GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, as this is Parliament’s last report before the historic date on which the EU is to be enlarged, I would like to make a statement in my capacities as co-chairman of the EU-Czech Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee and as rapporteur for Malta. As the date draws nearer, expectations become all the more realistic; enlargement will not do away with every problem at one fell swoop. Over and over again, I get letters from members of the public pointing out ways in which, contrary to the official line, Beneš decrees are to this day being applied in cases in which compensation is outstanding. The only comment I can make on this is that I would see a more sensitive handling of history and of such historical figures as Edvard Beneš as being desirable. Nevertheless, Austria is one of the countries that stand to gain most from enlargement and it is profiting, above all from strengthened trading relations with, and investments in, the Czech Republic. As its neighbours, we were strongly supportive of its accession, in the expectation that enlargement in Central Europe would bring peaceful development and economic growth. Turning to Malta, I cannot do other than congratulate this important small Mediterranean state, situated where Europe and North Africa meet, on its decision to join the European Union, a decision now supported by all its political forces, and also on the efforts the country has made to prepare itself for the EU. When one considers the structural weaknesses of its shipyards and, in general terms, the need to convert a protected and insular economy into an open market economy, the adoption of the EU’s acquis was a great challenge and a major achievement for this small island state. All I can say to the Maltese people, though, is that they must have no fear that they, as a small country, will be swamped in something as large as the European Union. The appointment of Mr Borg, Malta’s foreign minister, as its Commissioner, shows the value that Malta attaches to its accession to the EU.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to make a personal statement. I must protest against what the spokesperson for the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party said when she stated that the position of the Group of the European People’s Party on parental leave is a poor position. I must tell her – and no, I do not know the name of the Member in question and I apologise for not knowing – I must tell her that, if she had read carefully what is proposed in Mrs Hautala’s recommendation for second reading, she would not be able to make these accusations. I do not know if my fellow Member from the Confederal Group of the – has also misinterpreted the amendments, because the text on the distinct right to paternity leave... (The President cut the speaker off) Yes, but I must say this, Mr President! She has made accusations against us. These Members have misunderstood the text, and personally speaking, I cannot tolerate a situation when we are criticised about paternal leave, because what is said on the right to parental leave – which we support, Mr President – is exactly what the Council says. Therefore, why criticise my group because we are in favour of paternal leave? We have said this, and the text is the same as the text from the Council. Mr President, I cannot tolerate a situation where two accusations are made against us by the spokespersons of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party and the Confederal Group of the . Perhaps they should read the documents!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we all know that this is an unusually important report we are dealing with here. It is important because we are here and now considering just how credible the European Union’s policy on public health is. I am sorry that the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has also expressed opinions that the Court ban on tobacco advertising would in some way render this directive null and void. By no means is that true, as this directive concerns the content of cigarettes and not measures to promote tobacco sales. Parliament should no longer be deluded in this matter; it should understand that it is now vital to show support for Mr Maaten’s excellent report. Now to the matter of whether the words ‘light’ or ‘mild’ on brands of tobacco should now be banned. We should keep to our opinion that such misleading descriptions cannot be allowed, and the decision of the Court in October brings nothing new to this matter. We must maintain the stand we took on this before. We must understand that all those countries that have undertaken to draft fairly tough legislation on tobacco have clearly seen deaths from lung cancer and heart and vascular disease brought under control. We should be able to promote all of this in the European Union’s common single market policy as well, which must be based on high standards of protection when it comes to public health.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, as my colleague Mrs Morgan has stressed, more than 40 million European citizens speak autochthonous languages, other than the main official language of the state in which they live. Languages are an integral part of Europe's linguistic and cultural diversity. They lie at the heart of the fundamental rights of its citizens and are a key factor in the creation of a peaceful and democratic Europe. I welcome this long-awaited resolution and urge colleagues to support it as it will be an excellent platform for the future. The European Year of Languages has been a successful year and it included many projects for Europe's regional and lesser-used languages, contrary to the expectations of many of us. The recent Council decision emphasises that, 'all European languages are equal in value and dignity from the cultural point of view'. Although the Council's decision does not refer specifically to regional and lesser-used languages, it does not exclude them either. This is why I particularly support the amendments referring to the mainstreaming of programmes and I am calling for support for a multiannual programme by 2003. This is a golden opportunity to direct this agenda for the future and in preparation for enlargement. We must ensure that Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights is on the agenda of the next Intergovernmental Conference and that we also push for qualified majority voting in Council. Let us work together to ensure that regional and lesser-used languages are here to stay and remain part of the culturally diverse Europe of the future. Europe's unique richness is its diversity. Let us ensure that we all protect this.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, it is the case that, although the United Kingdom electoral system is a list system, the names of those on the list appear in the order in which electors are invited to vote for them. Therefore, it is the case that we are here as individuals as well as representing a political position. That is very important and it should be known that the United Kingdom Conservative Party was among those parties that voted for the provision that names should be on the ballot, not off the ballot. ***

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, if, by means of this debate, we manage to focus the attention of the Council and the Commission on the importance of the Southern side of the Mediterranean to European policy, we will have partly achieved our aim. As has been said, a delegation from this Parliament has just visited Morocco and Tunisia. Human rights, the Western Sahara, fishing, agriculture, investment, MEDA and emigration were discussed by MEPs, the authorities and representatives of civil society. As a result, we have been asked to ensure that the Union has a greater political involvement in the Mediterranean. There are fears about enlargement and there is a feeling that the balance is more in favour of the north and the east and less in favour of the south. It would be good if the representatives of the Commission and the Council present here today could answer this question. On the other hand, we have to encourage investment in the region, and, respecting the idiosyncrasies of these countries we must cooperate with them so that they may make progress in their democratic processes and their respect for human rights. We must accept their pace but at the same time make it clear to them that the European Union does not only want to invest in economic development, but also in peace and stability, based on respect for peoples’ fundamental rights and on people being able to exercise their liberties in a democratic way. This is not an easy task, and only dialogue, and not confrontation, can achieve it. European Union actions are still very diffuse and complex in this area. The Barcelona Conference corresponds more to political will than to a genuine strategy aimed at creating a real Euro-Mediterranean area, where economics play an important part, but only one part, in a permanent dialogue and political cooperation in the social and cultural areas and also in the defence of mutual interests in order to guarantee the peace and stability which we all wish to see in this region. ***

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to thank my colleague, Mr van Velzen, for his excellent work in handling the Commission’s communication. He has done an enormous amount of work on the amendments to reach a compromise. The liberalisation of the telecommunications markets has advanced by leaps and bounds in recent years in Europe. Regional differences are still too great, however, for us to be able to speak of a free telecommunications market. Every Eurocitizen must be afforded the opportunity to use all communications services at a fair price. For example, factors that restrict competition in mobile communications, such as the overpricing of the ‘roaming’ facility and the lack of the preselection and call transfer facility, must be rectified through action at Community level. The Commission must give assurances that these obstacles to competition are removed as promptly as possible. We cannot, however, simply concentrate on wireless communications. The situation regarding competition in the fixed networks must also be radically improved. The monopoly status the telephone companies enjoy must be destroyed right down to the last copper wire. Otherwise, people living in remote areas, in particular, will be at a disadvantage. I hope the Commission gives a clear response to this question: how will local loops be opened up to competition, or, in other words, how can we most effectively break up the monopolies in the fixed networks? The question of the distribution of the UMTS frequencies is a matter that should not be regulated at Community level. Arguments could be put forward in favour of both spectrum auctions and so-called beauty contests. The fact is that the astronomical prices that result from spectrum auctions always end up with consumers having to foot the bill. Beauty contests are, in many respects, more consumer-oriented, and more of an alternative that supports the freeing up of the market. Unlike spectrum auctions, beauty contests do not involve operators having to pay a sum of money that is in the nature of a PAYE tax. I would like to ask the Commissioner, in connection with this issue, whether the Commission considers that spectrum auctions promote competition. I hope that I will receive unambiguous answers to these questions.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President, the French presidency’s programme is interesting and in no way devoid of substance. There is a lot one can agree with. I nonetheless wonder whether it is in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity to talk about housing, health care and sport. Ought the EU really to be devoting itself to those kinds of issue? The idea of a community of values is important, but opinions are divided on how this is to be achieved. Many of us are disappointed at Prime Minister Jospin’s statement to the effect that there will be no change during the French presidency when it comes to the 14 countries’ boycott of Austria. The intensive discussion in recent weeks of our visions of Europe’s future has been stimulating, but it causes disquiet in the candidate States. Where exactly does the EU stand? This is an issue to which Mr Cox also referred. The unclear signals give scope to populists with nationalist agendas in the candidate States who want to prevent their countries from becoming Members of the Union. Was it a coincidence that no statement was made at Feira to the effect that we should be ready for enlargement by the year 2002? Does the French presidency’s policy concerning a further Intergovernmental Conference at the end of 2003 or the beginning of 2004 imply support for Chancellor Schröder’s proposal for a new conference on the division of labour? Even in that case, the signals are unclear, which is alarming for the candidate States. To conclude, I would point to one instance of unilateral action which is worrying. Why did France discontinue Slovakia’s membership of the OECD, citing the EU’s directive on TV issues? Was it right to do this off its own bat, without checking what the other Member States thought? What was the reason for its action? This has also given rise to concern in the candidate States about the attitude we take to their legislation and to their legitimate interest in being involved in OECD cooperation, which is economically important.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, unfortunately, the rapporteur is right. I thought that my amendment was far superior, but I accept that, as his amendment has already been adopted, it makes no sense to vote on mine. However, I would point out that the Commission has stated that his amendment is not accurate whereas mine is.

Political group: ELDR
The ΕU has been undermining the Kyoto protocol since the moment it signed it. Instead of taking substantial measures to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases responsible for the greenhouse effect and the climate changes which it causes, it is trying to take advantage of the 'flexible' mechanisms so that not only are industry's interests not touched, but so that there are benefits too. This is happening at a time when it is certain that the ΕU will not achieve its objective of reducing emissions by 8% by 2010. Thus, within the framework of the principle that everything can be bought and sold, a market with the right to pollute has been established. Now, the directive is being supplemented in order to include 'joint implementation' and 'clean development mechanisms', both of which concern industries which invest in cleaner technologies in non-EU countries. The reduction in emissions achieved is reported under the assets of the industries, which acquire the right to pollute elsewhere (inside the ΕU). It is obvious that this is yet another scheme which involves complicated procedures with uncertain results in order to circumvent the material provisions of the Kyoto protocol and benefit businesses, in that the cost of applying the protocol will fall by 20%. The report does not put forward the tiniest objection to the above measures, which is why we MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece voted against it.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Type 2 diabetes is a lifestyle disease. My personal view is that the best results would be achieved by applying the principle of subsidiarity when it comes to changing people’s eating habits and increasing the amount of physical activity, which are the two fundamental issues. The EU, on the other hand, should be able to operate on a broader front by helping to implement the major population studies needed for the future, so that we can tackle the issue in a more constructive way. Long-term studies of population groups in various European countries should be something which the EU could contribute in order to achieve good results.

Political group: PPE-DE
I thank the Commissioner for a very thorough answer and ask him three questions. First, does he agree with me that we have got to sell enlargement to, in particular, the people of the European Union? If we do not sell enlargement we are likely to run into difficulties with ratification. Secondly, how do these organisations get access to funds? Do they have to go through the national offices of the Commission? Is there information available on how they do that? Finally, he did not cover my point about twinning. Is it possible to have projects which twin, for example, schools in Member States with schools in the accession countries and also to twin local authorities in Member States with local authorities in accession countries, to discuss the implications of enlargement and what it means for the candidate countries? Would it be possible to bring forward proposals such as that?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am very disappointed at the outcome of the original Ó Neachtain/Stevenson report because of the adoption of Amendment No 20. It was an irresponsible amendment which seeks to maintain Regulations (EC) Nos 2847/93 and 685/95 for a period of 10 years. Everyone recognises that there is a problem in the Irish Box and that there is a problem with stocks. It is completely unjustifiable that this Parliament should vote to allow that situation to remain for 10 years. What is going to be left for Irish fishermen? The Irish are saying here today that this is a great victory as the Spanish have been kept out! It is no great victory for Irish fishermen, because there will be no fish to catch! This nationalistic approach in Parliament towards fisheries is extremely hard to accept from an ecological point of view. We need to look at the state of stocks and what is there for fishermen. We need to take scientific advice, not the advice of fishermen only, who take a very short-term view. They only see as far as the ends of their noses. We need to ensure that stocks are maintained and, if there is a crisis, that measures are taken to reduce the fishing effort. What we have done here today is regrettable. Mr Ó Neachtain's report in committee was very good, but, unfortunately, it was voted down by a few votes because Spanish Members voted for their own interests – just like the Irish. However, there was a very good compromise, and I cannot understand why Mr Ó Neachtain did not retable just his committee proposals and allow them to go through. The vast majority of Parliament would have supported that position because it was a very fair and reasonable compromise. We are in a situation which sends a very bad signal from an ecological and sustainable fisheries point of view. The situation in the Irish Box will remain unchanged for 10 years, despite the fact that it is recognised that there is a crisis. This Parliament should take its role seriously in protecting fish stocks and not just protect basic selfish national interests. It is time we realised that we have to maintain fish stocks. The Commission and the Council should also take this advice, that it is time we sought to ensure that fish stocks remain, and not just the industry, which will have nothing to fish for in the future if it does not realise that there is a problem.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, this debate is prompted by the massacre in the East Congolese town of Bunia on 6 May. Sadly, this massacre is only the most recent in a long series of massacres in the east of the country. Beyond the Congo's borders, too – in Burundi and Rwanda – we have witnessed African genocide on a massive scale. Other major features are marauding militia who recruit child soldiers and devastate entire regions, and the ruthless exploitation of natural resources in the region, above all gold, uranium and, indeed, oil. This exploitation is carried out either by troops invited into the country – including some from Zimbabwe, for example – but also by non-invited troops, for example, from Uganda, who seize the country's wealth. We must ask ourselves one question. Why are Europe and the world looking away? It cannot be because of the oil or gold or other natural resources. In other regions of the world with plentiful natural resources, as in the Gulf, we have an interest in stability, regardless of how we might choose to achieve it. Yet in Africa, we apparently prefer to leave almost everything in a semi-chaotic state in line with the concept of ‘might is right’. What I want is for all of us, within the European Union, to put our heads together for once and think about how we deal with Africa. Formal summits on Africa staged by individuals really are not enough. It may be appropriate to ask how we facilitate development in Africa through market access within the WTO framework. That is a debate which we should also engage in for once, and we should not only call for a robust mandate for the United Nations; we should also bring ourselves to the process. The resolution before us is almost a bit too restrained for my liking, for it makes very few demands of the Council or the Commission. It simply says at one point that we welcome ECHO's humanitarian role. It is indeed to be welcomed, but I think this is really not enough under the circumstances. If we call on the United Nations to do something and welcome the signing of an agreement in Pretoria in South Africa on 6 March, we ourselves must also send our own forces there in order to make our own contribution. I call on the Council and the Commission to take this step. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, different assessments can, of course, be made as to whether the Commission’s action is so serious as to require a motion of censure, and I can therefore respect a contribution as objective as that of Mr Jonckheer. When, however, I listened to Mrs Grossetête, Mr Kuhne etc., I was reminded of when, in the Eighties, I visited the Supreme Soviet in Moscow where all critics were held up to ridicule, condemned and accused of being anti-Soviet and traitors. Is that the way in which you are to defend your EU project? Is it to be done by means of accusations and ridicule, through the harassment of whistleblowers and by setting the police on investigative journalists? Have you not noticed that the project is suffering from a crisis of confidence due to the lack of transparency and democratic legitimacy? We are attempting to use a classic parliamentary tool to monitor the executive. You may have a different view but, when you ridicule us, run us down and call us anti-Europeans, you undermine the democratic legitimacy of your own project.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Is this also being distributed? Is it available, because I have noticed that many MEPs have not seen this text?

Political group: Verts-ALE