GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
The Spanish Government, which was responsible for the disaster involving the tanker Prestige and the fuel oil on the coasts of Spain, France and Portugal, has now been voted out by the electorate. In order to ward off possible oil pollution in one Spanish port, the captain of this ship was instructed to leave the coast and eventually to sink in open sea, as a result of which the disaster became much greater. Of the 77 000 tonnes of crude oil on board, 43 000 tonnes have been salvaged, and it is estimated that 14 000 tonnes are still on board. This means that 20 000 tonnes disappeared into the sea and that the coast of Galicia remains polluted long term. The report is right to criticise the Netherlands and Belgium for not, apparently, regarding the application of port state control and vessel inspection by classification bureaus as an urgent matter. Proposals have been made for the designation of ports of refuge, compulsory insurance cover to be able to recoup damage and costs from shipowners, the use of transmitters to trace lost containers and the stricter observation of existing environmental and safety rules; these receive my support. It is unfortunate that the European coastguard service, which it is apparently planned to set up, is not only intended for the joint protection of the environment, safety and compliance with fishery restrictions, but is also directly linked to the hunt for immigrants and possible terrorists and the further construction of a European superstate.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, whilst I agree with those who congratulate Mr van den Bos on producing an excellent report, and most wholeheartedly with what he said in his opening speech, I would say that there are naturally some differences between us regarding focus. We for our part still want to lay emphasis on the rights of political prisoners and the right to a healthy environment. Torture, together with the death penalty, is a violation of the most fundamental of human rights. In a world that is fighting terrorism we have been alarmed to see the unconditional ban on torture become a relative issue and, as it were, go soft round the edges. It is not enough to invest in prevention and especially in the broadest possible ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture. We really also have to support the rehabilitation of victims. We are now getting a promise of that, but it will also require additional resources. We must invest in this, however, and that means the proper budget decisions have to be taken. When you look at the role of the EU in the report and the parts that deal with how prepared it is to engage in human rights work, you get a feeling of déjà vu. That is certainly not because the rapporteur has failed in any way but because, year after year, we have been emphasising very similar needs for change. In a world where views on security based on arms and cooperation are in conflict with one another and in which the situation regarding universal human rights and the sovereignty of states is tense – this is a question of the fate of the United Nations – the EU has an opportunity to place human rights at the heart of its external policy. Institutional changes are not enough for this, even if we have our own foreign ministry and the parliamentary committees are reorganised. It can only work if we really want to invest in consistent work and involve ourselves with the utmost sincerity.

Political group: Verts-ALE
My position in this debate is clear. First of all, the current CAP is certainly not perfect. It is costly and at times unfair. Despite that, it is because of that CAP that agriculture still exists today in Europe. Secondly, the CAP undoubtedly has to be reformed in order to adapt to the current situation in Europe and worldwide. It needs to be better targeted towards the objectives of quality, the environment and maintaining rural employment. What is being proposed, however, which is cleverly disguised in the garments of justice and ecology (in the name of the famous ‘decoupling’) will inevitably lead to the disappearance of the CAP ten years from now and, in its wake, to the disappearance of real, diversified and self-sufficient European agriculture. This is why I cannot accept the proposals that have been put to us.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Occupational pensions will play an increasingly important role in ensuring that pensions provide secure, lasting and effective social protection as well as a decent standard of living for retired people. There is an urgent need to create a genuine single market in pension funds, and this means providing for a tax system which will, regardless of the country of residence of the member or retired person, avoid contributions and benefits being taxed twice and discourage pensioners from going into tax exile to avoid taxes. I voted against the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on the Commission communication on the elimination of tax obstacles to the cross-border provision of occupational pensions because the methods recommended in it run counter to the objective sought. This is because the proposals contained in the report submitted to us will generate costly bureaucracy, because of Member States' having to exchange information and work together to collect taxes, and do not in any way constitute a practical and efficient approach towards removing the tax obstacles to the cross-border provision of occupational pensions. Instead of starting a process of consultation to identify which of the tax models currently in force in the Member States avoids double taxation of contributions and benefits with the greatest efficiency and the least bureaucracy, the report already comes down in favour of the EET regime, when it is obvious that the TEE tax system – which consists of taxing contributions to the plan and exempting pensions drawn from it – would guarantee uniform fiscal treatment, regardless of the country of residence of the member or retired person, that it would allow the country granting tax concessions for setting up occupational pension plans to safeguard its tax base, and that it would make the issue of sharing tax yields superfluous. (Intervention shortened pursuant to Article 137 of the Rules of Procedure) IN THE CHAIR: MR IMBENIVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
There is a big difference between the Europe the leaders want and the Europe the public wants. The leaders want centralisation, greater uniformity, liberalisation, cuts in spending and a massive display of power. The citizens want democracy, a small-scale approach, protection, social welfare and the right to diversity. Whenever the people of a European Union Member State have the chance to express their views on further European integration, it turns out that about half the voters reject that development. It has already happened in France and Denmark, and now it has happened again in Ireland. The same thing will happen in Sweden and the United Kingdom in the next few years. Last week, 54% of Irish voters rejected the proposals put forward at the Nice Summit at the end of 2000. Not because they have anything against the people of Eastern Europe, but probably because, for example, they understandably do not like the idea of being caught up in NATO’s military ventures. Quite rightly, a number of the motions for a resolution tabled regarding the forthcoming Gothenburg Summit press for a stronger environmental policy, a social Europe and respect for the rights of the Albanians in Macedonia. But basically, they still come from the top down and they represent the wrong Europe

Political group: GUE-NGL
My group voted in favour of the resolution. However, I must highlight one particular issue. According to current Community legislation, Greek fishermen have exclusive fishing rights within a zone of 6 nautical miles, as opposed to the 12 nautical miles which apply to the other Member States of the EU, especially the Mediterranean countries. This means that Greek fishermen are not being treated equally and are at a disadvantage compared with the other countries under the common fisheries policy. Given that, according to the statement in Article 5, paragraph 1 of Annex IX to the International Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Community has sole responsibility for conserving and managing marine fish stocks and, by extension, the competence to adopt the relevant rules and regulations, the Commission should make use of these powers and give Greek fishermen exclusive fishing rights within a zone of 12 nautical miles. Similarly, the European Parliament called in resolution Α4-0018/99 (C-153/1-6-99) for the Commission to propose extending the exclusive fishing zone to 24 nautical miles in order to guarantee a suitable decentralisation policy and protection for the interests of coastal areas. The Commission should adopt this resolution by the European Parliament.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, the list of objectives for NEPAD is very long: it includes many different concepts such as conflict prevention, democracy and regional economic integration. The report by my friend and colleague, Mr Bébéar, is an excellent one. However, I should like to highlight that if, as he says, all these objectives were to be fulfilled, it would cost EUR 64 billion per annum. I do not believe that kind of money will be forthcoming. As the last speaker said, whilst there is corruption, mismanagement, fraud and bad governance, we have to tackle the problem of poverty in Africa. If NEPAD is a solution put forward by African governments, then there may be a chance. We have examples of bad management and fraud: we have only to look to the news a week ago when Parmalat lost EUR 10 billion in Italy – a sophisticated, modern, western country! So it is not surprising that there will be difficulties in Africa. I do not condone them; I have always objected to and stamped on corruption wherever it is, especially in Africa. We need to encourage NEPAD, especially the conception, growth and sustenance of small- and medium-sized enterprises in Africa, owned and run by Africans using the natural resources of their countries and employing their own people, with the appropriate training and help that we can give them. That is the engine for NEPAD – the economic engine that can bring about development. First, it must be formed in their countries, support the regional economy and then go beyond to EU and world markets. That is what NEPAD was conceived to be. The roof may be the African Union, the walls may be the pan-African Parliament, but the foundation of economic growth and the eradication of poverty in Africa has to be something like NEPAD. We ought to support it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, the French Presidency’s ship is heavily-laden and we hope, particularly having heard Mr Chirac’s answers, that it arrives safely in Nice, in six months. Nice is founded on an ancient Phoenician settlement, originally named Nicaia, meaning victory, and we are certainly expecting victory on the part of the French Presidency, both for the current citizens of the Union and for those who will be joining it. We were pleased to note the Presidency’s will, ambition and clear-sightedness, particularly with regard to the contradictions inherent in some of our European policies. Global warming is one such problem. Like a sword of Damocles, it hangs over not only the Union, but over the whole world. Integrating this essential factor into all European policies is the political challenge to which we must respond. I am not convinced that this is the direction we are currently taking, in spite of all the fine words that have been spoken here this morning.

Political group: Verts-ALE
In the European Parliament’s first and second readings of the Sixth Environment Action Programme, we Swedish Conservatives voted against the introduction of EU taxes in the areas of the environment and energy. This approach of ours, based on principle, still stands, despite our having voted in favour of the conciliation proposal. – Recommendation for second reading, Cappato report (A5-0130/2002)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is true that some important initiatives for debate have been launched during the European Year of People with Disabilities, such as the Congress on Autism, held this weekend in Lisbon, and the European Parliament of Disabled People, which took place in Brussels last week. Everyone had hoped for much more, however, at both Community and national level, particularly in my country – Portugal – which suffers from serious social problems, the highest rate of poverty in the European Union, many forms of discrimination and has seen cuts in fundamental public investment in areas such as education and health. These factors have hit people with disabilities particularly hard, in the name of complying with the irrational criteria of the Stability Pact. Regrettably, we are reaching the end of this European Year without having made any progress on a disability policy and without issues relating to discrimination and the human rights of these individuals being made the top priority of the various Community policies. Until this is done, there can be no real social inclusion. I must point out that the report I drafted on the scoreboard on implementing the Social Policy Agenda, which Parliament adopted in September, focused on the need to present a proposal during this Year of People with Disabilities for a directive based on Article 13 of the Treaty to combat discrimination on grounds of disability. Regrettably, this did not happen. In the documents adopted by the European Parliament of Disabled People last week, priority was also given to the call for this new directive to prevent the raising of further obstacles and to stipulate that the existing obstacles faced by people with disabilities must be eliminated throughout the European Union. This should really happen in the near future. The directive on equal treatment in the field of employment and occupation should also be transposed, establishing a broad definition of disability and laying down strict and effective penalties to be applied if the law is broken. We hope that this year will spark effective policies in this field of supporting people with disabilities and bring recognition of their rights.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Burundi has been plagued by violence and tension between the Tutsi minority and the Hutu majority for many years. Democratic elections were held in 1993, which gave some hope for the resolution of this bloody conflict. However, this progress was short lived, as the newly elected Head of State was assassinated and this triggered yet another massacre. Since this period, Burundi has lurched from crisis to crisis, with many thousands of people losing their lives in the process. A ceasefire was brokered by Nelson Mandela in 2002 but later collapsed. A second power sharing deal was signed in 2003, which finally brought three of the main rebel groups into government, although, regrettably, fighting and abuse of human rights continues in several areas. Only the National Liberation Forces rejected this deal and this group has been linked to the death of the Irish Archbishop, Michael Courtney, who was the Vatican's envoy to Burundi. Archbishop Courtney was heavily involved in the peace process and played a significant role in bringing about this recent progress. Unfortunately, he paid a high price for his noble and unselfish involvement in the Burundi conflict when he was murdered by rebel groups on 29 December 2003. This was senseless and a terrible tragedy for his family, friends and colleagues from the church. As Mr Ford also pointed out, Michael Courtney made a valuable contribution to the current peace process in Burundi and I would hope there will be a full inquiry into his death which will bring those responsible for his death to justice. Perhaps the tragedy of his death will intensify regional and international pressure on the FNL to sign up to the peace agreement following their long-overdue talks with the government, so that no more lives are needlessly lost and so that peace is finally restored to Burundi.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, the Marinho report deplores the fact that borders have been opened up for criminals but remain closed to the institutions whose duty it is to bring them to justice. What can one expect? You wanted a Europe solely geared to throwing open the doors to the free movement of goods and capital. Dirty money follows the same channels as any other type of money, even if many of the transactions made by companies of some standing are not as dirty as the capital transactions of the Cali cartel. What I am talking about are the proceeds of corruption and the profits reaped from exploiting children in less developed countries. You are incapable of taking genuine measures to prevent money laundering because to do so would entail laying the blame at the door of banking and financial groups, since they are the ones who are able to launder this money by cloaking themselves in banking secrecy. All the big banks themselves set up subsidiaries in tax havens, and these tax havens only exist because there are banks who use them. They do this with encouragement from the Member States themselves, such as France and the Netherlands in the case of Saint-Martin, and Great Britain in the case of the Channel Islands and elsewhere. We are the only ones here who want to see measures that truly prevent money laundering, which is to say the immediate abolition of banking secrecy, the trade secret, the business secret, access to the accounting ledgers of all banking and manufacturing companies and the right of all the employees of these companies, of all consumers, to bring to the public’s attention any transfer of funds that is against the interests of society at large.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I congratulate Mrs Ayuso González on the document on which we have voted today in plenary and which I fully support. I am of the same mind as the rapporteur on the need to establish a legal framework that will enable the use of alternative fuels for road transport to be promoted and developed, not only because of the security that this guarantees for investors but also because of what it represents for the worldwide effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, particularly in the framework of the commitments given in Kyoto. In this context, I wish to highlight the potential importance of tax incentives for promoting the development of biofuels in contributing, through appropriate tax schemes, to reducing differences in the production costs of fossil fuels.

Political group: PPE-DE
The catastrophe in Toulouse, a tragic accident indeed, should give us an incentive to overhaul the Community directive on highly dangerous installations and ensure that it is applied more strictly. We all know that numerous Member States of the EU have not applied the revised ‘Seveso’ directive, even though they should have been doing so since 1999. Even worse, a number of countries are clearly not even applying the original ‘Seveso’ directive properly. I am delighted that our joint resolution calls on the Commission to publish a table, within the next three months, of all the industrial plants in the EU which are highly dangerous and are located in residential areas and which, were an accident to happen, could cause damage on a scale similar to that caused by the accident in Toulouse. One such plant, Petrola Hellas plc, is located a stone's throw from the densely populated areas of Elefsina, Aspropyrgo and Mandra and has already applied for planning permission to extend over a 130 hectare plot of land located in the buffer zone between the current Petrola plant and the Pyrkal munitions factory. I should also like to point out that, according to witnesses working in the factory in question, the factory operator has not provided the public with the safety report or the emergency plans setting out action to be taken in the event of an accident, as required under the Seveso directive. Other factories in the area are guilty of similar practices (no plans, failure to inform local authorities and the public). The usual procedure is to send a very basic file to the ministry and ignore the rest of the provisions of the Seveso directive. Just how interested and concerned the Greek authorities are in preventing major disasters and limiting their impact is obvious from the environment Commissioner's reply to my question on the matter. The Commissioner replied that he had written to the Greek authorities on 7 June 2000 asking for information on the extension to the Petrola plant but that the Greek authorities had not yet replied to the letter in question.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the Group has not tabled an amendment to ban doorstep selling, but rather to make it subject to conditions in terms of unsolicited negotiation of credit or doorstep selling. As it is not a ban, we should be able to vote on it.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, first of all, I must express my appreciation, on behalf of my group, for the tribute which has been paid to the memory of Mr Kranidiotis. But I had requested the floor in accordance with Rule 122 of the Rules of Procedure to make an intervention for personal reasons, concerning the accusations made against me yesterday by Mr Galeote during the debate on the investiture of President Prodi. In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, this is the appropriate moment in the proceedings. As I cannot see Mr Galeote in the Chamber, I leave it to your discretion as to whether I speak now or when he is present.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am grateful to the Commissioner for indicating the support of the Commission, in principle, for both amendments being tabled in plenary today. But I seek clarification on Amendment No 1. Whilst in principle the Commission is saying it supports our demand for 'black box' voyage data recorders to be fitted to all ships, can it confirm that relates not just to new ships, but also to existing and old ships? It is an important clarification. I would appreciate a statement from the Commissioner on that particular point.

Political group: PSE
I voted against the resolution in relation to the World Conference against Racism in Durban to make it clear that this conference has done the gravest possible disservice to the promotion of good race relations. The conference was hijacked by those whose sole objective was to attack the state of Israel and to ignore the fact that it is the one nation in the Middle East based on democracy. Israel was singled out by countries and organisations which have an appalling record on human rights. Even worse the language and the tone of the attacks had more in common with ‘Der Stürmer’ in the Germany of Adolf Hitler. And yet despite this no condemnation of the United Nations or the conference for allowing this to happen. The United States made it clear that it would take no part in these proceedings. The European Union should have taken a similar view. That it failed to do so was a sad reflection on its failure to learn the lessons of history.

Political group: PPE-DE