GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I should like to congratulate our three fellow MEPs, Messrs Turmes, Rapkay and Mombaur on their sterling work. What is on today’s agenda? On today’s agenda is a fresh step for Parliament in the process of total liberalisation. And after the successful first opening we have had, it is important to take that second step. We would therefore make an urgent appeal to the Commissioner and the Member States to ensure that this is achieved in Barcelona and that we do not try to frustrate the process, as we usually do – and you know which Member State I am referring to. As Mr Mombaur has already indicated the principal arguments, I will not elaborate on these any further. So what are the key points? Firstly, we must ensure that a level playing field is established. In other words, we must remove obstacles and ensure that everyone is given equal opportunities. Secondly, we need to ensure that the role of the supervisors is framed in such a manner that we ultimately work towards a single European market. This is why Amendments Nos 53 and 130 to Article 6(1) of the directive are of prime importance. My group is keen to see these amendments adopted, because we can thereby ensure that we work towards this single European market. The third key point is that we can allow competition actually to take place, thus ensuring transparency and non-discrimination. After all, we have seen that the instrument of reciprocity does not work. The consumer must have free choice. My final point is this: it is of great strategic importance for us to start with an assemblage of information. We are keen to support the amendment that is now before us by Mr Westendorp, among others. We have nothing against the Mombaur report, but we struggle all the more with the report by Mr Turmes. Allow me to say at this stage that the Group will request a split vote for Amendment No 69 and will withdraw Amendment No 181, so that there will be no question of negotiated third-party access. For the rest, we have great difficulty with the Turmes report. In our view, it contains too many rules, too great an administrative burden and too little respect for the market economy. We also believe it is not right for responsibility to lie with industry and not with the supervisors or national States. I should like to note that liberalisation is not promoted in this way, but that new obstacles are raised, so that it is difficult for liberalisation to get off the ground. And this could never be the intention. Needless to say, we must carefully consider the environmental aspects. However, we should bear in mind that with regard to combined heat and power production and telecommunications, we can regulate many of the points on this topic in other directives too. We would therefore urge Mr Turmes to withdraw amendments in this area.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the report by our fellow Member, Marie-Thérèse Hermange, gives some very positive support to the awareness campaign proposed by the Commission for the year 2003, which has been declared the European Year of Disabled Citizens. We need to change our way of thinking, but I believe that it is crucial to propose a series of measures, as Mrs Hermange has, in favour of a genuine policy of non-discrimination. To be recognised as being different, but having the right to be fairly treated is the philosophy that runs through all the proposals, particularly those relating to easy access to the work place and to public spaces, the exportability of disability benefits for workers and dependent persons within the EU or the mutual recognition of national cards carried by people with disabilities. The report also stresses the need for a sense of responsibility with regard to equal treatment in the labour market, vocational training and education. Professional integration is therefore associated with social integration. In this respect, the report shows that the value of the work performed by a person with a disability cannot be measured solely in terms of competitiveness. I believe that these are ambitious guidelines that give a true reflection of the overall thinking of the parliamentary committee concerned and the determination of the organisations representing people with disabilities. I would add that the proposal to monitor and evaluate the measures adopted seems to be a very positive step, as does the transition from a simple intergovernmental policy to a Community policy in this area. I can only see two shortcomings. On the one hand, the report adopts, in my view, an extremely hesitant attitude towards businesses with regard to the employment of people with disabilities, and the proposal regarding the income of people with disabilities who are in employment is much too weak – and I quote ‘an income at least equal to the level of benefits received by people who are not in employment’. On the other hand, the ambiguous nature of the part of paragraph 20 which relates to research into therapies at the beginning of life must, in my opinion, be withdrawn, which justifies the amendment tabled by my group. Incidentally, this report was much needed and I believe, as do my colleagues, that it is also extremely good.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, while the issue of the liberalisation of the postal services has been important, the reform of the COM in bananas is no less important. I would firstly like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Dary, for the content of his report, since he is defending for the second time the maintenance of the quota system for banana imports into the European Union, thereby protecting Community production, and he rejects the automatic transfer to a ‘tariff only’ system, after a period of validity for the reformed COM which we believe should also be of ten years. I would also like to thank the Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, for his desire his reach a compromise solution with the Commission. I would also like to thank the chairmen of the political groups in this Parliament who have accepted the stubbornness and obstinacy of the Members from the outermost regions so that this proposal for reform of the banana sector may be debated today in this House, and the mandatory opinion may be issued and can thereby arrive in time for the meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers which will take place in the coming days and we can therefore enter 2001 with a new reform of the COM in bananas. I hope that this COM will reflect the aspirations of the World Trade Organisation after so many years of trade disputes, as well as those of the Community producers. I trust that, with the passing of time, the system of distribution known as the ‘regatta’ system, in other words, ‘first come, first served’, may be accepted by the banana-producing countries. I believe that the solution indicated by the rapporteur, which was approved unanimously in the Committee on Agriculture and which is now being considered in Parliament, is the least unsatisfactory solution for all the parties involved in this trade war, which began in 1993 and which now seems to be finding a degree of consensus amongst all the players, whether they be producers, sellers or consumers of one of the most emblematic agricultural products of European society, bananas, which, in the case of the Canary Islands, are unique. The important thing is to gain time in this final straight and I propose that we vote in favour of Mr Dary’s report.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I really did not understand that. I really do crave your indulgence. The outcome, according to the translation, was that the subject is going to be debated on Wednesday, but, if I understand rightly, it is meant to be debated on Tuesday. Could we perhaps clarify this again? It was not, in any case, entirely clear in the German translation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Vladimir Putin is being received today with great ceremony by Gerhard Schröder. They will be talking about increasing economic cooperation between Russia and Germany. One hundred thousand people have died in Chechnya and Grozny has been razed to the ground. This is genocide. In addition, today, our Parliament is threatening trade sanctions against the State of Israel! While at the same time the European Union is negotiating agreements with Syria and Iran, which, as we all know, are champions of the democratic values we hold so dear! Stop this hypocrisy! Sanctions, threats, condemnation and formal demands for Israel but indulgence and a blind eye for the actions of the Palestinians. Where is the unequivocal condemnation of an education system which glorifies shahid [martyrdom] and teaches a whole generation hatred and murder? Where do we mention, where do we condemn the financial support provided by Iraq, in particular, to suicide bombers and their families? There is not even a fleeting reference to the hundreds of weapons discovered at President Arafat’s headquarters. We condemn the Israeli army for firing on an ambulance transporting a child, because they believed that the child was hiding a belt of explosives. Children being used by the Palestinian militia, children carrying guns – there is nothing new about that. I do not approve of the policy of the Sharon Government, I do not think that this military escalation will bring about peace. I call from the bottom of my heart for a return to the negotiating table. (Explanation of vote cut short pursuant to Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: ELDR
I abstained during the final vote on this otherwise excellent report by Mrs Patrie because I feel it is politically and scientifically irresponsible to refer to the precautionary principle, even on the basis of “incomplete, inconclusive or uncertain scientific information” and even “in the case of a low risk”. As there is no such thing as zero risk, scientists – or at least politicians – should apply the criterion of proportionality, consider there to be risks and assume their responsibilities. It goes without saying that citizens must, in any event, be fully informed.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Lusaka Agreement is a positive step and, naturally, my group wholeheartedly supports this process which is moving towards peace. We will therefore be voting for this resolution because we feel that, from the outset, it provides a response to the Rwandan tragedy and to the need to confront concerns about Congo. Having said that, I would like to make two observations. Firstly, this agreement is fragile, and no one can guarantee today that we will not be confronted by a major obstacle – here, the several armed groups who are not aligned to any State, are not under anyone’s control, and these groups could, in fact, destabilise the peace process. We must be vigilant in this matter. Secondly, we feel that Europe must pursue this course of action, take responsibility for its past and uphold its duty to remember. Although the Commission has a role to play in this, I feel that the Council should also remain alert to it, because we think that in the future, we will be moving towards a partnership agreement between Europe and these countries. It might also be a good idea if, through the Council, countries such as the United Kingdom, France, Portugal and Belgium should face up to their past more productively than they have done to date. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
I would like to ask a follow-up question to question no. 48. The Commissioner made an interesting point. He intends to produce new proposals at the end of the year concerning flax cultivation in Europe. That being the case, I would like to ask if these will include proposals relating to other fibre plants cultivated in Europe, such as hemp and so on and so forth.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, a point of order just to say that I do not represent a party or even a Government: I represent Spain. And as a representative of Spain, when reference is made in this question to the authorities of the Spanish state, I am within my legitimate rights to defend my country, something that others do not do.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, for a long time Côte d'Ivoire stood out as a pillar of stability and relative prosperity in the tormented life of West Africa. That is why we were so disturbed and sad to see the slow political, economic and human ruination of this country, orchestrated by the military junta of General Gueï. In order to hold on to power, General Gueï hijacked the constitution adopted by the people of Côte d'Ivoire for his sole benefit and used it as a means of excluding his political opponents. In order to hold on to power, he did not hesitate to exploit the bitter debate on Ivoirian nationality, sparking an explosion of xenophobia: hatred of others, of foreigners, whether from Burkina Faso or Mali, even though so many of them have lived and worked in the country for many years. In this way he has brought Côte d'Ivoire to the brink of civil and ethnic war. But the Ivoirian people did not allow the junta to play their murderous game to the bitter end: they forced the tyrant to flee and, by electing a long-standing opponent, Laurent Gbagbo, to rule the country, they brought Côte d'Ivoire back onto the track of democracy. Now this process needs to be confirmed rapidly by the organisation of free, transparent and pluralist legislative elections in which all the political forces can take part. At least, that is what both the political leaders and the people are calling for today. The political forces of Côte d’Ivoire have already shown their sense of responsibility by playing the card of appeasement, of constitutional legality and of national reconciliation for some weeks past. We must take note of this return to a democratic process that may indeed be incomplete, but that we must continue to support. I believe that will also contribute to the stability of the entire region, for West Africa is going through a highly vulnerable period from that point of view. The European Union must therefore accompany Côte d'Ivoire along the road it has itself chosen: the road towards a return to constitutional legality, to civil peace, to economic and social progress, while giving material and financial support to the organisation of the legislative elections scheduled for 10 December this year and, of course, ensuring that they are fair and pluralist. It must also continue to cooperate with Côte d'Ivoire, so as to help it find the most appropriate solutions to the social crisis in urban areas and to tensions related to land in rural areas. That is precisely the point of our resolution.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we in the Group of the have been genuinely pleased with the Commission’s initiative to define and strengthen the role of non-state actors, both European and from recipient countries, in the Community’s development policy. I would like to congratulate Mr Howitt, because his report was approved unanimously within the Committee on Development and Cooperation. Furthermore, he did significant work by means of a questionnaire aimed at ascertaining the situation with regard to the participation of NGOs. It is a fact that NGOs have had a decisive influence on the current configuration of a more open international society and on the democratisation of a system of international relations which until very recently was restricted to states and intergovernmental organisations. We believe that the active participation of NGOs in the implementation of the Community’s development policy represents the principal added value of European cooperation, since it provides a degree of effectiveness which development policies do not have when they are implemented solely within an intergovernmental context. Nevertheless, this is not a round trip, although there is no doubt about the need for development processes to be participatory if they are to be effective and sustainable. Only in a minority of cases do non-governmental organisations and civil organisations in the countries receiving aid participate in the creation and implementation of the development actions benefiting them. As Mr Howitt’s report points out, we will ask the Commission for data on the participation of non-state actors in the production of strategy documents by region and country. It should be pointed out that programmes and projects drawn up in this way are mainly financed by means of the EDF, to which, unfortunately, the non-state actors do not have direct access. The other source of funding, the decentralised cooperation line B7-6002, involves very small amounts – 3% of the amount provided for NGOs. The structuring of civil society, including companies, NGOs, local organisations and the like, is essential to development processes and cooperation relationships. We therefore trust that the Commission – despite the fact that it has expressed some reservations in relation to the report – will stipulate our requirements as soon as possible in this regard and respond to the commitment made with the international community by means of the millennium declaration – to which end the United Nations adopted an agenda for action which involves 1 300 non-governmental organisations – to create a mechanism for permanent consultation with non-state actors and improve open and integrated dialogue, which the rapporteur, Mr Howitt, calls participatory development. There must be permanent consultation with non-state actors in order to combat extreme poverty in the world.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, before I came here for today’s sitting, I was watching Finnish television. In Finland, an honorary company of the Finnish army was saluting the new President of the Republic, with the words “Good morning, Madam President.” You perhaps know that, in Finland, the president is not just the leading public figure or political leader, but she is also commander-in-chief of the armed forces, so this was quite an interesting and historic occasion. During the Finnish presidential term, a report was produced that reveals an image of the whole decision-making process, and, on the basis of this report, I hope that the Commissioner proposes legally binding ways of improving the position of women in decision making. I urge you all, women of the Right, to listen to Mrs Lulling, because she told us why quotas were needed and, if any of us has sufficient experience of political life, it is she. Finally, I would like to say that it is now essential that we also raise this issue at the Intergovernmental Conference. I appeal to you, ladies and gentlemen, not to vote in favour of the proposal tomorrow to moderate the contents of point 4, to prevent gender democracy from being discussed at the Intergovernmental Conference.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Just to follow on from Mr Newton Dunn's question regarding the decisions made in secret in the Council, could the Minister possibly list those legislatures in the world, that he referred to, where decisions are made in secret?

Political group: PPE-DE
It is appalling that a majority of Members of this House is determined to adopt the so-called European Constitution. As we have stated on many occasions, this Constitution is an attempt to extend capitalist integration in the European Union still further, which clearly consolidates the federal nature of the Community’s institutions and the dominant position of the major powers in the decision-making process, including unacceptable primacy over national constitutions. The Constitution will also launch the institutional bases of militarisation, by establishing a European Armaments Agency, which is intended ultimately to create a political-military bloc, in conjunction with NATO. It is a project to which we are opposed and which we criticise in the strongest terms, also because of the way in which it restricts the ways forward for Europe, by imposing neo-liberalism as the sole solution and by establishing the primacy of competition as the guiding principle. We are thus forced to fight to defend derogations relating to public services, whilst they ought to be an absolute priority, a key instrument towards ensuring that human rights are respected and that we establish a Europe based on economic and social cohesion and solidarity. We will continue to fight for an alternative Europe that respects the inalienable rights of the people of each Member State to shape their own future, one that respects national constitutions and one that is in keeping with the principle that States are sovereign and have equal rights. We will campaign for a referendum in Portugal before the draft Constitution is ratified. IN THE CHAIR: MR COXPresident

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I believe that we are engaging in a democratic process which, in truth, hides interests that cannot be denied. The reform proposed by the Commission will cause 28 000 job losses in an environment in which there is clear discrimination in allowing northern countries to take additional catches whilst denying this option to those of the south. We are all in favour of the conservation of resources, given that all Europeans have the same status in Community waters, something denied by the Commission and by many of those protesting, through interventions by the Spanish Government, which I cannot support.

Political group: Verts-ALE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. – Mr President, I speak on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market specifically on the European judicial network proposal. Today in this House we held the annual debate on the European area of freedom, security and justice. Oddly, this theme of our citizens' access to justice in civil and commercial matters was not mentioned. This is very strange in an internal market where we actively encourage our citizens and enterprises to travel and conduct their commerce across borders. There is therefore a heavy responsibility on us to provide access to justice when things go wrong. This proposal states that its aim is to create a European judicial area which will bring tangible benefits to every citizen. I hope it will not disappoint. It is a proposal on two levels. First, a network of judicial authorities and personnel to ease cross-border procedures in civil and commercial matters. But it is the second level that interests me: to give information to our citizens on how to pursue cross-border litigation. This is difficult and not to be contemplated without competent and specialised legal advice. Our citizens are increasingly finding themselves involved in complex cross-border problems: road traffic accidents, buying property or a timeshare, actual problems that face our citizens. Whilst we move towards extrajudicial remedies, we must also ensure that judicial remedies are accessible. That is why my Group will support the amendment that was supported by the Legal Affairs Committee to secure a pilot programme of access to specialised legal advice. This should be central to this network – a network of judicial personnel is one thing, but a network that really provides cross-border access to justice would be the best way to recognise progress towards a real area of justice in Europe for our citizens, and this on the day of the annual debate on that subject.

Political group: ELDR