GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, it is hard to string sentences together at this late hour. It is also hard to find anything further to say on a report like this one. The report was adopted unanimously in the parliamentary committee. The Vice-President has accepted the amendments tabled on behalf of the Commission. There is clear determination in the Council to ensure that the package is approved at first reading. In the light of such unanimity it is hard to find anything new to say on the report. Indeed, both the Vice-President and Mr Poignant have already given an overview of the current situation. Nonetheless, I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the European Commission’s officials and the Secretariat’s officials for their cooperation. I would also like to thank the members of my team who helped me work through this task. Commissioner, I am grateful to the Commission for accepting the amendments tabled by the parliamentary committee concerning Class C and D ships. I am also delighted that the amendments affecting persons with reduced mobility have been accepted. I believe particular sensitivity has been shown in both cases. The will to ensure that things work has been demonstrated too. In addition, there is an obvious desire to ensure that the standards are neither rigid nor strict, but that they are properly complied with and help to improve relations between human beings. Madam Vice-President, I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to raise another issue with you. I believe the two reports on maritime safety we are debating today and are due to approve tomorrow are important. Nonetheless, as Mr Poignant rightly said, accidents will unfortunately continue to happen. The Commission has given abundant proof of its readiness to provide swift and effective responses to all kinds of situations. Parliament has also demonstrated that it is capable of rising to challenges when immediate solutions and responses are called for. The issue I have in mind is unrelated to these two reports, but it is currently giving rise to concern amongst many European citizens. I refer to the safety of pleasure craft at sea. You will recall that the matter has been raised with you in the past. I trust that in the wake of the success of the two reports debated today, you will in the near future present us with measures aimed at resolving this problem. It is a problem causing a great deal of damage and harm around the beaches of Europe. Commissioner, I could not miss the opportunity offered by a day like today, when Parliament unanimously approved two reports, and you accepted all the amendments tabled. I realise this is not the most opportune moment to do so, but I hope you will allow me the liberty of throwing this particular gauntlet down before you.

Political group: PPE-DE
On the eve of the Nice Summit and without prejudging the outcome, I want to salute the tremendous work carried out by the French Presidency and the majority of ministers who generously put in the time and effort to address Parliament on a regular basis both in committee and in parliament. While, like many others, I have at times during this semester regretted that we have heard so little from Prime Minister Jospin himself due to reasons of ‘cohabitation’, I am aware of the strong impetus he has always given to his ministers and I should like to state as much. I especially want to thank Hubert Védrine and Pierre Moscovici, as well as Martine Aubry, who instigated the social calendar, one of the highlights of this presidency. It now remains to make a success of the Nice Summit and, as regards institutional reform, to persuade each of you to make the final concessions needed to achieve ‘a good agreement’ and a good Treaty. It is also important, of course, that we succeed in providing a reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the Treaty itself so as to give it greater legal force. The importance of the Social Agenda must also be highlighted so that it can be implemented speedily. A draft Directive on public services, whose urgency is no longer contested, must at last be set in motion. Just one week away from the Nice Summit I personally have high hopes. My voting in favour of the resolution, even though I do not agree with the wording in all cases, is an expression of these hopes.

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to express my great satisfaction at being able to speak for the first time in this House on the issue of the Overseas Countries and Territories. These twenty territories benefit from a particular association arrangement with the European Union, which, when described in simple terms, is less favourable than the status reserved for the outermost regions, which are integral parts of the Union, but more advantageous than the agreements made with third countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific. As a French overseas member of this Parliament my attention is naturally drawn to the fate of the French territories and administrative authorities concerned, which are, and I am pleased to list them here, New Caledonia, French Polynesia, the French Southern and Antarctic Territories, Wallis and Futuna, Mayotte and Saint-Pierre and Miquelon. In his excellent report, Mr Fruteau welcomes the progress in relations between the European Union and the OCTs from an institutional, economic and financial point of view, even though there remain many questions on the Commission’s proposals having to respond to the objectives included in declaration 36 with regard to the OCTs annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam. With regard to trade relations, the rapporteur emphasises the low level of trade with the Union. In 1998, imports from OCTs amounted to 0.21 % of Community imports, with exports to OCTs amounting to 0.43 % of Community exports as a whole. A liberalisation of trade with OCTs could fulfil the objectives we have set ourselves. We should be particularly careful, however, that this liberalisation does not result in some kind of diversion from our current objectives. For several years, imports have been increasing from a particular OCT (which happens to be Aruba but this is not the time to hold it up as an example), which runs counter to the spirit of this association agreement with the European Union. These products exported to the Union do not come from the OCT, but are imported there from ACP countries for minor processing such as the whitening of rice, sifting, packaging or mixing. These simple operations only require very low levels of investment, and are therefore in no way a development factor as the Court of Justice in Luxembourg highlighted in its ruling on the 'Emesa sugar' case in 1998, as the only interest is providing easy added value for international operators. The increase in this type of inefficiency is all the more intolerable given that it goes against the interests of the other OCTs, the outermost regions and the ACP countries. In this context, without questioning the objectives proposed by the rapporteur, which I willingly support, it is essential that we establish strict original rules to prevent these breaches , which are detrimental to the economies of all overseas territories. In this respect, the measures for prohibiting cumulation of origin for certain products, increasing the list of inadequate processes or the systematic implementation of safeguard clauses in no way provide a suitable response to this problem.

Political group: PPE-DE
I should like to congratulate Mrs Prets on her report on the proposal for a Council directive implementing the principle of equal treatment between women and men in the access to and supply of goods and services. I support this report, especially as to the adoption of a proactive approach, in line with the approach already adopted in the Treaty. Equality between men and women, which is a core value of European civil society, is a right that belongs to all European citizens. It is therefore incumbent on EU institutions to protect that right in all fields. We therefore urge the Commission to submit new proposals aimed at effectively combating discrimination based on sex and at ensuring genuine equality in areas other than work.

Political group: PPE-DE
There have been some easy and pious words spread around tonight on working time. As everyone knows, it is effectively about health and safety. Yet it is fraught with problems. Nonetheless it should apply to all workers as an absolute principle, whoever they are. It is easy to see how some people pick on some groups but will not highlight the need for it to be applied to others. Of course, Mrs Smet, who has brought forward this report, having picked it up from the last Parliament, has to accept that as a former Council member she had to accept the common position of the Council which she now rejects. Missing in all this debate quite clearly are the necessary staged processes by Member States. It is after all an inelastic supply in certain circumstances, just as it is with doctors in training. Missing also are the efforts already made in certain Member States. In the UK, for example, proposals are in advance of this directive and have been welcomed by Andrew Hobart, chairman of the junior doctors’ committee who says he is delighted that an understanding has been reached on a new contract for junior doctors which will guarantee safe working hours in advance in the United Kingdom. Deep sea fishing –here is an area unique in its case which proves the rule that this working time directive is fraught with practical problems. But, after all, perhaps I can afford a smile. I agree with the principles of this report. I disagree with the estimated effects of all these amendments, but I think that is consistent with my position at all times. It will be interesting to see how some who feel free to pick and choose who should have effective limits on working time and who should not can explain that to the workers affected. Also, what about the emergency workers – paramedics and others. Do not they deserve to be a special case too? So before we get smug in our concern for just certain groups, what about sparing a thought for those others who carry out emergency health care at all times and are also derogated from certain aspects of the working time directive. Less smugness please, more practical application. IN THE CHAIR: MR COLOM I NAVALVice-President

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, both these reports have addressed many important issues, not all of which can be considered here, but tolerance, respect and mutual esteem always reach their limits when universal human rights are violated. The way politics works, it always involves a tightrope walk with hope on one side and despair on the other. Events in Zimbabwe at present tempt us to despair, while we can perhaps derive hope from developments in Sierra Leone. Things can, though, seem quite different the day after tomorrow. We pointed the way with our collaboration with the ACP states on the Cotonou Agreement, with its clauses on human rights and democracy, and its commitment to good governance and the rule of law. We have an instrument, even if it is not as solid as we – whose political dialogue in Parliament supports this work – might well have wished. This political dialogue, I believe, is of outstanding importance, as agreement can be reached, in the final analysis, only through discussions with each other. That is why there is also the entitlement to consultation before suspension is resorted to. Even that is not a straightforward matter, for we have to ask ourselves how we are to punish the dictatorial regime, without at the same time affecting the people. In this connection, then, I tend to go along with a proverb that is often used in Germany: ‘The impossible gets done at once, but miracles take a bit longer.’ We will have to have staying power, and I do not know whether human rights really are violated more frequently today than in the past. What is certain, though, is that crime, too, has become public. More things become known to us today, and we are of course forced to take action. The fact, though, that crime is now public and that there are almost always cameras there to record it, gives a chance of fighting things that used to remain hidden away.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, ‘there is something rotten in the state of Israel’, and, as my friend Abraham Burg, former President of the Knesset, recently wrote in The International Herald Tribune, ‘a state lacking justice cannot survive’. He went on to write, ‘We must remove all the settlements, all of them and draw an international recognized border between a Jewish National Home and a Palestinian National Home’. The European Union can protest as much as it wants against Sharon’s adopted policy; the real change has to happen in Israel itself, where gradually, people are realising that they are heading the wrong way. The separation wall will not solve the problem. We know in Europe that walls are not permanent and that borders do not last for ever. Israel is a friend on the wrong track. Who can help this friend at this stage? Who can bring pressure to bear on the government in Israel? The United States can, because it can turn off the money tap. Apparently, we should not expect much from Washington in the short term either. Is it still serious about the roadmap? Is it not time to win respect in the Arab world, now that the situation in Iraq is continually deteriorating? International law should not lose out in the fight against terrorism. We believe that both camps must disarm. Arafat’s status as the elected leader is a matter of unalterable fact. The time is ripe, I believe, for a major conference on the Middle East, at which the European Union can speak with one voice. Only by means of a global solution can peace and stability be established. The United States is asking for support for Iraq. The European Union is asking for support for Israel and Palestine. Indeed, It is indeed possible, Mr Poettering, to moot the idea of an international military force in this context.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I will begin by distancing myself from the very aggressive campaign which we Members and, especially, the rapporteur Mrs Müller have faced while debating this issue. Naturally, everyone has the democratic right to argue for what they believe in and to attempt to influence decision-makers and decisions but, in this case, matters have gone beyond the limits of what is acceptable. I am one of those who would like to reject the common position. This is not because I always have to be against regulation or harmonisation in the area of public health but because, in this particular case, I consider that it is neither desirable nor necessary to harmonise national legislation. Just as Mr Blokland said, different countries have very different traditions and, as far as I know, no one has ever died from taking vitamins and minerals. The problem with the directive is partly Article 5, which concerns establishing the maximum daily intake. The European Parliament will have no insight whatsoever into, or influence upon, how this is determined. What, however, is most likely is that it will be done using the committee procedure. Another problem is the appendix which states which vitamins and minerals are to be permitted as food supplements. The opportunity of small companies and manufacturers to make their influence felt in the market worries me considerably in that respect. Many companies and products will disappear and, most importantly of all, consumer choice will thus be limited. We are currently exposed to stress and to a number of environmental poisons and chemicals, which means that a varied and healthy diet is not always sufficient to ensure that we keep healthy and well. We need vitamin and mineral supplements, sometimes in high doses, to be able to balance the functions of the body. Good knowledge of nutrition, Mr President, could also prevent illness in all contexts. We should encourage people to take care of themselves and take responsibility for their own health. This directive sends out the wrong signals.

Political group: Verts-ALE
No, I shall not allow the best to become the enemy of the good. It is just that if we continue at the pace of the Council of Ministers it will be a hundred years before we have public meetings for real. Nine debates are actually not particularly impressive, if I may say so. I think that it should be a matter of course in a democratic society for the citizens to have the right of access to their most important legislative body, and in the European Union that is of course largely the EU's Council of Ministers. It is quite simply a fundamental demand for democracy. If it is now the case that the Council's Rules of Procedure prevent even the voting and the entire Council meetings where the Council is, so to speak, legislating from being open, we ought to change these antiquated Rules of Procedure immediately. Will there, therefore, be no such initiative from the Swedish Presidency, which is pursuing the issues relating to openness so intensely – which is something I regard as immensely important and positive?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, as a representative for Cumbria – the area most affected by this disease in Europe – to think back 20 months is to remember the distress of farmers who, in many cases, saw their animals being slaughtered – although there was no evidence that they were infected – and, in particular, the distress of those who made their living from tourism in the Lake District. All too often the cries of those people whose economy depended on tourists and whose contribution to the economy was worth six times that of the farmers went totally unheeded. We saw the pictures on our television sets: visitors were turned away because of the mass culling; animal welfare concerns were being disregarded; the fires were making a nonsense of the policies adopted by this European Union in its attempts to address the concerns about dioxins spreading in our atmosphere. People were really upset by the illogicality of the situation: mountains, hills and footpaths were closed for no reason. At the same time, you could walk along a country road and the sheep and lambs would stick their heads out through the fences. People felt a sense of anger and despair. This must never happen again. I am glad that this report makes clear that the UK Government's policy was wrong, and that we should be thinking about emergency vaccination if this situation occurs again. I also believe that, in order to take account of the wider considerations and in view of the relatively small role which farming has in our economy these days, we also need to look at preventive vaccination as a long-term solution to difficulties of this kind.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I agree with Mr Kuhne, and in view of the late hour I, too, shall get straight to the point. In contrast to the Committee of the Regions – the previous item on the agenda – we did grant the Commission discharge in April of last year. At that time, too, I was the spokesman for my group and was able to put our arguments forward. One of the arguments was that the Commission was on the right track to reform. We still believe that to be the case. Scarcely had the ink dried on that resolution when the Eurostat affair erupted. That was no small matter. Eurostat is not just any old branch of the Commission. It produces extremely important statistics on the Stability and Growth Pact, on the contributions of the Member States, and, if things are not going well there, how reliable are the statistics themselves? Thus, it was not for nothing that many people became very worked up over these revelations. We think that, on the whole, the Commission has shown vigour in righting the wrongs at Eurostat. A number of problem areas remain, however, and, indeed, several people have already alluded to these. First of all, how are we to deal with the role of OLAF? I always thought it strange to be told by the Secretary-General that OLAF had asked that we should keep things secret and not pass them on. I do not know many officials who are required to keep things of this nature secret for their political superiors; in not one administration does such a thing happen. Officials should keep their political superiors fully informed, and I think that that is clearly the lesson to be learnt from this affair. What is essential as far as the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party is concerned is political accountability. The fact that a Commissioner does not know something cannot mean that he or she is not politically accountable. We have sought to raise this point in an amendment to the resolution, on which, indeed, we shall be voting tomorrow, and we also think that, when the hearings of the new Commissioners are held shortly – although it will depend on the new Parliament – we will have to question them on this point. After all, as far as we are concerned, this affair has shown President Prodi’s words at the start of his term about the individual accountability of Commissioners to be not entirely satisfactory. We hope that this will be raised at the new hearings, as I have said, because we must be able to declare to the European political elite, in particular, that someone in Europe is accountable for something.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would like to ask Mr Verheugen to clarify something important. Commissioner, let us assume that both sides in Cyprus agree to a solution based on the Annan plan by 28 February. Provision has been made for a referendum to ask the people if they accept the plan and if they accept integration. If one side, let us say the Greek-Cypriot side, rejects the referendum, what then? Do we revert to the Copenhagen arrangements, which only make provision for the integration of the Republic of Cyprus?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the postponement of the debate is proposed specifically in relation to the Morgan report referring to the other institutions. But of course the discharge is a joint vote. And the reason is that the Council has to take a step forward in relation to Parliament on the specific issue of the implementation of the foreign and security policy and its monitoring. The Council has a positive attitude and it has to respond to the Commission tomorrow. We believe that it is important to take this step and that to postpone the debate until Wednesday would help us to assess this positive attitude on the part of the Council. We have therefore requested this postponement which, furthermore, will help to make tomorrow’s voting time shorter.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I wonder if the Commission can support the proposal I submitted, to the effect that the EU should call a meeting with OSCE representatives in order to have a special discussion specifically about the Roma’s position and involving everyone who is active locally there. I would appeal to the Commissioner at least to pass on my message to his colleagues and to Mr Hombach.

Political group: ELDR