GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, for 28 years, Berlin and Germany were divided. That is now history. For 28 years, Nicosia and Cyprus have been divided. Let that be history, and let it be so as soon as possible. Turkey must respect the UN resolutions and give its full support to efforts to reach a political solution regarding Cyprus. If the discussions fail, Cyprus must nonetheless be given the green light for membership in 2004 at the Copenhagen European Council this coming December. It is important to make it clear to the new Islamophile Turkish Government that it must ignore the Turkish Cypriot threat of a permanent division of Cyprus if the southern part is brought into the EU before the discussions between Turkey and Greece are concluded. I assume it is perfectly clear to the Turks that their country can never embark upon membership negotiations if the occupying troops are not withdrawn from a future EU Member State, namely Cyprus. We are concerned here with the credibility of the EU and with the EU as a peace project. Initiatives on the part of the new Turkish Government and the UN on the Cyprus issue must be based upon this obvious insight. In the text produced by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, I have put forward the view that Turkey’s democratic development, especially when it comes to the protection of ethnic and religious minorities, must be a prerequisite of increased financial pre-accession aid from the EU. In 1900, a quarter of Turkey’s population was Christian. A hundred years later, a thousandth of the population is Christian. That is a tragic expression of extensive assaults upon religious freedom and religious tolerance, particularly affecting Christian Syrians and Armenians. I have also helped tighten up the appeals made by the European Parliament to the candidate countries when it comes, for example, to combating corruption, and I have also added an economic perspective. I should like to welcome the candidate countries to the EU.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioner, Mr de Miguel, the outcome of the preparatory meeting held in Bali has been a disappointment. The fact that the various nations proved incapable of overcoming their national self-interest makes us extremely apprehensive about the outcome of the Johannesburg Conference. There is even a definite feeling in the air, it could be said, that failure is a real possibility. Given the degradation of the environment and of social conditions that we have been seeing, the Johannesburg Summit is crucial to producing a blueprint for a more harmonious planet. Failure would not only be unacceptable but also an outrage. We must build bridges in order to save this Conference, but, and let me state this clearly, in the run-up to Johannesburg many countries are adopting a blocking approach, others a more passive approach and I do not believe I am far off the mark in saying that, objectively, only the European Union is setting off for Johannesburg with the desire to give an ambitious worldwide commitment to sustainable development. Against this backdrop, and because we cannot waste the kind of opportunity we have not had for ten years and which is unlikely to be repeated in the next ten, the European Union must play a leading role. This applied to the Kyoto Protocol, and must apply to the Johannesburg Summit. The EU must demonstrate leadership that results in the definition of concrete policies, timetables and targets in fields such as biodiversity, the ‘greening’ of the economy, financing for developing countries, energy, water and trade. This leadership cannot be underpinned, however, by institutional imbalance, with the Commission and the Council on one side and the European Parliament on the other. We must learn from the mistakes, but also from the successes of the past. The role of the European Parliament delegations such as, for example, at the decisive conferences for the Kyoto Protocol, in The Hague, Bonn and in Marrakech, a role, as a matter of fact highlighted by the Commission and the Council, leads us to think that we need to give the European Parliament a more fitting role for this Johannesburg Summit. Consequently, out of respect for the citizens that we represent here, I believe it is crucial that the European Parliament has the right not only to send a delegation of 25 Members of this House, but also and above all the right to have its representatives participate in the daily European Union coordinating meetings. The European Parliament does not want to negotiate – we are familiar with the Treaties. It is not the European Parliament’s task to negotiate, but we do want Parliament, the Commission and the Council to maintain unity in Johannesburg and in order for this to help make the Conference a success, it is essential that Parliament has the right to participate in these European Union coordinating meetings.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to welcome both the directives and congratulate both rapporteurs as other Members have done. I have particularly followed the debate on the limitation of emissions of large combustion plants. These plants are one of the biggest emitters of air pollutants in Europe after transport emissions and therefore it is very important we have stringent legislation to control this. The inclusion of existing plants is a major improvement on former legislation. It means there will be a level playing field for all plants including the worst polluters and some plants in the applicant countries, which can generate electricity more cheaply because they have fewer controls and do not have to meet the same standards. Again, as other Members have said, we can reassure people that because of the various derogations and allowances for lower standards, which were built into the final compromise text, current power stations such as Aberthaw in my own constituency are under no threat. Aberthaw coal-fired power station has been the subject of considerable press and media attention due to perceived threats to its viability and its profitability from this directive. In fact the opposite is true. The directive will actually protect jobs in the Welsh coal and generating industries in the longer term. This has been a very important debate, because it has shown that there is not a straight choice between cleaner air standards and employment, as some would have us believe. Work to combat pollution can go hand-in-hand with protecting jobs and sustaining communities. My group also supports the compromise which tightens the limit values for sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide and introduces generally stronger standards. The group also supports the results of the conciliation on Mrs Myller's report on the National Emission Ceilings Directive and we will be voting in favour of that too.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, my group takes the opposite view, to the effect that it is important to vote upon a resolution. In the first place, it is not the first time that Parliament has given an opinion on the subject of human cloning. On several occasions since the advent of Dolly we have voted on a number of resolutions. If anyone adopted a unilateral stance on these occasions, it was the British Government which, without any prior consultation whatsoever, adopted a position in favour of therapeutic cloning. We therefore consider that a reaction from the European Parliament which does not close the door on the debate is a useful move. When I say we must not close the door, clearly the suggestion of a temporary committee must not be rejected out of hand. I am not saying that I am for or against that, but I do think that it would be a good idea for Parliament to deliver its opinion by some means other than an inconclusive debate. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the events in and around Afghanistan have obscured our view of trouble spots in other parts of the world, for example in Nigeria. The European Union should not, however, be indifferent to what is happening in this the most populous country in Africa. At the beginning of this year, the President of Nigeria, President Obasanjo, declared that 2001 would be the year in which the Nigerian people would reap the rewards of the transition to democracy. We supported this statement when we met at that time in Abuja in the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly. The trust has, however, suddenly turned to deep concern. A split in the ruling party in Nigeria, the absence of economic improvements and the persistence of poor living conditions have made people increasingly willing to resort to violence, thus creating a breeding ground for political extremists. To keep them in check, President Obasanjo felt it necessary to deploy soldiers in seven Nigerian states. Since then more than 3 000 people are said to have been killed and there is renewed fear that the military might return to power. The introduction and application of Sharia law in an increasing number of states has heightened religious and ethnic tensions. Violent criminals often go unpunished. The President and all of the forces of democracy in Nigeria are called upon to take determined action against violent criminals using the legal means at their disposal, to secure respect for universal human rights and to hurry through economic reforms which will benefit all parts of the country, if there is to be an end to this misery. We expect the Commission to monitor this process actively and to do everything within its power to ensure that this trouble spot in Africa once again becomes a place of democracy.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, if I wanted to make a little joke, I would say that the debate on this important dossier has been held over two days, since it is now 12 February. That said, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the public data concern a particularly sensitive area since they concern public information, managed either directly or indirectly by the public authorities. Community legislation on transparency and accessibility of public information already provides a highly comprehensive framework, but in some sectors, a few clarifications should be made in order to prevent any distortion of competition caused by a possible legislative void. I would congratulate the European Commission on this proposal concerning the reuse and handling of public sector documents. I nevertheless lament the lack of precision in certain points in the text. I am thinking, for example, of the documents referred to which, in my opinion, are not the subject of a clear, specific definition. As I proposed to the competent committee for content, the concept of a public document needs to be further delineated. I am not referring to harmonisation, but simply to an appropriate definition to allow all citizens to know exactly which public documents are considered to fall within the scope of the directive. It would also have been desirable to introduce a reference to periods of accessibility of public documents. On the other hand, I am pleased that the proposals on the unilateral order on information production and the proposals on the conditions governing the implementation of this order have been adopted, in particular the reasonable period of notice. An order that is harshly enforced poses a risk to the operators concerned. I am thinking in particular of the SMEs and SMIs, which would not have the technical or financial means to deal with such situations if they were not given enough notice. That is why I would encourage you, ladies and gentlemen, to vote for Mr Van Velzen’s report. The rapporteur has successfully supplemented the Commission’s basic proposal with a comprehensive report, which has been intelligently negotiated between the various political groups to which we belong.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to congratulate Mrs Carlotti on her speech. I am surprised that no-one from the Group of the European Liberal, Democratic and Reform Party, that tabled three amendments to this report, has spoken in this debate.

Political group: PSE
I voted for the report on Cyprus as well. This summer, Madam President, as well as going to the seas in the north, I went on holiday to Cyprus. I divided my time equally between the Greek and Turkish parts of Cyprus. I went to the seaside and got a nice tan. I spent time first with a beautiful Greek Cypriot girl and then with a beautiful Turkish Cypriot girl. There was no difference between the first and second parts of the holiday: I had a wonderful time in both Northern and Southern Cyprus. I therefore hope that Cyprus will enter the European Union as soon as possible.

Political group: PPE-DE
It is essential that the European Union adopts coherent measures to increase effectiveness in the area of border security, without impinging on the competences of the Member States. I welcome this proposal for a regulation, ensuring uniform application in the Member States of the requirement systematically to stamp the travel documents of third-country nationals when they cross the EU’s external borders. This measure will respond to the need to be able to check the date on which a person from a third country crossed the external border, and will make it possible to verify how long a third-country citizen has been in EU territory and whether or not the person is there illegally. Recasting the Common Manual of External Borders will be an enormously complicated task and will thus take a considerable amount of time to adopt. The aim of this proposal is to iron out the disparities that currently exist between the various Member States and any ambiguities that may arise as regards the provisions of the Manual while it is being recast. This will be a step towards tightening control of the external borders and enhancing mutual trust between Member States in the area of border control. As these are common borders, lax security in one State will inevitably have a knock-on effect in all of the other Member States.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I asked for the floor yesterday, but my request was refused due to a lack of time. What I wanted to say was that even though, according to the information available, the possibility of an imminent attack by Israeli forces in the Gaza Strip cannot be discounted, never mind the carnage that will unleash, even though the ruling Likud party in Israel is open in its opposition to the creation of a Palestinian state and has passed a resolution to that effect and 13 Palestinian fighters have been expelled from their homeland as terrorists at Sharon's insistence, the Council has still not reached a decision and I have no idea which countries the Council will finally decide should accept these fighters. My question is this: what will the status of these thirteen fighters be, wherever they end up, and is there any possibility of their being returned at Israel's request, which would, of course, be criminal. Also, does the European Union intend to continue to aid and abet the regime in Israel, in blatant disregard of the European Parliament's resolution that the partnership with Israel should be suspended, and does it intend to continue funding and arming this criminal regime?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, two things. First of all, I should like to tell the Commission that I am pleased about the amendments that are being supported. I am rather annoyed that the Commission has not thought along the same lines as the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs regarding Amendments Nos 3 and 5, because they specifically emphasise the efforts at prevention I tried to emphasise in my speech. I therefore hope that the Commission will reconsider them. I would also ask the Commission to give us a little help today in responding to something said by Mr Bushill-Matthews and Mr Pronk. Could the Commission first of all explain to these gentlemen that there is also something called sustainable development within employment and that, when we talk about wanting a proper working environment and proper health and safety regulations, what in actual fact we want is a sustainable labour market from which people are not excluded? Mr Bushill-Matthews must also agree with me that, in the long term, what is economically most sustainable is not to have a whole lot of people sitting on the ‘reserve bench’. And, talking about a ‘reserve bench’, I also wish to address Mr Pronk and ask the Commission to help me a little. Could the Commission explain to Mr Pronk once and for all that people who play football or go to football matches will not be affected by this directive? And perhaps we could also, once and for all, have the lobbyists locked out of this House.

Political group: PSE
The Freedom Party’s participation in the Austrian Government is a dangerous development for the European Union’s political future. It is a ‘Trojan horse’ which is unfortunately reappearing in Europe larger than ever since the Second World War. The European Parliament and the Union’s governments must politically isolate a government that includes admirers of Nazism and advocates of xenophobia. The European Union bears a large measure of responsibility – and along with it the two dominant political movements, the Social Democrats and the – because, by their dogmatic adherence to the harsh financial policies of EMU, their dislocation of the welfare state and their deification of uncontrolled competition, they have pushed broad strata of society to the limits and made it possible for right-wing extremists of the Haider type to recruit support for their neo-Nazi ways.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I will just simply say first as a British Member, that I would endorse what Mrs Jackson said. Only the people in this room really know just how much work both the rapporteurs did to reach this final position and to get these two reports as proposals to this Parliament for a final vote. We are your peers and we know how much hard work you did and we congratulate you both on that work. It has been a very long time and this is one of the most difficult reports I have seen in twelve years in Parliament. Finally though, despite all the difficulties and even the final conciliation, we have a workable and practical proposal. It is not going to be easy. It is going, in fact, to be extremely hard with regard to some of the requirements, but it strikes a satisfactory balance between the protection of the environment on the one hand and society's need for a reliable and secure source of power at an affordable price, which is something we cannot ignore. Changes are going to have to take place to meet the requirements of this proposal. The power industry will undoubtedly be required to replace some old plant, hopefully by some more modern sources of power generation. There is going to be a substantial reduction in sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions which are the main causes of acid rain and ground-level ozone with a consequent improvement in the environmental conditions for human health. One possible side effect may be that as the general efficiency of power plant operation improves, we will see an overall reduction in carbon dioxide in comparison to the energy generated. That would be a helpful and useful side effect of this legislation. It will not be easy to put all these measures into place. There is a long time scale. That is acceptable and understandable in these circumstances, so on behalf of the Socialist Group, I welcome these proposals and we will give them our support in the vote tomorrow.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we all agree that noise pollution disturbs the everyday lives of the people of Europe. I am however, rather surprised. We are simply asking Europe to compensate for errors in land use planning that have been made in all of our Member States. Why, then, should we appeal to Europe, since each Member State can decide for itself what it should do on its own territory? We have already adopted measures on tyres and aircraft engines and we can do the same for road surfaces. This is indeed a huge task, but why should we lay down regulations which, in reality, concern not only Member States but must also take account of differences between these countries and, above all, encourage local authorities to adopt the necessary measures in line with their local situation rather than us deciding for them? This is the principle of subsidiarity and I am particularly keen to see it implemented in this area. Locally elected representatives are responsible for deciding on what needs to be done in each town, county or region. These are decisions for locally elected representatives. I am one of them and I know very well what is involved in drawing up a strategic noise map. We are told about airports, for example. There are international airports, and there are national airports and there are considerable differences between airports. The impact of noise is, therefore, different. Why, then, should we impose standards that will not apply to all of them? It should not be forgotten that airports are crucial to the areas in which they are located. Infrastructures for air transport are a crucial factor for industries, which often choose where to base themselves on the basis of communications links and airports. Is it worth emphasising that an exception absolutely must be made for military airports? I agree with Mr Florenz. The current situation clearly shows the importance of this provision. I shall conclude by reminding you that the title of this directive is ‘Assessment and Management of Noise’. Management is, therefore, preceded by an assessment. How can we attempt to set limits without a detailed and wide-ranging study, based on commonly established assessment criteria? We would need to have precise maps on noise and then ask every Member State to implement effective action plans. It is also crucial that we involve the public in these exercises, although this can only be done with the agreement of each country and each local authority.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the European Convention on Human Rights that also applies to Russia as a Member State of the Council of Europe, has, as it were, its headquarters here in Strasbourg. On the other side of the river is the European Court of Human Rights, to which Mr Nikitin has appealed. That means that what is happening in Russia is not an internal affair of a far-off land but that it is an internal affair of a European institution at whose heart are the fifteen Member States of the EU. We therefore have an important duty to speak up for Mr Nikitin and his release so that he can finally live in humane and constitutional conditions. We, as the EU, are also bound under the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, which not only commits Russia but ourselves too and it contains a human rights clause, to speak out most fervently on behalf of Mr Nikitin for an improvement in his conditions of detention on the spot, for his release and as I said, for fair and constitutional treatment. It would be a disgrace if we gave way, because – as Mrs Schroedter put it so well – Mr Nikitin also acted in our interests. We have often dealt with it here in the Parliament. He acted on behalf of the European environment. He acted for the rule of law on the whole continent. We should in fact award Mr Nikitin one of our prizes here in the European Parliament. I should therefore like to endorse this motion for a resolution most emphatically and the appeal it contains.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I am against this oral amendment. (With more than twelve Members standing, the oral amendment was not considered) Following the vote

Political group: ELDR