GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I believe that the Directive, which is now in its third and final reading, will improve air quality in Europe. It amends the 1996 Directive so as to meet the national emission ceilings for atmospheric pollutants and the recommendations of the World Health Organisation. The work of Parliament in the drafting of the Directive was significant, and so once again our warm congratulations go to Mr Davies and to our other colleagues who were involved in this process, which lasted over two years. In addition, we need to give our special thanks once again for the work of Belgium as Council President. In the Directive which has now been approved, the Member States are obliged to submit plans which will allow the limit values necessary for the protection of human health and of vegetation to be lowered by 2010. 2020 will be the benchmark year for long-term objectives and for the subsequent revision of the Directive. In special risk zones, short-term action plans plus active and open information and publicity work are also required. From the point of view of this Directive, it is of particular importance that an attempt be made to also involve all the candidate countries at as early a stage as possible, since the distance impact of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds on lower atmosphere ozone levels is significant. In Finland for example the greater part of the ozone present in the lower atmosphere originates from transboundary pollution, in other words from emissions which our country could, in reality, hardly influence at all without the European Union. Mr President, as you have personally remarked, we have arrived at the half-way point in Parliament's fifth term of elected office. Parliament has already at this stage of its term been able to exert significant influence on the improvement of the air quality in the Union and the candidate countries. In the environmental field, Parliament has thus used its new and enhanced authority in a good and responsible manner. This work needs to be continued, the Commission must be encouraged to be more ambitious when drafting its proposals, and the good cooperation developed with the Council in the field of the environment needs to be kept as warm and effective as it is at present.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I abstained from the vote on the resolution on the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union because I consider that this Charter is still extremely unsatisfactory, despite some progress. In particular I deplore the fact that in the Charter, social rights are emphasised less strongly than economic rights. Since I find this Charter generally unsatisfactory, I am opposed to its being incorporated into the Treaties. We must not elevate an unsatisfactory Charter to a higher level.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner. Food safety, product safety – I should like to dwell on this aspect. We know that meat production begins in the stall. The talk at present is of a total declaration of feedingstuffs. We have also seen that the feedingstuffs industry has gone straight on to the defensive because they say that what is being asked of them here is unrealistic. My question is this: how can we protect our farmers as producers if, in the final analysis, they do not know what they are feeding their animals and are then held liable?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the first part of your ruling is absolutely right. It is clear that a Rule change requires a qualified majority. But Mr Corbett has a very strong point. All we are doing now with the remainder of this text is annexing the implementation of the interinstitutional agreement to the modus vivendi of this Parliament. I ask the House to think very carefully about what they are doing here. We are now in a position that the interinstitutional agreement has been implemented as far as it affects the Commission. It has been implemented as far as it affects the Council. By a decision of Parliament’s Bureau it has been implemented as it affects Parliament’s staff. The only people left are Members of the European Parliament. Do we really want people to be saying that Members of the European Parliament are scared about the OLAF regulations applying to them? Let us not put ourselves in that position! (Loud applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, an error has slipped into paragraphs 15, 17 and 18 of this joint resolution of the European Union and Africa. In paragraph 15, instead of saying “the OAU” it should say “the African States”. In section 17, instead of “the OAU” it should say “Africa”. In section 18, “members of the OAU” should be replaced by “Africans”. (Parliament agreed to vote on the oral amendment) (Parliament adopted the resolution) EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE - Resolution on the additionality principle

Political group: PSE
The report addresses basic aspects of the important issue of soil protection, which should be taken into consideration in future resolutions, but it will be hard to comply with the timetable that has been proposed. Some targets, especially for Portugal, will be difficult to achieve, bearing in mind on the one hand, the reality of the Portuguese situation and, on the other, various scientific and technical issues, specifically the presentation by the Commission, before July 2004, of a thematic strategy for soil protection that should define problems, qualitative and quantitative objectives and the means by which they can be achieved, timetables and general principles for evaluation and monitoring. Presenting a strategy of this nature will require the cooperation of the Member States and, given the current state of actions being undertaken by the working groups set up for this purpose, it will be hard to achieve all the stated objectives in time. By the same token, although there is a need to produce what is being called a ‘scientific soil catalogue’ – a need that has been felt by the various researchers and specialists in this area for a long time – and this must be supported, the proposed timetable nevertheless appears to be very limited. The attempt to harmonise methods of soil analysis in order to obtain comparable data would be even more difficult. Lastly, the implications of these ‘concerns’ in agri-environmental policies must be evaluated, particularly in social and economic terms, so as to not render the farming sector unviable.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to point out that, on 2 July 2003, the Italian Presidency made a commitment before Parliament to present the moratorium on the death penalty to the United Nations General Assembly. This undertaking was supported on 23 October by a resolution adopted unanimously by Parliament. Today, we learn from the press that the Italian Government has decided not to present the resolution to the UN. I urge you, Mr President, to convey our disappointment to the Presidency and to keep point 3 of our resolution, which provided for the results and assessment to be discussed in any case. Although these are, I feel, very important, a debate is still called for.

Political group: PSE
This is a particularly serious report and in adopting it Parliament gives its support to a greater militarisation of the European Union, with a view to establishing a 50 – 60 000 strong Rapid Reaction Force by 2003 to be mobilised within 60 days and deployable for a year with the necessary air and maritime support. It emphasises the development of the European Union’s military assets and capabilities and the Member States’ effort to close the gaps that currently exist in this field, as they have just done in the fields of strategic air transport, cruise missiles and reconnaissance and navigation satellites. Equally serious is the intention that any State that does not wish to take part in a mission should be required to pay a financial contribution to be divided up among the States participating in that war. Another point deserving our disapproval is the satisfaction with the framework agreement signed in Farnborough by six countries of the European Union, since this will facilitate the restructuring of the defence industries in Europe and emphasise a space policy covering the civilian and military aspects of the use of space and combining the European Union national and multinational resources the holds in the military field. Lastly, it should be noted that in Nice, as the report states, the definitive CESDP bodies – Military Committee and Military Staff – may be set up with responsibilities and decision-making powers enabling swifter progress to be made towards the implementation of the common security and defence policy. We can therefore only vote against this report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I shall not take up much of the House’s time. I would simply like to thank the staff very much for the speed with which they have worked. I would also like to thank the political groups for their capacity for dialogue on this issue of immigration, which is normally controversial but which requires the agreement of all of us in order to impose common sense and useful policies. Many thanks also to the spokesmen of the groups for their availability, which enabled us to vote on this report before the Thessaloniki Summit. (Applause) *** Joint motion for a resolution(1) on implementation of the United Nations programme to combat the illegal trade in light weapons (Parliament adopted the joint resolution) *** Report (A5-0196/2003) by Anders Wijkman, on behalf of the Committee on Development and Cooperation, on the Commission communication on energy cooperation with the developing countries (COM(2002) 408 – 2002/2244(INI)) Before the vote on Amendment No 6:

Political group: PSE
Mr President, when the wider Europe neighbourhood concept was first floated, I was largely sceptical of the bunching together of countries as disparate as Libya and Russia in one document. However, as the Group's shadow rapporteur for the Ukrainian section, I now believe that sufficient differentiation has been achieved in Mrs Napoletano's report to produce a politically coherent document which provides a constructive approach through action plans for the challenges which lie ahead over the next five years as we digest the economic and political consequences of a Europe of 25 countries and as the EU borders move eastward. I particularly welcome the recognition of Ukraine's potential for eventual membership and the mention of Article 49. This could equally apply to Moldova, which is desperate to be given a helping hand by the EU to sort out the Transnistria question and be granted access to the stabilisation and association process. Russia will be key here and I welcome the recent summit which aims to develop our relations with the strategic partner country through a series of four common spaces. Although I strongly condemn human rights abuses in Chechnya, I believe we have a vested interest in a stable Russia under the firm leadership of President Putin and a common cause in fighting international terrorism. However, with due respect for the rule of law, it is a pity that criminal law is being used to rein in the power of the oligarchs, whereas a financial settlement to redress the questionable privatisation of the early 90s would have been far preferable. I also welcome extending the remit of the EIB to the Western NIS. Belarus remains a problem, but we must engage in limited but constructive engagements in areas of mutual concern. I was delighted by the fact that my budget amendment to increase funding to the victims of Chernobyl was passed by this House. Lastly, I agree with Mr Gahler that European public opinion would not support freedom of movement for the peoples of north Africa for the foreseeable future.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to comment on the extent to which we in this House are still, even today, not entirely in agreement, which is quite a positive point. To answer the question from the honourable Member of the TDI Group, however, it really is a shame that he can imagine that equality between the sexes should not be subject to legislation. How can we achieve equality without laws? I have never known that to happen throughout the entire history of the human race. I do not see why women should be outside the scope of legislation on equality. Laws are therefore necessary, and I should like to thank Mrs Hautala most warmly for the work that she has done, by herself and with us, consistently over several weeks, if not months. I have to say that this work has produced some important results. Why are they important? Because in the history of Europe this directive is the most well-known of all the directives on equality between the sexes. It is the most well-known in all our Member States. It is therefore extremely important, and I believe that its revision is equally important. This is why I should have liked to vote in favour of the Amendment No 42 proposed by Mrs Hautala, asking the Commission to make plans for an overall legislative system on the subject of women. It is time that the various directives were combined, and restructured together. Besides, there has been a lot of talk about the Treaty of Amsterdam, but one could also mention the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 23 of which stipulates equality between the sexes in all areas, which is a major advance on equality in professional and economic spheres alone. However, to come back to the subject, as far as this overall approach is concerned, I was anxious that it should include a reference to equal pay, as in the 1975 Directive, and I am pleased to see that it does in fact do so, because it seems to me to be extremely important in the context of equal treatment. Why is this directive so important? It is also important for those countries which are candidates for EU enlargement. We know that working conditions for women in some of the candidate countries have, if anything, become worse since the Berlin Wall came down. I should like, if possible, to see the revision that we are currently undertaking serve as the basis for discussions with candidate countries from the point of view of enlargement. However, we can also spread the word in our own Member States as well. In France we have just adopted a law on equality at work which falls well short of what we are proposing here today. I hope that our Member States will also be equal to the task that we are proposing here today.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office, Commissioner, I represent a country which has a unique and close historical relationship with the United States. We very much appreciated the support we received from that country in eliminating violence on our own island. What happened in New York and Washington is not new. Attacks on economic, political and security targets resulting in major civilian casualties have been the hallmark of international terrorism. They have been experienced in Ireland, Britain, Spain and other European countries: that is why we share and understand the pain of those who have suffered. We in Ireland hope that this atrocity will precipitate a change in the way representatives of organisations responsible for similar atrocities in Ireland are treated as celebrities in parts of the United States. Hopefully, it will also undermine their fund-raising capabilities, particularly when their paramilitary wing still retains the weapons of terrorism and mass destruction and fraternises with other terrorist leaders. The major issue facing democratic leaders is how to respond to this latest atrocity. When I listen to the language currently being used by President George W. Bush, I must say I am somewhat apprehensive. To talk about catching 'dead or alive' may well be the language of cowboy movies, but it is not the language that should be used by a world leader at any time, and certainly not during times of crises. The revulsion that followed last week's events, provides the impetus to unite everyone in support of democratic ideals in the fight against international terrorism. Handled wrongly however, it could plunge the western world into a conflict with the Islamic world with catastrophic consequences for everyone. Therefore the response must be well thought out and proportionate. It must not result in unnecessary civilian casualties creating another generation of terrorists. We have a unique opportunity to rid the world of the evil of terrorism and underpin democracy. Future generations will not forgive us if we squander that opportunity.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner Vitorino, we have discussed Zimbabwe on many occasions in this Chamber, and it is extremely tragic to see how this well-off country with such huge potential has headed straight for the abyss. Zimbabwe has for a long time been a completely lawless country, economically impoverished and badly affected by AIDS. It has a dictatorial, mad old leader who has completely lost contact with reality and with his own people. Precisely when one imagines that things could not be worse, new reports come in that the situation in the country has deteriorated further. The human suffering and famine are becoming worse and worse, and there is an acute need for humanitarian aid. Mugabe must go. That is the only chance for the people of Zimbabwe. Now, the surrounding world must respond with vigorous countermeasures. Everything has failed so far, but the sanctions must be intensified. The whole of the international community must be crystal-clear in its condemnation of Mugabe’s regime and tell him that our patience is exhausted. No contacts, no exchanges and no sporting events, together with renewed and more stringent sanctions, are what we require. We must seek a broad coalition, which includes the SADC countries, in order to take measures and put pressure on the regime. South Africa’s silent diplomacy, as it is termed, has shown itself to be completely ineffective, but South Africa must nonetheless be prevailed upon to use its contacts to put pressure on Mugabe. At the same time, we in the EU must support the opposition. There is a small number of incredibly courageous people who – at danger to their own lives and, in some cases, at the loss of their lives – are trying to fight for democracy and human dignity in that country. I hope that the Commission is able to guarantee that the EU will continue to support these courageous people.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, thank you for allowing me to take the floor after such a long and full debate. I believe that there is no doubt at all that the two reports we have seen today prove that we need a common policy on migration and asylum. I should like, in passing, to pay tribute to the Commissioner’s statement and to all the work that Parliament has carried out, which shows that we attach real importance to these issues, particularly in the current circumstances. I believe that here today we have been able to make our different views clear, and perhaps we have also made clear the difference between asylum and economic migration. I am not sure, however, that we have entirely avoided confused thinking. On the subject of migratory flows and the right of asylum, we must make it clear, in the face of all opposition, that rights and obligations have to be shared, by both migrants and host Member States. We must not have a situation in which certain people can take advantage of the loopholes in our harmonisation in order to create an underclass of Europeans by introducing second-class workers or deferred citizenship. It seems to me to be important that the rights of workers, of whatever origin, should be asserted and given tangible expression in order to combat the trafficking in human beings, by which certain people exploit misery and distress. As for our asylum policy, it will gain in terms of quality and justice if we can agree to recognise that it needs to be supplemented by other compulsory cooperation policies which enable everyone to live with dignity and self-respect in their own countries. In all cases, asylum policy should reject arbitrary criteria linked to the current situation. I should also like to ask, simply, that we should also give political rights to those whom we welcome for their work.

Political group: PSE
Female labour has a long history of poor pay, poor working conditions, a poor legal position and sexual intimidation. This especially applies to work performed by poor women in the households of the rich. That kind of work is usually organised on an informal basis, with no trade union representation, works council, premium payment or collective labour agreement. The employee has little or no protection and in many cases is largely dependent on the discretion of the employer. The very worst situation is when the women concerned also come from distant countries, having taken the work on out of desperation because they have no other way of continuing to provide for themselves. It is an occupational group that is often forgotten in a world still heavily dominated by men. Everyone is aware that the situation is open to abuse, but many people are inclined to seriously underestimate the scale of this abuse and the impact on those concerned. This own-initiative report is a useful product of the Commission’s fight for women’s rights and equal opportunities. The talks held with interested organisations and the itemisation of the problems that exist remind me of investigative reports on the position of workers over a century ago. Although my group considers the report to be too limited and the conclusions too modest, they will help us to start moving in the right direction.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, like many of the Members here, I am delighted to note that the Brussels European Council was able to show that agricultural issues would not be a barrier to the entry of the ten countries to the European Union in 2004. Similarly, I also think it would be useful to know what the budget level of the first pillar of the CAP will be until 2013. Having said that, although the summit set the level of budgetary commitments, it did not adopt a position on how this would be achieved, in other words on the CAP’s provision for the second part of Agenda 2000 and after 2006. This major question therefore remains to be answered, since nobody can dispute the fact that food safety, sustainable development and land-use planning are still undeniably fundamental issues that need to be resolved without delay. They alone justify a review, or at least significant changes to the current CAP as of 2004. That is the purpose of the only amendment that we as the Group are tabling with regard to the resolution tabled by Mr Daul on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on which Parliament will vote tomorrow. On the one hand, therefore, we have society’s expectations, to which the CAP must provide swift, positive responses; on the other, there is our strategic position in the WTO negotiations, which will be more successful if it is based on effectively strengthening the multifunctionality of European agriculture within the context of rural development, as well as partially decoupling public aid to production. It would be better to adopt an offensive stance in negotiations so that we can rally the developing countries, in particular in questioning the US Farm Bill, rather than running the risk of being a target for all the special interest groups present within the WTO. Beyond that, Commissioner, I would draw your attention to the need for qualified external protection and internal market regulation, to ensure that the efforts made by farmers to protect the environment, their work and product quality are appropriately compensated.

Political group: PSE