GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I feel that defining a strategy to further integrate environmental protection requirements into the common fisheries policy is an urgent priority. We therefore welcome this Commission communication. However, in my opinion, we should see the communication as the starting point for an open dialogue with operators, research scientists, political institutions and consumers. The integration of environmental protection requirements into the common fisheries policy must happen in such a way that it has the sector’s support, without the costs being borne solely and exclusively by the fisheries sector, particularly since this means small fishing businesses, and in view, especially, of the fact that the sector is the victim of forms of pollution of the marine ecosystem caused by external factors such as marine transport and coastal industries. Furthermore, I feel that the integration of environmental requirements must have a scientific basis, and we hope to receive specific data which is the product of current research from the Commission soon. In the meantime, we must certainly apply the precautionary principle, but, in this case as well, we need to adopt measures which do not jeopardise the income of small fishing businesses and are different from those proposed by the Commission. Indeed, where the Commission speaks of the interaction between the fisheries sector and the environment, it does little more than list the harmful effects of fisheries on the environment, overlooking positive environmental measures which could benefit the fisheries sector such as improvement of coastal areas, creation of restocking and nursery zones, protected marine areas, increasing tourist fishing and investment in research. Again, in the face of the very real problem of overfishing, in my humble opinion, the Executive is not drawing up alternative proposals to the drastic solution of terminating the fishing activity altogether, the result of which would be to drive the fishermen away from the sector without establishing adequate accompanying or support measures for them. Therefore, in the proposal contained in the report adopted by the Parliamentary Committee on Fisheries, we call upon the Executive to improve coordination of research into fisheries and research into marine biology, not to cut structural aid and to pay greater attention to the specific character of the Mediterranean, whose diversified, multi-species fishery warrants appropriate legislation. For example, we are not asking for exceptions to be made for the Mediterranean to current bans such as those on the swordfish nets known as spadare; however, we are calling for agreements with third countries banning or limiting this method of fishing, for otherwise, we will merely be penalising our fishermen without resolving the problem of overfishing. Lastly, I must call for greater attention to be paid to eco-labelling, as a response, not least, to the dioxins in fisheries products alarm which has knocked consumer confidence.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am delighted that we can discuss this almost forgotten conflict. It has not been completely forgotten in the sense that political refugees who live in our own towns and neighbourhoods come and talk to us about this problem. I am then often ashamed at how little influence we can exert as a huge economic power in the political field. This is why I welcome the debate on this conflict today. However, we should not just treat it as a conflict between Pakistan and India regarding the respective spheres of influence that the two countries want to see established. Very often, the people who actually live there are not taken into account. Although the UN resolutions of 1948 and 1949 stipulated that the fate of Kashmir and Jammu should be decided by a referendum under international supervision, this never actually happened. India and Pakistan were supposed to attempt this on their own, but this only led to a whole raft of small conflicts which – and the previous speakers were right to underline this – have taken on more threatening proportions since both countries have become nuclear powers. This appears to have awakened world opinion again. I am convinced that international mediation is desirable and necessary. I am therefore happy to concur with what Kofi Annan said concerning this matter, but I do hope that this will not prejudice the right to self-determination on the part of the peoples involved.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I wish to begin by congratulating the Swedish presidency on being very successful. I am particularly pleased that the presidency succeeded in putting sustainable development at the core of European politics. It is extremely important that the European Union is perceived by our citizens as more than an economic exercise and a free market because that, without any doubt, will alienate them further from the notion of European integration. It is important to bear in mind that economic integration and getting the economy of Europe right is important. It is equally important to bear in mind that there cannot be economic development in a modern economy without a strong social dimension. I would argue that sustainable development and employment are part and parcel of the social dimension of the European Union. I also wish to congratulate the Swedish presidency on putting the notion of conflict prevention on the agenda in a much stronger way than up to now. Given the traditions of the Swedish people, this is obviously an area very close to their hearts. It is very close to the heart of the people of Ireland who, unfortunately, recently rejected the Nice Treaty, precisely because they misunderstood to some extent the nature of the European Union and what we are attempting to do in relation to the Rapid Reaction Force. I am pleased that the presidency has been a success and that these issues have been put on the agenda. It is now up to us in this Parliament and future presidencies to develop them further.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the vote was actually postponed several months ago at my request. However, it was only the vote that was postponed, not the whole report. Neither was it referred back to committee. We only wanted to vote later. Why? Because at that time the crisis was very acute. Now, however, we are seeing that President Putin is pursuing a policy of openness towards the West. We do not want researchers to suffer because of there being insufficient regard for human rights in Chechnya, and I would ask that we send out a signal here, a signal of openness towards Russia and openness towards cooperation. Only if we bind Russia to the West and to the European Union will we also be able to bring an influence to bear on its policies and remain in contact and in discussion with Russia. I would ask for the report to be adopted. (Applause) (Parliament decided not to refer the report back to committee) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Recommendation for second reading (A5-0230/2000) by Mr Knörr Borràs, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the Council common position for adopting a European Parliament and Council regulation modifying the common principles of the European system of national and regional accounts in the Community (ESA 95) as concerns taxes and social contributions and amending Council Regulation (EC) 2223/1996 [8276/2/2000 – C5-0328/2000 – 1999/0200(COD)] (The President declared the common position approved) *** Recommendation for second reading (A5-0232/2000) by Mr Piecyk, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, on the common position adopted by the Council with a view to adopting a European Parliament and Council decision amending Decision No. 1692/96/EC as regards seaports and inland ports as well as project No. 8 in Annex II (6658/1/2000 - C5-0271/2000 - 1997/0358(COD))

Political group: PPE-DE
I, like many of my British Conservative colleagues, abstained in the final vote today on the terrorist resolution, since a number of paragraphs adopted were directly aimed at undermining the inherent right to self defence enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter, and the right, when there is a clear and imminent threat from a rogue state or terrorist organisation to the security of a country or region, to act pre-emptively under the same inherent legal authority. In addition there were references to diverse political concepts from CFSP to ESDP and the Echelon project. On these we have distinct policies which are well known and differ from those of the majority of this Parliament. Needless to say, we as a party condemn terrorist activities of all types everywhere and have as a country suffered at the hands of the brutal IRA and other paramilitaries for a very long time, so our abstention also reflects the rather weak tone of the resolution. In parts this seems to be more concerned with protecting the civil rights of terrorists than with condemning their murderous behaviour towards innocent civilians. - Khanbhai report (A5-0316/2002)

Political group: PPE-DE
I wish to place on record my satisfaction that current directives governing architects' qualifications are adequate to enable those who are not currently registered as architects in Ireland to become registered as such. This obviously requires negotiation and agreement between various architects' representative bodies in Ireland on a registration process. - Framework agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the Commission (C5-0349/2000)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Madam Commissioner, Commissioners, my group welcomes the discussion on the measures required at European level to cope with the unparalleled damage wrought by the disastrous floods in the Federal Republic of Germany, in Austria, in the Czech Republic and in Slovakia. I would like to again express our dismay and our grief over the victims and express our sympathy to their families. The immense material damage and the destitution of thousands of people call for extensive and coordinated aid on the part of the European, national and regional forces and institutions. The members of the public, communities, businesses and faring installations that have been affected expect the European institutions to provide immediate and tangible aid to alleviate their need and also to deal with the extensive consequences of the emergency. The European Union can do a great deal to polish up its image and reputation in the eyes of the public by acting speedily and without bureaucracy. The remarkable wave of solidarity and unselfish mutual assistance that showed itself in the struggle against the floodwaters, must be supplemented by clear and substantial indications of the European Union's solidarity. The Commission has taken the right step in proposing the possible reallocation of European resources within the European funds, but this is not sufficient. Alongside the Community Disaster Fund, which the Commission has proposed and which will mobilise aid money in the long term, there is a need for emergency aid supplied from the margin of as yet unused European budget resources. Over and above that, we propose that, in the event of disasters, it should be possible to examine the legal option of reducing the share of national cofinancing, at the same time suspending the putting of contracts out to tender in order to mobilise local and regional enterprises. This would make an effective contribution to supporting and promoting small and medium-sized enterprises in the region or local area affected by the calamity. We welcome the European Investment Bank's initiative, under which EUR 1 billion is to be made available in the first instance for the purpose of granting credits under special conditions, with the option of topping them up at a later date. Making these interest-free would be a greater help to the recipients. This brings us to the proposal that the European Union, using a specially created fund, could take on the cost of the interest incurred. I would like to point out by way of conclusion that these disastrous floods are not an isolated and extreme natural occurrence; the incidence of natural disasters in various parts of the world is increasing. For us, this should be – indeed must be – a clear warning signal, calling on us to give environmental issues, in all relevant areas of Community policy, a far higher priority than we have done to date. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, Commissioner, once we became aware that, even if it were the main commercial power, Europe could not play any important role in the international order unless it had a common foreign and security policy, the so-called third pillar was adopted in the Treaty of Maastricht and the objective was set of creating an operative military capacity in order to guarantee the maintenance of peace. In an increasingly global and interdependent world, until now our policy has been to establish international law, above all through the United Nations, but also through other world organisations, and we have therefore drawn up a regulatory framework for international relations, because we are convinced that that is the best way to prevent and deal with any possible conflicts. And we believe that, within this world order, the European Union should act with a common voice which will allow it to be seen as a commercial, economic and social power and also as a great defender of human rights, multiculturalism and the environment. However, the reality of our current situation is disappointing. Once again, internal division has won out over the great Community declarations made at summits of Heads of State and Government. I am referring to the differing positions maintained by the governments of the 15 countries within the United Nations Security Council with regard to the conflict in Iraq. The actions of Mr Aznar, Head of the Spanish Government, as well as those of certain others, would be reprehensible enough if only because they have caused this division, because, without waiting for the Council of the European Union to adopt a common position on the issue, they were quick to blindly follow the orders from the emperor who is attempting to establish a new unilateral world order. The bad thing is that Mr Aznar and his colleagues have promoted an illegal war, a humanitarian disaster with thousands of children, women and civilians killed, mutilated and injured, or suffering terror, hunger and disease. The worst is that Mr Aznar has done so by bypassing the Constitution, without the approval of Parliament nor the sanction of the King of Spain and, together with his minions, going against world opinion and the opinion of the weapons inspectors, and without the support of the United Nations Security Council, has dealt a fatal blow to international law and institutions and has put the world at the mercy of the strongest, giving way to force and failing to make use of reason and justice. To sum up, it is due to them that the world has returned to the law of the jungle and that the third pillar of the European Union has been broken up.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, following the UN report on the situation in the Congo and the US Government report on global warming, a report commissioned by the World Bank itself has now confirmed the fears that the have been expressing for some time. What has happened is that the World Bank set up a study on the extraction industries, which, after two years of consultation with public bodies, governments and business, has produced a report which is damning with regard to its development policy. The report highlights the deficiencies and counter-productive effects of the World Bank’s policy in countries rich in natural resources. In the words of the study itself, the World Bank has attracted too many investors, without taking any real interest in helping the countries to develop their abilities to convert their natural riches into means of combating poverty. Similarly, the Commission has emphasised the lack of action on the part of the World Bank in terms of environmental and social supervision. In this respect, the study states that, if the full force of the market is unleashed without any robust frameworks, the resultant damage may be extremely serious. There are numerous examples of loathsome financing. The Yanacocha gold mine in Peru is the prototype toxic tragedy. Managed by an American company, the mine has flattened five mountains, displaced thousands of people and polluted with cyanide the water throughout the entire region. The World Bank has also given its support to the Chad-Cameroon pipeline, which we were alone in combating, and which has had disastrous social and environmental consequences: massive migration, an increase in the unreliability of food supplies and an increase in prostitution, with a consequent increased prevalence of AIDS. Can we really speak of a development policy? The exploitation of oil, gas or mines is not necessarily the same thing as poverty reduction. In countries still subject to a high degree of corruption, where the legal frameworks are still unreliable and democracy is uncertain, the World Bank unfortunately is doing nothing to encourage sustainable development. On the contrary, in numerous countries, the extraction industries have been associated with violations of human rights and civil conflicts, as has been seen in Burma. Even worse, more than 80% of the World Bank’s oil financing is actually going to the North and not to poor countries. The consequence of this blind and generous investment: countries with disappointing results outnumber the countries making substantial progress. The , in line with the study’s recommendations, are advocating a moratorium on the financing of oil projects until 2008, the cessation of financing for coalmines in order to combat greenhouse gases, the encouragement of clean and renewable energy along with energy efficiency. The European Union has a major role to play here in demanding, through the Member States, that the World Bank should take account of the study’s recommendations. The World Bank has been on the wrong track for too long and it is time for it to change course so that development policy can at last benefit those most in need. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
I am not satisfied that the Commissioner has given a full reply to all the questions. Clearly – and he acknowledges this himself – it is the Commission that is responsible for guaranteeing the full and correct application of Community law, including international agreements concluded by the Community and, therefore, the implementation of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. What the Commissioner has said is that he is leaving it up to the Member States to pursue those areas where preferential access has been granted illegally. Bearing in mind that it is the Commission that is ultimately the guardian of the Treaties, what steps is the Commission taking to ensure that Member States fully apply all these criteria? As previous speakers on this issue have indicated, the individual Member States have not implemented the criteria properly. What action is the Commission taking to ensure that Member States are properly applying the laws in this regard? If they are not, what action is it taking to penalise them?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I hope the Commissioner has caught up on her sleep after another succesful climate change conference. It all seemed very easy when the Commissioner first put the plan to us. She said that we use tens of thousands of chemicals in Europe. They are essential to our way of life but there is very little public information about them and the real fear is that some of them may be causing long-term damage to the environment and human health. So we must get the information, we must carry out the tests and, while keeping the good and maintaining a strong European chemicals industry, we must identify the bad and weed them out. But that was a few months ago. In the meantime all of us have learnt a great deal from the lobbyists about the difficulties of putting the policy into practice, as is well illustrated by the difficulty of identifying even the number of chemicals we are talking about. Sometimes we hear of 30 000, sometimes of 100 000 – quite a big difference. At least the chemical industry says it is in favour and supports the Commission's objectives, but it warns that the proposals are impractical, will increase bureaucracy and will be immensely costly. The testing regime, it says, will cause paralysis of the whole system, especially if we extend the requirements. Millions of animals will be killed painfully and perhaps unnecessarily in order to meet the testing requirements. All these concerns need to be taken into account. When the draft directive comes before us, I will be listening very carefully to industry's complaints. I recognise that in environmental matters we often hear industry crying wolf, but even so we must ensure that new requirements placed upon the companies are realistic and practical and that they enhance rather than damage a very important business. This is only a White Paper. In making recommendations, I support Mrs Schörling in asking the Commission to strengthen its environmental commitments, rather than relax them. But in reality we will probably end up following the Council of Ministers in passing the buck back to the Commission, asking you to find a way around the obstacle course and giving an absolute guarantee that we will criticise you, whatever proposals you come up with.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I wish to begin by paying tribute to Mr Provan's chairmanship of Parliament's Conciliation Committee. He did a marvellous job in very difficult circumstances. I should like to say, on behalf of the Group, that we are fully and undividedly behind the agreement reached in conciliation and will vote accordingly. Most of the reasons have been well rehearsed before and we have heard some of them again this morning. This directive is crucial, indeed critical, to the financial services action plan. Therefore if we are genuinely interested in the competitiveness and good functioning of Europe's economy, we have to proceed with this directive. My Group believes that it is in the long-term interests of Europe's citizens. I want us to consider the interests of those we are really trying to protect with this directive, namely the minority shareholders, so that we can begin to secure investment and ownership in enterprises across Europe. It is now beginning to be the case, and will increasingly be so in future, that many of those investors are Europe's citizens investing for their future, savings and pensions. Recent events have shown that citizens are becoming increasingly frustrated with the inability of politicians to deal with the effects of globalisation and other aspects of corporate life. For example it seems quite possible that a group of motivated shareholders may be beginning to achieve an about-turn on the projected building of the Ilisu dam in Turkey. Shareholders can act against the Wall Street sharks. Shareholders are property owners; they have rights and responsibilities which can be exercised in many ways this House would wish to endorse. Shareholders will often also be employees. The conciliation result represents a substantial compromise. This directive has the potential to be the means to allow our citizens to be investors in the future of Europe's enterprise and to secure the health and vitality of our economy.

Political group: ELDR