GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I should like to congratulate the committee and the rapporteur, because the need to develop secure ports and maritime transport is proven to be very great every day. And of course I understand the rush on this issue. However, I must register a complaint about the fact that a proposal made by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy for cofinancing the cost of these measures was rejected. An OECD study in July 2003 calculated the initial cost of the measures needed at USD 1 279 million in initial investments, followed by USD 730 million a year to maintain them. As you will understand, this massive cost, which will be divided between the European ports, will need to be paid, as there is no cofinancing as proposed by the Committee on Industry, by the ports, shipping companies and small and medium-sized companies engaged in fringe activities. We therefore understand that the competitiveness of the European economy will bear a disproportionately heavy burden in comparison with other competing economies. The fact that it is certain that jobs will be lost and small and medium-sized companies will close has also been ignored. I worry that none of this has been taken into proper account and I worry that we are sacrificing this in our hurry to pass the regulation. I hope that time will prove me wrong, but I am very worried that these serious issues will cost the European economy a great deal.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I want to talk about the EQUAL report, especially the issue of the policy on refugees. Last week, we had a very impassioned discussion about the formation of the Austrian Government. Today, we are already discussing the Austrian coalition government’s policy on refugees because Mrs Stenzel, who is the author of the EQUAL report, of course represents Austria’s governing conservative party and its policy. The most startling aspect of her original report was that she wanted to limit aid to the small group of refugees covered by the Geneva Convention, that is to say so-called quota refugees or UN refugees. In actual fact, it is the other refugees, namely those outside the quota and those not covered by UN aid, who need aid the most. The Committee rejected this discriminatory proposal and decided that all refugees should have a place on the EQUAL programme on identical conditions. Some members of the Committee, however, supported Mrs Stenzel’s proposal and wordings. As I see it, this means that Mr Haider’s politics are already casting their shadow over this Parliament. It is therefore crucially important that the Chamber should be as emphatic as it possibly can be in establishing the fact that all refugees are to have a place on the EQUAL programme. I want, finally, to say that I had certain misgivings last week when we discussed the formation of the Austrian Government but, when it comes to discussing and criticising its policy on refugees, I have no misgivings. I hope that the Chamber will be just as committed this time.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I should also like to thank Mr De Rossa for his report. For the record, Mr Ford, the formal proposal to the committee to prepare this report came from me. It therefore cannot be said that the opposed it. I should like to highlight a couple of issues, one being the role of logging companies. There are proposals within the report as to how we could help them to face up to their responsibilities, given that, at times, they use bushmeat as an apparently cheap and readily available food source for their workers and their vehicles are used to carry poached meat. The proposal is to incorporate this into the European Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade process, which I welcome. Secondly, the issue of importing into the European Union and the highly questionable and grim circumstances surrounding it has already been raised. We could do more at this end, in terms of educating consumers and suppliers in the Union, to help them realise what the effect of their actions is on the ecology and development in the countries of origin and to stop people from regarding bushmeat as a luxury delicacy, whereas what we are really looking at is the potential extinction of animals in certain places.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to thank Commissioner Kinnock for his characteristically full discourse and discussion on this subject, and also for the very comprehensive material he makes available to us on the staff reform issues. We will have a chance to return to this subject, as he says, when we get the detailed proposal for the Staff Regulations. The issues that he raised were covered very briefly in the report that I prepared for Parliament back in 2000, where we indicated that we were looking for a best-practice approach. The summary he has given us certainly indicates the amount of work that has been done on that. Given that it is a highly sensitive issue and Member States will certainly be looking at it closely, the sort of balance he has achieved is going to be very much the right one. It is very important that we see this in the broad framework of recognising stable partnerships as he described it in the November 2000 discussion paper. That is really what we are discussing here. We are not talking about any particular type of partnership – that in itself would be discrimination – but recognising stable partnerships. One of the points I particularly want to raise with him is the question of children from partnerships. There have been well-publicised cases recently in the United Kingdom about the British forces. A soldier who very sadly was killed while on active service, had a stable partnership and a child from that partnership, but was not actually covered in the UK situation. That is an important point. The other point I want to raise is in connection with pension provisions and about the rights and abilities of staff to be able to decide to whom their pension should be paid and what flexibility they have in making that decision or in opting for whom their payment and benefit provision should be made in the event of their death.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I would like to declare an interest in the subject of this report. – Before the vote on recital H

Political group: ELDR
Waste management is a very complex issue subject to extensive lobbying. This is why the European Union has adopted a comprehensive strategy to tackle this major environmental and health challenge. The directive before us today is part of this strategy as it aims to regulate the thermal treatment of hazardous or non-hazardous waste. I myself have always been doubtful about the incineration of hazardous waste being dealt with in the same legislation as the incineration of non-hazardous waste. I therefore raised my concerns and questions at first reading. Regrettably, in my opinion, a majority has approved co-incineration. This is why I am now fighting for measures to be adopted in order to guarantee that emission standards for hazardous waste will not be diluted. Everyone knows that the volume of waste to be incinerated in the European Union is set to increase. Thirty-one million tonnes of municipal waste were incinerated in 1990 and this figure will be in excess of 56 million this year. There are several reasons for this, including the increase in the volume of waste produced and the fall in the quantity of waste sent to landfills. It is well known that the incineration of waste causes emissions of substances which seriously pollute the air, soil and water and which are therefore dangerous to health. The pollutants emitted depend both on the nature of the waste to be treated and the technologies used to treat this waste. This is why our concerns focus on the emissions of heavy metals, dioxins and furanes. The debate has particularly crystallised around co-incineration plants. These use hazardous waste as fuel for the production of energy or physical elements. Although the provisions of the applicable directives impose a maximum limit of 40% of hazardous waste in the fuel used, this percentage is too high! These plants must be subject to very strict control standards, at least as strict as those imposed on incinerators. In addition, the generalised use of this hazardous waste must not lead to the production of this waste becoming acceptable. We are at great risk of being told in the future that, as investments have been made to build these co-incinerators, we must now make these profitable! I firmly reject these arguments in advance as they will lead to an increase in the volume of hazardous waste being transported with all the risks which this entails for the environment and safety. To conclude, although offences must be penalised and authorities must be assisted in bringing their incinerators up to standard, it must be stressed that our priority is, and must, remain the prevention of waste production, whether this is hazardous or non-hazardous waste.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to begin by thanking the Commissioner and our rapporteurs for their tenacity on a very important subject. I would simply like to say that, as we saw with the Lake Constance disaster, the Sharm el-Sheikh disaster and those of the Erika and the Prestige, whenever there is an accident people look to Europe. And generally speaking the very people who are against European integration forget they were against it when tragedies happen. I therefore believe that the creation of the single sky bodes well for the future. At any rate, in this integrated European area we ought to do for the sky what we have done for roads and what we are trying to do for shipping and the railways. I believe that in this matter Parliament’s role was quite decisive in getting the general interest and public service nature of air traffic control recognised. Conversely, I think that air traffic control personnel have gained a European dimension that will make them think differently in future and probably play a more active part in the next stages of the single European sky. I am pleased about all that and I think this text is at last integrated and that this evening we have good reason to be pleased with the result we have achieved.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, following the conclusions of the Lisbon Council, the various reports voted upon here in Parliament dealing with employment have consistently highlighted the need to strike a balance between quantitative and qualitative development of employment, or between economic development and social development. The strategy implemented has made genuine progress possible, and, as has been stated, Commissioner, we fully support the proposals regarding the way in which you plan to follow up this work. Today, however, in a difficult context, a context of waves of company restructuring and mass redundancies that are increasing instability on the job market, the European Parliament must once again send out a strong, clear signal. Mr Mann’s own-initiative report, however, takes the opposite view to the message we should be sending, presenting to us an exclusively liberal creed, and the work carried out by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs in order to balance the text is in danger of being completely nullified by the amendments reintroduced in plenary. Mr Mann, what we need today is not just increased flexibility: we also need a policy that is both durable and flexible. We do not want second-class jobs or deskilled casual work, as you are proposing. We must focus on training and qualifications, and support the most vulnerable categories, which are women, young people and the elderly. Nor do we want a policy that insists on seeing fiscal pressure as the cause of all evils in this matter. Nor do we want deregulation, uncontrolled opening up of the service trade markets, sacrificing all the social acquis on the altar of free competition. If the report were to be amended in the way you are proposing in plenary, we would have to oppose it. I shall end, Mr President, by saying that, in promoting employment strategy and social policy in the European Union, which is the title of the report, we cannot overlook the principles of solidarity and social cohesion, which are guarantees of the prosperity of our economies. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, my thanks go to Greece for an excellent presentation and for highlighting some delicate matters. Recently, actually since the autumn, it has been mainly the issues of enlargement and the Convention that have been the focus of attention at EU level. In its presentation Greece mentioned some well-chosen issues it intends to address over the next six months. Unfortunately, however, we cannot cure all the ills of the world even though we might want to. We should also be as good as our word with regard to improving European competitiveness, something that was endorsed at Lisbon. Things have, however, gone the opposite way. The United States of America has rushed off even further into the distance. There is barely any eye contact anymore. If there is, the Americans come whistling past one lap of the circuit ahead of us whatever the event, to use a sports image. In view of this I would ask Greece what it really intends to do during its presidency to put its own house in order also, to fulfil the Lisbon objectives? Does it intend to make the economic reforms insisted on by the Commission, and which Mr Prodi also mentioned here at the start, and, if so, working to what sort of timetable? If Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain and Germany keep to their commitments we can really talk about a Lisbon strategy and improvements in our competitiveness, but if that should not be the case, we might as well wipe our backsides with the Lisbon Declaration and say goodbye to European competitiveness.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am struck by the similarities between these reports. Mr van den Bos has just pointed out that conditions for women in the developing countries are appalling for a variety of reasons. At the same time, I remembered that Mrs Martens’ report states that women in developing countries are often discriminated against in terms of access to food, health care, education, training, decision-making, participation in regional programmes and economic activities, as well as property rights. It is of course precisely the same as in the EU Member States. Perhaps the degree of discrimination is not as great in the EU but, as we say in Sweden, ‘there are differences of degree in hell’. The report also makes it clear that remedying a lack of equality and strengthening the role and rights of women are crucial to social justice and development. That is something which applies to both developing and industrialised countries and within both the EU and its Member States.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I am going to do something unusual, but I believe it to be necessary. I think it is a pity that I cannot put my laboriously-crafted four-minute speech on the record, but it is apparent to me that my speech would have been a mere repetition of everything that has been said so far, and which has also been true. For that reason, I do not, at twenty to ten in the evening, want to repeat what has already been said. I have nothing to add to what has been said by Mr von Boetticher, Mr Coelho or Commissioner Vitorino. We are all in agreement. My group endorses the proposal made by Mr Turco and Mr von Boetticher, and we approve the position they have taken. I do not think that there is more to be said on the subject. My colleagues can use my speaking time if they really want to. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the subject of today's debate is not whether or not we should sign up to the Århus Convention. As the Community signed this text in 1998, it is now our responsibility to act so that each of our governments can implement this agreement. By signing the Århus Convention, the Community has committed itself to adopting legally binding instruments, namely a directive and a regulation, in order to bring Community legislation in line with the provisions of the Århus Convention. It was with this requirement to comply with the Convention in mind that the committee carried out its work. It is also along these lines that the amendments tabled in plenary, which are widely supported, were drawn up. Our work initially consisted in uniting the various concepts taken up in the texts and in adapting them to the definitions in the Convention. On the other hand, we have respected the Commission's decision to give non-governmental organisations working in the environmental sector access to justice, while further opening up this route to qualified entities with legal personality. In the same vein, we have turned the objective of promoting sustainable development into an essential condition, included in their statues, of exercising the right of access to justice. Furthermore, only the provisions contained in the Århus Convention and in the directive granted access to justice to members of the public who bring to light an infringement of a right or who have an interest in acting. As we were anxious that the Community institutions should be bound by the same rules as the Member States, we chose to incorporate this provision into the present regulation. Finally, we constantly ensured that we respected the need to apply the principle of subsidiarity to the Member States with regard to legal procedures. Indeed, insofar as these matters relate to procedural law in the Member States, they are based on the Member States' procedural autonomy and must not result in a restrictive legal instrument from the Union. It is also inconceivable that we could establish a specific provision, a sort of privileged right to easier and cheaper access to justice on environmental matters: it is essential for questions of access to justice to be dealt with consistently and on an overall basis in all sectors, not just specifically in the environmental sector. Finally, some of the proposals in the working document go beyond the obligations arising from the Århus Convention. We must retain the room for manoeuvre that the Convention gives the Member States in the implementation of these obligations. To conclude, I think we have reached a fair compromise which aims to promote, in accordance with the provisions of the Århus Convention, effective implementation of Community legislation on the environment. I could, perhaps, summarise it by saying ‘the whole Århus Convention, and nothing but the Århus Convention’.

Political group: PPE-DE
In the vision that I had, Mr President, Mr Pannella was condemned to go on strike about a hunger strike, that is to say he was condemned to eat, to eat and get fatter and fatter. Then Mr Pannella said to me: ‘Please wake up Mr Fatuzzo, for you it is a dream, you were dreaming, but for me it is a nightmare!’ I therefore had to vote in favour of the report so as to protect poor Mr Pannella. - Sudre report (A5-0014/2004)

Political group: PPE-DE
Excuse me, Mr President, but surely in this instance the rule should have been the same as for Mr Ferri’s report this morning. This morning, Mr Ferri’s report was postponed even though, according to your interpretation of the Rules of Procedure, this should not have been allowed. Given that it was possible to do this for Mr Ferri, I do not, therefore, see why it would not be possible to do so in my case in order to organise this afternoon’s agenda better. I am not asking for a special favour, simply for the application of the procedure applied this morning.

Political group: PPE-DE
We consider that the report concerning the preparations in anticipation of the next Intergovernmental Conference is a welcome initiative by the European Parliament. The requirements in the report extend beyond what the European Council considers ought to be on the agenda for the next Intergovernmental Conference. We also consider that it is far-reaching on a number of points. Section 13 (on providing the EU with a constitution and dividing the texts of the Treaties into two parts): We want to point out and clarify the fact that the only acceptable procedure when it comes to the constitutional part is unanimity. Section 14 (on the revision of the Treaties): We consider that unanimity shall prevail when the Treaties are revised in accordance with section 13 a. Section 17 (last part): We consider that unanimity shall apply not only in the constitutional part but also, for example, in the case of foreign and security policy. Section 26, last part, may be interpreted in terms of the provision of reciprocal military guarantees. We consider this to be unacceptable. The EU has neutral and non-aligned States among its Member States. For these, it would be inconceivable that resources should be created for reciprocal military guarantees within the context of the European Union’s security and defence policy. Moreover, we do not consider that a precise and binding timetable for the common foreign and security policy is required over and above what was stated in the Cologne document. Where section 27 is concerned, we view as considerable progress the fact that the so-called Petersberg Tasks in the Cologne document (humanitarian and rescue tasks, peace-keeping tasks and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peace-making) are to be incorporated into the EU’s range of tasks. This demonstrates that the EU is, in the first place, a political, social and economic project, including when it comes to conflict and crisis management. The Petersberg Tasks mean that non-aligned and neutral States have an opportunity to participate in conflict and crisis management and, for that reason, there is no basis for integrating the WEU fully into the European Union.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, can the Commission confirm that it has accepted Amendment No 1 by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy? This would mean that the directive could be adopted by a qualified majority, and we would then be able to lay the directive to rest. Belgians and French people would then be able to enjoy British chocolate as much as the British have enjoyed French and Belgian chocolate. (Applause) (The President declared the common position approved (as amended)) *** Recommendation for second reading (A5-0054/2000), on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the common position adopted by the Council with a view to adopting a European Parliament and Council regulation on a revised Community Eco-Label Award Scheme (10656/2/1999 – C5-0223/1999 – 1996/0312(COD)) (Rapporteur: Mr Schnellhardt) (The President declared the common position approved (as amended)) *** Recommendation for second reading (A5-0056/2000), on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the common position adopted by the Council with a view to adopting a European Parliament and Council directive on the incineration of waste (11472/1/1999 – C5-0274/1999 – 1998/0289(COD)) (Rapporteur: Mr Blokland) (The President declared the common position approved (as amended)) *** Report (A5-0062/2000) by Mr Davies, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive relating to ozone in ambient air (COM(1999)125 – C5-0048/1999 – 1999/0068(COD)) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0063/2000) by Mrs Myller, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants (COM(1999)125 – C5-0047/1999 – 1999/0067(COD))

Political group: PPE-DE