GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, as other Members have already said, we can be pleased with the work the rapporteur has done. I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating Mr Sterckx on his work on maritime safety. This compliment also applies to the Commissioner. The report that is now before us is succinct and clear and has avoided duplication in respect of the September resolution. I have tabled a few amendments in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, and all of them have either been approved or included in the rapporteur's compromise amendments. I should now like to turn to my concerns. First of all, the European coastguard service. A majority in this Parliament is – quite rightly – in favour of a far-reaching form of cooperation between the different coastguard services, with the establishment of a common European coastguard service as the ultimate goal, if necessary. For this coastguard service, as well as for the existing European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA), it is of major importance to have sufficient powers to be able to carry out the work in the field of maritime safety effectively. In my view, far more attention should be paid to the maintenance and state of the ships. Accordingly, a poorly maintained double-hulled tanker will constitute a greater risk than a well-maintained single-hulled tanker. I have also expressed my misgivings about the registration labelling of containers and vessels containing dangerous chemicals and substances. This is further to the loss of very toxic cargo from the Andinet in the North Sea, in which apparently, the substance in question did not correspond to the description on the bills of lading. I am also anxious about the increase in the export of Russian oil via the Baltic Sea along the EU coastline, because very often, this involves the cheapest substandard tonnage. Since my own report concerning the introduction of criminal sanctions has run aground in the Council, I am delighted to see that a few Members, including the rapporteur, are calling on the Council to reach a decision in this matter as soon as possible. Internationally, there are plenty of options in legislation to tackle the situation. The problem, though, is that the Member States do not enforce the rules to which they have committed themselves through treaties. It is precisely those Member States that reject controls by means of Community legislation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am glad that I was able to listen to the last debate because, as you perhaps know, Mr President, I have always taken an interest in institutional matters and I was astounded to learn that the length of a pig's tail is a comitology issue. In this respect, I am that much wiser now and wished to thank you for that. (Laughter, heckling: cynic!) Allow me to get to the point, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf! The European Parliament is prepared to provide exceptional assistance to Kosovo as quickly as possible, which is why we accepted the request for urgent procedure this week. We want to make our contribution as quickly as possible; we do not want to throw up any obstacles which prevent peace from being restored in this region. But, my dear Commissioner, please take our request seriously; after all the cooperation in this procedure, this will only happen in the long run if we are given the information we need to carry out our parliamentary control function properly, safeguard coherence with other programmes, such as CARDS, and apply a uniform procedure here, in cooperation with UNMIK. Because we have to understand that one of the main problems in this region is due to the fact that numerous groups are trying – with a great deal of commitment – to provide help, but with very little coordination. It is an age-old problem which Parliament deplores and which the Commission itself deplores. That is why, despite all this commitment, many of them are still failing to achieve the positive results which we consider necessary. Because, if too little progress has been made in Kosovo so far, this also has to do with the fact that Macedonia is being destabilised from within Kosovo, with all that this implies. Commissioner, we also think that a correlation needs to be established with other donors and how much rapid financial assistance they are willing to provide. We expressly adopted a proposed amendment in committee which does not attach any conditions to services by other donors, but the correlation needs to be established, so that the European Union is not left standing alone in the front row here and other donors honour their promises accordingly. The point of this programme is to build up a reasonable administration, to build up a reasonable infrastructure and to build up reasonable, self-perpetuating economic growth, thereby creating the conditions needed to bring about lasting stability and peaceful coexistence between people and ethnic groups. That is why we look on this assistance as an offer to the people there. But now the people must show willing and understand that the circle of violence has to be broken. As Mr Lechner and I specifically discussed today, this political correlation needs to be clearly discussed here. That is why, Commissioner, I should like once again to stress that we do not want to be a hindrance when it comes to approving funds quickly and that we need to make a joint effort to ensure that these funds are used sensibly and are not wasted and that urgent objectives are in fact achieved.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr Nicholson's report underlines the serious crisis now affecting fish stocks in the waters around Britain and Ireland. The very fact that the Commission has found it necessary to implement emergency measures in four separate areas to save exhausted fish stocks, serves to illustrate the total failure of the common fisheries policy. As of today, 12 February 2001, more that 40 000 square miles of the North Sea will be closed for 12 weeks to all white fish trawling. In addition, there will be emergency closures covering the West of Scotland, the Irish Sea, as we have heard, and North Atlantic hake and all of this comes on top of the savage cuts in total allowable catches and quotas announced by the Council last December. The common fisheries policy in its current form has been operating for 18 years. The system of tax and quotas has led to massive quantities of healthy fish being dumped dead back into the sea. Over two million tonnes of fish a year, 25% of the total fish catch in the EU, are discarded in this manner. The system of MAGPs has also been a disaster. Member States who attempt to observe these rules are punished while other Member States ignore the MAGPs entirely. So, the CFP has failed in its core objectives. It has failed to sustain fish stocks and it has failed to secure a future for our fishermen. This latest round of cuts and emergency measures will again drive hundreds more out of the industry. The cod recovery measures in the Irish Sea last year cost the Irish Sea fleet a devastating drop in income of 42% during the closed season. Despite this appalling crisis, despite the fact that there are too many fishermen chasing too few fish around the North Sea and the Irish Sea, this House voted overwhelmingly at its last part-session in January to do away with 6 and 12-mile limits around our shores, to open equal access to the North Sea and to break into the Shetland and Irish boxes. These decisions will be regarded by many fishermen in the UK and Ireland as the last straw. Sixty-five per cent of the entire fishing resources of the EU are to be found in the waters surrounding the British Isles, that is the UK and Ireland. Why should we sit back and allow our fish to be plundered and allow our fishermen to be impoverished? It was extremely foolish and short-sighted of this House to vote the way it did on the reports last month. It may well prove to be the last straw that breaks the camel's back and may drive the UK out of the common fisheries policy.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, imagine, colleagues, that you are an intelligent and sensible person, you are on holiday in another EU country with your elderly and frail mother, you both end up being trapped for over half a day in an airless room by total strangers, offered little or no refreshment and, because there is a large gentleman blocking the door you feel your exit is cut off, so you end up signing a contract and paying a deposit for a timeshare product that you do not want. You return home to find that you have waved goodbye to the deposit of several thousand pounds and the company you dealt with is a worthless shell, constituted in some offshore haven. You have no chance of redress. Yes, this is a true story. How many of us have heard hapless tales like this from our constituents, despite the existence of a timeshare directive? This report is timely. Its contents need to be acted on now, not delayed for further studies and reports. But let me sound a note of caution. Whilst it will have the support of the , I am not totally convinced that this raft of rather complex and different legislative and non-legislative initiatives will answer the problem. The simple problem, to my mind, is this: these timeshare scams are one of the most appalling signals that we do not have, that we have not created a single European area of justice. Cross-border access to justice within the internal market is still fraught with many barriers for our citizens. Few, if any, of these scams are perpetrated against citizens in their own Member States. These rogues are only too easily able to profit from the lack of a single European civil area of justice. If they knew they would be pursued in their own countries they would think twice. I commend paragraph 15 of the report as a good starting point for bringing these contracts within the definition of consumer contracts. It is this sort of horizontal approach that will eventually provide the answer. If we have proper cross-border access to justice then the timeshare scam bandits will think twice before they prey on our holidaying constituents.

Political group: ELDR
Commissioner, first I want to ask about the Commission’s approach to the preparations for these elections, whether there is (a) any support for the parties, (b) training of local politicians and (c) support for the media in connection with the municipal elections? So these are the three points in relation to support. Moreover I think that following the Serbian elections, Kosovo must also be given a democratic platform beyond the municipal level. So I would like to ask the Commissioner when he thinks a general election could conceivably be held in Kosovo, since that would surely be necessary in order to create a negotiating partner for Serbia with a view to a future settlement in this region.

Political group: PPE-DE
We are all convinced that fighting for multilateralism is a good thing. With multilateralism under threat, we must do all we can to make Cancun a success. But it is a bit like squaring the circle. On the one hand the Americans are defending their interests by every means, while cultivating the myth of total free trade and, on the other, many countries of the South are unable to take their place in the world economy, questioning the present trade rules and demanding positive discrimination. How can the EU play its part as a bridge-builder and point the US in the right direction? While noting the positive efforts that have been made, I do wonder about a number of points in the policy on Cancun because we, too, are not without contradictions between our interests and our intentions. Firstly, how can we make a better defence of special and differential treatment? The developing countries are not the only ones at fault; we are not clear on this point either. The scope for such treatment is excessively broad, depriving the concept of differentiation of any real relevance. And the question of the rules is very much a grey area. Can we look at them again for TRIPS and for regional areas, not forgetting the question of technology transfer? Secondly, I support those who do not want to drop the aim of preparing questions about ‘Singapore’ – I differ from Mrs McNally slightly here – because it involves key aspects of the link between trade and development. But does the EU have to stick to its initial line? I agree with the bottom up approach, but would it not be better to support the restrictions, especially pre-establishment, involved in the claim for a political area? Moreover, there is an urgent need for the Cancun talks to be underpinned by powerful parallel initiatives for the redistribution of direct investments, guaranteeing their sustainability. Thirdly, so far as agriculture is concerned, we are defending a strong position regarding internal support and the calculation of tariff reductions. But will the most vulnerable countries of the South, which only produce one thing and are net importers, benefit in any way from it? Should we not increase market access and abolish export subsidies on products that are strategic for those countries and adopt a framework initiative in favour of fair trade?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr De Rossa can talk about United States unilateralism; perhaps we should better refer to the United States shouldering responsibilities which are ignored by others. What a pity it is that other countries have not joined in enforcing the no-fly zone over Iraq over the last ten years, something which has been referred to already. Responsibility has been borne by the United States, by the United Kingdom and in the early days by France. This is the sort of allied coming together that we should be seeing. It seems to me that there is too much speculation about the nature of some sort of attack on Iraq while our concern should really be the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime being in possession of weapons of mass destruction. It would be a dereliction of duty by any of our governments if they were aware of a threat to our security and chose to do nothing about it. We must take effective action against Iraq and it is most important that we show allied solidarity. Perceptions are absolutely vital here and it would be fatal if Saddam Hussein misread the intentions of the West, of the European Union and of other allies and if he thought that he was able to create divisions among those allies. We must send a very strong signal to Saddam Hussein that we stand together on this. This is a signal of solidarity. If there are any differences among allies it is time for those differences to be sorted out behind closed doors and not in public discussion. We need to send the right message. We started to misread the intentions of Saddam Hussein in early 1990. We almost made a mistake then. We regarded him as a rational man, we rather thought that he would not invade Kuwait at that time. In fact he is an irrational leader in control of very dangerous weapons. We must show the solidarity to take the necessary action to remove those weapons from his hands.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am not a member of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and was not party to the discussions. However, what I have heard so far reminds me of a news item I saw recently on the television. Two Siamese twins were successfully separated by doctors in the United States and both have survived. What I mean is that, if we look at competences and powers within the European Union, they are teratoid, they do not divide into regular geometrical shapes and we can only hope that we shall be able to divide them, even if it takes years of reform, and that both will survive without the need for the services of American doctors. Two brief comments. The division of competences between the Member States and the Union must be judged not just on how efficient it is, but on how democratic it is. Our citizens have every right to object to the abdication of power to the European Union, even if it makes sense technically, while this democratic deficit persists. Secondly, the three levels: Union, Member States, regions. We should remember what psychologists have to say about families with three children, about the child sandwiched in the middle which has a permanent identity problem and wonders, right into old age... (The President cut off the speaker)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I would particularly like to welcome Mr Kinnock’s statement and say how pleased I am to see that Mr Prodi is here, because these reforms will only be successful if they are led from the top. Therefore it is very important that he be here. I drew up on behalf of Parliament a report, which was approved almost unanimously last year, in which Parliament warned the Commission that the reforms must be implemented as quickly as possible to avoid staff demoralisation and public disenchantment. I would like Mr Kinnock to explain how he is going to move these forward as quickly as possible, because that warning is as valid now as it was when Parliament approved the report a few months ago. My second question is to ask Mr Kinnock whether he shares my great concern about the lack of interest being shown in his reforms by the Council. I have had a look at the agendas for ECOFIN and general affairs meetings over the last year, and there has been only one item about personnel, which was about freelance interpreters in March 2000. Would he share with me the view that, if the Council took more interest in his reforms, it would help their speedy and thorough implementation to achieve the end that we all want, which is the most professional and effective European civil service.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, a year ago I visited an asbestos factory in Poland where, during the Communist period, it was known that every fourth employee was affected sooner or later by lung or pleural cancer. However, the information was classified, and the factory was only closed after the Communist system had collapsed. There now remains a huge job of cleaning up to be done. Moreover, former employees are in constant anxiety about whether they will be affected by cancer in the future. As I see it, there are three flaws in this otherwise excellent report. First of all, it is proposed that national registers be set up of companies suited to the task of removing asbestos. It would be much better if such companies were to be issued with certificates of competence that could be referred to when contracts were tendered for. Registers are bureaucratic and difficult to manage. Secondly, it is certainly possible to require a reverse burden of proof in the case of suspected asbestos-related illness in the form of asbestosis and mesothelioma but, however, quite impossible when it comes to what may be a link between asbestos and bronchial cancer or cancer of the digestive system. Once, perhaps, many years have elapsed following exposure to asbestos, it is not possible to weigh up the role of asbestos against that of smoking and other factors which may have contributed to the illness. On the other hand, the link with asbestosis and mesothelioma is very strong. Thirdly, I shudder, as a doctor, at the thought of the EU’s beginning to lay down criteria for diagnosing illnesses. We have a worldwide system of diagnosis drawn up by the World Health Organisation, and the World Health Organisation ought also therefore to be responsible for assessing this system. If the EU is to establish diagnostic criteria, we are entering the area of health care, and the EU would then quite simply lack the power to decide on legislation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, those of you who know me will not be surprised to hear me confirm this evening that, not considering energy to be just another commodity, I and my group are firmly against the new proposals to liberalise the gas and electricity markets. Despite the procedural precautions and despite the undeniable eloquence of our Commissioner and our rapporteurs, we believe that these proposals run counter to the need to save energy and, therefore, to environmental protection. They will lead to job losses and, above all, to further deterioration of public services, and to the deterioration of energy networks and price adjustments, which are land-use planning tools. They will run counter to the diversification of energy sources, even though these are becoming more and more vital. They will favour short-term vision and calculations. The logic of the internal market is thus particularly inappropriate for the energy sector. I will end by reiterating that, far from harking back to the days of state control, I am in favour of a regulated world and a future for which we have prepared. In this sense, energy is a major tool, maybe even the most important tool. Thus, I dare to hope that, mindful of what is at stake, we will ultimately, one day, progress from a simple market logic to a political vision based on the concept of citizenship which is worthy of the heritage which we will leave our children in this field.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in terms of gross national product Europe leads the world, and I think it is a good thing for us to make rather more effort to market Europe in the future. I welcome the fact that we want to become the most competitive area in the world and I believe that we still need to put in a lot of effort to achieve that. Our competitors throughout the globe are sleeping; they have launched good initiatives, which makes it important for us to act as efficiently and quickly as possible in this area. We have over 18 million companies in Europe, and I believe that it gives them an extremely valuable marketing advantage if they are immediately and easily recognisable throughout the world. Consumer confidence is fundamental for business and that is why the presence of the European Union on the Internet with a top-level domain is particularly important. I also consider that an efficient dispute resolution system is needed, and one that is as cost-effective as possible but at the same time neutral and non-discriminatory. Especially in the case of speculation or misuse of registered names, it should be possible to take drastic action quickly and efficiently, because that is a very significant issue for the parties involved and can create a need for effective action on their part. It is also very important that the Registry should be put out to tender, as this will guarantee optimum support in Europe. I wish the Commission and, in particular, Mrs Flesch, every success. I believe that you have taken an important step for the European Union.

Political group: PPE-DE