GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, first of all, I would like to congratulate our rapporteur, Mrs Langenhagen on her excellent work, which also received a notably favourable vote in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism. I hope that the same will happen tomorrow when the House votes on the report, since this is a particularly important, even historic text for the European Union. The European Union is a major power. Europe is a major player in the aviation and space industries, but the European Union does not have aviation and space power, since it has never had a policy in this area until now and, as Mrs Langenhagen said, GALILEO is a historic beginning for us, our first Community programme. The GALILEO programme is all the more important because it guarantees that the high technology and the activity of our industries will be maintained in the future, since 150 000 jobs will be created. GALILEO represents the political independence of the European Union, since, as you are aware, we had no frequency access during the Kosovo war due to the American GPS system, and as things stand at the moment, we cannot count on the American system being completely reliable in the coming years. I therefore believe that it is crucial that we consider the success of GALILEO as vital in ensuring the EU’s credibility over the next few years in an area where competition in the aviation and space industries is increasingly marked, particularly when faced with new competition, for instance from China or Japan. We are also concerned about how this operation is funded, about the delays in its implementation and that it has been postponed on numerous occasions. Let us be clear about one thing – in the space industry, as in all the other transport industries, nothing can be achieved without State funding and without a boost from the government, whether this is direct State funding or so-called co-funding, along the lines of the American model, where the military sector funds the civilian. We must be aware of this situation. With regard to infrastructure, it is very difficult to find private sector investment, therefore we must be prepared, the Commission is not only responsible for this, Member States are responsible as well. The Council must certainly be made aware of this. This is why the Group of the did not want to increase the number of obstacles. We shall not vote in favour of the amendments tabled by the Confederal Group of the – or the amendment by the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party on the funding method, whereby the GALILEO programme must be halted if private sector investment is not sufficient. This is because we believe GALILEO is a crucial programme for the future of the European Union and for the future of European space policy.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it was a matter of huge satisfaction, I am sure to yourself as well as to myself, that the resolution on the crisis in the fishing sector was carried by such a vast majority as 508 to 7, with 27 abstentions. That really does represent a ringing endorsement by the European Parliament of the need to take decisive steps to give assistance to an industry which is in crisis and nowhere more so, as you well know, than in Scotland at the present time. I recently visited Eyemouth in the south of Scotland and will shortly visit both Oban and Campbeltown on the west coast. These are communities gravely affected by this crisis, but even worse is the situation in the north of Scotland. If we cannot do things adequately to help that industry it will collapse. Thus even when the cod stocks are restored, there will be no viable industry to go out and catch them. This is a vital part of a sustainable diet for Europeans in the future. We must have an adequate fishing industry. We must support it properly and, if we put up the money, our government in the United Kingdom must take it up. It has been said that they will not go cap in hand to the Commission looking for money. This is not cap in hand. The money is willingly being offered. Let it be taken up.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam Vice-President of the Commission, Commissioner, whilst I can endorse your priorities wholeheartedly, I wonder if you, Madam Vice-President, do not also think that there is a particular motto under which we can march into 2005, and that it is ‘Growth and Employment’? Do you not agree that we all share in responsibility for the fact that this Europe of ours has not, over recent years, seen sufficient growth and enough job creation, and that this is a very important task for the new Commission? Now that there has been talk at this tripartite summit of a super-Commissioner or Commission Vice-President with responsibilities for economic reform, do you not also think that, if there is to be such a person, he or she should primarily have responsibility for growth and employment, since we will find it difficult to advance the European ideal if we fail to prioritise these two things? Let me now turn to something originally mentioned by Mrs Flemming: the Roma and Sinti. In the enlarged Europe, after Bulgaria and Romania have joined it, there will be 8 million Roma and Sinti, living in social conditions that are extremely difficult, and more difficult than in many Member States. Are you willing, at this early stage, to prepare the forthcoming Budget in such a way that there will be more financial support for the integration of Roma and Sinti in our society – even though it is more than just money that is needed? If not, we will face conflicts flagrantly contradicting the ideal of unifying Europe. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I will begin by noting an interesting development in this House. The criticism is levelled over and over again – and, I think, rightly – that we do not engage in debate. The latest consequence of that is that we now have Barcelona, 11 September, and water. I venture to doubt that that will add up to a debate. I will speak, though, on the subject to which my Committee devoted its opinion, the fallout from 11 September. Here are a couple of core theses to add to what Mr Karas, I think quite rightly, had to say: one should not overestimate it as an event, but the experience of its impetus has taught us that we are vulnerable, and the first consequence of 11 September was, and is, that politics has once again become the driving force. It has done so whether you like it or not, as even the leading captains of industry have conceded in the meantime, but we too must be honest about the fact that it is precisely at the European level that politics is failing! Secondly, 11 September made it even clearer that the greatest peacetime redistribution of assets in human history is jeopardising peace and also taking away market opportunities, and that right across the board, which is leading, through the failure of politics and the new situation in which we are now, to enterprises having demands made on them from the centre. For them, 11 September might well have been an opportunity, if they had gone about it in a credible way, to do what global politics has not been able to do so far, that is, to unreservedly support human rights. We are discovering something quite independent of 11 September – but, again, taking shape because of that event – the changes in all sectors of the market, with growth in many of them. I am thinking of counter-terrorism, of what we are considering doing in space, and mobility. If neither politics nor business can come up with what they should, consumers have power through their freedom of choice, and they now want enterprises to act in way that is socially, and not only environmentally, responsible. I am therefore very glad that what we got through the Industry Committee, that is, the call to consumers to demonstrate social awareness when buying goods, is now also to be found in the main report. What is missing, though, is the great logical conclusion to this, which we had taken through the Industry Committee, and the absence of which from the main report I regret. We need a global Marshall Plan, without which we will have drawn the wrong conclusions from these events, and without which Barcelona, too, will be ineffective. IN THE CHAIR: MR PROVANVice-President

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner Byrne, there is a popular saying that politics is a dirty business. Does it become even dirtier when politicians have to deal with such unsavoury matters as pigswill and abattoir waste? Would it not perhaps be more consistent if we did not deal with these matters at all but simply proclaimed an outright ban? If we commit ourselves to the search for sensible solutions, does this necessarily make us somehow corrupt or venal? All sorts of inferences like these have been doing the rounds lately. I do not believe they have any substance. The European Parliament has shown courage. I should like to pay tribute to Mrs Paulsen for her systematic work on this issue and for her close cooperation with our committee. As draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I have had the task of representing the interests of the farming community. I believe we have successfully integrated their concerns into this common position. May I also thank you, Commissioner Byrne, for our long conversations and debates. They were no bad thing. They were fruitful and, besides, they were quite enjoyable too. Here we are looking specifically at high-quality protein which is to be fed to non-vegetarian animals. We do not intend to make vegetarians of them, any more than we can induce carrion-eating birds to stop eating carrion. It would be the death of them. Similarly, when it comes to human foodstuffs, we want a system that will recycle all the high-quality nutrients. We cannot adopt a set of rules at the expense of the hungry people in the world, whereby anything that is no longer good enough for us is simply destroyed or abandoned. We are not legislating on catering waste here; it is merely a matter of the Commission presenting its own legislative proposal, to which we accord the same systematic and meticulous treatment that we gave to meat and bone meal. I do not understand the position of some people who are saying that meat and bone meal can be fed but catering waste cannot. Then there are others, of course, who are saying that catering waste can be fed but not meat and bone meal. So both positions exist. That is why I tabled my proposal. Your compromise proposal, Mrs Paulsen, is fine. Tomorrow I shall move an oral amendment in which I shall alter the time scale in my amendments, which are similar in substance to the compromise; this alteration relates to the time before the entry into force of the proposed regulation. I believe the alteration will make the amendments compatible, and we can then adopt them as they stand. We shall then have a sound solution. Thereafter, Mr Byrne, I hope that, on your initiative, we shall soon have the new version back here on the table. Then we shall engage in some more of the good old cut and thrust, and we shall revel in it. Politics is not a dirty business; it is actually a most enjoyable occupation! (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we can see that human rights are still a current issue; today, we are talking about human rights in a Central American country close to our hearts, at a time, furthermore, when the International Criminal Court is finally being established. A few days ago I read an article, written by a Central American liberal, that I believe is relevant today. He said that Central America is an area of natural disasters, situated on a fault line, that every now and then knocks down cities and buries entire populations. It seems, however, that the region is also under threat from another kind of fault, one of moral order, where impunity appears to protect certain heartless individuals. A 2001 report by Transparency International, a German NGO that monitors and condemns government corruption worldwide, states that Guatemala is in a situation in which the democratic system is discredited to the point where its institutions are in danger. We in this House today condemn human rights violations in Guatemala, which are on the increase and, as Mr Pomés has just pointed out, affect workers, journalists and politicians, amongst others. We regret the abuses committed by certain economic agents, who see nothing wrong in using arms trafficking, drugs trafficking, money laundering and even kidnapping to increase their wealth. We in this House would ask the Guatemalan government to monitor and sanction clandestine groups, to guarantee citizens’ safety and to allow justice to be done, by investigating crimes that have been committed for some time now. Impunity will only be brought to an end when the judiciary is independent and free, when international pressure is increased and when punishment is universal so that crimes do not go unpunished. In this way, democracy will also be strengthened.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, President of the Commission, as rapporteur for the accession of Cyprus, I fully welcome the decision of the Copenhagen European Council to admit Cyprus to the European Union as a new Member State. I would also like to congratulate the Commission and Council teams that negotiated the accession of Cyprus. The European Council has therefore honoured the promise made at Helsinki to carry out accession, even in the absence of a political solution. Our hope of seeing a reunited island joining the Union has not materialised. We now know that neither lack of time nor external pressure can be cited as reasons why it is impossible to accept the UN Secretary-General’s proposals as a basis for a global settlement. The agreement was sabotaged by those who continue, even today, to advocate the existence of two separate States instead of one federal State, and who wish to see Cyprus join at the same time as Turkey, rather than in May 2004, as an independent and indivisible country. Mr Denktash and his entourage are largely responsible for this failure, and I understand the frustration and anger of a large part of the Turkish Cypriot civil society as well as the opposition parties. It is true that the two sides have committed to continue negotiations with a view to reaching a global settlement before the end of February; it is true that there is still the opportunity to bring down the last wall in Europe. However, the mental barriers that the privileged few of Mr Denktash’s regime still cling to will not disappear as if by magic because, for them, no solution is the solution. Mr Denktash’s stalling policy could very soon turn out to be a threat to Turkey’s ambitions in Europe. At present, there is still a last glimmer of hope that the European Union should bank on: the new Turkish Government could lay a major deal on the table and thus demonstrate that its declared intention to persevere along the path indicated by Europe is, in fact, genuine.

Political group: PSE
Along with Mr Bakopoulos, I welcome the European Commission’s proposals, which serve to improve the Community maritime safety policy. Recent disasters have given rise to great public concern . It is up to us, therefore, to take pro-active steps, which will be in contrast to the laissez-faire policy which prevailed until the last few years, both in Europe and in the rest of the world. I would like, moreover, to acknowledge the progress we made in this area during the French Presidency. I am thinking, of course, of the adoption of the package of measures more commonly known as the Erika package. To go back to the report which we are discussing today, I should point out that we discussed two proposals – a proposal for a regulation to set up a regulatory committee, the Committee on Safe Seas, which entails amending the regulations currently in force, and a proposal for a directive amending existing directives to incorporate the Committee on Safe Seas. In real terms, this means that this committee will replace the current committees responsible for maritime safety, a single committee designed to facilitate the implementation of amendments made to the relevant international conventions in force by the Member States. The European Union already has an arsenal of 12 directives and three regulations aimed at stricter enforcement of the rules on maritime safety, the prevention of pollution from ships, the criteria governing the training and formal qualifications of seafarers and working conditions at sea. It is also considered that the new committee will make the Union's maritime safety policy more effective. Although the European Commission’s proposals were acceptable on the whole, the provisions relating to the participation of the European Parliament were unacceptable. That is why the amendments were tabled, in order to maintain Parliament’s rights to participate in the regulatory procedure. In voting in favour of this report, I therefore hope to contribute to the pro-active approach adopted by Europe in order to improve maritime safety.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, will we have to resort to arms in order to make Saddam Hussein give up his programmes for the development, manufacture and stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction once and for all and prove that he has done so? I am one of those who still hope that we can avoid doing so and, like Mr Pasqua, I should like to say here and now that I applaud the efforts that France and its government are making to this end. I also share the opinion of those who maintain that, if we had to envisage this last resort, it could only be with a mandate from the United Nations, the only organisation which is entitled to legitimise such action, and that, Mr Barón Crespo, would betoken a radical change in the behaviour of the international community, which until now has always supported the idea that the use of armed force can only be envisaged in the case of legitimate defence, and therefore in response to an actual attack ... Ladies and gentlemen, we initiated the reflection on this subject in our previous debates. Obviously, we have not found a final answer to this question. However, I should like to remind you that it was on this subject, namely the legitimacy or illegitimacy of any preventive or pre-emptive military action, that our group was unwilling to support the majority position expressed by this House in its last resolution. In other words, President-in-Office of the Council, how can we stand up to the new challenge posed by international terrorism except by applying, in this field as in any other, the precautionary principle which is now unanimously recognised? Personally, I believe that any Head of State or Government who is warned of a serious threat to the lives of thousands of his fellow citizens, and who does not take all measures necessary to protect them from it, will be held guilty in their eyes. Weapons of mass destruction constitute a real threat to the survival and health of populations. Every time that the existence of such a threat is confirmed, I believe that it will be the duty of the authorities to remove it, without waiting for it to be implemented, by preventive, diplomatic, economic and political measures and, if those measures are not enough, by the ultimate recourse to the use of military power. This is what we are all, together, trying to achieve in Iraq, and what it will probably be necessary for us to do tomorrow in North Korea, and it is with that conviction in mind that I would like to repeat, here and now, that our current differences are much more apparent than real.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Vice-President of the Commission, in the past, Parliament has continually demonstrated its commitment to the harmonisation of safety standards at the highest possible level for the Union. Now it must continue to do so, and to ensure, as a matter of urgency, that this is clearly visible to the European citizens, who every year continue to suffer the problems of the European area. We all agree that the objective is to successfully do away with national discrepancies in order to arrive at a set of common safety standards at the highest possible level. Air safety cannot be confined to European Union territory, and it is important for European citizens who travel or live near airports to be confident that aircraft from third countries fulfil all the necessary safety criteria. The Union must therefore have control methods to ensure that, in accordance with international regulations, third country aircraft arriving at our airports comply with international safety regulations. This means common control methods and technical and administrative organisation and support. It is therefore inevitable that safety in this sector should become a matter for international cooperation within the framework of the different instruments for technical assistance and support for investment in third countries. Mr President, I will end by pointing out the need to assist the Commission in its work in this very complicated field and the priority which must be given to creating the European Air Safety Agency, as well as the need for independent regulations, which we are currently considering, on issues relating to rest periods for aircrew.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, now that the internal market is complete, our regions are obviously operating in a more competitive environment. That is why it is necessary constantly to improve European rules in this field. Since, however, the European Union does not exist in isolation from world trade, a competition system is also needed in the WTO context. If we are to take seriously the task that we set ourselves at the Gothenburg Summit, following on from the Lisbon Summit, then competition policy must not only be limited to economic conditions, but must also take into account social and environmental factors. An economy cannot be competitive if it does not have a highly skilled workforce at its disposal, if wages and salaries are so low that competition does not bolster domestic demand but chokes it, and if manufactured products carry no guarantee that they are not harmful to public health. That is why we need a change of thinking here, to transform the internal battle for subsidised locational advantages into a debate about how we can make the way people live more sustainable. Competition policy must champion the concept of equal opportunities. It will not, however, be possible to achieve equality of opportunity if technical standards are insufficiently harmonised, if Member States' tax policies differ so greatly that it is impossible to compare the actual cost burdens, and if social standards in the Member States diverge widely. I do not oppose state aid; I support it, provided that these aids have a binding legal basis that is the same for everybody and provided that they do not help to perpetuate the use of old, environmentally damaging techniques and technologies but instead promote investment for the future. In short – and this brings me back to where I started – competition policy is about creating an equilateral triangle around economic policy, social policy and the environment.

Political group: GUE-NGL