GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, I have only indicated my wish to speak because Mr Barón Crespo considered it fitting to take the floor here again. I must tell you that, quite frankly, I do not think it was necessary to have addressed this subject here again. Since this has been done, however, I would just like to say one or two words on the matter. Of course, the process of waiving immunity is a difficult one, and we need common rules to govern this. But, Mr Barón Crespo, it has already been decided that the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market shall deal with this. Therefore, your comment here was unnecessary. I would particularly like to stress, Madam President, that, in all questions related to this process, you have conducted yourself completely in accordance with the law, and I would like to emphasise this here once again. We would like to wish the former Member of this Parliament, Silvio Berlusconi, every success as Italy’s Prime Minister. We are certain that we also have the support of Italy in building a sound future for Europe. (Applause from the PPE Group)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, my congratulations and thanks go to my colleague, Mr Graça Moura, for a balanced and thorough report. China is a very important trading partner for the EU, not least for my own country, Finland. Nokia, for example, already employs more than 4 000 staff in the manufacture of mobile phones. It is important that China joined the WTO at the Doha meeting. It is important for the outside world, but still more for China, which must clarify many of its laws and its rules over the next few years to be able to implement all the requirements for membership. WTO membership will also lead to social and political pressures in China. How China is to solve these problems fairly is of course an internal matter but I agree with the rapporteur that in the longer term programmes jointly implemented in cooperation with the EU, Japan and the United States of America will be desirable to solve the employment and social problems of the country’s vast rural area. It is in our interest and that of the world as a whole that China should be a stable, open and prosperous society which we will support if and when it moves further towards democracy and a free market economy and embraces the principles of human rights and the rule of law. We are pleased to welcome China’s involvement in the international effort against terrorism and the rapprochement between China and India. I believe that the values we hold to be important here in Parliament – democracy, the rule of law, human rights, equality and pluralism – will also gain ground in China if we maintain a vitally interactive relationship and encourage China to open up in all respects and permit its citizens to enjoy the freedom of modern communications media and allow them the right to become unionised and freely express their opinions.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would first of all like to congratulate Mrs Pack on her exceptional work which helps us all understand why we need an integrated, as opposed to a fragmentary, European policy for the Balkans. The Balkans ought to be top on the agenda of foreign policy within the Union because a stabilised, developed and democratic Balkan region is an essential link for us to be able to have a positive impact on the creation of a more stabilised and democratic Russia. A stable, democratic and developed Balkan region is a prerequisite for the Union to have an effective and positive policy in the troubled Caucasian region and oil-producing countries which are threatening the peace and stability within that region. A stable, democratic and developed Balkan region makes it easier for the Union to have a positive influence in the Middle East and in Eastern Mediterranean countries. However, a stable Balkan region would mean that we too ought to have a stable and long-term strategy for peace, democracy and development, because there must not be any doubt in our minds that up until now the Union has not been a key player in the Balkans. To put it more succinctly, we provide the money and bear the cost and the Americans formulate the policy and collect the profit. An integrated policy is required therefore; a common development, peace, stability and co-operation strategy for the area, such as is beginning to be outlined by both the Stability Pact and by the Reconstruction Agency, which will be effective once it gets underway, with its seat in Thessaloniki. It is only a start, but a good start all the same. We must exercise a policy which, for it to be productive, must not involve sanctions or predispositions towards the people in the area, but which must promote democratisation and development as a whole. Ladies and gentlemen, this was what our colleague Yannos Kranidiotis was striving for and we Greeks would like to honour him with our work here today by continuing his endeavours.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the traces of Suharto are very far from erased in Indonesia. Military influence may have been reduced but is still far too great. Corruption is still rampant. Ongoing violence on the Moluccas, in Aceh and in Irian Jaya is causing great suffering among the people. President Wahid and Vice-President Sukarnoputri have been unable to demonstrate a great deal of governmental power so far. It is very important for Europe to support the economic and democratic developments in Indonesia. But as Mrs Maij-Weggen has already said, this assistance comes at a price. It must benefit the poorest sections of the population. The violation of human rights must stop, the proceeds from corruption must be traced, and above all, wealth must be far better distributed. It is very difficult to hold this immense realm together. Fortunately, the time when a handful of Dutchmen were able to do so is now past. But poor administration, where the military are left to wreak havoc undisturbed, feeds the desire for independence. The origin of the conflict on the Moluccas mainly lies in Suharto’s ill-considered migration policy, which disturbed the population balance. The situation on these islands is still alarming. Only if an impartial army steps in will there be a chance of peace. The international community must bring maximum pressure to bear on Jakarta in order to put an end to the violence on the Moluccas. More humanitarian aid must be delivered. The same applies to ECHO, which, I might add, is doing a first-rate job out there. Irian Jaya is also suffering the effects of migration policy. Here too the local people are frustrated by the immigration of Muslims and the hard line taken by the military. It is of paramount importance that those guilty of human rights violations are not allowed to get away with it. I concur with those of my colleagues who are demanding an immediate judicial inquiry into the murder of Sander Thoenes. Mrs Maij-Weggen has written an outstanding report and I would therefore conclude that Europe must do all it can to support the country on its way to democracy, but at the end of the day, it is up to the Indonesians themselves to erase the traces of the Suharto regime.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, as the Council and the Commission have recognised, we are witnessing an escalation of blind violence and indiscriminate hatred in the Middle East. It has reached its climax in the stoning of human beings and in the killing and murdering of children and innocent victims. The international community’s appeals for dialogue and peace have been ignored or sidelined. It is therefore urgent to press ahead with the initiatives currently under way. I have in mind the joint Jordano-Egyptian plan and the Mitchell Committee’s conclusions calling for an immediate cessation of violence and the resumption of dialogue aimed at a peaceful solution to this conflict. If there is no response to these appeals, the international community must not remain unmoved by this display of violence, deep-rooted hatred and the ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’ culture. Nor can we remain blind deaf and dumb to it. In my view, Madam President, if the two initiatives now on the table fail to bear fruit, we shall have to come up with a formula to allow us to break the current deadlock. The President-in-Office of the Council of Ministers – I refer to the Defence Ministers, who met informally on Monday prior to meeting with the Foreign Ministers – has stated that by the end of the year the European Union will be in a position to become involved in crisis management situations on a case by case basis. It should be borne in mind, however, that a large proportion of our resources is currently committed in the Balkans. I believe we cannot afford to wait until the end of the year. If the initiatives now under way fail to bear fruit, we should consider other alternatives, such as a United Nations’ buffer force. Alternatively, as Mr Patten rightly suggested, we could use the instruments available to the European Union, namely the association agreements. We should not overlook other possibilities such as the International Court in The Hague, or the Human Rights Commission in Geneva. It would be best not to have to resort to them, however, because the parties do really wish to return to the negotiating table and seek a peace which must be based on justice.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, President of the Commission, this is a vital document for the future and fate of Europe. However, out of all the points, two specifically require our attention, and they are closely linked: peace and stability within Europe and outside Europe. It is a question of objectives that must be pursued as a priority. For some time, we have all agreed on this notion, but we must also clearly affirm that these objectives will not be achieved without enlargement, even if this comes at a price. Today, we have been called on to choose, for the forthcoming decades, between a Europe that might be less prosperous but a beacon of peace and civilisation for the whole planet and a Europe that might be more wealthy, but where there is uncertainty over what the future might bring. These goals will be more easily obtainable only if the Intergovernmental Conference, which will draw to a close within the year, results in constitutional reform, providing the Commission with real and adequate powers so that it will no longer merely implement Council decisions or Parliament’s codecisions but will have to perform the role of a real European government. The first supporter of this reform should be Parliament itself, if it really wants to increase its role of interpreting the will of the Europeans and acquire the centrality which is part of a genuinely democratic and firmly integrated Union. Moreover, it will only be possible to give the Commission responsibility for the tasks it takes on according to the actual powers it will be accorded. Without these prospects that we have outlined, Europe would, once again, have no future.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, many Christian-Democrats have played a leading role at each stage of the development of the European Union, and even now we want to make a joint effort in order to turn Europe into a lasting success story. The Nice Summit, which was supposed to be the summit of truth, cannot really be described as a run-away success, certainly not in terms of its intention to properly prepare the Union’s institutions for enlargement. The Heads of State and Government will now hopefully realise that they can no longer afford any half-hearted or premature conclusions at Laeken. The report by Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo indicates very clearly what decisions are crucial to secure a bright future for the Union. We back this report and I should also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the rapporteurs warmly on their work. Mr President-in-Office of the Council, your work is not complete, and neither is the term of your Presidency. It would therefore be premature to draw up an assessment of your Presidency at this stage, but pending the Laeken Summit, I should still like to say the following. We have noted, and this is also evident from opinion polls, that European citizens have given up. They are not really turning against Europe, but they no longer feel involved. Therefore, more attention should be devoted to issues such as: more information, more public debate, more openness towards the NGOs, making it clear that the Union’s objectives do have a bearing on every single person and that the Union shows equal respect for every human being. In this connection, I would call on you as Head of Government of a small country not to allow yourself to be pushed into a corner again, as was the case in Ghent and in London, in fact. People cannot understand this and accept this even less. I would also urge you to continue to guarantee the same respect for all languages and their users. I would therefore urge you to discontinue your planned intentions concerning the use of language in the bureaus for the protection of industrial right of ownership. People do not understand this, neither do they want or accept this. They do not want a second-rate language, and neither do they want to be treated like second-class citizens.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mrs Zorba's report is very sensible and the Group will support it and almost all the amendments by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. These add to the Commission's impressive project of developing a valid European research area. The only amendments we will oppose are No 6, – which excludes European funding for research aimed at military purposes. We do not look for research specifically aimed at military ends, but research might have military as well as civilian applications, for example research into new materials. By including this prohibition clause, there could be unnecessary impediments to genuinely beneficial research projects. We also prefer the committee's Amendment No 24, regarding the budget, to Mrs Zorba's Amendment No 26, which specifies an amount for the Marie Curie International Fellowships. It is surely better to leave the EUR 1.630 billion for human resources unspecified, so that there is more flexibility. We certainly have nothing against the Marie Curie fellowships. Our group has tabled a clarifying Amendment No 25 which specifies that participation will be permitted by those who hold doctoral degrees where those degrees were obtained in three, rather than four, years. I trust that Mrs Zorba will accept that this is a sensible clarification. I would like to concentrate on the specific programme for science and society, which is essential for re-establishing the necessary level of trust and mutual understanding between the scientific community and civil society at large. This is vital if Europe's research effort is to be supported widely and with continuity and thereby realise its full potential. We have seen a lamentable breakdown in this relationship, perhaps as a result of faulty assertions by scientists and politicians in previous crises. Perhaps it is even more attributable to a lack of willingness by science and industry to communicate clearly and systematically. Our hope is that this programme will promote much improved communication and that the public will be much better informed about the objectives, the results, the applications, the achievements, the recognition of the ethical and environmental constraints and the practical usefulness of scientific endeavour. We hope, above all, that more young people will be attracted to science as a career. We badly need them for all our futures. We wish Mr Busquin, his team and this programme well.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I voted for the report despite many misgivings because it included Mrs Morgan’s excellent proposed amendment on minority languages and cultures. I would also like to have seen support for Mr Vidal’s proposal. But I think that we have taken an important step here towards greater protection of minorities traditionally present in the European Union. We cannot keep setting criteria for candidate countries which we fail to meet ourselves.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to congratulate Mrs Roth-Behrendt on her important work, which I support and admire, which seeks to prevent the use of cosmetics and perfumes leading to animal experimentation. Like Mrs Roth-Behrendt, I love animals, and proof of this is the fact that I have two dogs, three cats and a guinea pig at home. Now then, at home yesterday afternoon, caught up in this measure on which I was due to speak today, I asked my wife, Graziella (née Spallina), to show me the creams she uses. When I had read the label, I said to her, ‘Look, this cream even contains placenta material’, but she replied, ‘Really? You are right! How horrible!’ and continued to apply cream to her face. That night, we went to bed, as usual, and I turned towards her with amorous intentions. However, she was wearing night cream which smelt horrible. I said to her: ‘But do you know that these creams are tested on animals?’ ‘You are right, Carlo,’ she replied, ‘you are right’, but she did not remove the cream from her face and I could not sleep for the rest of the night. However, later on, while I was asleep, I dreamt of Mrs Roth-Behrendt. In my dream, she was my daughter's mother-in-law and we were having dinner together. There were mushrooms for dinner, and so I asked her whether she was sure they were not poisonous. ‘No, no, they are fine’ she said, so I suggested that we try them out on the cat. ‘No!’ she shrieked, ‘not on my pussy cat, not on animals!’ After eating the mushrooms – this is still the dream – Mrs Roth-Behrendt was overtaken by dreadful spasms and taken to hospital, where she was saved by a stomach pump. Afterwards, she said to me, in some pain: ‘Tomorrow, you must vote against my report. You must call for products to be tested on animals before they are used in cosmetics, because, in actual fact, I do not want this dream to become reality.’

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, Mr President, the report on harassment at the workplace was adopted almost three years ago. Anyone who, like Mr Andersson and myself, has concerned themselves with this issue, will have discovered the depths to which people can sink in their dealings with one another. Of all workers in the EU, 8% say that they themselves have been affected by harassment. That is what is officially recorded; the true figure may well be many times higher. The report discusses in depth the causes and effects of bullying and sexual harassment in the workplace and the circumstances that lead to it. The extent to which violence and harassment occur in the workplace amounts to an extremely serious problem. As the report describes, they result in extreme physical and mental stress, to the extent of making people seriously ill. It has an effect even on people’s private lives, is a burden on social security funds and hampers general economic performance. Combating this problem is an extremely difficult undertaking. It will scarcely be possible to come up with a standard definition of the phenomenon. It was the Commission that was given the task of bringing to light other factors that encourage harassment; only when we have a clear picture of the true extent of the problem will we be able to take appropriate action to deal with it. Is the Commission able to comply with this request within the foreseeable future? It is my conviction that combating harassment at work is a matter for the Member States. The social partners, legislators at national level, educational institutions and associations need especial support in their efforts to combat it. It would make sense for there to be a European publicity campaign to put this problem centre stage and rouse the public in the EU. That might put a stop to their indifference. Harassment, whether sexual or not, is not a trifling offence; it is a crime the war on which must start where the crime is committed. This means that it is doubtful that any European directive would be effective, but can the Commission put forward proposals as to how individual efforts in the Member States might be supported?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, Article 3 of the Treaty sets out the European Community’s desire to ban all forms of inequality and to promote equality between men and women. The Council has mentioned gender equality as the basis for development cooperation. In Beijing, a 10-point action programme on this has been adopted and has been signed by all countries. The situation still leaves a great deal to be desired, not least in the area of development cooperation. Of the approximately 1.5 billion people who live under the poverty line, 70% are women. Not only are they lacking financial resources, but also, in most cases they have to go without social rights, such as the right to proper food, drinking water, education, health care and fundamental human rights. Since the Council has defined gender mainstreaming as the guiding principle for development cooperation policy, disappointingly little has actually happened. That is why I welcome the action programme. It should give gender equality in development cooperation policy an extra shot in the arm. Reference has already been made, in this House’s debates and documents, to the link between poverty and gender inequality. The countries where there is great inequality between men and women are also the poorest. There is less poverty in countries where inequality between men and women is not so pronounced. The success rate of development projects in the fields of health care, literacy schemes and agriculture, for example, appears higher if women are involved. Investing in girls appears to lead to lower child mortality and mortality among women, offers higher food safety and means an improvement in the fight against poverty. This is not, unfortunately, common knowledge, and so I was pleased with the publication of research by UNICEF on 11 December last, which clearly underlined this. The report, in fact, states that without measures to get more girls into schools, it will be impossible to achieve the millennium objectives. It is apparent that more girls attending school not only benefits them, but also boys and their countries. The report describes that gender discrimination stops developments in their tracks. The report also describes that, barring a few exceptions, the industrialised countries and international financial institutions have failed to make good their own promises. Hence my support for the action programme which aims to promote analysis and integration of the gender aspect in the priority areas of Community development cooperation, horizontal integration of the gender aspect in projects and programmes, and the advancement of gender capacity in the European Community itself. These are three important points, particularly the last one: a change of mentality is needed, not least in the bodies of the European Union itself. In the light of the urgency and opportunities, I am backing the amendment to increase the budget from EUR 9 million to EUR 11 million. I sincerely hope that the Commission will be able to agree to this.

Political group: PPE-DE
While in many ways we welcome the progress that the introduction of this particular vessel brings and we welcome modern technology, in a situation where fishermen cannot find sufficient stocks in order to justify the capacity that was already there, it seems strange to introduce a new vessel which may be licensed and accepted and which could catch half or perhaps two-thirds of the entire Irish quota. My understanding is that the European Commission initiated proceedings against the Irish Government with respect to this vessel and that these proceedings have now been withdrawn. Could the Commission explain what has changed and why it does not see any illegality at the moment, whereas a year ago it seemed that the Irish Government was in breach of the common fisheries policy regulations by allowing this vessel to fish in Community waters?

Political group: PPE-DE