need for employment and social cohesion when it formulates the broad economic guidelines. Also, we are told that each spring the European Council will consider an overall report to be produced by the Commission that will deal with structural indicators to be agreed. We wonder who will agree those structural indicators and just how strong the synthesis report to be produced by the Commission will be. What will the role of the Commission and this institution be? Will it, in fact, be largely intergovernmental? If so, I think we will be disappointed. But we are not just concerned about the institutional follow-up. We are also concerned about the substance. What proposals, for example, will the Commission come forward with by June this year on social inclusion, as it was challenged to do in the Lisbon conclusions? Further than that, how quickly will the high-level group on the future of social protection begin to move into the realm of a convergence strategy for social protection that this House has called for? So we are concerned with the substantive follow-up as well. One point disappoints me – that is the stance of the EPP in all this. It is trying to pretend that it welcomes the outcome because it is largely liberal and concentrates upon the liberal market aspects. It should be honest and say that, like us, it has always supported a social market economy. We welcome the emphasis upon the smooth and efficient functioning of markets. But as always we want that to be balanced by solidarity and social inclusion. I hope the group has the political honesty to accept that it continues to support that point of view.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I should like to ask you to look into what this vote has cost European taxpayers. I should also like you to make money available for a course through which the committee can learn to work together. It is quite outrageous that we should sit for an hour voting on what should have been resolved by the committee. They really must get their bloody act together before long. This endless piddling about cannot continue! (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, neither the time nor the mood feels right for starting any sort of squabble – either with the Committee Chairman or with other British Members of this Parliament – on who has most to lose from acidification or measures against acidification. Instead, I will try to be rather more positive and thank the British Members for managing to get through this directive and for ensuring that tomorrow we shall be able to make a decision. To put it rather dramatically, this decision means that my region can come back to life and that forestry, the fishing industry and biodiversity will be given a chance to repair the damage which has occurred over decades and perhaps even a whole century. This is an excellent example of the benefit of practical and solid European cooperation. Through this kind of cooperation, we can achieve a change in my region which we should not have been able to bring about ourselves, that is, a halt to acidification. Even if we cannot eradicate acidification completely, we can halt it and try to repair some of the damage which it has caused. I look forward to the review which is to be carried out, as I know that such measures are insufficient. Acidification will continue, despite the decision we shall make tomorrow. I wish to thank the Members and the Commission for the work we have carried out together.

Political group: PSE