GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I would like to congratulate Mrs Avilés on getting to grips with this difficult subject so rapidly, which meant that we in the Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities have been able to present this report very quickly. Nevertheless, I would have liked to see more men involved in this work. Violence against women and children is after all a men’s problem, not a women’s problem. I am convinced that with this programme we have taken a big step forward in combating physical, sexual and psychological violence against children, young persons and women. However, we all need to be aware that it is only one step, and that there is still a lot to be done to effectively combat this phenomenon of violence. In 1999 this House succeeded, in the face of persistent opposition, in initiating a campaign to counter violence against women. The Eurobarometer poll published this May made the extent of violence clear and identified the gaps where we need to take action. Europol and the STOP programme are instruments for combating trade in women. The Member States have committed themselves to do a great deal, which has, for instance, emerged from the campaigns. The complex interrelationships in the fight against violence have only really become clear because of the Austrian, German and Finnish Presidencies’ Conferences. My own country, for example, has as a result set up a national action plan against violence, and other countries are following suit. I think that we have given an important impetus to this. Mrs Avilés’ report on the common position was adopted after a great battle about changing the legal basis from Article 235 to Article 152, with the codecision procedure. But my own group only voted for it with great reservations and only because the World Heath Organisation definition, according to which health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, is now evidently recognised and taken as a basis by the Council. My group would have liked to see certain other changes of emphasis in the Daphne programme, for example links with other Community programmes such as PHARE, TACIS and MEDA, because that is where the big money is, in order to initiate preventive measures and campaigns in the applicant countries. However, as regards reaching agreement quickly and avoiding the conciliation procedure, we agree with Mrs Avilés here, and are only recommending six amendments to the common position. In any case we recommend that the media should be involved in order to get the programme up and running. I would like to thank you very sincerely for your work and hope that the Council will accept our amendments.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner Nielson, ladies and gentlemen, the new agreement on cooperation and development, the Cotonou Agreement, constitutes a significantly improved framework for cooperation with the ACP States. It is an agreement that we emphatically support, one in which the significant improvements in terms of content and policy originated in proposals by Parliament. We do not, therefore, share either the rapporteur's highly critical assessment or his reasons for it. Indeed, we take the view that it is something of a caricature. Let me, in response to the rapporteur's analysis, list three points in favour. Firstly, the establishment of a parliamentary assembly represents genuine progress, in that, after an appropriate preparatory period, ACP States will be represented only by freely elected parliamentarians, rather than by ambassadors, as is still to some extent the case. This principle must not only be incorporated into the new rules of procedure of our Joint Assembly, but also put into practice. We will vote against the admittance of any ACP ambassador if, for example, he displaces freely elected African delegates. The second is the regional approach to cooperation, also originating in proposals by this Parliament, which puts an end to economic parochialism in Africa. Our cooperative effort must in future be focused on regional free trade and cooperation agreements. We insist that our regional parliamentary cooperation should begin on the ground this very year, for example subsequent to our Southern African meeting in Cape Town in March or our meeting with ECOWAS in the course of the year. Thirdly, we support the reinforcement of the clause on democracy and human rights, which we believe must be speedily implemented. Let me mention only Nigeria, Togo and Zimbabwe as examples of why this is so. We hope that this will bring about genuine parliamentary partnership with our fellow parliamentarians in Africa and elsewhere in the ACP countries.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ports, particularly seaports, are normally cosmopolitan systems and they are junctions in the TENs for traffic by ship and sea, which is in principle the most environmentally-friendly mode of transport. The openness of seaports, though, bears no relation whatever to the system by which they are financed. Far from it; I think opacity, very often intentional, is the right word to use for it. To put it in nautical language: when it comes to financing seaports, the bulkheads are closed. The present financial structures could be described as hazy and must be changed. I believe that tomorrow's vote must be about transparency in financial relationships and in State finance, for that is the first requirement for fair competition between seaports. Granted, that is not exactly easy. Ports are under private, State, joint State and private, and public control, but all of them are enterprises in competition with each other, and so we need fair conditions. Aid is unobjectionable, but it must be aid for all. The problem is, I think, that competition between ports has to be organised. In principle, it occurs within ports or should do so, if all the Community regulations are brought into play. Pilot services are another issue. We see them as a public duty, serving safety at sea and the safety of man and nature, and the Member States have essentially reasonable regulations on them. I believe it would be possible to extend them in view of the recurrent accidents off the German Baltic coast. One sometimes gets the impression that, when it comes to navigation, many ships use the Shell atlas and nothing else. So, safety at sea with pilot services must not fall victim to the alleged pressure on costs exerted by competition. I extend my warmest thanks to the rapporteur. I know that he has had a difficult job, but his shadow does not always have an easy time of it either.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I speak on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. I am standing in for the draftsman of the opinion of the Committee, my colleague Mr MacCormick, who is unable to be here today. In our Community, there is hardly anything worse than fraud to undermine public confidence in the activities of the Union, and so the views of the rapporteur deserve our full support. Fraud, of course, affects only a small fraction – i.e. just over 1 % – of the EU’s total budget, but it is a very serious problem which seems to extend to almost all political sectors. The EU budget, however, is largely administered within the Member States, and this is where huge potential for fraud exists. We must also remember that applicant countries, i.e. the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, should be involved in this fraud prevention process for the very reason that such a large share of the Community budget is administered within the Member States. So far, fewer than half of the Member States have ratified the protocol on protecting the Union’s financial interests. This process should therefore be speeded up considerably. Furthermore, some Member States are particularly unwilling to undertake the mutual exchange of information concerning fraud. Therefore it is important for Member States to have a direct obligation to report cases of VAT fraud, for example, to the Commission. It is quite appropriate to examine the possibilities of creating the post of public prosecutor, expressly from the point of view of the fight against fraud, and this should be done, but even that will be to no avail, if the Member States lack the political will to protect the Communities’ financial interests. As far as OLAF’s position is concerned, it is important to protect its independence and equally important for the European Parliament to come to an agreement with OLAF with regard to the conditions on which Parliament can obtain information about its operations.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, you cannot dispose of waste by dumping it in the sea, shooting it into space, or by simply incinerating it. It has a habit of reappearing, often in a more harmful form. Incineration can be the cause of illnesses, air pollution, climatic change and a rise in the sea level. A great deal of waste is incinerated these days, but not, in fact, by these expensive installations equipped with flue-gas cleaning devices. These installations are not being brought up to date. In fact, they are closed down if it appears that it is cheaper to co-incinerate waste in the cement industry and in electricity plants. This is why it is important that incineration should cost the same across the board and meet the same high environmental requirements. It is a fact that left and right do not often see eye to eye on many issues – rightly and understandably so – both within and outside this Parliament, as they represent opposing interests and visions of groups in our society. This issue, however, should form an exception. Anyone, rich or poor, must be able to breathe, remain healthy and keep their feet dry. Only a reckless short-term vision and the pursuit of quick profits can explain why attempts are still being made to weaken this directive. Amendments of this kind reduce the directive to rules for those who would poison us and threaten the world with another flood. The Confederal Group of the therefore supports the proposals made by Mr Blokland and hopes that destructive amendments will be withdrawn or rejected.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I simply wanted to say that if Mrs Lienemann was so worried it is a pity she did not take part in the debate and make her points to the Commissioner during the debate.

Political group: PPE-DE
I would also like to thank the rapporteur for his sterling work, particularly in reaching a useful and speedy conclusion at second reading. We have aimed at the target of improved energy efficiency in buildings for some years, in the climate change programme amongst others. Some measures, such as the thermal insulation of new buildings, are indeed already provided for under the same programme. However, these were not binding on the Member States. In general, Community programmes have failed to result in the actual application of standards of energy efficiency in many Member States, so this directive, although modest, is indeed a step forward, a building block, if you like. The rapporteur was correct to point out that in view of the Kyoto timetable, we must be careful not to invalidate the directive by a long transition period, particularly for certification in specific areas. I congratulate him again on reaching a useful conclusion. Finally, I would like to add my voice to those who plea that we do something realistic about energy savings in Parliament buildings and in EU buildings in general.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, like the previous two speakers I welcome this report and I praise the rapporteur for her work. The initial proposal to ban the use of the flame retardant pentaBDE was not considered by Parliament to be adequate, as closely related substances – octaBDE and decaBDE – were not included. Furthermore, Parliament was dissatisfied with the speed at which the risk assessment was being carried out, as this was delaying any real concrete decisions. No one underestimates the value and importance of these substances: they are very effective flame retardants and they save lives. However, they appear to have dangerous effects on the environment and public health and, therefore, we felt something had to be done. I am sure that Parliament is pleased that the original proposal is now developed and that octaBDe has also been banned. However, Parliament cannot be totally happy about the fate of decaBDE, which remains to be decided. Parliament would like a clear date for action on this. The fate of this remaining substance is still hanging in the balance. We need clear reassurance from the Council and the Commission – by way of an insertion of a paragraph in the text during conciliation – that prompt, immediate action will be taken when the results of the risk assessment become available, as promised, in June 2003. I hope the Commissioner will confirm that tonight. On this basis, the Group can support this proposal, which will be put to the vote tomorrow morning.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, last week at the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, India and Pakistan announced that they will meet again in a month's time to take bilateral confidence-building measures, including talks on Kashmir. This House will welcome an easing of tensions at the most dangerous flashpoint in the globe which only two years ago was on the brink of a nuclear war. Both countries have recently announced a ceasefire along the line of control in Kashmir, restored airline and bus links and signed a trade agreement. In March, India's cricket team will be visiting Pakistan for the first time in a decade. Sport and friendship go hand in hand. I urge President Musharraf, nevertheless, at the same time to ensure an end to cross-border terrorist infiltration and I welcome the news today of the arrest of those accused of attempting to assassinate him. I am sure this House will wish to express its encouragement and support for the peace process.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I must say you are right. I deplore the weakness of the political message delivered by Parliament’s report. Clearly, the draft Constitutional Treaty represents an improvement over the Treaty of Nice. It is, however, appropriate to highlight its serious deficiencies. If the IGC does not rectify these, they will pose a considerable handicap to the government and future development of a European Union of 27 Member States. Maintaining unanimity for decision-making on crucial issues and the procedure for the future revision of treaties are particularly problematic areas. On the eve of the IGC, and in view of the positions adopted by governments wishing to renegotiate certain articles of the treaty, the European Commission showed political wisdom. In its remarkable opinion, the Commission underlined the weaknesses of the text and the need to improve it. The Commission is sending out the right political signal whereas Parliament is sending out the wrong one. This is why I will vote against the European Parliament report. In so doing I shall be demonstrating my differences with the majority of my colleagues. Thank you.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I too should like to congratulate Mr Oostlander, who managed to produce a report that was approved by both the advocates and the opponents of Turkish accession in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. This is no mean feat and is due to the very reasonable and balanced line of argument he follows from beginning to end – well, almost from beginning to end, but more of that in a moment. I should like to say that Mrs Stenzel speaks with the voice of wisdom when she points out that we are not seeing the whole picture if we only assess Turkey’s progress but do not examine the state of readiness of the European Union, in its various fields of political activity, to receive Turkey, and this is no trifling matter. The point I should like to pick up, Mr Oostlander, is that of secularism. Paragraph 32 of your report seems to me to proceed from a slightly jaundiced view of the secularism which is perhaps the most valuable part of the legacy of Kemal Atatürk. The separation of church and state is not an archaic formula but a recipe for the future of our Union. The fact that the government of a country whose people are mainly Muslim is trying to put this separation into practice is, I believe, an asset for which Turkey deserves credit, not an obstacle to progress.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I am very grateful to Mr Paasilinna, the rapporteur, for addressing his question to the Commission and thereby making a number of things slightly clearer. I also wish to thank Commissioner Liikanen for the position he has publicly taken, but I would like to add that these reports – of which there are several, the whole package in the last couple of weeks – have put us under enormous pressure and that there have been a lot of misunderstandings because we have not always been able to inform each other of amendments that have been made. I would like to point out that these misunderstandings have led to my name being used by the to support the content of the compromise motions, although I had signed nothing for them. Now I find myself back here again. Pressure of time means, however, that I now agree to them and will not withdraw anything. I only actually signed two amendments, not the others. That I had signed the others had evidently been taken as read because of the way I had expressed myself. This is not an accusation levelled at any individuals, but simply further evidence I wish to adduce to demonstrate what happens when we are under pressure of this sort through wanting to go public with this document towards the end of the year. I do not want to have to work in this way again on such a thorny problem in the future. It really is not on! (The President declared the common position approved as amended) (The sitting was suspended at 12 noon and resumed at 12.45)(1) Recommendation for second reading (A5-0434/2001), on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on the common position adopted by the Council with a view to adopting a European Parliament and Council directive on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive) [10418/1/2001 – C5-0416/2001 – 2000/0186(COD)] (Rapporteur: Mr Brunetta) (The President declared the common position approved as amended) *** Recommendation for second reading (A5-0433/2001), on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on the common position adopted by the Council with a view to adopting a European Parliament and Council directive on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) [10419/1/2001 – C5-0417/2001 – 2000/0188(COD)] (Rapporteur: Mrs Niebler) (The President declared the common position approved as amended) *** Recommendation for second reading (A5-0438/2001), on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, on the common position adopted by the Council with a view to adopting a European Parliament and Council directive on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services [10421/1/2001 – C5-0418/2001 – 2000/0183(COD)] (Rapporteur: Mr Harbour)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, many commentators have drawn adverse comparisons between the European Union and the old Soviet Union. Both have been profoundly anti-democratic, both have seemed opposed to enterprise and wealth creation. At the Lisbon Summit it appeared that the EU had rediscovered a commitment to enterprise. Although I have some reservations about references to the social market in the EPP resolution, I am happy to support it. Let us hope that it is carried into effect and is more than mere soundbites and press releases. In direct contrast, the President of our Parliament made a remarkable speech in Lisbon which amounted to a virulent and vituperative attack on multinational companies, on liberal economics, on free markets and on the very heart of western capitalism. I have no doubt that she was prompted by the best humanitarian intentions. But we must understand that if her proposals were carried out, they would damage competitiveness and productivity, they would deter investment, they would hurt prosperity and, above all, they would increase unemployment in Europe. She was attacking nothing less than the foundations of western capitalism, the engine which has delivered wealth and success undreamed of by earlier generations. She said that Europeans are quite “scandalised by untrammelled capitalism, whose relocations, social dumping, ruthless exploitation ... and remorseless pursuit of profit at the expense of working men and women have a direct and traumatic effect on their lives.' This goes beyond socialism, this is pure Marxism. It may have been appropriate for the Kremlin in the 1960s but it is totally out of place in 21st century Europe. It is typical of this Parliament that we call for an end to unemployment yet we promote actions that have the opposite effect. Her remarks fit this depressing tradition perfectly. I do not know whether she was speaking for her party, for the Parliament or in a personal capacity but I absolutely reject, repudiate and condemn her remarks and am delighted to have this opportunity of publicly dissociating myself from them.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, before I make my comments, I should like to extend warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Perry, for his sterling report. It is an important directive, and thanks to the Commission's regular reports, we are gaining a clear insight into its functioning, which enables us to prepare well-considered proposals for a possible revision in future. I do have some remarks. First of all, given the current increase in media convergence, both in the present Member States and in the acceding countries, we must continue to hammer away at pluriformity, both in the public broadcasting corporations and in the private stations. This is crucial to my group, and I assume my fellow Liberal will also stress this in a moment. Secondly, sound criteria are needed to protect minors from aggressive TV commercials. In fact, with regard to television programmes too, it is important for children to be able to make informed choices and for their parents to be able to help them in this. My group is a great believer in self-regulation, which gives me an opportunity to stand up for the Dutch system, ‘Kijkwijze’, which enables parents and children to make informed choices by means of pictograms. Finally, I should like to say how pleased I am by the wide support given to my proposal for a pan-European children's network. It is a good way of distributing European productions for children on a larger scale, since it combines broadcasting licence-holders from the Member States and candidate countries. Excellent children's films have been made in Europe. If we now see that in my country, the national production of quality films has enjoyed an enormous boost, which is what I read the morning of the day we returned from the film festival in Venice, that the proportion of Dutch films among those seen by cinema audiences has increased by some 6%, and especially audiences composed of young people, due to an innovative approach whose key aim is to show producers that they are making films for a certain audience – an audience-specific approach, in other words – then I can only be optimistic about the preservation of our cultural diversity in the media, and there is certainly a place for television without frontiers, and, needless to say, for Europe.

Political group: ELDR