GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the speeches that we have heard from our Convention representatives stand in stark contrast with what our own citizens are being told by our national leaders in relation to what is contained within the Convention document. In the United Kingdom, the UK Government representative, Peter Hain, has dismissed the document as a mere tidying-up exercise, and although the UK Government is wont to correct Mr Hain from time to time, on this occasion our Prime Minister has promoted him to Leader of the House of Commons, so we might imagine that he approves of that statement. But we do not have to rely upon Mr Hain’s statement of some weeks ago: in the last 24 hours the British Foreign Secretary has given his judgment upon this Convention document. He has told people in the UK that there are no significant constitutional changes, that there is no significant change in the relationship between the EU and Member States, that the IGC will not be concluded until next year and that the UK will have a veto in relation to each and every decision. The document, he says, is a draft, and like any draft it is open to improvement and amendment. But now we are engaged in the hard bargaining, the last-minute agreements reached by democratically elected Heads of State, and the Treaty must ultimately have the unanimous support of all Member States. I shall just refer to a few areas: on foreign and defence policy, he says that a guarantee has been won, and that even if such proposals are put forward in relation to common and defence policies, ‘we will oppose them and we will have a veto’. On the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Foreign Secretary said in the last 24 hours that ‘the net effect of our proposals will ensure that the Charter of Fundamental Rights will not in any way extend the Union’s competence or powers’. Finally, in relation to economic matters he says ‘we do not support the existing text of Article 13, we do not support tax harmonisation, we have a unanimity lock on these proposals through the use of a veto.’ That is the message that people are getting in the United Kingdom. It is not surprising in the context of this contrast that 88% of people in the United Kingdom in a massive recent poll indicated that they wanted to have a say in a referendum on these proposals. I am delighted to see that Mr Watson, somewhat late in the day, has started reading the Daily Mail and has now concluded that is a call that he personally should support as well. I look forward to seeing his press release, although I am bound to say I do not think his remarks today about qualified majority voting on foreign policy, and national parliaments having no say in relation to ratification, will be any part of what appears in the UK. (Applause from the right)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, I too will take up your suggestion that this issue should be discussed without taboos. I do not believe that there is actually anybody in this House who is opposed to a cohesion policy. The question we must ask ourselves is whether a cohesion policy would not be better conducted without a Cohesion Fund. There are two problems, the first being that, if the accessions were to take place, then, logically, all the acceding States, being the poorest countries and States, would have to join the Cohesion Fund. You cannot say that there is a regional policy for all, a Cohesion Fund for four countries and all the rest can fit in somewhere else! No, so if the Cohesion Fund were to be maintained, it would have to apply to all the acceding countries. It is my personal view, however, that cohesion policy can be carried on better through the medium of general regional and structural policy and without a Cohesion Fund, as the Cohesion Fund seems to me to suffer from the drawback that it turns its attention to States rather than to regions. It is not the States that we want to support, however, but disadvantaged regions. It is for this reason, Commissioner, that I believe this issue should again be considered very carefully. I believe, secondly, that we too should, as you have always said, distinguish between substantial reforms and the question of how much money we want to end up spending on them. We must, in my view, come to a quick decision about the substance, as the acceding States have a right to be told before 2002/2003 what the cohesion policy situation is going to be if they are Members by then. Commissioner, I am not sure that I understood you right: I find your model good in itself. You are saying that there are standard criteria for all regions – one or two, shall we say – then there is phasing out for the regions that used to be supported but no longer can be because of the new criteria or simply because there is no more money. The question now arises: by what criteria should support actually be given in future? I myself would be prepared to talk in terms of one or two, or even three, criteria. I have, though, the slight suspicion – which you hinted at earlier – that there will subsequently be ten. So one takes a look to see what criterion fits the region. Oh look, there are a few mountains, so this is a mountain region. And this place has island status, so we shall call it an island region! I think it better to take any old percentage – GDP plus, perhaps, the unemployment situation, for example. If one takes that a step further and says that the balance of the sexes or the standard of education of men and women are to be counted as general criteria, then – if I may say so – things get a bit jumbled. So please let us carry on our discussions, as you said you would. We are on your side and look forward to continuing the debate with you.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive amending Council Directive 95/21/EC deals with the selection of ships for inspection and items for inspection. Amending the directive in terms of greater stringency in its application and the harmonisation of legislation, especially regarding the selection of ships for inspection and the scope of the different types of selection is clearly a positive step. Even then, the European Union would need to ensure that current legislation is enforced by the Member States. The fact is that Belgium, Denmark, Portugal, France, Ireland and the Netherlands, which are obliged to inspect 25% of ships, do not do so. Worse still, the existing directives, even though they date from 1995, have still not been transposed into national legislation in Italy and Portugal. In order for Member States to enforce existing legislation, they must allocate sufficient resources to inspections so as to ensure the proper application of international conventions and the directive amended by the European Parliament. In concrete terms, this means employing additional inspectors, broadening the competences and the scope of inspection, notably concerning respect for social standards and for shipboard living and working conditions, and their publication. Since human error is the root cause of 70% of accidents, the inspection of crews, their living and working conditions, their level of training and their numbers must be an integral part of a ship’s inspection. Non-compliance with these standards must be a reason to detain a ship and to impose sanctions. Furthermore, the Commission proposals still do not go far enough: they, in fact, concern no more than twenty or so ships. The positions adopted by the French Presidency, which we have heard elsewhere, which would water down the Commission proposals even further, such as amending the proportion of ships targeted with the aim of reducing inspections by half, are naturally unacceptable. I am in complete agreement with the rapporteur about refusing port access to ships posing a serious risk, irrespective of age, and those that have been flying a flag of convenience for more than three years. We must also go further and ban them from sailing in Community waters. To this end, we must strengthen international maritime law. Moreover, it seems to me that we need to be more restrictive concerning flags of convenience, especially those of Member States, as well as those, Minister, of the islands of Kerguelen, Wallis and Fortuna in the case of France. I will support this report and the Commission’s amendments, but I call on the Members of Parliament to also support the amendments of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy on social standards.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I voted in favour of the resolution on the state of the European economy proposed by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs in a report preparatory to the Commission recommendation on the broad economic policy guidelines. The resolution contains a number of sensible statements that I would like to underscore here too, especially because they are not always written so clearly. It is quite amazing that Members of all groups are saying that the present demographic trends make suitable reforms necessary to guarantee the benefits of social security systems in an efficient and safe way and that incentives must be provided for older workers to opt to extend their working lives. I would also like to stress how welcome it is that this Parliament takes the view that the economic and monetary policy not only of the European Union but also of the Member States should be guided by the principles of the social market economy, the main elements of that economic system being named as freedom and democracy, competition, price stability, sustainable growth, subsidiarity, solidarity and private property. I also find it good, given the worrying inflationary trends in many Member States, to reiterate that all necessary steps must be taken so that the inflation rate can be kept below 2% in the second half of 2001. I am particularly pleased that my motion that the liberalisation of the telecommunications, post, energy and railways sector must not be hasty but balanced was accepted. The explicit call for a more flexible labour market, a labour market that must have the necessary human capital with the best possible education and training to satisfy the demands of the international knowledge economy, which presupposes consistent investment in the fields of education and new technologies, is particularly important if we are to achieve the ambitious objective of becoming the locomotive of the world economy in this decade like the American economy was in the 1990s. I wanted to express my satisfaction with this, and I hope that not only the Commission but also the governments of our Member States will follow this sound advice. - Fava Report (A5-0060/2001)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the fact that we can complete this part-session with a debate on three important consumer matters is not only symbolic; it also provides us with the opportunity of re-emphasising our genuine desire to reinforce the human character of the internal market, and it also affords us the opportunity of clarifying that the internal market is also there for the consumer and that we want to, and must, boost consumer confidence. As far as the framework directive is concerned, our group’s guiding principle is that a high level of consumer protection is a prerequisite for the actual application of the principle of mutual recognition. We accept the restriction of the scope in respect of the industry-consumer relation. However, in order to clarify the connection between this framework directive and the competition-related aspects to everyone, we would still like to table amendments. To our group, the average consumer remains the point of reference. We accept that further amendments will be tabled, but these amendments may not go so far as to fundamentally depart from the option. In addition, we remain adamant that it should explicitly be stated that the black lists of aggressive and misleading trade practices are exhaustive in character and that the directive’s harmonisation objective may not be undermined. If the black lists are amended, we believe this should be done by way of the codecision procedure. We also remain convinced that a double legal basis for the framework directive is not justified, not necessary and surplus to requirements. We will therefore follow the legal recommendation of our Legal Service and endorse the reasons that we have previously clarified in the various committees. During this part-session, as in past ones, we have enacted much fine legislation on consumer protection, and it has only been thanks to Commission proposals that we have been able to do this. I would therefore echo everyone who wants to thank the Commissioner today for the proposal we have received, for without the Commission proposals we would not have been able to do the work. It is, of course, the case that, no matter how many fine laws we enact, legislation depends entirely on their effective implementation and enforcement. That is why I am a great fan of the Commission proposal to develop a network of administrative bodies that are responsible for the application of all those fine consumer directives. I very much welcome this Commission proposal. I hope that the Members of this House will reconsider the amendments, because I know that there are people in our group who would very much regret it if we were to end up with a regulation that is all too bureaucratic and involving a great deal of red tape. We would regard that as indefensible. We should therefore ensure that we get a maximum number of votes to approve the proposal for a network. We should ask the Council to reconsider the matter. After all, it should not always be the case that we adapt to the Council’s position. We agree on a great many points. We should, for once, ask the Council to adapt to Parliament and respect democracy.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Chile is a republic which has modified its pension system with measured, appropriate and positive steps concerning workers saving for their pensions through pension funds. Despite the whole world’s incredulity at the Republic of Chile’s initiative, the outcome is positive: the finances of the Chilean pension system have been put in order, to such an extent that I propose that the European States should also study this system closely and consider whether it is appropriate to follow its example.

Political group: PPE-DE
I voted against the second part of paragraph 23 of the joint motion for a resolution on preparation for the European Council in Gothenburg for the following reasons: First, because there is no official Commission proposal on the gradual abolition of tobacco subsidies, merely a reference by the President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, to the debate on sustainable development. The wording of paragraph 23 is therefore incorrect. Secondly, because abolishing tobacco subsidies in order to combat smoking is a hypocritical approach. It is hypocritical because any such measures in a European Union with a tobacco deficit will achieve two objectives: first, they will punish tobacco farmers in southern Europe and, secondly, they will strengthen tobacco farmers in other, third countries, from which tobacco will be imported to make up the resultant tobacco shortage, which in turn will affect the balance of trade of the European Union. Thirdly, because there are areas in Europe, such as the prefecture of Xanthi in northern Greece, where the rare Basma variety of tobacco has been the only crop cultivated for several generations and where it is the sole means of support for over 20,000 farmers who work in small, remote, mountain plots measuring between 30 and 300 square metres, where nothing else will grow, and who will be plunged into total poverty if the ideas being promoted are put into practice.

Political group: PPE-DE
Chairman of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. – Mr President, this first vote on our order paper today relates to the request from the Commission for urgent procedure on the measure you have outlined. In exceptional circumstances, following the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, the Committee on Citizens' Freedom and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs met this morning and approved, without report, the proposal submitted to us. I understand that we will also receive, following this morning's Coreper meeting, a request from the Council for urgency, to add to that from the Commission. It is the recommendation of the committee, which I have the honour to chair, that we accept that amendment. If that is approved by the House, I hope you will confirm that would give the political groups until 6 p.m. this evening to submit amendments to this proposed measure.

Political group: ELDR
Kosovo showed us four things above all else. Firstly, that the European Union is capable of maintaining a common front during a crisis. Secondly, the excellent work of President Artisari shows that the EU can take decisive diplomatic action. Thirdly, it also shows us that NATO works well, and indeed works best, when the United States is focused and gives clear leadership. But also it shows that when that leadership is absent Europe has to be able to have the capacity to act to preserve the security of its own continent. And, fourthly, it showed us that, despite the fact that we spend 70% of what the Americans spend on defence, we are almost entirely dependent on American equipment because we have something like 10% of their capacity. And part of that reason of course is that much of our military is based on the cold war principles of static defence and not the modern principles of rapid reaction. Unless we address that question then the whole issue of a Common Foreign and Security Policy and a European defence identity is no more than a day-dream. So, I welcome what has been said today, but I do have some questions and, unusually for these sorts of debates, I would actually like some answers. Does Mr Solana agree with me that what we need primarily is a European defence review to assess our capacities? Does he agree with me that conscription is incompatible with a modern mobile force? Does he agree with me that we need to have a Council of Defence Ministers if we are to address these questions? And does he agree with me that we need to have convergence of defence expenditure by Member States? He also addressed the question of non-EU NATO members. Is he saying, as I think he is, that Turkey is vital to the success of the European defence initiative and we should take that into account? And to Mr Patten may I say I welcome what he said about armaments but will the Commission be following up its previous communications with decisive action in this field and does he agree with me that the Meteor Missile project is crucial to the future of a European defence industry?

Political group: PSE
Madam President, the persecution on racist grounds of people in eastern Germany by their fellow human beings is becoming an increasingly serious issue. It is an old and yet highly topical matter. I mention this for Mr Sakellariou's sake, because just this weekend in Neissen people were once again persecuted simply because they speak a different language and because their skin is a different colour. We must not allow this in Europe, and it is necessary, as a matter of urgency, for the European Parliament to support the forces of reason – which are growing weaker – in their efforts in eastern Germany to combat these racist tendencies and take action against neo-Nazis who want to create no-go areas for foreigners. That is the background to this motion; the idea is that we state clearly that Europe has a vocation to be a multicultural Europe and that Europe supports all democratic forces battling against racism and neo-Nazism. It is with this in mind that I ask you to support our request. (Parliament rejected the request from the Group of the President. – We shall now move on to the second request, which is from the Group of the , that we replace the sub-item on “Hooliganism” with another sub-item entitled: “Incidents at the Rotterdam football stadium”.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I will not focus on the content or technical aspects of the communication. They have already been amply discussed and, although there is still much that could be said about them, the rapporteur has dealt with everything in her excellent overview. Instead, I will focus on the chief reservation expressed by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy in its opinion. It is clearly so important to reduce the number of road accident victims that the question of which instrument would be best to achieve it – a voluntary agreement or a legislative measure – is secondary. In any case, we are not opposed to voluntary agreements in principle. However, they can only be usefully allowed within an agreed legal framework that gives Parliament the right to participate, particularly where the objectives to be set, the results to be achieved and monitoring are concerned. We only hope that this condition, which remains binding in environmental matters, will, at last, be fulfilled by the ‘Better regulation’ initiatives launched by the Commission in recent days.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, for as long as mankind has been here on earth, he has been polluting. The more people there are, the more sophisticated they become, the worse that pollution potentially gets. Some damage, given human nature and the fallen world we live in, is inevitable. Self-evidently, prevention is the first priority and in any event, pollution should be kept to a minimum. But where it does occur, those responsible should make amends. What we must recognise, however, is that much of what creates a threat to our environment may not only be helping mankind in other ways but may actually be helping the environment itself. This legislation is a piece of civil, not criminal, law. It is not about punishing wrongdoers but apportioning and allocating responsibility for environmental damage. Punishment should be meted out by criminal sanctions not civil liability. There are others who see this as a skirmish in some kind of Manichean struggle between the public sector, which is good, and the private sector, which is bad. Such 20th-century class warfare has no place today. The two are complementary. They are interdependent and responsibility for the consequences of pollution should be shared and allocated between them. The private sector cannot and should not walk away from the consequences of its actions, and the public sector, and indeed society and the public at large cannot wash their hands and privatise the responsibilities incurred in regulating the private sector while enjoying the benefits which accrue from their actions. Further, since pollution is a practical problem, remedial actions must be practical too. Fantasy solutions are as detrimental as pollution itself. It is for these reasons that the British Conservatives support the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market's amendments to the draft directive. They are not perfect and we expect to see improvements in second reading as the Council further refines European thinking on this important topic. But they represent a further responsible step on the journey of dealing with the consequences of pollution across Europe and the wider world.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should just like to ask you to convey our thanks to the President of Parliament for receiving the representative of a government elected under the supervision of the OSCE who is also established in the area of the Council of Europe and who was elected under the Russian constitution.

Political group: PPE-DE