GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, our fellow MEPs have rightly listed the problems caused by the enormous number of mines left behind, often for years, after conflicts throughout the world. The European Parliament recently sent a delegation to Sudan where a civil war has been raging for 20 years. Thankfully the war is over in some parts of the country, such as the Nuba Mountains in the south, but the people living there are now faced with the continued presence of thousands and thousands of mines. Not only are more people regularly being injured in mine-related accidents, but mines are restricting access to the fields and other villages. This makes it very difficult for people to earn a living. I would therefore like to appeal directly to all those in the world who are responsible for making these mines. We have no idea how long mines can remain active or how long they will still be around. I was shocked to discover in Sudan that Belgian mines are still being found there 20 to 30 years after they were made. And that is despite the fact that my country, Belgium, was one of the first countries to work for the abolition of mines. That was in Africa, but the problem reaches as far as the borders of Europe. For example, remember that mines are still being used in Cyprus to protect the border between the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot parts. I hope that the largest countries – China, the United States and Russia – will stop producing and using these mines as well. A general global ban is essential, because the effects of mines still remain a threat to the existence of poor people every day.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I too voted in favour of the Langen report in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and believe I was right to do so. On the other hand, I also understand how our colleagues in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy put a different emphasis on things. That, too, I consider understandable, for otherwise we would not need both committees and could do everything in one. I also take the view that it is only this tension between the various committees that makes it possible for something sensible to emerge at the end of the day. I will be quite frank in saying that I have a number of difficulties with the Schörling report. The main one is perhaps that I believe substances should be evaluated not only according to the danger they may present, but also according to their characteristics. In this sense, they are not simply capable of being substituted for each other, at least not all of them. There are substances that are dangerous, but which are useful in certain chemical processes. Secondly, I believe that whether or not a substance is dangerous has to be founded on scientific statements. It must be verifiable. I am always very dubious about suspicions of danger or risk. Being very subjective, these can be understood but not verified. The vast number of testers required leads me to ask where they all are. Safety does not increase in line with the amount of hyphenation or the number of regulations, but is increased by actual testing. So we will have to look into that. And one more little observation: which substances are actually necessary to society? How does one ascertain something like that? Who ascertains something like that? I still need some clarification on that point, but I am happy to listen. I would, by the way, like to remind the President that, this evening, we are discussing over EUR 800 billion in turnover, 400 billion of it in energy and 400 billion in chemistry. That is a hell of a lot for two and a half hours. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
I would also like to congratulate all three rapporteurs for simplifying reports on a very complicated area. For me, the emergence of a fully integrated and liberalised telecommunications market by the end of 2001 is the vital precondition for the transition to a digital knowledge-based economy, which I hope will bring considerable growth to the EU. It is essential to note that the consequences of this package will certainly not be restricted to one recipient in particular. On the contrary, the new legal framework will serve to enhance competition in this sector. This House’s objective is to encourage incumbents to continue to be major players, yet there is a danger that their over-dominance will discriminate against new entrants, when one of our key priorities is to create a climate in which new entrants are allowed to flourish. We are getting the balance right on this issue, and this I hope will actually counter concerns over the mounting debt in this sector at present. For my group the intention of this raft of legislation is to encourage market development and to reduce the burden of legislation. However, rules with a significant effect should not be based on a short-term vision. I am therefore pleased that in the access directive the committee approved the inclusion of mobile networks in the definition, and I am equally pleased that the retail prices of international roaming, which are exorbitant at present, will be transparent and cost-based in future. In a sector which is subject to such swift technological change, it is important to ensure that the regime is able to deal with unforeseen issues that might arise in the future. The access directive will have the greatest impact on the European consumer as it will lead to lower prices, greater choice and better services. At the same time, the new situation will create opportunities for businesses across Europe and especially small businesses. IN THE CHAIR: MR SCHMIDVice-President

Political group: PSE
This topic mainly appears to be a technical matter which does not involve any major political choices. This is not entirely true, because it can have major implications on both consumer protection and on the well-being and health of employees. The European Machinery Directive has two quite divergent objectives. In accordance with Article 95 of the Treaty on European Union concerning the internal market, the Machinery Directive must serve to promote the free movement of goods. Fortunately, paragraph 3 of this Article also refers to a high level of protection in the area of public health, safety and consumer protection, and the question is whether this is actually being achieved. Although insufficient research has been done in this area, the existing directive seems not to have led to a visible decrease in the number of industrial accidents. Neither am I expecting great things from the review of the directive, certainly as long as there continues to be confusion about its scope. The first defect is that self-certification is considered to be the greatest good. This is also referred to as ‘Conformité Européenne’, which operates in conjunction with the CE marking. The latter offers fewer guarantees than do the old, national inspectorates, such as the KEMA in the Netherlands for electrical appliances. The second reason is that items such as vehicles, switches, generators, moving staircases and small lifts are excluded from the directive. - Ceyhun report (A5-0189/2002)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are now considering two reports that form part of a set of measures designed to promote the creation of an area of security, freedom and justice in order to provide a useful response to the everyday concerns of Europe’s citizens. I congratulate Roberta Angelilli and Giacomo Santini, because both reports make it clear that the enormous challenge we face consists of creating a genuine area of justice, in which European citizens can see their integrity protected, enjoy access to justice and have their rights guaranteed regardless of the place in which they live and as easily as if they were in their own country. The Angelilli report is concerned with citizens who have been victims of crime. It is crucial that we devote all our efforts to preventing secondary victimisation. It is unacceptable that someone who has been the victim of a crime should be victimised once again because the system provides them with inadequate or non-existent protection. Mrs Klamt has already given paradigmatic examples of some such situations. Compensation must be awarded for losses and damage sustained in a way that is immediate, full and effective. The Member States must, to this end, promote the appropriate harmonisation of their legal and regulatory provisions, because it is unfair that, as a result of the profound disparities that exist, there should be unjustifiable differences in the compensation to which European citizens are entitled merely because they have been crime victims in one particular part of the European Union rather than another. The citizens must also have accessible and full information on these rights, provided in the various Community languages. Often rights are not exercised not because they are not in place or are not regulated, but because the citizens are not able to access this information. The Santini report is based on the observation that the exercise of the freedom of movement will lead to a huge increase in cross-border cases involving individuals with such modest incomes that they might not be able to access justice or benefit from adequate legal aid. The Charter of Fundamental Rights, specifically Article 47, provides that legal aid is to be made available to those who lack sufficient resources in so far as such aid is necessary to ensure effective access to justice. We therefore agree that, as already laid down in the Tampere conclusions, minimum rules that guarantee an adequate level of legal aid for cross-border legal disputes throughout the Union must be established, whilst emphasising, nevertheless, that the Member States always have the option of laying down more favourable provisions in line with their own traditions.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I voted for the report on the promotion of electricity from renewable energy sources. I am, of course, in favour of saving energy, which is extremely important for us, but it is very important for pensioners and elderly people as well; if possible they need a constant supply which is always available. The cold winter days and nights of both northern and southern Europe come to mind, where, sadly, many elderly people are forced by their low income to turn off the heating to save money. An excellent example of energy-saving is the town of Brescia, in Italy, where district heating, which is actually generated from waste incineration, is used both to generate electricity and to generate heat which is then transported to all the houses of the townspeople of Brescia. I call for a similar system to be adopted in all the towns of Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the enlargement process is the bridge from the old Europe to the new. The debate that we are having today and the report that we are discussing is a first step in that process. It is important, however, that we do not allow ourselves to become prisoners of old ideas. Despite our misgivings about one aspect or the other of this report, we should be brave enough to give the leadership that the people of Europe expect from this Parliament, the elected representatives of the people of Europe. This report does not close off any options. It does not seek to give a view on the ratification of Nice. That is being left to the Member States whose responsibility it is. I happen to be campaigning in Ireland for a 'yes' vote but it is a critical 'yes'. I have my criticisms of the Treaty of Nice, but it is important that we be brave enough to say, 'Of course, we have problems, but it is important that the enlargement process gets under way'. Most importantly in the debate about the future of Europe is the kind of Europe we want: do we want a democratically participative Europe, do we want a socially inclusive Europe? If we do, it will not happen by accident. We must get involved in the debate, we have to persuade people here and in our own Member States. We must provide not only a forum at European level through a convention, but also ensure that there are fora in every Member State, so that people in each Member State can talk and debate with each other with other people in Europe.

Political group: PSE
The MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece voted against the accession of the ten countries from a sense of solidarity with their people, who have no reason to celebrate. On the contrary, it was clear in the run-up to accession (when public corporations and their wealth were sold off to big business abroad, any achievements were abolished, sovereign rights and national independence were restricted and so on), that they have every cause for concern. Only multinationals and their representatives in the European Parliament have any reason to celebrate. The 'ten' are joining a Union of small and medium-sized imperialist states which serves the interests of the major capitalist states, thereby exacerbating the exploitation of their people and anyone else they can get their hands on, in both competition and cooperation with the 'big brother' and acknowledged ruler: the USA. As was apparent from the crime against Iraq, the differences between certain Euro-unionist imperialists and their American buddies in the war lie not in the end but in the means. We also voted against the accession of Cyprus because, in addition to the foregoing, it has been used to exert pressure and legitimise the outcome of the barbaric invasion and occupation, to which the 'sensitive' European imperialists are turning a blind eye. The workers – the people – do not need imperialist organisations to hammer out their common fight and will bar the way to the ruin they are leading them to by changing the course of mankind towards a future worthy of it, a future.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr Nassauer is absolutely right. There has been some progress, but quite frankly that progress is not enough. We are talking about fundamental and universal human rights. I stand here as an atheist, but defend the right to freedom of religion, freedom of belief, freedom of association and the freedom to exchange ideas. What do we have to fear from people who have different ideas or different beliefs from us? We must call upon the Vietnamese Government to do what is absolutely right, which is to respect universal human rights and release prisoners of conscience, to stop detentions and to allow journalists to go about their business, which is to report and criticise. Let me refer to what was said by my colleagues Mr Mann and Mr Casaca with reference to the cooperation agreements and our association agreements. We have to enforce these human rights clauses otherwise we will never be taken seriously by the international community. We must state clearly that these are our standards and our principles, and that they are non-negotiable.

Political group: PSE
As a Swedish Christian Democrat, I have voted against the items (78 and 82–84) which seek to control Member States’ legislation in the area of family policy. This is a national issue, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, which has no place in a report on human rights in Europe. I have also voted against items 119 and 120 on giving people without citizenship in a Member State of the EU the right to vote in European Parliament elections. Responsibility and duties must be linked to rights and eligibility. This should be an obvious principle and fact of life. - Wuori report (A5-0193/2001) and Cornillet report (A5-0223/2001)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is important to note when voting that Amendment No 1 must be based on the English version. The German original text does not reproduce the resolutions passed in the Economic Affairs Committee. This is due to an oversight. That being so, we will, when voting, be voting for the English version. I ask you to take note of this.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, with the presence in Strasbourg this week of Martin Lee, the eminent Hong Kong democratic leader, and the arrival of a high-level Chinese WTO negotiating team in Brussels on Monday, the issue of human rights in China is again most topical. By bringing this matter to the fore we are not seeking confrontation with China, a country for which we have great respect and considerable admiration. What a pity that the enormous economic progress made by China over the last ten years or so has not been matched by similar progress in political and religious freedom and the rule of law. Of course there must be dialogue on these matters but this must have a positive outcome in terms of genuine and substantive reforms. It is not acceptable to say that western norms are not applicable to China. Human rights are universal and, in this respect, Asian values are no different from our values. In Hong Kong we see erosion of hard-won freedoms and guarantees. Maybe it is no surprise, however, that demonstrations about Tibet are banned there, when they are barely allowed in London, if the Chinese President is visiting. In mainland China we should congratulate the recent leadership for getting rid of communism, but in its place we have seen the growth of a corrupted form of capitalism without democracy. The Chinese Government must stop the harassment and imprisonment of Christians, such as Li Dexian in Guandong province and the repression of Buddhists in Tibet and elsewhere. I call upon the Chinese authorities to have the courage to allow democrats such as Martin Lee to travel freely in mainland China. We want to see a China that is fully part of the international community, with true democracy and the rule of law. When will China set out a timetable for democracy? Commissioner Busquin, although I understand that human rights and trade negotiations are usually handled separately in the European Union, I would ask the Commission to ensure that the concerns of this House are strongly brought to the attention of the Chinese WTO negotiators next week.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, everything has been said. When the European Parliament’s Committee on Employment and Social Affairs took the decision to put this question to you, it had three objectives. The first was to assure our assistants publicly that this matter was being taken on board by the European Parliament. We have done that. The second was to make sure that the Commission, which itself had commissioned the expert, Mr Vandersanden, was prepared to capitalise on its work and to follow it up by taking precise administrative action. You have pledged to do this. Our third objective was to have a timetable, which was particularly related to the fact that the Belgian Presidency was just around the corner and that the problem essentially concerned Belgian social security. The Belgian Presidency must therefore deal with this matter, it cannot escape it, but the preparatory work must be done first. You have just given that assurance, for which I thank you. Just now, our fellow Member, Mr Pittella, justifiably called on us to arrive at a full and final solution to the problem of the assistants, and he was right to do so. We all know, however, that this will take time and it will involve a number of different stages and much effort. We need the involvement of the three institutions: the Commission, the Council and Parliament. We can, though, only do our work once you have done yours. The essential stage is always the next one. Thank you for pledging to help us get through it.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have focused particular attention on a point that has come in for a degree of criticism from some other MEPs, namely the introduction of the 90-head rule. I regard the introduction of this rule as an entirely desirable step, for two reasons: firstly, because it releases funds which we could use to assist smaller farms and family holdings wherever possible and, secondly, because it accords with a certain principle of equality. In our economic legislation we have support systems for enterprises with up to 50 employees, for enterprises with up to 250 employees and for those enterprises with a payroll in excess of 250 employees. In the farming world, I do not see the logic behind the special treatment of large agricultural holdings. It seems to me that our policies will not bear fruit in the future unless we make a point of supporting the small and family-run farms, the protection of the landscape and environmentally beneficial soil cultivation, especially in ecologically sensitive areas, instead of pouring a considerable percentage of our financial resources into large farming businesses. In my view, there is no justification for us in the long term to go on having the lion’s share of our aid resources creamed off by farms with thousands of animals, nor will the people of Europe accept such a situation. I therefore hope that the Commission’s proposal will be adopted. I know that my opinion differs from those of my group and of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, but I nevertheless hope that we can keep the 90-head rule as proposed by the Commission.

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, thank you for giving me a well-intentioned answer, which has been rigorous and well-argued. However, I can assure you that we do not, with the existing measures – which you have referred to – reach these severely less-favoured regions. They are areas where there is much need and we have to put them on an equal footing with those areas where we work in cooperation, where almost none exists. Therefore, my question is whether you could examine the possibility that some of the policies on microcredits, which have brought results in cooperation, could be applied to those women in severely less-favoured regions, who have the odds stacked against them. I am very familiar with the programmes which you refer to. I can assure you that we are not reaching the areas where there is most need. With these forecasts of the structural policy – which I know very well – and the forecasts of LEADER and rural development, we will not promote, as we should, employment amongst women in the severely less-favoured regions. I would therefore ask you to study the possibility of applying microcredit policies.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I welcome this excellent initiative. We need to ensure as far as we can that freight is removed from our roads and is placed onto alternative means of transport. Ireland has benefited greatly from EU funding to develop its rail and road infrastructure. It is currently in receipt of monies to develop a new tramway system in Dublin and a tunnel to take freight from the north side of the city – the M50 in the airport area – to the docks, thus keeping unnecessary freight from the city's streets. I want to raise a serious problem that has arisen in relation to the completion of the M50 in the Carrickmines area of Dublin. Around EUR 74 million has been allocated to this project. It has been found that an environmental impact assessment study which has been necessary to qualify for EU funds is seriously flawed. It did not identify an internationally important archaeological site, Carrickmines Castle, which contains, amongst other things, the remains of a 13th century Norman castle. The motorway, as currently planned, will bury this site before an archaeological dig has been carried out. It is not appropriate that European taxpayers' money should be used in this way to destroy our heritage. It is not just Irish heritage, it is European heritage. I am calling on the Commission to intervene urgently to have the construction of this road stopped until a full review is carried out as to why the environmental impact study did not identify this major archaeological site when it was identified by a state-sponsored organisation, An Foras Forbartha, in 1983. This is a major issue that needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency by the Commission.

Political group: PSE