GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I have naturally voted for the Haug report on the budgetary guidelines, but I would particularly like to stress the welcome reinstatement of natural disasters, confirmed by this morning’s vote. As I have said here several times, I do not think the European Union can want to make its presence felt and to be more visible to its people than it has been up to now, whilst, at the same time, turning its back on their difficulties and misfortunes when these occur. So it is with great pleasure that I have voted for paragraphs 21 and 34. My hope is that they will be implemented rapidly, particularly for the forestry sector, which is experiencing structural difficulties and has experienced a drastic reduction in supply. I think that the Union’s natural role would be to dedicate itself to this, and I hope we can build on this report to make Parliament and the Commission aware of the need for intervention.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, for five centuries of European history, the Canary Islands have always enjoyed special consideration in terms of shaping their presence in the Spanish and European worlds. In fact, when the Kingdom of Spain acceded to the European Community in 1985 the door was left open for an amendment of the status of the European model for the Canary Islands. In 1991, when Regulation 1911/91 was approved, we experienced Community adaptation with regard to the application of the provisions of Community Law in the islands. At that point a transitional period of ten years was set so that the integration of the economy of the Canary Islands into the Community would not be traumatic for some local production sectors and, de facto, amongst other things, a tax on production and imports, the APIM, was established with a view to protecting the integration of small basic Canary Island industries into the Community Customs Area. The said tax, which protected local industry in relation to imported goods, would be gradually dismantled between 1995 and the end of 2000. Curiously, this removal of the APIM has not had the desired effect amongst the sensitive industries in the Canary Islands and therefore the Spanish authorities, the Canarian authorities and the economic operators affected have requested that the Community authorities amend Regulation 1911/91 in order to stop the removal of the APIM until June 2000, which the European Commission appreciates. Nevertheless, some of us, as Members from the Canary Islands, as well as considering it reasonable to extend the validity of this tax in accordance with the Commission’s proposal, have requested by means of amendments that it affect the most sensitive products, all the sensitive products produced in the Canary Islands. We also request that this customs approach be applied to a new tax with a structure similar to the old APIM, with the aim of incorporating it into a package of specific measures of a fiscal nature which the Council, on the proposal of the Commission, must implement next year – as Mr Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya and Mr Medina Ortega have just said – by means of the proposed permanent statute for the outermost regions – which include the Canary Islands – in implementation of article 299.2, which provides for differentiated treatment, as you know, with regard to the application of the provisions of the Treaty. This very week the Autonomous Parliament of the Canary Islands, during a political debate on this issue, unanimously approved an agreement which includes fiscal measures and asks Europe to provide for the establishment of a tax similar to the APIM. Congratulations to Mr Medina Ortega on his report and on his receptiveness to the amendments presented.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, it is rather difficult, on a day of national tragedy for Luxembourg – after 17 people died in an air accident – to move onto more mundane issues. However, I should like to make one comment and raise one question. I have had the opportunity to study the texts that you are presenting, Commissioner. I must admit that these texts, particularly those on nuclear safety, are meaningless, because you are not proposing any real European standards. You are promising future directives and perhaps you could tell me when these future directives will materialise. Another weak point in your proposals is that you are basing your comments on Article 31. However, Article 31 relates to radiation protection. The Article 31 radiation protection working group is meeting today in Luxembourg. I have spoken with these experts. They tell me that they do not feel qualified to assess the directives that you are proposing, because these are directives in the field of nuclear safety. This view is also shared by Francis Jacob, the counsel for the prosecution in a case currently before the European Court of Justice, between the Council and the European Commission. Why are you convinced that Article 31 is the right one? To sum up, in your midday meeting with Mr Giscard d’Estaing, did you discuss what would be needed, in other words, the reform of the Euratom Treaty under the Convention?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I will not be availing myself of my two minutes. The Group of the shares the rapporteur's viewpoint and that of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. We, too, are opposed to the lifting of immunity. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to draw my fellow Members’ attention to the gathering, which is taking place right now opposite the Parliament building, of some 3 000 men and women from France, Italy, Belgium and elsewhere. They are calling on Europe to do everything in its power to bring about an equitable peace in the Middle East, in the spirit of the resolution that we ourselves adopted at our last part-session. I think that we must welcome this gathering, firstly because it is healthy, when we are discussing the future of Europe, to see so many people demonstrating to urge Europe to fulfil its role as a world player. And also because this is a demonstration for peace, justice and human dignity in the light of an appalling tragedy, which requires us to make an exceptional effort. I welcome the fact that most groups have agreed to hold discussions with the citizens’ delegations; this is promising. I think that the next step should now be to send, as we decided, an official delegation from Parliament to the Palestinian territories and to Israel, and also, once there, to organise a visit to Europe by President Arafat. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner, as well as all the Members who have stayed here until this time, but I believe that the occasion warrants it, since this is an important issue and we have been waiting for it for a long time. I entirely agree with what the Commissioner has said, but there have been certain statements made during the debate which I would like to clarify. At no point does this report on family reunification allow for situations such as those Mr Pirker has mentioned: polygamy or the possibility of applying this directive to future wives and I would like this to be recorded in the Minutes because I think this is a very serious statement which can only be born of ignorance or bad faith.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I propose adding the words 'Pakistan and Russia' to the word 'Israel'. (Parliament rejected the oral amendment) (Parliament adopted the joint resolution) *** Report (A5-0316/2002) by Bashir Khanbhai, on behalf of the Committee on Development and Cooperation, on sustainable agricultural policy, agrarian reform and rural development for self-reliance in developing countries (2001/2274(INI)) Before the vote on Amendment 5:

Political group: PPE-DE
We are voting against the joint motion for a resolution that has been tabled because we cannot accept that we are still trying to deny the obvious, i.e. the serious effects on the health of people in areas affected by the use of weapons containing depleted uranium. Since the beginning of the nuclear age, which started at the time of the Second World War, we have been aware of the risks and the precautions when dealing with uranium and other radioactive substances because this is a highly toxic element (both chemically and radiologically), when inhaled or ingested and is also a threat in genetic terms. The use of this type of ammunition by the US and other NATO countries during the Gulf war, in Bosnia and in Kosovo has already caused the death of thousands of soldiers, suffering and death for the inhabitants of areas that were bombed and the environmental pollution in affected areas, with medium- and long-term consequences, which will affect not only the present generation but also future generations, which is prohibited by the Geneva Convention. This makes it quite clear that there is no such thing as a “clean war”. Therefore, given the scale of the crime that has been committed against whole civilian populations, it is crucial that we investigate, try and convict the leaders responsible for this crime against humanity, and immediately ban the manufacture, testing, use and sale of this type of weapon containing depleted uranium, not simply approve a moratorium.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, I have just been to Sicily with a fisheries delegation. There, too, I was frequently asked how best to deal with the serious danger to resources and the consequent threat of fishing being closed down. Today I believe that we politicians cannot generalise when answering questions like that. If I say no, that an endangered resource is not to be barred to fishing, I may have to reckon with the resource not lasting for long, so that only a short time now remains in which it can be used, the inevitable consequence of which is that the socio-economic situation will deteriorate. If, on the contrary, I say yes, and that the resource should be barred to fishing, this may well promote the replenishment of the stocks, but even then many jobs will be lost in the fisheries sector and in the businesses that depend on it, never to be replaced, and it may be that regions will lose expertise that will never return there. If we want to effectively counter the threats posed to resources, especially of cod – which are indeed grave – whilst also taking into account all the consequences of our actions, I am now more than ever convinced that our primary need is for a comprehensive strategy for developing coastal regions, which means concerted action, the political will to protect resources, a checklist to be completed and processed, which shall be binding upon all. What I have called a strategy must involve all the stakeholders: biologists, researchers into marine ecosystems, and environmental campaigners just as much as politicians in the localities, in the capitals and in Brussels, and, last but not least, the fishermen and the fish processing industry. All of them have to shoulder their share of responsibility. Just as I have called for there to be what is termed a chain of responsibility in the area of maritime accidents, so I demand that there should be one in this area too. I urge that this strategic concept now be taken further with action of this kind. All the information we have indicates that it is five minutes to midnight! (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I rise to make a point of order before Commissioner Fischler replies to this debate. Mr Barón Crespo said he had no faith in my neutrality as chairman of the Committee on Fisheries. I strive at all times as chairman of that committee for complete neutrality, but neutrality has to be built on a platform of fair play. I am sure that everyone in this House believes in equal treatment for all Member States. If that is an alien concept to Mr Barón Crespo, then I am sorry for him. I hope the House will support me on that.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, if there is to be an export ban on products banned in the Community, have you investigated and calculated how many jobs will be lost in Europe as a result? Has this been agreed with the trade unions and employers’ federations?

Political group: PPE-DE
I too should like to congratulate Mrs Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou on her sound report and, above all, would advise the Commission again to read it very carefully, particularly the statistical summaries, which paint a lamentable picture of the impact of women in rural areas. Women have far too little power; far too few of them are at the helm of businesses, and in my country, the Netherlands, with 6% of female business managers, they are worse off than anywhere else; we should hang our heads in shame. Moreover, one in two women farmers fall within the spouse or partner category, which is particularly detrimental to their entitlement to social security. That should change; in that respect, I totally agree with what Mrs Lulling said about finally adopting the recommendations of 1997. I should like, for a moment, to dwell upon the rural policy regulation. Agricultural policy has indeed changed recently, and I do not know whether we should be that pleased with every aspect of this change. When the whole dossier is finally analysed, the rural policy regulation appears to have become the cuckoo in the nest. Mr Olsson too has already indicated in his report on rural policy how important this can be, for example, in order to give the switch-over to other sources of income, such as, agro-tourism, care farms, new energy sources, organic farming, local services and cultural manifestations a shot in the arm. That is where opportunities lie, particularly for women. This has already been said by other speakers and I should like to add something. There are vast areas in Europe with large cities. Particularly rural areas near large cities can develop a raft of special services, and so I urge that this rural regulation should include a rural policy criterion in relation to large cities. I really think it is worth giving serious thought to this as a committee, and I have also raised questions in writing on this matter. I should like to take this opportunity to warn against certain forms of rural pauperisation. Although buildings, in particular, do, in fact, form part of the cultural heritage, they are in a bad state of repair in many areas. I think that a sound rural policy could save a great deal, and especially for women, there are many opportunities to use these buildings for new services, such as cultural events, receiving tourists, and so on. I was disappointed when the Commissioner said that he could not give any guarantees for channelling the resources from the CAP leg to the second pillar. I know that the Commission wanted to put aside more resources for this in the first instance and that the Council cut these back. I also know therefore, that we must sound the alarm, particularly in our own country, but nevertheless, I hope that the Commission will continue to insist on a greater shift towards the rural policy regulation.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I too am pleased with the attention with which this Parliament and the Commission have begun to examine a subject that now affects all the countries in the European Union. Emigrating has always been a necessity and often a hope, but seldom a choice. I say this as I come from a country that has had first-hand experience of the emigration problem for a great many decades. In recent years the subject of migration into many European countries has taken on bitter and often dramatic connotations. I believe it is both necessary and useful for the various Member States to share a common position on this subject, because I cannot envisage any positive scenarios unless they are regulated by all the countries in the Union. I also think, however, that this is one of the most sensitive issues, one of those issues that, more than any other perhaps, needs to be managed; and managing it means addressing matters of visas, employment, health, citizens’ rights and duties, and citizenship. I believe the right to vote, at a local and not just a European level, should be a consequence of these rights and not a precondition, as seems to have been suggested at times in some debates in recent years. In our eagerness for integration we must not forget that our first duty, in my opinion, is to create the means for making a living in developing countries, so that everyone can find it possible to stay in their own home country. Our second duty is to facilitate the return of immigrants to their countries of origin as agents for the development and growth of their own countries. Down in third place, I put the need for Old Europe, impoverished by low birth rates and few workers, to see migration as a benefit to our countries. Having said that, there is no doubt that we should have control mechanisms to enable us to combat illegal immigration and, within the Member States, to combat breaches of the host country’s rules.

Political group: PPE-DE
My request to you, Mr President, is that, when we sign ourselves into the central register tomorrow morning, we should be given ample protection from the media, who we expect to be there, and who are working for a certain Mr Martin. Although we have nothing to hide, we do not want to be harassed. Let me assure this House right now that I would not, until very recently, have thought it even possible that I could have been systematically spied on by a certain Mr Martin, using his buttonhole camera, since at least 2002. I was not aware of being spied on. Had I been aware of it, I would have given this Mr Martin a wide berth ever since 2002. I am equally strong in my condemnation of certain German media, who are making use of a certain Mr Martin as what they call their principal witness and have thereby subjected me, among others, to a disgusting campaign of defamation in Germany. Here in this House, I have always obeyed the rules as they were in force at the time.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, it is good that we are discussing and adopting the maritime safety package at first reading today. What is less satisfactory, as has just been pointed out, is our past record; heaven knows that the States of the European Union have scarcely covered themselves in glory in the realm of maritime safety. We know, of course, that port state control has not been a potent guarantor of maritime safety in the past, we know that the classification societies have not all discharged their duties as shipping inspectorates properly and conscientiously and that some of them have tended to be slipshod, and we know that tankers without double hulls are floating time bombs. The more appalling thing, however, is that we knew all of this before the Erika sank. Parliament has highlighted this situation time and again, and the sad fact is that the progress made since then would never have happened without this disaster and the public pressure that followed it. Nevertheless, it is all the better that we are set to act, at long last, today. I should like to express my very sincere thanks to the three rapporteurs and to say a few words on two or three specific points. Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you said that you recognise Parliament's demand on port state control which Mr Watts made in his report. My first request to you is that the Council sign, seal and deliver this very quickly. It will then be law, as it were, and can be put into practice. I believe that some rethinking will certainly have to be done between the Council and Parliament on the liability limit for classification societies, irrespective of what is decided today. We shall agree to an international regime for double-hull tankers, but only on condition that a set of IMO rules is actually created in April. Our committee unanimously supports this linkage. If IMO rules do not materialise, we shall need European legislation. But we hope that IMO rules will be adopted in April. For these double-hull tankers we shall need many good and safe new vessels. I should like to see European shipyards winning the orders to build these ships in fair and open competition. The Commission recently presented a report in which it documented the fact that Korea is pursuing a very unfair dumping policy in the shipbuilding industry. For that reason, Commissioner, I earnestly appeal to you and to your colleague, Commissioner Monti, to pledge this assistance which our shipyards need so urgently and to do so before Christmas. The shipyards of Europe are beset by uncertainty. Please help to ensure that the Commission sends a clear signal here. We are working to establish new credibility; we should not jeopardise it by letting the Commission take the wrong course of action. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, in the case of Morocco the issue concerns the building of a nuclear power station to produce 600 MW of electricity. The European Union has agreements with Morocco with regard to economic aid and, it seems, the reason for constructing this power station is because there is Chinese aid available. That is to say that it seems that the Republic of China is prepared to offer money for the construction of a nuclear power station. My specific question is whether the Council thinks that it could offer Morocco the possibility of a more rational procedure, because building a nuclear power station to produce 600 MW of electricity is “using a sledge-hammer to crack a nut” and I believe it would be preferable if our neighbours were not to do it. Can the Council not do something so that Morocco will not have to turn to this dubious Chinese technology which is currently being offered to them?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, female genital mutilation inflicts endless pain and suffering on women and girls in at least 25 African countries, most of them ACP countries. Women are the victims of violent and life-threatening cultural traditions which must be ended, for a tradition which violates individual rights – in this case women's rights – in a truly horrific way must not be allowed to continue in the twenty-first century. Thankfully, the ACP countries in Africa are increasingly recognising this fact. It is gratifying that Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Uganda, Senegal, Tanzania, Togo, Burkina Faso, the Central African Republic and the Côte d’Ivoire have legislated against female genital mutilation. Efforts are also being made – with the support of aid organisations and numerous NGOs – to stop this dreadful practice through public information campaigns and awareness-raising. In this context, a resolution adopted by the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly at its last meeting in Libreville (Gabon), Ms Bonino, should be emphasised in positive terms. Supported by the representatives of the ACP countries, the resolution called unanimously on the authorities to take the necessary steps to end this practice, adopting all appropriate legislative, administrative and judicial measures and launching cultural awareness and information campaigns. The meeting thus branded the practice as a human rights violation. This is a great improvement on the earlier taboos surrounding this issue, and we must pay tribute to it. However, the battle to protect the physical and mental integrity of women in the ACP countries and elsewhere is still not won. Our solidarity and support are still needed.

Political group: PSE
We welcome the fact that this is going to be a great spur to innovation and development and the competitiveness of European industry in the future if it does get through the IGC and onto the statute book. Following up Mrs Fraisse's question and your response to that, the borderline must be established as to what is acceptable for patenting and what is not. In the biotechnology area there is still this grey area. You purported to have reached an absolute decision on this. Is there any room for manoeuvre or is that the absolutely determined and settled position of the Commission as you said in your earlier answer?

Political group: PPE-DE