GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, as a British MEP I would like to say that on this occasion it is unfair to blame the French for the delay in implementing the Erika I package. The Council as a whole must share responsibility for the lack of progress. Sadly it is not just the Erika, but the 1 000 ships that have sunk over the past ten years that really highlight the desperate need to make progress in the areas we are discussing this afternoon. Many lives have been lost, thousands of kilometres of our coastline have been damaged, perhaps for ever. That is why I, as spokesperson this afternoon, speak in support of the Commission's proposal and the Sterckx report on the need to establish a monitoring system for maritime traffic. I thank the rapporteur for all the work he has done, but I should like to focus on one item on which I cannot fully share his views, namely Amendment No 11 to Article 8. Maybe the rapporteur could explain the amendment later on, but I fear that it seeks to water down the commitment contained in the Commission's proposal to ensure that high-quality voyage data recorders – black boxes – are fitted in all ships, old and new, by 2007. In my view, and in that of many in the maritime sector, the reluctance to accept the value of voyage data recorders and take positive measures to fit them in merchant vessels is a factor which makes safety in the maritime sector less satisfactory. According to marine accident investigators, a voyage data recorder not only records what happens, but also removes arguments and ensures that appropriate corrective measures can be taken. It is, in their view, one of the most valuable tools available today in preventing accidents from happening, not just in learning from mistakes. Electronic systems have highlighted the limitations of human ability to recall events accurately. They have on occasion shown eye-witness accounts to be totally unreliable. We desperately need these particular black boxes to be fitted sooner rather than later. To put it simply, a ship fitted with a black box is a safer ship. First, lessons can be learnt and they can be learnt accurately. But secondly, there will be a significant change in the safety culture of a ship as a whole. Therefore the VDR is, if anything, a preventive tool. We would therefore support the Commission's proposal. The IMO route is perhaps a better one, but we are not prepared for a study that may be published in 2004 – who knows? We want action and we want it now.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a treaty expires, but the foundations remain, for the foundation, the ECSC Treaty, has long been part of the structure of the European Union. We still, too, have the day of commemoration of 9 May 1950, that day when Robert Schumann presented the brilliant plan of Jean Monnet from the South of France and thereby laid the foundations of what we today call the European work for peace. The ECSC Treaty has two successors: the subject of our speeches today and, as regards future coal mining, the aid issues with which we will deal later on. I would like to make four brief remarks about the two reports before us. First, the procedure proposed here is distinguished by pre-democratic conceptions. This was tolerable in 1952, but it is of course no longer acceptable to let the Council alone decide when, in the meantime, the Union's citizens have elected us to be their fifth democratic Parliament. We must be clear about that. Second, it is right to use the annual revenue of EUR 45 million to support coal and steel research. One could say in legal terms that it is an anticipated form of reinforced co-operation among a few. It is of course just as right to consider how the committee recommends, on the basis of Mr Linkohr's presentation, to progressively make the fund into a foundation, because then the problem of new members will be easier to solve than if they had to have a share in the old members' contributions. Third, the Commission has done the right thing in subordinating the Research Fund to fundamental rights, for the Charter of Fundamental Rights recapitulates the laws in force. That means that everything that is to be organised at a European level must be measured against the yardstick of fundamental rights and is bound by them. I find it objectionable that the Council, in its deliberations, struck out these three proposals by the Commission and wants to remove the text's reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. That constitutes an incredible legal scandal, which we must denounce, and for that reason I call it by its name. So I come to my fourth point, and am particularly curious to know how you, Commissioner, will respond to it. Your Commission originally rested on a different legal foundation. You now refer to the protocol to the Treaty of Nice, and that is pretty breathtaking, as the Treaty of Nice is not expected to enter into force before 23 July 2002. On that day, however, the ECSC Treaty ceases to have effect, and we can hardly allow a lawless state of affairs. So I would very much like a reply from you as to how you intend to proceed and as to what you intend to propose, so that there will be no state of lawlessness from midnight on 23 July 2002, for then the gripping question would arise of to whom this money, which would then no longer have an owner in law, actually belonged.

Political group: PPE-DE
Thank you very much, Mr President. I would like to begin by pointing out that the Group is in favour of the two reports, by Mr Wuori and by Mr Cornillet. They are both very good reports. I witnessed a visit which Mr Cornillet made to Spain in relation to the situation of the immigrants, exactly a year after the incidents in El Ejido and I can testify to his concern. And Mr Wuori has distinguished himself by producing a very complete report which we have all participated in and which I believe is a source of pride for the Committee on External Relations. Furthermore, I am grateful for the speeches by the two Commissioners, Mr Patten and Mr Vitorino, as well as the President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Michel, because they support the idea of Europe becoming the obligatory reference point for guaranteeing human rights in the world. It is important to highlight this issue because, so far, it appears that only the United States represents this guarantee when in fact I think the opposite is happening. Europe’s cultural, historical and social heritage, the four generations of human rights which, since the French Revolution, have been building up within European history, and also the success we have had with European integration are a guarantee of the unique privileged role which the European Union can play in the rest of the world. Nevertheless, this should not stop us believing that we have an historic shared responsibility with regard to the tragic situation of human rights on the three continents. Because it is precisely our presence on those continents which is one of the causes of these peoples’ difficulties in having their human rights respected. I think it would be worth establishing European Union human rights observatories in each of the three continents, which would maintain relations with the NGOs and with the instruments of the United Nations, so that the annual reports carried out by Parliament, to the Commission and the Council, may have the effect of improving our interventions. We must not be surprised if sometimes our multinational companies (as I have observed in Colombia or as happens in Africa and Asia) are funding paramilitary groups which directly attack human rights. It is our responsibility to bring these facts to light so that we can make progress in the establishment of human rights. Finally, I would like to point out that, in the European Union, as Mr Cornillet has rightly said, we must offer an example rather than preach and therefore on this occasion we have the opportunity to begin with immigrants as one of the issues which Europe has still to deal with. We cannot say that we need 70 million immigrants in order to make progress with our economy and then discriminate against them. For all these reasons, it is important that we support these reports.

Political group: GUE-NGL
We Swedish Social Democrats decided to abstain in the final vote on this report. We reached this view because we believe that, although the report emphasises the importance of sustainable development in fishing, of environmental issues being integrated into the reform of the common fisheries policy and of the further need to clarify the environmental impact of industrial fishing, it also contains a host of signals and statements which we cannot support. For example, we oppose state subsidies for a fishing fleet which is already too large in relation to fish stocks, despite the fact that there are probably deficiencies in terms of safety on some fishing vessels. Such vessels should be scrapped rather than upgraded to contribute to continued overfishing. The long-term aim of the fishing industry must be sustainable development. Fishing capacity must therefore be cut in order to bring it into balance with existing fish stocks. That is something about which there can be no doubt. Sustainable fishing is not the enemy of the fishing community but its greatest friend. We are also highly sceptical about the statement in the report that no impact analysis to date has been able to prove that further reductions in capacity would benefit the environment, particularly as we currently know very little about the way the various parts of the ecosystems affect each other. Although it is surely the case that greater investment in increased marine research in the future may bring about clearer conclusions in this area, the precautionary principle dictates in any case that a reduction in capacity is a necessary – if insufficient – measure.

Political group: PSE
Mr President-in-Office, on listening to the various interventions, you have understood that in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and also among the leaders of Parliament’s political groups, the decision prevailed – although not without some disagreement – to put our faith in the Portuguese Presidency, instead of creating more difficulties by postponing the start of the Intergovernmental Conference. I can assure you that it was not easy to achieve this, last week in the Committee I chair, but we eventually decided to back the Portuguese Presidency and we would like to win this wager. You spoke to us about the start of your tour around the various capital cities and told us about the difficulties that some governments have in reaching a consensus in their own countries, and therefore in their parliaments. I would like you to bear in mind that yesterday we had a very worthwhile day of discussions and dialogue with the representatives of the 15 national parliaments, which were represented by competent and exacting delegations. The aim was not to draw conclusions – it was impossible to draw any – but the debate was certainly very encouraging. We need to be careful and be sure that national governments try to convince their respective parliaments to ratify solutions that correspond to the Union’s requirements for growth and that they do not hide behind supposed resistance put up by the parliaments to avoid signing appropriate conclusions at the Intergovernmental Conference table. However, we shall intensify our collaboration and our dialogue with the national parliaments for the entire duration of the Intergovernmental Conference. Yesterday, we also discussed the Commission, represented by Commissioner Barnier, who gave its opinion. This effort was appreciated, even if different views were later expressed as regards the proposals, and moreover, Mr President-in-Office, you also expressed different views. Nevertheless, we must stress that many people are aware, as they were yesterday too, of the risk that enlargement could compromise the original plan for the construction of a political Europe, a risk that was, moreover, indicated in an interview that surely escaped no one’s attention, owing to the authority of the person being interviewed – Jacques Delors. We must, therefore, ensure that at the Intergovernmental Conference we discuss how to consolidate the democratic bases of the Union and how to strengthen – and this has been discussed in the House even today, with regard to the situation in Austria – the system of principles, values and rights underpinning the Union and the role of the political institutions of the Union, with regard, among other things, to running the economy. We are counting on the Portuguese Presidency, we are counting on ourselves and we are counting on the Commission so that we can hold constructive and decisive debates on all of this at the Intergovernmental Conference.

Political group: PSE
I abstained from voting in the final vote. The Swedish do not believe that military issues should be accommodated within closer cooperation. At the same time, I believe that the issue of reducing the proportion of Member States able to enter into closer cooperation from a half to a third of the Member States, as well as the question of removing the veto, are really not ready to be discussed until enlargement towards the East has been completed. The new Member States ought at that time to be given the opportunity to participate in drawing up the regulations governing closer cooperation. - Sudre report (A5-0285/2000)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Menéndez del Valle very much as well as all of the members of the committee, who worked together to draft this document, which is, indeed, the product of a European culture, but of a European culture that is, perhaps, the rinascimento and other things, certainly not the one referred to earlier. I have the impression that the sleep of reason, as Francisco de Goya said, produces monsters, and, sometimes, I also feel that these monsters, which are, in actual fact, the result of the dehumanisation of mankind, are among us. I sense in this House the inability to understand the suffering of others, the inability to understand that time is running out and that, whilst we have been discussing what solutions to adopt for months, for years, people are, in fact, still dying in Palestine and Israel. The inhumanity that I sense here is one that does not understand the daily suffering of living under military occupation, the injustice that children suffer. Of course, there is talk of the pain and suffering of Israeli children that are killed by human bombs but, for Heaven’s sake, we must stop this and start seeing things as they are. There are United Nations resolutions that are not enforced. Let us begin to think about these things and experience them, see the people, go to the places and understand. This is why I said that the sleep of reason produces monsters. I fully agree with the report, which is very important and quite clearly stresses its refusal of violence, but stresses just as clearly the right to live in peace, to build. Time is short and I believe that two initiatives are extremely important. Today, we have had Naomi Kazan and Jamal Zakut here; we are going to have Yossi Beilin and Yasser Abed Rabbo here. These are the courageous ones, the people that have the courage to say: let us build, let us work, let us plan; just as all those Israeli voices are courageous – and they are those that we should listen to – like the pilots that refuse to go and bomb. This is something of great importance. There is an extremely serious problem: the wall. Mr Poettering said this at the last Parliamentary sitting too: the wall is a disgrace. The wall is destructive, but, above all, it is an annexation of territory. One cannot annex territory and colonise and then want peace. There can only be peace where there is mutual respect. We are giving a strong signal with this report and I believe that we must continue in this direction.

Political group: GUE-NGL
We agree with the demand that the Guantánamo Bay prisoners should receive a fair trial. That is why we have voted in favour of this report. We believe, however, that it is not clear that the prisoners fulfil the conditions for being regarded as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention. The report is not, therefore, correct in invoking the rules of the Geneva Convention on the treatment of captured soldiers as rights possessed by the Guantánamo Bay prisoners.

Political group: PPE-DE
Disposable cans are not environmentally sound. The environmental burden of re-usable plastic bottles is two to three times lower, and so, environmentally speaking, a deposit system is a good way of reducing litter. At the moment, deposits are payable on disposable cans throughout Sweden, the whole of Denmark and all of Germany. The Commission, the Liberals and also the are not averse to the principle of deposit systems. This is an improvement. Unfortunately, Mr Lehne stands outside of this consensus. The deposit system also exists in parts, and I repeat in parts, of Spain and Portugal. The Commission is not summoning Spain and Portugal before a European court. In the Netherlands too, you cannot take all returnable bottles to all supermarkets. The Commission has been put under pressure by campaigns from businesses and from elements in this House. This shows once again that the Commission sets greater store by the internal market than by the environment. In ten states and in some fifteen large cities in the United States too, ‘island’ solutions have been provided in the form of local and regional deposit systems. The fact that Germany happens to have an unsuccessful system, under which you cannot return your tin cans to any shop, has to do with the boycott campaigns by large sections of industry, which are opposed to the deposit system principle. Irony has it that historically, they all have their origins in an act dating back to 1991 that was submitted by a Christian Democrat Environment Minister, Klaus Töpfer, which the present Minister, Mr Trittin, a Green, is now simply implementing. Germany will eventually make it easier to get the deposit money refunded in different places. This deposit system will then become very common. The Commission should, in fact, propose the introduction of deposit systems throughout Europe. We should let children and junkies earn a few euros on the back of the idleness of parents and their fellow citizens. This is preferable to the situation in the Netherlands, where EUR 80 million is being squandered on a pointless advertising campaign entitled ‘Nederland schoon’ – Keep The Netherlands Clean.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, now that Parliament has voted down Amendment No 443, we have solved the problem. In other words, it is the European Women’s Lobby which remains and which gets the 600,000. It remains both in the nomenclature and in the remarks. It was precisely that which each and every one of the Women’s Committee intended, and that is why we can withdraw Amendment No 10. We are therefore withdrawing the proposal in Amendment No 10 because we have achieved precisely what we wanted to achieve with this vote.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, because I only have a minute and a half I will make only one point and that too has to do with social dialogue and the social partners. Next week in Stockholm, on the eve of the summit, there will also be a summit of the social partners. It will be taking place in the midst of something of a crisis for social dialogue, because the employers seem set to walk away from attempts to negotiate improved employment rights for workers placed by temporary employment agencies. That is a very serious issue. In the framework of Stockholm we need to look very seriously at the importance of the social partners in improving flexibility for our enterprises, whilst at the same time safeguarding workers in or moving between those enterprises. That is what we are promised in the adaptability pillar of the employment strategy and what should be delivered by the Lisbon process. But unfortunately the reality in my region and elsewhere in the Union is that workers placed by temporary employment agencies are placed at a severe disadvantage. They are paying the price of improved flexibility for enterprises. Employers have to be made to recognise their responsibilities. If they are determined to walk away from these negotiations, the Commission must make it absolutely clear that it will take immediate legislative action and the Stockholm Summit should make it clear that the Council will do everything it can to expedite the legislative instrument to cover workers placed by temporary employment agencies.

Political group: PSE
British Conservative Members will vote against the report because of the well-rehearsed opposition to the extension of QMV and proposed incorporation of the blanket of fundamental rights into the Treaty. Concerning enhanced cooperation, they support the initiative as it is compatible with the view that greater flexibility be introduced into the operation of the EU. Conservatives also support the statement in Paragraph 7 of the report that democratic control be ensured and that the three pillar system be enabled to work. The notion that Parliament’s assent be required to authorise the procedure would only be necessary if the existing unanimity rule in the Council were to be waived. - Sauquillo Pérez del Arco report (A5-0337/2000)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr Langen has done European enterprise a great service in his report. He will have my full support, but what we need most of all, if Europe is to provide the environment which will foster entrepreneurship, is a complete change in attitudes to success and to failure. In America, the down-and-out who passes by the tycoon's lavish mansion will aspire to match him. In Europe he would probably pass snide comments or call on the government to tax him out of business. Envy and disparagement are the enemy of success and of a successful enterprise economy. In America, the entrepreneur who fails will be given credit for trying and gaining experience for the next time. The bankrupt will be helped to recover his self-esteem and the determination to try again. In Europe, he would be abandoned in legal and financial limbo. He will be pilloried and shamed, his chances of a second try constrained. Seldom will the innovator, the inventor or the enterprising individual possess all the necessary financial means and business skills which are necessary for full and enduring success. This is where the business angel, the friendly adviser, the non-executive director become essential. That is why I am particularly pleased that paragraph 34 of Mr Langen's report highlights the role of business angels. That is why I ask the whole of Parliament for its support for Amendment 7, which expresses our concern at the tendency to persecute non-executive directors who are such an essential ingredient in a successful enterprise. Let us be forgiving of honest failure. Let us encourage that first try, that second try, the will to keep on trying. Let us praise success and be pleased to see the rewards of success in our most enterprising fellow citizens. Only then will we achieve a true enterprise culture in Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President-in-Office, I thank you for this reply. I would, however, like a brief answer that is clearer and more precise. Do we then have a situation where the developing countries may now apply for funds? They were not able to before. How is the situation different from, for example, that regarding the INTAS and Interreg programmes in Eastern Europe?

Political group: PPE-DE