GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, we welcome the statement by the President-in-Office of the Council that there can be no compromises on the subject of human rights. Unfortunately, the experience of the European institutions shows that the reality is often quite the opposite. I should like to say a few words on two subjects on which I believe Europe should summon up all its political prestige and use it in Geneva. The first is the death penalty. The Italian Presidency’s about-turn on the resolution for a moratorium on the death penalty at the United Nations General Assembly, which was announced by the Presidency but never tabled, is a serious occurrence that has left the European Union exposed and, above all, has eroded some of its political authority. This shows that even on a subject apparently as widely agreed on and as precious as human rights and the abolition of the death penalty as a judicial solution we are held hostage to many governments’ petty self-interest. This is a battle that must be fought at a political level, starting in Geneva. In China last year 3 138 executions were recorded; there were also plenty of executions in many so-called liberal democracies, from Taiwan to Thailand, from Japan to India to the United States. We cannot address a matter like this on the slippery slope of political convenience and, above all, we cannot expect it to be a battle based purely on principle and evidence, because it is not like that. This is shown by the fact that the Governor of Illinois recently decided to commute 167 death sentences, and I believe it was because he felt the impetus and pressure of international public opinion. Another important point, Mr President, concerns journalists; in other words, the right to speak out and not to remain silent, which is a fair indicator of the real quality of a democracy. In the last ten years more than 400 journalists have been killed, and for very few of these do we have any legal certainty. In the last six months there have been 228 arrests and 250 unjustified trials, many of which were in countries that belong to the so-called group of western democracies; the latest case emerged only two days ago and involves Turkey. Among other things, we believe that the forces of repression against journalists and press freedoms have learnt to use more underhand methods. Violence against the freedom to speak out and not remain silent is committed and consummated also by gagging, censoring and taking broadcasts off the air; unfortunately, these are practices that have also recently found a place here in our countries, including my own country. In this respect we want to call on the Presidency to exercise a rigorous and courageous mandate, a political undertaking that I should like to try and define in the matter of human rights with just two words, which are the words Parliament has always sought to convey to the Commission and the Presidency: on human rights we will not tolerate any exceptions or any omissions.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, when I speak on the subject of cultural diversity, I do not think that my tone will be as optimistic as that of the first few speakers, in particular yours, Commissioner. There are several reasons for this. The first reason is that, until a very short time ago, this convention, or this international instrument, was nothing more than a Utopian idea. I remember organising, together with my group, a public hearing in the autumn of 2002, in order to launch this idea before Parliament. I believe that we should be modest about this, and I would not say that this idea came from Europe and from the European Union. It came from, among others, countries like Canada, and from countries throughout the world which have established links with certain European countries. Therefore, though I can only applaud the fact that this Utopia is becoming a reality within the European Union, I do think that we should show a little more modesty. If I call for modesty, it is because I would not like to see this future convention becoming merely the latest in a long line of declarations. We know all about declarations in favour of cultural diversity. We can make them, but then we have to draw up a restrictive and legislative convention which makes it possible to settle differences in a context which is that of the market. I would like to say that cultural diversity is also tied in with the question of the market. We must not disguise the fact that combining cultural diversity and the market represents a considerable difficulty. That is why, on this point too, I am modest and not always optimistic. The third reason why I am not very optimistic is that I am not sure that we really are an example for others to follow, even if we like to think that we are. Are we really agreed, within the European Union, that we want to promote cultural diversity and, if so, what diversity? I think that if we look at the facts, we shall find it hard to be completely satisfied with ourselves. Mrs Junker has mentioned several problems, as have other Members. I think that we are confronted, right at the heart of Europe and not only outside it, with problems connected with the preservation and promotion of cultural diversity. I would simply mention the question of the support provided by public State aids, for example, which as you all know is an element which is both provisory and derogatory, and which is in no way laid down in the logic, constitutional or otherwise, of the Treaties. Cultural diversity is therefore a right, but it is a right that we have to construct, and not a simple right to culture, to education and so on. The right to cultural diversity does not yet exist and I only hope that we shall know how to construct it.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, over two months after the wreck of the Erika, pollution of the coasts, which have already been cleaned once, is still continuing. While reiterating my solidarity with all the victims of this, I should like to salute the dedication of the workers, professionals and volunteers, who are still involved in cleaning the polluted beaches. Thanks to the grass-roots involvement, which this House furthered by organising a debate and adopting a resolution on 20 January, an initial raft of measures has been announced. The French Government has initiated a discussion and made proposals to strengthen maritime safety, particularly by fighting against the phenomenon of flags of convenience and by implementing much more extensive inspection. The lessons of this latest oil slick must be learnt in full, and decisions must be taken speedily at Community level to prevent coffin ships sailing off our shores or berthing in our ports, to make double hulls mandatory for the transportation of pollutants, and to strengthen standards for safety and inspection. We must also demand that the parties truly responsible be made to pay the costs incurred due to the pollution. So, yes, Total Fina must provide the financial resources to contribute to the repair of ecological, economic and social damage and to compensate the people affected by the disaster. The French State has released funds for compensating damage. I feel, however, that the European Union has so far not actually come up with any expression of Community solidarity at the requisite level. So, yes, appropriations must be released at Community level to support the cleaning of the contaminated coastlines, to assist the organisations which went into action to save oil-covered birds, and to contribute towards getting the affected businesses back on their feet. Specific compensation should be provided for the fishermen and shellfish farmers who have suffered considerable loss of income and who face having to invest considerable sums in order to repair everything and regain consumer confidence. I was pleased to hear the statement which Commissioner Fischler has just made, and I take careful note of the commitments he made before this House. I should also like to say that my Group shall remain vigilant and committed, in collaboration with the grass-roots action groups, to ensuring that the parties affected receive compensation as soon as possible and that legislation is strengthened at every level, supported by realistic penalties in the event of non-compliance.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, last week I took part in a conference in Stockholm, during which, at the request of his African friends, the African chairman of the plenary session, to which I contributed, began the session with the following words: ‘I was asked to bring back to Africa the cure for AIDS, the cure for poverty, the cure for political conflict and the cure for non-availability of information technology – the four diseases that are increasing the already wide gap between North and South’. It was not of course without reason that he said this. In 1960, the richest 20% of the world’s population had an income 30 times greater than that of the poorest 20%. In 1990, the figure was 60% and in 1997 it was 74%, and there is no doubt that it has increased since 1997. According to statistics in ‘The Economist’ of 16 June, the world has more rich people than ever before. The unfortunate conclusion he drew following the meeting was, ‘So it seems that I have to return to Africa without the cure for our four ongoing major crises’. We have a problem with many of our meetings. How much real success is there in changing things? We can hope that the G8 meeting, at which the individual EU countries, the Commission and the presidency are represented, can perhaps play its part in moving things on a little. If these meetings do not succeed in producing more striking results, there is of course the risk that the fear of globalisation will become greater and that we shall therefore see still larger demonstrations, for part of the problem is, of course, that people in general simply think that globalisation is a bad thing, while we politicians are of the opinion that it should, in a way, be a good thing and we know that it could, in fact, be so. However, we fail to see the results, and the documents we obtain indicate greater and greater differences. I therefore hope that we get to tackle some of the real problems. I would therefore urge the Commission – and not, therefore, Mr Patten but obviously Mr Prodi – really to focus upon the desperation of the developing countries, for this is of course the world’s greatest problem today. When the discussion turns to setting up a fund, providing debt relief etc., one must also remember to talk about ‘additional money’ so that we leave behind the situation in which it is the same money that circulates through the system and is never paid out.

Political group: ELDR
It beggars belief that the European Parliament should, in its first statement following the invasion of Iraq by the United States and its allies, adopt a recommendation which, due to the rejection of an amendment tabled by my group, fails to recall – to paraphrase our amendment – that the present unstable situation, which represents a threat to the Iraqi people and the international community, is a consequence of the unjust, illegitimate and illegal attack launched by the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries on 20 March 2003. It is unacceptable for the European Parliament to refuse, as a result of the rejection of one of our amendments, to call – and I paraphrase again – for the restitution of international law, with the immediate withdrawal of occupying foreign troops and the assumption by the United Nations of its responsibilities under the UN Charter, with a view to putting power in the hands of truly representative, legitimate and democratic institutions without delay, by holding elections to ensure that the Iraqi people regains its sovereignty. It is worth mentioning, by way of criticism, that the recommendation welcomes what it perceives as ‘the change of attitude of the Bush administration towards the more active role of the International Community’, when the real issue is, above all, dividing the costs of the occupation and the Iraqi people’s resistance to that occupation. That is why we voted against the recommendation.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to call on history to remind us that, while it serves its purpose on occasions to demonstrate a point, it can also let us down. I would particularly like to remind Mr Pasqua that he should recall where the Presocrats originate from, that Ionic art was born in Turkey, and that the truly Christian French Kings did not hesitate to call upon the Ottoman Empire to fight against the Pope and other European States in the Sixteenth Century. However, if we continue to look into history, we will also see both good things and bad things about Turkey. Turkey, in the strategic position it occupies, is the only truly secular state, and Europe has been founded upon this great battle to achieve secular states. On this level, then, yes, Turkey is a totally European State. Its efforts to eliminate religious interference, whilst having truly fundamentalist communities within its borders, is something to be admired, and which could be a factor for future stability in the region. On the other hand, under the Ottoman Empire, the Greek monasteries, the Sufis and the Sephardis all survived. This was because, at their respective moments in history, the authorities did not attempt to destroy them. Today, it is also a strong state fighting for the education of its people. On this subject I would like to remind Mrs Uca, with a heavy heart, that 30% of women in Turkey do not go to school, nor are allowed to do so, so in this way they miss out on an education. To conclude, I would like to say that there are also bad points. The major black cloud over the Ottoman tradition is its perception of the unlimited rights of the conqueror over the conquered. This gives rise to the great problem of prisons and exterminations: the loss of rights of the conquered, the weaker party, rape, exterminations, silence and death. I think that it is in this area that we should offer our help, for Turkey is a stabilising factor in this region: it is establishing agreements with Syria and is an important element in the creation of a peaceful border with Europe. We have to contribute to the strengthening of this strategy and its improvement, with European ideas used in governance.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, from 2000 to 2006, my Member State, the UK, will have received over EUR 9 billion in direct EU structural fund support, topped up with match funding and private sector support. No-one can deny the benefits funds have brought to poor communities in industrial, urban and rural areas. The Hatzidakis report and the Commission proposals prove that the Jeremiahs who say that enlargement is bad news for UK regions have got it wrong. I want to congratulate the Commission in coming forward with proposals which, in a spirit of solidarity, provide funding for those areas of the EU-15 – including the UK – that are still in need. The devil will be in the detail, of course, and we still have a long way to go to agree a new round of regional aid programmes. However, this report and these proposals indicate that our poorest regions could win twice over from enlargement, with a bigger internal market and a continuation of regional aid. Labour MEPs have worked closely with our regional representatives, with local councils and with trade unions to identify our priorities. We welcome proposals for the convergence fund, in particular the inclusion of so-called 'statistical effect' regions, and we hope that regions being phased out will not be left high and dry, but will find a soft financial landing. We welcome the proposals to assist regional competitiveness in former Objective 2 areas and we look forward to hearing more details on how this will be allocated and on the indicators used to identify those areas. I would ask the Commission to further elaborate on its proposals, as requested in the Hatzidakis report on state aid. It is important that we have equality in the provision of state aid for all convergence regions, including the statistical effect areas. We need a reform of state aids which enables more public private partnership activity in regeneration, particularly of urban areas, of derelict land sites and of buildings. I wish today to endorse Mr Hatzidakis' proposal. I hope that Member States, the Commission and Parliament will now come up with a comprehensive budget and a regional aid package which will be a good deal for taxpayers and a good deal for our poorest regions.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on my own behalf and that of many of my group colleagues, I should first like to focus on the Directive on access to justice. As has been said quite rightly today, the Directive impinges deeply on the administrative and legal systems of many countries. There is also reason to wonder whether the legal basis is correct. It has been interesting to note that the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy approved this Directive, and suppressed a proposal to reject it, by only 17 votes to 16. For many of us, it is an ideological question why environmental organisations should enjoy a privileged position compared to other organisations. Through our request for a split vote on Amendment No 40, you can correct that. Only last week, Commissioner, events in the North Sea showed that fishermen’s organisations have the same need for, and should have at least the same right to, access to justice as BirdLife or other powerful international organisations. Many of us share the deep ideological conviction that other environmental organisations, too, should have this right. We must not have some organisations that are more equal than others. In my opinion, this whole debate has raised the following question. What is the added value of the Directive other than to give us a deadline for the implementation of the Århus Convention? This deadline could be obtained by means of a considerably simpler regulatory framework than the rather complicated situation we have at present. As regards the application of the Århus Convention to the Community and also the correction that we want to make to the Directive, we have every opportunity of achieving these objectives by means of good governance.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I am probably one of the few here in this House who personally knew Louise Weiss, after whom this wonderful building is named. Louise Weiss said in her superb opening address to the European Parliament after the first direct elections that there should not only be European pigs and cows, although cows are particularly topical at present, but that there should also be European people. However, European people are not the same throughout the Union and European culture thrives on its diversity. This diversity is the point at issue. It is always dangerous when politics fails to take note of realities. In the book trade, there is not only the reality of the internal market and the nation state; there is also the reality of language areas. It would be criminal to exclude the reality of language areas. Commissioner, I represent Bavaria here. Bavaria probably has more in common culturally with Austria, which is represented by Mr Karas, and with the South Tyrol, which is represented by Mr Ebner, than with many regions in northern Germany. Nonetheless, there is a uniform German language area. This uniform German language area cannot concentrate purely on the national market or the EU market and the reality lies somewhere between the two. To recognise this reality is to recognise Europe as it is. This is a prerequisite to successful integration. The fact that we here in Parliament have spoken out so vehemently and with a large majority on this matter for years now is not a sign of eccentricity; it shows how strongly this debate worries the people. I warn the Commission that its justified concerns about market laws allows it to forget, so to speak, that our citizens expect more of Europe, that they expect a cultural Europe, which is why I am strongly in favour of negotiating a compromise here, of giving the Austrian and German book trade time to implement the solution which is in the offing. We need time. That is fundamental. I take the view that the real issue here is the legitimisation and the future of European unification. The issue is simply whether or not people will be able, in future, to say in Latin – another threatened minority language – Civis europaeus sum. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I shall begin my short intervention by thanking the rapporteur for the work she has done. Having said this, I will express my views on certain points of the report which, in my humble opinion, could have been dealt with differently, and on amendments and proposals which are difficult to accept, above all by professionals in the field of prevention; of course on the basis of the view that there is no such thing as zero risk and that work is an unpleasant activity. I agree with the rapporteur that combating noise in the workplace is the best thing we can do, but I do not agree that collective protection measures should always have priority over individual protection measures. In any event, I believe that they are complementary or supplementary, or that individual measures should be applied rather than collective ones. We must consider the distribution of responsibilities; it clearly falls to the employer to provide the means, and it is they who have the disciplinary policy measures to ensure they are complied with, but the worker is no less responsible, and cannot ignore their responsibility, since they are the first to be affected if they do not adopt individual and personal protection measures. I also disagree with you somewhat with regard to the scope, since I believe that, rather than talking about including the self-employed within the scope, it would be preferable to include them by means of the concept of workplaces and the person responsible for them, particularly in view of the increasingly frequent externalisation of many activities in numerous work sectors. Amendment No 15 deals with an issue which is perhaps purely grammatical. Where it speaks of hearing protection measures ‘likely to be used’, I believe we should say ‘of mandatory use’. Furthermore, there are activities involving a different intensity of sound at different times, which must be considered and resolved. I liked what the rapporteur said about music. All of this, Mr President, Mrs Thorning-Schmidt, must be done from the point of view of providing quality employment with less risk to the health and safety of workers, and this objective demands legislation which is clear in its principles and in its wording.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, before the order of business I must announce that the riot of criminal attacks being carried out by the Israeli army in Palestine and the occupied territories included a savage attack at midnight on 10 March on the offices of the Palestinian People's Party in Ramallah. This attack is not the first. There have previously been similar attacks in Nablous, Toulkarem, Salfit, Kalkilia and Jenin. The Jordanian Communist Party has announced that the Israelis' objective is to hit the Palestinian People's Party, which is fighting and is continuing to fight for a fair solution to the question on the basis of the UN resolutions against Israeli aggression, the occupation and the war crimes being perpetrated by the Israeli army. We agree with or subscribe to this announcement and express our solidarity with the Palestinian People's Party and the Palestinian people in general, who are being given a particularly hard time at the moment by the Sharon regime, which is taking advantage of the fact that the world's attention has turned elsewhere, including to Iraq, in order to promote and complete its crime. Mr President, I call for your and Parliament's support so that there is a reaction and this sort of arrogance stops.

Political group: GUE-NGL