GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I really must thank you for your answer. Obviously, a good deal of progress has nonetheless been made in this area. I have no intention whatsoever of removing responsibility for these fire safety issues from national or local authorities. The principle of subsidiarity must, of course, apply in this area, just as in other areas. I ask this question partly against the background of the numerous discussions I have had with firemen and their trade unions, who are quite worried. Just like the public, they are, in fact, affected more and more by cross-border factors. Firemen have to work with ever more vessels, vehicles and products from countries with which they are unfamiliar and whose levels of fire protection they are not used to. People travel more and more and naturally want to be able to feel safe irrespective of what country they are in when they take a ferry, travel through a tunnel or go to a discotheque. Against this background, I believe it is especially important not only for each Directorate to deal with these fire safety issues but also for there to be real coordination where this strategic common responsibility is concerned. I interpret the Commissioner’s statement here to the effect that there is now just such a coordinating working party as a step in that direction and, that being the case, I should just like to thank her for her answer.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Paragraph 17 of Mr Morillon’s report states that the European Parliament ‘calls on the Turkish Government to withdraw its occupation forces from northern Cyprus’. I am myself the author of this wording in the form of Amendment 72, adopted by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy on 10 October 2000. I should particularly like to address Mr Verheugen, as the Commissioner with responsibility for enlargement, and also the French Presidency. Almost 40 per cent of Cyprus is occupied by foreign troops in the form of Turkish soldiers. Eleven years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Nicosia is now Europe’s only divided capital. Historically, Cyprus – the island of Saint Paul and Saint Barnabas – has not previously been divided, but has now been so for 26 years due to a foreign invasion. The EU’s four freedoms cannot be applied to the whole of Cyprus following the partition. Is it possible for Turkey to begin membership negotiations at all without the four freedoms’ being applied in Cyprus? Must not Nicosia become a united city and Cyprus a united country? Must not the occupying troops be withdrawn? Previous speakers referred to the genocide in Armenia. This took place only 24 years before Hitler’s time and before the Second World War, when Hitler began the annihilation of the Jews. He himself referred to this genocide as if it were something forgotten. Turkey must come to terms with the truth.

Political group: PPE-DE
I have voted against this report. The issue of abortion does not belong at European level, as public health matters fall within national competence. We believe it would be wrong to allow the EU to take over from the Swedish Parliament and other national parliaments the competence to legislate on the legal protection of an unborn child. This issue is fundamental to the moral position of people and countries, their view of the inviolability of life and human value, and is so clearly linked to various national traditions that it must remain at national parliamentary level. The report clearly states its position on the issue of abortion in item 12: “The European Parliament recommends that, in order to safeguard women’s reproductive health and rights, abortion should be made legal, safe and accessible to all.” This item shows that the European Parliament is clearly not prepared to show any regard for the fact that a number of Member States, including Ireland, Portugal and Germany, consider that abortions directly contradict the principle of the State’s primary task of protecting life, especially the lives of the defenceless.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I also agree with the rapporteur’s conclusions, though more the conclusions than the analysis which leads to them, since I believe Mr Camre’s immunity should not be lifted. I would, however, like to make two or three observations: firstly, that I share – as others have said – the distaste which I believe we all feel at the nature of the opinions expressed by Mr Camre. However, I believe that it is our duty and a matter of our honour not to take them into account. It is true that for several years a tendency has emerged within the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market and more generally in this Parliament, aimed at protecting MEPs’ opinions or the MEPs against whom proceedings are brought as a result of opinions or attitudes which may arise from a political point of view, in the broadest possible sense. I believe we must defend this tendency and affirm it; that is what this report must do. It must be affirmed in this report and in others, all the more so because while Members of Parliament have particular responsibilities, one would have to be blind not to observe that they are also exposed in a particular way. We must take account of this exposure and the risk it poses to prominent figures in public life today: the almost systematic challenging of the responsibilities of local elected representatives and the no less systematic legal action against Members of Parliament as a result of the opinions they may express. I believe we must take account of this development and protect the Members of Parliament, not really in order to protect the individuals, but rather the institution, its independence and its freedom. At a time when we find ourselves increasingly in a democracy of opinion, it is essential that we take measures to allow Members of Parliament to express themselves freely and to make their opinions known free from pressure, including pressure of a legal nature. This is the approach which has been taken by the Committee on Legal Affairs and by this report. That, I repeat, is why I agree with this request to preserve Mr Camre’s immunity, regardless of the reservations, regardless of the distaste we feel for the opinions of the Member.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, may there one day be a satellite passing overhead that bears your name. Now that would be a nice contribution from the Commission. The discussions surrounding the financing of Galileo are starting – within the European Space Agency, at any rate – to resemble a bad soap opera. At every turn, another Member State emerges from the wings to block this agreement. Now it seems that Spain is the culprit once more. This is hard to understand, since, after all, Galileo is important to maritime safety. The Prestige environmental disaster is evidently not a sufficiently convincing argument for Mr Aznar’s government. It is time that our Parliament blew the whistle to bring an end to this little game. It is a very great commitment, and it is perhaps precisely for that reason that some countries are under pressure to shelve this strategic project. That is why I am one of the co-signatories to this resolution. Galileo is of strategic importance to the Union, because – whatever happens – we have to keep pace with technology. We want independence when it comes to information on positioning, and we do not want a ‘brain drain’ or ‘job drain’ to the United States. The decision to proceed with Galileo was not taken lightly. After all, there are many arguments for and against it. I support the arguments in favour of Galileo. Here in this Chamber, I want to lend my support to the realisation of this network. We must not dawdle on this, however. The scenario is simple: if Galileo is not realised as soon as possible, the transport sector will delve deeper and deeper into GPS applications, and Galileo will remain unused. In the short term, therefore, Galileo has to constitute a valuable alternative to GPS for the European transport sector. This sector needs a strong signal from the Commission, the ESA and the Galileo Consortium, and quickly, otherwise future users will not put their trust in the applications; and Galileo is too expensive to remain unused. I should just like to go on to emphasise its civilian nature. That is something that is very important to us. Only Galileo can offer users a guarantee that the plug will not be pulled when the United States once more feels compelled to take unilateral action somewhere. Incidentally, the Commission itself, in its communication, speaks about the consequences of the war in Iraq for the energy and transport sector. We must not, therefore, lose this project; national interests must defer to the interests of the Union in this respect. In my country there is a pop song about Satellite Suzy. I hope that Satellite Suzy, too, passes overhead one day.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, between noble intent and practical action falls a shadow; on the issue of the death penalty it is the shadow of geopolitics and economic interests. Your stand today on capital punishment goes beyond noble intent. You mentioned the year 2000 budget lines aimed at financing campaigns for the abolition of the death penalty. So far so good. But the shadow is still there. Let me come to the point, Commissioner Patten. The EUR 700 000 invested by the Commission went mainly to Penal Reform International, a legal organisation which operates in the Caribbean islands, and to the University of Westminster, which provides a database and research for lawyers in study centres in the Philippines. So I urge the Commission to focus and extend the use of the assistance funds to the two main nations where state murder is practised with no restraint and with great relish: the People's Republic of China and the United States of America. Yes, we know the issue has been raised ritually and periodically with the governments of both countries, but we have to do much more. For instance, as regards the United States, some of this money should be invested in sensibilisation campaigns in Europe, certainly not in order to boycott a sovereign state like Texas, but to re-route European tourism and European industrial investment to those 12 states that do not indulge in such a barbaric practice.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we are currently devoting a great deal of effort, and attaching a great deal of weight, to discussion of a new constitutional treaty, whereby we provide ourselves with a new legal framework for the future, at the same time as we do this, the larger countries demonstrate their indifference to the law as it stands. I hope you will not mind if a Bavarian like myself draws a parallel. At the time of the Austrian elections, when the coalition came into being, we accused this law-abiding country of illegality and sought to use all our powers to get our own way, and the same is happening now. The larger countries are demonstrating that European law is of no interest to them. I cannot do other than encourage the Commission to subject what has happened to critical scrutiny, including by their lawyers, because the Council has not only rejected the Commission proposal – as it was entitled to do – but has also disregarded the Commission and simply set new parameters. This is not something that the Council is competent to do and so I cannot do other than offer the Commission encouragement. Of course, the way the big boys play the game within the European Union has a seriously prejudicial effect on the accession countries, who, as we are aware, will, all ten of them, followed by another two, be signing up to the euro, and all the while we have had one debate after another about the need to keep to the criteria. On what arguments will the Commission or the Council rely in future when telling these countries that they have to stick to the criteria? We ourselves do not, so we can expect that they will do likewise. The only thing I can actually do is give the Commission my backing. This is where the Commission must proceed with rigour and consistency, and let me issue a warning against negotiating a new Pact; the current situation in Europe being what it is, any new Pact would not be worthy of the name, but would end up as a hotchpotch of wishful thinking and aspirations towards flexibility that bear no relation whatever to what the economy demands. Europe is paying the price for Germany’s failure to do its homework over the past few years, and, at the end of the day, what we are aiming for is to keep the European single currency as a guarantee of economic stability. Thank you.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the resolution Parliament is now on the way towards adopting is backward-looking. Instead, we should have turned our attention to the future. In my view, it is incomprehensible that, in recent days, so many people have expended so much effort on working out how to deplore the decision taken by the American and British governments concerning military action in Iraq, an action to which my country subscribes. If we did in fact have to be backward-looking, we could have made better use of our time and energy in working out how to condemn the Iraqi regime, which for 12 years has ignored every UN resolution. It is not the coalition that is responsible for the war in Iraq; it is Saddam Hussein and his regime. I must therefore vote against conclusion number 3, and I am unable to deplore or regret the decision taken by the coalition. It was Saddam Hussein who forced them to take it. By an unfortunate turn of events, Saddam Hussein has succeeded in dividing our world, and we must hope that the day will soon come when he can be brought before an international court and tried for his crimes against humanity. Now, we must look forward, as in part does the resolution, I am pleased to say. Now, it is a question of preventing as much suffering as possible in the wake of the war. The Iraqi people have suffered enough. We must therefore be ready to come to their aid, and as soon as possible. We must take joint responsibility for peace and freedom in Iraq. We must help the Iraqi people to a dignified life in a democratic society, a community founded on the rule of law in which human rights are observed and minorities respected. That is the most important aspect of the resolution we are to vote on. IN THE CHAIR: MR DIMITRAKOPOULOSVice-President

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, there is no question that the most developed countries have an inescapable obligation to show solidarity in relation to immigration. It is also an essential instrument in combating poverty and the social imbalances in the world and, furthermore – and this must be stated clearly – it is necessary to the maintenance of growth and prosperity in our countries. However, it is the case that migratory flows towards the European Union have increased dramatically in recent times and our capacity for reception is not unlimited. So much so that it is no exaggeration to say, as the Council has pointed out, that proper management of immigration is Europe’s greatest challenge today. We must ensure that the immigrants we can receive are protected by and subject to the law, that they assume the rights and obligations that implies and that they fully integrate into the society receiving them and share the values on which that society is based with the other citizens. It is proven that illegality leads to marginalisation. We must therefore prioritise the fight against the illegal trafficking in human beings, that is, against organised crime and mafias, in close cooperation with the third countries of origin and transit, and we must demand greater commitments from some of them. I would ask the Commission to produce and present a report to this House on this issue, because the desire to reach readmission agreements is essential in this field. I agree with Commissioner Vitorino that there is a link between foreign policy and immigration policy. Both the Spanish Presidency and the Commission are promoting greater cooperation in police and diplomatic areas, including, of course, the visa policy, which I believe – and Commissioner Patten will surely agree with me – can perfectly well fall within the framework of the work to create a common European diplomatic corps. We must also consider economic aid for specific cases such as the Canary Islands, for example, where there is a shortage of reception centres to deal properly with the flood of refugees and immigrants who find themselves in an illegal situation. Finally, Mr President, I believe it is time to leave behind demagoguery and irresponsible statements. My group believes – and I propose – that the time has come for a great European pact on immigration which excludes this issue from party political confrontation. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on 24 December a military coup violently interrupted democracy in the Côte d’Ivoire. The previous speakers have said everything, or almost everything, that had to be said on the imperfections of the previous regime. There have been accusations of corruption. Certainly there were some obvious risks that the presidential election to be held soon would be rigged. I will take this opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the case of another country which is not discussed very much, Senegal, where a presidential election is due to be held which entails the same risks of rigging as in the Côte d’Ivoire. But let us be clear about the situation. In the Côte d’Ivoire, as elsewhere, these risks cannot be taken as an excuse for what happened there. In fact, a military coup is not, and never will be, a victory for democracy. Our Parliament must condemn this military coup, but it must not, of course, stop there. A transitional government has been formed and the European Parliament must put pressure on it to organise free and transparent elections from June 2000, as was requested by the West African Economic Community, in the presence of observers from the international community and on the basis of reliable electoral rolls. At the same time, I would ask that the political leaders arrested at the time of this coup be released. Freedom of expression and the respect for human rights must be ensured once again. Under these conditions this House must closely follow the action of the Commission requesting the opening of consultations with a view to the possible suspension of cooperation between the European Union and the Côte d’Ivoire. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr President, the return to democracy in the Côte d’Ivoire must henceforth be a constant concern of this House and indeed of all people who wish for the law to prevail over force.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we have, of course, already debated in depth all aspects of the agreement with the United States on the treatment of the personal data of passengers travelling to that country from EU territory. The request for the prior opinion of the Court of Justice, as Mr Lehne, from my own political group has quite rightly said, will only postpone the signing of the agreement and leave a legal vacuum in place in relation to the treatment of personal data by the US authorities, seriously prejudicing the European public and the air carriers themselves. It is not, therefore, necessary to repeat our position, which is already well known. We also believe, naturally, that this agreement can be improved but also that the fight against terrorism and cooperation with third countries in the field, with the United States in this case, is a priority for the European Union. Furthermore, Mr President, we need the agreement now and, in any event, there will always be the possibility of referring the matter to the Court of Justice at a later date. I would also like, Mr President, to take up Commissioner Bolkestein’s proposal that we listen to what Commissioner Patten says to us tomorrow afternoon with regard to the agreement and delay the vote scheduled for tomorrow morning. I would ask that this request be considered, since I believe it to be very reasonable, and, in any event, I would ask that the vote we were going to hold tomorrow on prior referral to the Court of Justice be delayed until the day after tomorrow, when we have heard the Commission’s speech.

Political group: PPE-DE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. – The Industry Committee accepts the desirability of moving to zero sulphur in petrol and diesel. The hotter burn of modern vehicle engines delivers higher efficiency and thereby cuts CO2 emissions. However, the resulting increase in nitrogen oxide has to be dealt with by catalysts and the virtual elimination of sulphur renders the catalysts effective in dealing with these. A further benefit is a reduction in the emission of particulates, so the Industry Committee is in favour of the Commission proposal. A majority vote in the committee demanded a rather faster implementation than the Commission proposed even if some of us were concerned at the Commission's assertion that this will, in fact, produce a net increase in CO2 emissions. So please tell us, Commissioner, if you stand by your warning or whether you can accept the quicker implementation requested by both the Environment and the Industry Committees. We would also point out that the EU standard of 10 parts per million of sulphur contrasts with an American standard of 15 ppm of sulphur. This will make it difficult for us to import fuels from the USA in an emergency. We would also suggest that the Commission instigate research into the implications of ultra-fine particle emissions from gasoline diesel injection engines. The question of fuel quality for non-road and off-road machinery is still outstanding. We understand that proposals on this matter will be forthcoming in 2002. This is surely urgently needed but we urge the Commission to give full consideration to the interests of those in industry and agriculture who operate such machinery. We give this proposal a fair wind. Indeed, the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy would suggest that the Commission hoists a spinnaker and speeds up its implementation. Is the Commissioner prepared to accede to this demand?

Political group: PPE-DE