GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, first of all I must apologise for my absence from the committee when my amendments to the Esclopé report were discussed. I was involved in the British general election and also in the mayor-making of my wife, which is why I was unable to be here. I will confine my remarks to the Esclopé report. This is an issue of great concern, provoked by the Erika and aggravated by the Ivoli Sun disaster off the Channel Islands. As one personally associated in 1969 with the effects of the Torrey Canyon disaster on the beaches and livelihoods of south-west England, I have understood and shared that concern for many years. The proposals from the Commission were all right as far as they went, but there are a number of deficiencies. The first is the potentially detrimental effects on existing international funds, the CLC, i.e. the Convention on Civil Liability, and the IOPC, the International Oil-Pollution Compensation Fund. Secondly, no attention was given to the bunker-fuel oil spills or the pollution caused by hazardous and noxious substances. There are two conventions on these subjects: the Bunker Oil Convention 2001, and the Hazardous and Noxious Substances Convention of 1996. Both of these are unlikely to be ratified in the foreseeable future. That is why they need to be addressed in this report. Thirdly, there is in equity in terms of the responsibility for meeting the costs. I have some reservations about Amendment No 22 and the implications for oil companies of pollution caused by chemicals or noxious substances. That is something that we can address at second reading. But in essence what we have tried to do is to rectify that inequity. Mr Esclopé sought to amend the report to take account of local public concerns and also to limit what is, I believe, the Commission's unnecessary involvement in the day-to-day running of the COPE Fund. His suggestion of a tri-partite committee is well-meaning, but inadequate. We need to address the too heavy and bureaucratic involvement of the Commission and we should accept the tried and trusted international arrangements used by the CLC and IOPC funds. Finally, there is local consultation, which is needed, but should not be mandatory and it should not be a vehicle for delay. This has the potential to be a far-reaching and radical piece of European legislation and in consultation with other non-EU states it can go a long way towards resolving the problems of maritime pollution caused by oil and hazardous or noxious substances. We should be proud of this achievement and support it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the President-in-Office of Council said that the European Union will not fail to give a welcome to legal migrants. This looks hypocritical since the Council agreed a very restrictive text on family reunion rights. Indeed it is so mean, that the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market advises that the European Parliament should seek the annulment of this text in the European Court on grounds of a breach of the family rights provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. I welcome that. The Council has been left in no doubt as to the strength of feeling in this House about the internment without due process of Guantanamo Bay prisoners. As co-rapporteur on this topic, I am helping to prepare a submission from this Parliament to the Supreme Court, but only the Council can make representations on behalf of the EU as a whole. It has already signed a legal cooperation agreement with the US, so the Americans cannot dispute the Council's legal status. It would be outrageous if governments such as the UK Government doing bilateral deals frustrated a Council initiative. Even if we get Europeans back from Guantanamo Bay, we must speak up for the rest of the 650 detainees. As we are showing on steel tariffs, if the EU punches its weight, the US takes notice.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, eight years after the Oslo accords and 15 months after the start of the second Intifada, the situation in the Middle East in December 2001 is disastrous. Mr Sharon has not been able to keep his electoral promises regarding improving the security of Israel and its population. The leader of the Palestinian Authority is weakened, surrounded and besieged in territories which are autonomous in name only. The Palestinian civilians are more subjugated than ever before and do not have any future prospects. The international community wants peace. It is now working towards an intermediary objective, but this is unattainable. The objective is the plan named after the American Senator Mr Mitchell. The Mitchell Plan is well intentioned in that its primary aim is to put an end to the killing. It is however misconceived. Every mini-agreement is reached on such a restricted basis that they remain at the mercy of the next suicide attack and then have to be re-established all over again. Even supposing that the preconditions required by Mr Sharon are satisfied, and even supposing that the Mitchell Plan is implemented in full and with great difficulty, this will in no way address the fundamental causes of the conflict. Nor will the deep-seated personal hatred of Mr Sharon for Mr Arafat disappear as if by magic. The fundamental causes of the conflict are to be found in the continuing occupation of the Palestinian and Syrian territories seized by Israel during the 1967 war. According to the winner of the Sakharov prize, Mrs Peled-Elhanan, who spoke to us this morning, this occupation is cruel. Only when the army of occupation has withdrawn from all of these territories, including East Jerusalem, as the United Nations’ resolutions demand, will the conditions for a stable and lasting peace be created. This is why the European Union should speak out in support of an immediate and definitive agreement to establish secure and internationally recognised borders. These would be protected if necessary by an international force for an interim period. With the support of the European Union, all the countries of the region would then be able to embark upon the reconciliation and reconstruction process from new foundations. Israel should withdraw to its 1967 international borders, and the Arab world must give its formal and binding recognition of these. This is the overall objective that the Council should pursue determinedly on the world stage. If we act in this way on the issue of Middle East, we will fulfil the role everyone wants us to take on. What is required today is not an equidistant role but a fair role. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio is quite right to express her satisfaction with the work that was carried out on a very sensitive road safety issue. As a group, we must congratulate Mr Rack, who carried out a very difficult task. Let us not forget that the text that will emerge from this House today is a text that strongly reflects the contribution made by the European Parliament and its amendments. The first Commission version, as Commissioner de Palacio said, was somewhat too regulatory and prescriptive and it would have been difficult to enforce. I feel that we should be delighted to stress, on the one hand, the excellent work by the rapporteur and, on the other hand, this good example of Community legislation. When they want to, the three institutions are capable of working together and working well. I feel that this is an extremely important message, for our European citizens too, since the issue of road safety, as the Commissioner recalled, is something that we have long been concerned with in this parliamentary term. I am disappointed, Commissioner, that we did not succeed in finishing off the proposal on driving licences but unfortunately there was not enough time for us to do so. I am also disappointed that in the next parliamentary term we will not, I am sorry to say, have your tenacity and constancy to wrap up the issues that remain open. Nonetheless, I am convinced that you will, in any case, contribute in other roles. That being said, we still have to take a further step on this issue. A large part of the costs of this provision will fall on some countries of the Union in particular – at least 50% of these tunnels are in my country – and I believe that it would be useful, in the next parliamentary term, to find means to financially support this endeavour, which should not be left solely to individual Member States but must involve all the European institutions.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I seem to recall from my study of European history, that the 1809 Convention of Sintra was a controversial peace agreement which probably lengthened rather than shortened the Napoleonic wars and nearly cost the Duke of Wellington his job. I hope this is not an omen for this Sintra Agreement. That said, I would like to congratulate the high representative on the progress that has been made so far. But it has to be admitted that much of what he said is the progress in institutional matters, and the real test of the European defence identity will be in its ability to produce capability and capacity, rather than nicely formulated institutions. And, to that end, I am not clear as to the extent to which we have progressed on developing heavy lift capacity to be able to get these 60 000 troops into operation, or what progress we have made on autonomous intelligence capacity, particularly given the American statements that they are not giving intelligence to Europeans until they can deal with security. We have all heard some of the tales emanating from the Council of Ministers building in Brussels. To what extent are we going to get some form of convergence on defence expenditure, because some Member States spend considerably more than others. And indeed, some Member States are not geared for mobility. They are very static in their military forces, and unsuitable for this sort of warfare. Can I perhaps also turn to Mr Patten as well and ask, in terms of the conflict prevention work we are going to be doing, to what extent will it be possible for us to look at long-term conflict-causing situations such as environmental degradation and shortage of water and then incorporate them into mainstream EU policies, particularly in development, because there is no point trying to rapidly respond to something we have had years to put right. And finally, can I also endorse Mrs Schroedter’s comments that we do need to have a Parliamentary dimension in this defence development. We cannot leave it simply to governments.

Political group: PSE
I would like to congratulate Giorgio Napolitano on his excellent and timely report on the role of regional and local authorities in the building of Europe, which I support. I particularly support the need for the Union to find new ways for regional and local authorities to participate in Community activities without neglecting the important role of the Committee of the Regions. I also very much support the need to ensure that regional and local authorities are involved when Community policies and legislative acts are being conceived and drawn up, as it is most often those authorities that are responsible for implementing such policies and acts. Nevertheless, I believe that these links should be established at the level of individual Member States. I very much support Mr Napolitano's desire for consolidation of Article 299(2) of the EC Treaty, which concerns the outermost regions. It is certainly necessary to take steps so as to allow us to take full advantage of the scope for action provided for in the current provisions governing the outermost regions, thus making it possible to put into practice a genuine Community policy for the outermost regions, a policy genuinely committed to overcoming the limitations imposed by their location.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we are not today invoking an abstract principal but are intervening on behalf of a young Italo-American, Derek Rocco Barnabei, 33 years of age, who has been living on death row in a prison in Virginia for six years, with the daily nightmare that he may die for a crime that, in all likelihood, he did not commit. How many others are in the same position? How many others, like him, do not have the necessary funds to pay for lawyers or the expensive analyses which could, perhaps, completely exonerate them? It is our duty to continue protesting about the death sentence, and as the Pope did last Sunday, to continue to clearly call for the moratorium proposed by Italy to at least be applied to the member nations of the UN. We are keeping the hope alive that the third millennium will start with this proposal being accepted. In the meantime, we are continuing to do practical work, by backing initiatives such as the one in Tuscany which aims to raise funds to allow Rocco Barnabei to carry out DNA tests to prove his innocence, and inviting you, President, to use all the means at your disposal to ensure that the message of Parliament and the European institutions gets through to the American authorities. Right of women to vote in Kuwait:

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I should like to explain on behalf of my group that we too have nothing against this oral amendment and I should like to support Mrs Schierhuber again here. The Council of Agricultural Ministers is waiting for our decision and a postponement would not be a good idea. (Parliament rejected the proposal to postpone the vote) - Following the vote on legislative proposal No 1 and adoption of the Commission proposal as amended

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Irish Presidency faces a number of challenges. I shall highlight three, beginning with the negotiations of the financial perspective for the post-2006 period and proposals for the future of cohesion policy. The context in which these are to be tabled does not bode well for much-needed economic and social cohesion in the EU. Straightaway, we find ourselves, unacceptably, blackmailed by the so-called ‘Gang of Six’, which aims to limit the Community budget to 1% of the Community’s gross national product, following the lack of agreement at the Brussels Summit on the new Draft Constitutional Treaty. Given that the debate within the Commission currently fluctuates between maintaining the current limit of the financial perspective, 1.24% of Gross National Product, and reducing it to 1.15% – despite the accession of countries with revenues of less than 50% of the Community average, and despite the increase in social inequality and of national and regional disparities in the EU. There is a danger that the new financial perspective will undermine what ought to be urgent priorities, such as jobs with rights, the fight against poverty and social exclusion, and cooperation and development with developing countries. The fundamental issue is, therefore, to increase the financial perspective. The second challenge I wish to highlight is the much-needed review of the Stability Pact, which has been shown to be out of step with economic and social reality. We all know that it is an instrument for which the criteria are stupid, which penalises economic growth, jobs and public investment, and which ought to be scrapped. Simply making it flexible will not solve the problem. Debate is ongoing regarding the evaluation of current economic and monetary policies, especially the introduction of the single currency and the over-valuation of the euro, while the current economic climate amply illustrates the structural shortcomings of the policy that has been pursued and the need for a root and branch review. It is also essential that we amend what is known as the Lisbon Strategy, in order to achieve high-quality public services and to foster effective social inclusion. Finally, with regard to the Intergovernmental Conference for revising the Treaties, my suggestion is that you ignore the current draft.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I welcome my Socialist colleague, Willi Rothley's recommendation on protecting motorists abroad. We are sadly all too familiar with the high figures of road accidents across Europe. As many as 500 000 drivers in the European Union are victims of road accidents abroad every year. This is 500 000 too many. We must put safety first and ensure that as much as possible is done to protect our citizens whilst travelling abroad. The proposal extends current EU directives on the handling of motor insurance claims to cover cases where a person visiting another Member State is the victim of an accident caused by a resident of that country. Every insurance company will, therefore, need to appoint a representative in each Member State. The European Parliament has gone even further, calling for cover for accidents which take place in non-EU countries, provided that the vehicles involved are registered in the EU. Under the compromise, the directive will apply to such accidents in a certain number of countries outside the European Union. Thousands of British holidaymakers travel by car or hire cars every year in France, Spain, Portugal and many other countries in Europe. Surely we owe all of our citizens the right to ensure that things are made as easy as possible for those involved in car accidents abroad and for their families. This is not about high-and-mighty insurance companies hindering claims, it is about the European Parliament driving forward a lifeline for our citizens. For my own constituents and for all of Europe's citizens, I give the green light to this proposal. - Martínez Martínez report (A5–0114/2000)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr Kronberger's report receives unqualified support from the Group of the . Limit values are needed, for example for arsenic. This is a real problem in my country. The town of Coevorden near the German border has made the decision to incinerate virtually all the old railway sleepers in Europe, thus releasing the arsenic from them into the ambient air. That is completely wrong and that is why we need strict limit values. If these cannot be put in place straight away because the political majority is not in favour, that is extremely regrettable, but these heavy metals are carcinogenic and their use has to be curbed. If that is to be done via target values as a short-term measure, then that receives my reluctant agreement. However, in the longer term, limit values definitely have to be introduced on the basis of one extra cancer case in one million cases. We adopted exactly the same guiding principle for the drinking water directive, which was accepted by the Commission, the body that had proposed the principle, the Council and Parliament. Why do we not do the same in the case of arsenic, cadmium, mercury and nickel? That would be the way forward towards a possible compromise.

Political group: Verts-ALE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Budgetary Control. – Mr President, I would like to thank the Budget Committee and Mr Bourlanges for their work. I am grateful to the commitment that they have shown in the fight against fraud in the European Union and, in particular, with the extra commitment they have made – an extra EUR 9 million has been voted by the Budget Committee for OLAF. This will allow for the creation of an extra 50 to 75 new posts in the year 2000 on top of the 30 new posts voted for in the supplementary and amending budgets. I should remind you that OLAF needs 300 posts to carry out its duties. This was endorsed by the report of the Committee of Independent Experts. Let us not forget that there are raised expectations in terms of the public’s attitude towards reform of the European institutions. It is essential that OLAF is given the appropriate resources. I should like to remind the Commission that we will not allow OLAF’s independence to be compromised by budgetary gains – a little note there for the future. I am disappointed that the Council Presidency has not referred to this. Are you committed to the extra 75 posts or not? I would be grateful for some kind of feedback on that. You need to show the same commitment to fighting fraud as we are within the European Parliament. Another issue for the Budgetary Control Committee is the use of technical assistance agencies. In its budget guidelines for the year 2000, Parliament called for the phasing out of the agencies. And for the Commission to provide it with an assessment of its staffing needs. That has not been done. The Budget Committee has entered expenditure on logistical support and technical assistance in a separate section, with 90% of those appropriations in reserve. The Budgetary Control Committee would support this approach. It is absolutely right that those appropriations should not be released until the Commission has defined those categories of tasks that need to be outsourced. We look forward to receiving that information from the Commission. On another matter, in 1999 there have been large under-spends in the Community initiatives, the cohesion fund and many other areas. In some cases this is the second or third consecutive year when there has been a large transfer away from particular lines. This demonstrates the need for Parliament to monitor budget implementation more closely throughout the year. The subject committees must take more responsibility for monitoring the budget lines within those areas. If we do that then we can feed that into the budgetary process and make sure that we are more on track during the course of the year.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am speaking today on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to submit my opinion on the issue of comitology. In so doing – and this was of course mentioned at the end of the previous intervention – I am focusing in particular on the Lamfalussy process and the Lamfalussy procedures for legislation creating the internal market in financial services. Like the Lamfalussy Group, our aim is to produce legislation in this sector that is close to the market and practicable; that is what all of us want and are working for. However, we must of course take a close look at what form the procedures may take in the future. Precisely in our role as Parliament we need to ask ourselves whether the future procedures also have sufficient democratic legitimacy, because of course we are also getting increasing numbers of so-called soft laws, that is legislation at international level. I only need to mention Basel II or the International Accounting Standards, which will soon become law in Europe once the necessary steps have been taken by the European Commission and after adoption in the Council and Parliament. If in the future all of this were to happen in a comitology procedure, with a framework directive only giving general instructions, we would have a basic problem of legitimacy, and Parliament reserves the right to have a say on these very important issues in the future. For this reason I can only support the rapporteur, Mr Corbett. It is vital for us in the European Parliament to retain our influence at European level. This does not mean that we also wish to discuss the technical details in the plenary or in committee. That is not our point. But if we feel that provisions are heading in the wrong direction it is vital that we be able to say so, and for this to happen it is essential that the constitution being drafted by the Convention give us a right to call back in the future, which means that if we are not happy with something we can recall it, change its focus and correct it. That is why it is essential for the Commission and the Convention to support us here so that we can have the relevant provisions added.

Political group: PPE-DE