GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
The European Union is claiming to be a factor for stabilisation in the former Yugoslavia. This pretension is both dishonest and vain. It is dishonest because rivalry between great European powers has contributed in a major way to the collapse of Yugoslavia and to the conflicts which preceded the collapse or which have resulted from it. Air operations in Serbia and Kosovo by the major powers, particularly the European powers, have not improved and, in fact, have worsened the climate of inter-ethnic hostility that has been fostered and cultivated by nationalist organisations. This pretension is vain because, despite the “enhanced presence and strong commitment by KFOR” of which the recommendation boasts, the activity of armed groups seeking to cut off and control the community of their own nationality and to terrorise the nationality that they have declared to be their enemy is continuing and growing worse. It is not our intention to endorse the diplomatic and military operations undertaken in the Balkans by the great powers because, rather than bringing peace to the region, they are helping to increase the people’s suffering. Although the peoples of the Balkans have been paying for the prejudices of the political leaders of their own ruling classes with their blood for over a century, they are paying an infinitely higher price for the actions of the major European powers. Consequently, we voted against the recommendation.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Could I express surprise that the compromise package negotiated by the three largest groups has been rejected by the Council? We would have preferred to have voted on the compromise amendments. The compromise on the two contentious issues, namely time allowed for setting limits and the right to return contaminated feed to the country of origin with the consent of that country's government, was realistic and workable. I wish to put on the record the position of the ED wing of the EPP that the Council was crazy to reject the package that was on the table. If it thinks it can get a better deal in conciliation, then it has another think coming! Incidentally, the compromise was the best deal for the Italian pensioners as well.

Political group: PPE-DE
I congratulate Mr Bradbourn on the report he has submitted to us, which I support. This work reveals great technical knowledge in its approach to a subject of vital importance: the development of a truly trans-European transport network in the context of enlargement. I should, however, like to underline the following points: - the act of withdrawing the classification of projects of European interest should be a task for the Council and Parliament; - the need to accept the list of priority projects in Annex III without changes; - the importance of developing ‘motorways of the sea’, which are essential to eliminate gridlock in the trans-European transport network, and of achieving a real modal shift in this network.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in one minute one cannot say much, so I am going to take this opportunity to summarise. Firstly, I wish to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Lambert, for taking up all our proposals in the debate. There are therefore not even any amendments. Secondly, I wish to say that at this stage nobody doubts that the Committee on Petitions and the Ombudsman make an extremely important contribution to compliance with Community law. We see this every day in the Committee on Petitions. Like Mrs Hautala, I am therefore very happy that the Committee on Petitions has survived the attempts to remove it, since, as well as demanding compliance with Community law, it is the committee which is closest to the citizens. It is the committee which makes the institutions most visible to the citizens. The greatest problem is probably the long procedure which follows a complaint by a citizen. The citizen has to study Community law in order to present a petition, and then any response is delayed month after month. The most important petitions deal with social and environmental issues, which are the matters of most concern. On some occasions, Mr President – and I will end here – when a complaint involves the eviction of a citizen or the destruction of a natural area, the response arrives when it is too late to deal with the matter. The speeding up of the process is therefore an important issue which has been taken up by Mrs Lambert.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on his work on this highly sensitive dossier. Unusually, the division here has not been political but national, and the compromise brokered is generally positive. This directive was necessary because port services must be opened up to competition and European ports require European legislation on port services. If competition is encouraged, it is essential that it be organised by an appropriate framework. However, account must be taken of the specific nature of each activity. I am thinking of piloting and mooring services in particular, since these, for safety reasons, must continue to be governed by the port authorities. This method of management works very well in France and even if these activities are open to competition in other European countries, I am in favour of their current exclusion from the scope of the directive. These are port services of general interest. If these services are kept within the scope of the directive, the concept of port authority loses all meaning. On the other hand, I approve of the liberalisation of freight handling, since this is a commercial service and opening it up to competition should be synonymous with increased employment. Lastly, I have supported the provisions in favour of greater transparency in financial relations between ports and Member States. In the name of legal certainty and fair competition between European ports, it must be possible to subject grants paid by national authorities to detailed inspections. Report Berenguer Fuster (A5-0359/2001):

Political group: PPE-DE
In both the Swedish and international media, Christian Aid is reported to have demanded that, for example, the Swedish oil company, Lundin Oil, whose board also includes the UN Secretary-General’s adviser for the Balkans, Carl Bildt, should leave Sudan. Have Commissioner Nielson and the Commission had any contact at all with Christian Aid and Lundin Oil and, for that matter, also perhaps with UN adviser Carl Bildt on the subject of these allegations of human rights violations in connection with the road building being done so that oil can be extracted in southern Sudan?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on behalf of my group, I, too, should like to add my voice to the congratulations addressed to the rapporteur. He also worked very hard on the main report on the 1999 discharge and produced excellent results. We wholeheartedly support this report too. I also believe that the Commission has been at pains to provide the relevant information within a short time. However, I naturally endorse the criticism voiced by Mrs Stauner: we have the impression – and this is reflected in the relevant paragraph of the Blak report – that the Commission is still playing its childish game of hide and seek with the European Parliament. The events of the last few days and the publications on a further van Buitenen report show that European reality does not take place between Parliament and the Commission, between a few officials and MEPs; it takes place in the real world, among 370 million Europeans, who cannot and should not continue to be led by the nose. I would be delighted if the Commission could finally move towards a more generous system – which, in my view, is an integral part of any democracy – regarding the disclosure of documents and the transparency of its administrative procedures. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like, if I may, to make some comments that have been inspired by this report. My first comment is that this report deals with a serious matter. Firstly because the charges are serious, and secondly because this relates to the freedom of individuals and the freedom of Members of Parliament. I have four comments to make on this report. First of all, a debate is clearly taking place on the purpose of parliamentary immunity – something that the general public do not understand and which is perceived as a privilege, even though it should not be a privilege. I think that this debate must be held especially since the general public does not understand the issue and that the charges are particularly serious and particularly significant. Having said this and be that as it may, under the Rule of Law, the procedure must be strictly observed and we must ensure that these matters are considered in law and that procedures are strictly observed. My third comment is that the media coverage of these procedures is not compatible with an impartial justice system and the requirements of an impartial justice system. My final comment is that the Europe of human rights is obviously not yet in place, that there is no habeas corpus in France, although a great deal of progress has been made, particularly as a result of the support given by Mr Jospin’s government to the issue of the presumption of innocence. Nevertheless, with 125 suicides committed each year in prison, France may have abolished the death penalty but it has not yet eliminated it altogether.

Political group: PSE
I always wonder, Mr President, whether it is right that discussions on sustainable development in the world never include mention of the fact that one very important aspect of the lives of men and women in Europe is the quality of life they enjoy during the various stages of their lives. There are many of us who are extremely well off, both in economic terms and in terms of health, when we are young and while we work too, but when we grow old, we find that we no longer have the same standard of living. Why do we not also do something to reduce the disparities between the economic and social standards of living we enjoy during the different stages of life, that is when we are young, when we are middle-aged employees and when we grow old?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in connection with the Sixth Framework Programme, we have, in this House, had in-depth discussions on the protection of embryos. At the time, enormous pressure was brought to bear on the defenders of ethical principles, who were told that, important as the issue was, it must be not be allowed to lead to the blocking of this important research programme, of which the protection of embryos formed only a very small part. We are now in a situation in which the very same people who said that then are trying to block the whole Framework Programme because of an attempt by a qualified majority in the Council – that is, by quite legal means – to implement ethical principles that we should actually have laid down at an early stage. I would like to know what, if anything, makes it legitimate for Mr Westendorp to go around claiming to speak for Parliament and declaring that we want a Budget reserve for all or part of the programme. I do not recall us ever coming to such a decision in plenary. So I ask that tomorrow's trilogue with the Council should not address issues on which this House has never voted!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we in the Confederal Group of the would have liked to have approved a resolution on the human rights situation and the situation in the Turkish prisons following this debate. We regret that the other political groups were not willing to do so on this occasion. As we all know, the serious and systematic infringements of human rights in Turkey are continuing. The situation in prisons and police stations is entirely unacceptable and includes extensive abuse and torture. In recent times a number of people have died as a result of abuse in Turkish prisons. An extensive hunger strike is currently underway in the prisons to protest against these inhuman conditions. Turkey is infringing international conventions on human rights to which the country is a signatory. The oppression of the political left and national minorities such as Kurds is particularly intense, but other national minorities such as Assyrians are also being oppressed. Unfortunately we will be able to see a new example of this on Wednesday next week, when the Assyrian priest Yusuf Akbulut will be brought before a military court in Diyarbakir. His only crime is to have spoken the truth when he spoke about the genocide of Armenians and Assyrians in the 1920s. If he is convicted then Turkey’s regime will again have shown its contempt for human rights. So long as this situation prevails the country cannot be considered for membership negotiations with the European Union.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I wish to emphasise at the outset that I am unreservedly in favour of Parliament working in a transparent manner and also of all its documentation being made accessible to the public. I nonetheless voted against Mrs Maij-Weggen's report. Parliament has a political task, and, in the conciliation procedure between the Council and Parliament deals with political questions – sometimes sensitive ones – and the work of the delegations can even touch on live political issues. I consider it irresponsible for us to make ‘working documents’ accessible to the public. Official documents and working documents are quite different things. The conciliation procedure in particular deals with the political implementation of different positions taken by the two institutions, Parliament and the Council. If all the thinking set down in the working documents is made public at the outset, then we can give up politics. The Council will be delighted to know in advance what Parliament has in mind. Foster report (A5-0134/2002)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in view of the importance of the matter, I would just like to ask the Commissioner to clarify something. In any case, I would like to thank him for all his comments, which were certainly important from my point of view, although I do maintain – and I will do so tomorrow – that Parliament should have the autonomy to decide on a political basis rather than on the basis of other factors. However, his response regarding Amendment No 147 does not make sense at all: while the Commission is against raising the thresholds – which, as was said during the hearings, meetings and debates within the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, I believe is because it wants the directives on works contracts to be applied as widely as possible – according to what the Commissioner has just said, raising the thresholds would actually reduce the number of works contracts. Now then, Amendment No 147 seeks specifically to open up works contracts to competition, and I cannot understand why the Commission is opposed to this. I would be grateful to the Commissioner if, either now or later in private, by some means or other, he could explain to me what part of Amendment No 147 is unacceptable. It is important, Mr President, for this is no trivial matter. I repeat, if it is not appropriate to do so now because it is time to suspend our work or move on to something else, I am quite prepared, if the Commissioner agrees, even to meet him afterwards so that he can explain to me what is wrong with Amendment No 147, which, as I see it, ensures that absolutely all works contracts, of whatever type, can be governed by European legislation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, everyone is taking up their respective positions and the negotiations are taking shape. There are two possible solutions. Either nothing is changed or everything is. In the light of the possibility of negotiations being reopened, everyone is hoping to improve everything and running the risk of ruining everything. I am aware that in this role-play, some people, including some Members of Parliament are ready to invoke God as a way of obtaining more concessions on other subjects. I will let them make their own decisions on this. I do not share this approach to organising our earthly life. Everyone is coming to this forum with the 10% they want to change. I also have 10% I would like to change. I would like to see more qualified majority voting on social and fiscal matters. This would be the only way to put an end to tax havens and dumping. I would also like to see real coordination of economic policies and majority decisions in the field of foreign affairs. President-in-Office of the Council, there may actually be another way of tackling these negotiations. I shall now test it out. We need to establish what we are determined to retain, what we are not prepared to give up. I would now like to outline five such issues I am not willing to compromise on. The first relates to the fact that I think it is essential to retain the option of those countries engaged in strengthened cooperation to use the enabling clause. This is a technical point but it is important. The second issue concerns the status of the Charter. In my view it could be improved but not a great deal. It is therefore best to leave well alone. The third issue is that of God. God has been left out of the scope of the Constitution. Unlike Mr Elmar Brok, I want God to be left where he belongs. This means he should be left out of the Constitution. The fourth issue is the legal basis for public services. This is a crucial point. I do not want any concessions to be made on this. Lastly, there is the issue of price stability. The ECB seems to have taken up the offensive on this again. In this regard, I believe the consensus that has almost been reached on Article 3 on the objectives of the European Union is a reasonable one. I therefore propose that God and price stability are left out of all this. I wish you good luck. President-in-Office of the Council, allow me to suggest that transparency is the key to success. If you publish the proposals made by all the parties concerned, you will enjoy more widespread support than you could ever gain with the wheeling and dealing between the representatives of the Heads of State or Government.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am starting to feel the pangs of hunger so I will not deliver an explanation of vote this time.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to commend Mr Nisticò on his success in bringing Parliament and the Council together on the issues that remained outstanding during the second reading. As a result of negotiations between all concerned, a compromise was agreed on prior to the vote in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, allowing for a consensus incorporating only two amendments tabled by myself and other colleagues from an original list of ten amendments. Under the first of these amendments, traditional herbal food products that are non-medicinal should continue to come under existing food legislation and not pharmaceuticals legislation. The second amendment essentially provides that the list of herbal substances to be set up by the Committee for Herbal Medicinal Products should only cover the medicinal use of herbal substances. This would allow, for example, herbs to be used, along with vitamins and minerals, as food supplements and to come under food legislation. This logical approach avoids overlapping jurisdictions. The solution presented in the common position and the European Parliament's two amendments is eminently sensible and has the full support of the Commission. I would urge colleagues to give them a positive vote tomorrow. I welcome this directive, which recognises the value of medicinal plants as an important complement to modern chemical medicines. The traditional and herbal medicines sector is one that is of increasing significance and is expanding in scope and popularity across the Community. This directive allows for the fast-tracking of traditional medicinal herbs, which is most welcome. However, we must look towards establishing systems that encourage research and development. This was a key concern of mine in my former Amendment No 10, tabled in the Environment Committee, which was aimed, at one level, at avoiding the constraints imposed by an overly narrow and historical definition of traditional medicines, to further product development. This amendment was withdrawn in the interest - shared by all of us here - of maintaining the integrity of the directive. As in the conventional medicines field, innovation must be encouraged in this area and we must look to the future as well as to the past. I hope that when the Commission reviews this directive in three years' time it will recognise that this is a dynamic field and one in which new products are constantly emerging. While efficacy and safety must never be compromised, we need to look at building in mechanisms that will allow traditional medicines to continue to evolve in terms of their application and use and the better exploitation of the therapeutic potential of medicinal plants. This is an exciting area, one that we must not be afraid of, and one that will not benefit from over-regulation. We must protect the consumer in terms of efficacy and safety, but at the end of the day we must leave the choice with the consumer. Again, I thank Mr Nisticò for his sympathetic acceptance of colleagues' views and of our amendments in the various areas. I thank him for his cooperation throughout.

Political group: PPE-DE
I will do it in English. It is about what I originally said about the conditions under which we will release the amounts or the items which we entered in the reserve in the last vote. These are the conditions specified in Amendment No 73 of the Committee on Budgetary Control. This is in accordance with what we discussed earlier, and this is the most straightforward way. We must therefore amend the text in the way we have just voted. It says: “The money can be released after a favourable opinion from Parliaments' committee responsible for the relations with the Court of Auditors, once the Court has given updated information on its current staffing problems and on how additional staff would enable the Court to assess the performance of financial control systems in the candidate countries, improve its cooperation with the national audit institutions (requirement of Treaty of Nice) and establish more detailed specific DAS assessment.” (The President noted that there was no opposition to the oral amendment being considered) (Parliament adopted the resolution) ***

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, given that you will have to carry out this important check, my request is that this is done with the utmost respect for the wishes of the competent committee; indeed we have already had huge problems concerning the tabling office, not least over a report – by my colleague Mr Voggenhuber – which is to be debated soon. On the issue of discretion and of the admissibility of subjects, I therefore genuinely appeal to you to carefully consider the political will expressed by the committee responsible, after a complicated debate. I would also like to say that, as far as the number of amendments is concerned, the great majority of these come from one political group: I therefore wonder whether this political group is resorting to stonewalling, something that we will deal with today. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, with all due respect, because this debate is about institutions and democracy, if you are going to be strict, you should be strict with all the groups. If you are going to be tolerant, you should be tolerant with all the groups, at least in the first round. I think that then we would all stand to benefit.

Political group: GUE-NGL