GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, we would like to begin by thanking Mrs Guy-Quint in particular for seeking consensus throughout the process of drawing up her report. As the Committee on Budgets we consider that the establishment of the budget by activities causes us problems because of the lack of visibility of expenditure and our desire to strengthen the powers of the European Parliament as a budgetary authority. We have just come from a budgetary negotiation with the Council, as Mrs Guy-Quint is well aware, where the hardest thing has been to determine in a clearer and more precise way what the limits of budgetary power are for one party or another. The Committee on Budgets considers that Parliament must not lose its control over the allocation of administrative appropriations. Our fears are not greatly allayed by the fact that, when the establishment of the budget by activities is over, category 5 of the financial perspectives will disappear. We are not speaking against these consequences, but in favour of safeguarding the budgetary powers of this Parliament. Therefore, any tendency of the Commission reform to covertly remove from Parliament this ability to control administrative expenditure would create interinstitutional problems in the short term. However, an approach that safeguards Parliament’s powers of control and decision-making with regard to expenditure in the current category 5 will guarantee that the Commission reform will be negotiated with no further problems. With regard to the TAOs and the transitional period for their dismantling, my Group insists that the Commission should make the greatest possible effort to limit that transitional period. We therefore ask the Commissioner: can the Commission guarantee a truly limited transitional period? Finally, we must deal with the thorny issue of the proposal on early retirement. We are awaiting a three-way dialogue to define this question, amongst others, before the final approval of the 2001 budget. My group does not reject the idea of this proposal on early retirement being obligatory. We believe that the lack of definition of the current proposal could create more problems than advantages and we have already received some indications of concern from various officials. Nevertheless, we will give the Commission our vote of confidence so that it can give as much detail as possible about the scope of its proposal. During the coming three-way dialogue, we hope to receive good news on many issues, including this one, as well as the lifting of the reserve in the category of new posts. This would clearly indicate this Parliament’s goodwill in relation to moving ahead with this reform with the Commission.

Political group: PPE-DE
The report by the temporary committee is yet another attempt to conceal the anti-labour policy in shipping and defuse reactions by the grass-roots and labour movement to crimes at sea in which dozens of seafarers lose their lives every year and which have grievous consequences on the environment. The allegation in the report, that 80% of accidents are due to human error, is erroneous, unscientific and suspicious, in that it endeavours to cover up the responsibility of the shipping companies and government authorities by concealing the deterioration in naval training and glossing over the consequences of an obsolete fleet, defective surveys, inadequate crew compositions and intensification of the work of seafarers. The accidents are directly linked to the unaccountability which prevails, especially in the second registers of the Members States of the EU and on ships sailing under flags of convenience. It has been proven that the shipping registers operate as mechanisms to cover up infringements of legislation and perpetuate the unaccountability of shipowners, by issuing certificates which, on most occasions, do not reflect the actual state of the vessel. The proposals by the Commission and by Parliament conceal the responsibilities and promote the behaviour of the big shipping and shore monopolies and, on the pretext of combating terrorism, promote measures which strike at fundamental democratic rights of seafarers. We demand the immediate release of the master of the Prestige tanker and his return to Greece.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the beauty of statistical data is that it is not only reliable but also comparable. This is of great importance, especially in the light of European unification and the completion of the internal market. This is why this report is also so politically charged: a report, by the way, on which we would like to congratulate the rapporteur warmly. It also inspires a few political comments. The Stability Pact is a given in Europe. All countries participating in the euro have committed themselves, in the medium term, to striving towards a budget which is either balanced or shows up a slight surplus. This, of course, does not mean that, if the economic climate is less than favourable, the budget could not fluctuate up or down slightly. It means that, in the long and medium term, there should be a balance or surplus. The stronger the position of the participating countries, the stronger the euro will be. As a result, the three percent standard will rarely be exceeded, not even in a bad economic climate. This is the theory behind it, anyway. We have always been of the opinion that these criteria should be stringently met. That is of great importance in order to turn the EMU into a success, now and in the future. Strict compliance with the Stability Pact can thus contribute to a culture of stability within all EMU Member States. Various Member States have taken one-off measures to be able to meet the criteria. We are of the opinion that the Member States’ budget policy should be strictly supervised, to ensure that the measures continue to be taken in the spirit of the prescribed criteria at all times. A drop in standards should not be allowed. We are also of the opinion that a further reduction in the burden and reducing the national debt should be prioritised. Indeed, we still have not managed to stop passing on the burden to future generations.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I do not believe I am the only one to be disappointed by the results of the Tampere summit. It is true that it could have been worse, much worse, especially for the citizens of third countries who are in Europe or who need to come here, but that does not change the fact that we have missed a good opportunity to actually start constructing an area of freedom, security and justice. The Summit’s conclusions seem to be a summary of the preparatory documents which had already been in circulation in Parliament for some time, without any more detail being added. There was a long list of good intentions with which we cannot disagree, but I am concerned and perplexed by some of the clearer decisions. I will give only one example out of the many I could give – the priority given to cooperation in fighting urban youth crime seems a little odd and out of place, given that, to make any real impact, the States would do better to join forces in order to defeat large-scale organised crime, which increasingly operates on an international basis. We will only be able to find out more from the legislative proposals that will be put forward. In the meantime, we repeat our concern that what we will actually achieve is an area of internal security fitted with an iron lock to stop the outside world getting in.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Junker has already mentioned Mr Mugabe's cynical speech at the Johannesburg Summit. I tend to get the impression that speeches of this kind are, unfortunately, infectious. I hope that the crass speech by Namibia's President Nujoma in Johannesburg on the same day will not have any political consequences in Namibia itself. Meanwhile, the politicisation of food aid in Zimbabwe is continuing, amongst other things. Maize is being specifically distributed to the party faithful, church food stores are being stormed by the so-called war veterans, and the church has been banned from distributing aid on the grounds that it is creating parallel structures. What should we be doing? We should do what we have decided to do. To be precise, I expect that Zimbabwe's Foreign Minister will not be invited to the EU-SAC meeting of Foreign Ministers in Copenhagen in November, and we should make it clear to our partners in southern Africa that European money is not intended to finance an African renaissance or a new NEPAD programme of African development for President Mugabe and his political allies. We should financially participate in the reconstruction of Zimbabwe and land reform there once Mr Mugabe has gone and within a proper constitutional framework – but not now. If Zimbabwe's neighbours exert pressure in their own interest, because they themselves are suffering from the impact of Mr Mugabe's policies – for example the flow of refugees into neighbouring countries – then we should support them in accommodating refugees, but certainly not now. We should make our own policy perfectly clear and bring appropriate pressure to bear on our own Council of Ministers, because I really have the impression – as a number of Members have already said – that this is not really being given priority, and that no very clear statement was made about Mr Mugabe in Johannesburg. That is why I hope that we will at least take a hard line in relation to the meeting in November in Copenhagen. Our partners in southern Africa will then have to decide for themselves if they want to show solidarity with Mr Mugabe or with the people of Zimbabwe, and join us in the dialogue to put an end to this situation. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
I am satisfied with the reply, but unfortunately I must say that the Russian side seems to have a certain attitude of divide et impera towards the European authorities. In the past, I have even seen a situation where the Council was given one answer and the Commission another, and they play on the fact that the presidency changes. I could also quote yesterday’s answer from the Commission to a similar question: 'Unfortunately, over recent months the Russian side has neither confirmed its willingness to sign nor given any indication of the nature of the problems holding up their signature.' I regret to say I have a feeling that the Russian side will continue to delay. I would therefore appeal to the Danish Presidency to exert considerable pressure if necessary. At the same summit where this agreement was not signed, Russia was still accepted as a market economy. Is there no similar way to achieve what is now needed? I would like to thank Mr Haarder for the commitment he showed to the Northern dimension last week.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, what I have to say relates to Kosovo because it was the Commission communication on Kosovo that you were supposed to talk about today, which somehow got transformed into a communication on Serbia. I understand this, given that there is a new leader, President Kostunica, and that it is necessary to be involved in the process with him so that things can go ahead properly. Last week, I was in Pristina. I met a lot of people and, in particular, I met Bernard Kouchner for a working session. I also saw the enormous problems that exist there. You spoke about the Danube, but it is simply not enough to carry out studies. Urgent action must be taken because the Danube is being polluted by stockpiles of sulphuric acid and from sources in Mitrovica. There needs to be a risk control plan not only for this region, but also for the town of Pristina and for other towns in Kosovo. Whole populations live in destitution. Attacks with enriched uranium warheads have polluted the town of Pristina and the other areas that were hit. The destruction of the sports stadium released asbestos into the air, which spread throughout the town. There is a very serious health problem. I would therefore like to draw your attention to this and to tell you that there is a social problem. This aid must go on social concerns, the widows and orphans and so on. Urgent measures need to be taken. I must insist on this.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to join those who have spoken before me in expressing thanks to you, to the Commissioner, to your colleagues and also to our rapporteurs, for I do think it was a good thing that we, as Parliament and Commission, worked together so closely on this issue. That today is, of all days, the anniversary of the sinking of the Erika, is not something that should fill us entirely with pride, for two years have passed before today's debate and tomorrow's vote. Then it will take a bit longer for it all to be implemented. It should be done more quickly next time! The results are actually quite respectable. We are getting the safe double hull tankers more quickly. The old single hull tankers will be phased out with effect from 2003, and port state control will at last live up to its name. Stricter controls mean for me that blacklists will be used rigorously and, in consequence, black sheep, or black ships, will no longer be welcome in European ports. Classification societies for ship types will be subject to stricter conditions. Although we know that the majority of these societies do sound work, they must no longer be permitted to be slipshod in what they do. The Member States now have 18 months in which to transpose all this. The legal framework is in place. Yet laws that only exist on paper are, in the final analysis, ridiculous. What use is port state control without controllers? I therefore believe – and here we are putting our trust in you, Commissioner – that you will have to check very punctiliously how the Member States transpose the things we have just brought into being. It will cost the Member States money, but safety at sea must be worth the expense. So here are two more points. One is something I have already mentioned. Erika II must not be allowed to last as long as Erika I did. Accidents involving oil are one thing, but damage to people, nature, fisheries and tourism are something else, and result not only from accidents involving oil, but also from those involving chemicals and other hazardous substances. So we should implement more quickly the proposals Parliament has made. My final point is that enlargement of the EU is almost upon us, involving as it does two candidate states, Malta and Cyprus, which have cropped up in discussions again and again. So I would again implore the Commissioner to apply the so-called acquis communautaire very stringently to these states too in the event of their becoming members of the EU, so that there may be no black sheep, only white ones. I have said already that we have a saying to the effect that one is in the hand of God at sea and in court! As far as the sea is concerned, we can give the Almighty a bit of a helping hand, so that everything will be safer, and that is what we should be doing with the Erika package. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, although the European institutions have in various documents highlighted the need for a more balanced and proportional representation of women in the various decision-making structures and political and social bodies, also where the social partners are concerned, the fact is that profound imbalances and enormous inequalities still remain, as Mrs Smet’s report points out, and as Commissioner Diamantopoulou confirmed a short while ago. And although where the social partners are concerned only incomplete information is available, the meagre data available on the participation of women demonstrate that at executive level, the percentage of women is low, with women being clearly under-represented in the upper echelons of organisations, which weakens democracy and makes it difficult to achieve real equality of rights and opportunities, which we incorporated into the Treaties and into various Directives to which we refer on a daily basis. We therefore support the initiatives proposed in this report, both those that seek to obtain a greater knowledge of the current situation (and the need for data collection has already been mentioned here), and those intended to achieve a more balanced representation of men and women among the social partners. We call for timetabled performance targets to be established – on the quantitative and qualitative representation of women, both in internal decision-making structures and in collective bargaining, including at the forthcoming trilateral social summit – and I now wish to draw the Commissioner’s attention to this matter – and also for reports to be drafted on the progress made and the impact of the measures adopted. Objective conditions must be established, however, to ensure that the participation of women in the social and political bodies becomes a reality. The Commission must also create a database and good practices must be disseminated, including in the joint report on employment, sharing information on the participation of women, and specifically in collective bargaining, and also on the progress made in the field of equal opportunities. This information, this analysis and this approach must be formalised in the various reports on the social sphere and on employment.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I am actually in the same situation. At the same time I would be interested whether there is some borderline, and indeed to know where it runs to mark where the advantage is so clearly perceptible that one should abstain from voting on this very important matter.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I also wish to briefly address the issue of hunting. My view is that in certain Member States hunting brings an important extra source of food to the dining table. For example, in my country two million small and 100 000 large wild game animals are hunted every year and there are 300 000 hunters. It is therefore important. Game animals are naturally also for sale on shop shelves or they are given or sold to neighbours and relatives. Now the issue is whether it is reasonable for the EU to start regulating this sort of activity, which is often based on trust and close acquaintanceship. It is as if social control were a guarantee of quality when a local shopkeeper buys meet from a hunter to sell. A sense of moderation should be kept in these matters. I am also wholeheartedly in favour of accepting Amendment No 82 in this report by Mr Schnellhardt.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, so much has gone wrong on the phthalates issue that it is difficult to know where to start. The Commission's temporary bans have no legal basis. The Commission may introduce an emergency ban where there is a clear and immediate danger, but no such danger exists with phthalates. These materials have been in widespread use around the world for forty years, yet there is no evidence of any kind that any damage has ever been done to anyone. There was one test on rats in which massive quantities of phthalates appeared to cause problems, but researchers have been unable to replicate this test. We are dealing here with little more than media hysteria and ignorance. More people have died in Teddy Kennedy's car than have died of phthalates! Compare and contrast our position on phthalates with our position on tobacco. Phthalates have never done any harm to anyone, yet we are banning them. Tobacco, we are told, kills half a million people each year in the European Union but do we ban it? No, we do not. We subsidise it with millions of euros. If we ban existing products, alternative products may be even more dangerous. As Mrs García-Orcoyen has pointed out, this has already happened, for example, with breast implants, where alternatives to silicon have proved to be more dangerous than the implants they replaced. In trying to defend an untenable position the Commission has shamelessly sought to gag its own scientific advisers. It has bowdlerised their reports, it has pressured them into changing their positions. Honesty and transparency have been sacrificed to expedience. I and other colleagues wrote to Commission President Prodi on this point two months ago. I understand that his reply has been held for some time ‘awaiting signature’, presumably to ensure we should not see it before today's debate. Neither the temporary bans nor the permanent ban are justified by the evidence. Migration tests for phthalates are currently under development and will probably be available within months. We should wait until these tests are available and then, if we must, impose migration limits. We hear far too much about the precautionary principle. To be meaningful the precautionary principle should be invoked only when there is a clear and demonstrable risk. If we continue to invoke it when there is no prime facie risk at all, we make both the precautionary principle and ourselves look ridiculous.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we debated this matter in committee. It has been discussed. The legal basis is such that we can take the article which the Commission used as a basis. Whether we want to or not is a political decision. The committee decided by a large majority that it would take this article as a basis.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mrs Schroedter’s report undoubtedly contains several important observations, and I would like to congratulate her on that. However, I feel that we should be a little more concerned about the actual direction and outcome of the Community’s regional policy. Quite briefly, structural policy does not ease the problem of mass unemployment in any way, rather it aggravates it. The agricultural economy and agricultural regions have been irreparably damaged by the existing regional policy, which has had dramatic consequences on employment levels in rural areas and on the living conditions of farmers, particularly in the South. Regional disparities are becoming much more marked within the Member States. If we examine the data presented in the sixth periodic report, we will see that the last decade has witnessed a proliferation of regional disparities. Little consideration, if any at all, has been given to the great problems facing the island regions of the Union whose shortcomings as regards infrastrucutres structure, transport, communication and energy has resulted in their gradual depopulation. The Union’s economic and social policy is just as much to blame for that as its regional policy. A large section of the Union’s population has strongly condemned this policy for being dangerous and anti grass-roots. Unfortunately, the new guidelines seem to be heading in the same direction and there are no signs that things will change once they have been implemented.

Political group: GUE-NGL