GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I would like to start by congratulating our rapporteur, Mrs Lalumière, on the report which she produced for our Parliament and in which she managed to strike a fine balance. Cologne and Helsinki have added substance to the common European security and defence policy. With unusual drive, the European Council has taken a number of important decisions, of which we have taken note and for which we have given due credit. The aim is to develop our own capacity in order to be able to implement the so-called Petersberg tasks. A decision has been made on the extent of the troops required in this respect. A draft of the necessary decision-making mechanisms is in place. A small-scale NATO is emerging. In this context, I would like to emphasise two incisive questions, which are a small selection from a long series of matters which are being discussed here today. The European Union must be able to act autonomously. This may sound obvious, but this statement also touches upon an enormous problem. What does autonomous mean in relation to NATO? There is some confusion surrounding this on both sides of the Atlantic and this should be resolved soon. Autonomy should certainly not culminate in a political exchange between the common European security and defence policy and the national missile defence, as was suggested recently by an American senator during the NATO Assembly in Budapest. In summary, the question which I would like to put to the Council is: what is autonomy in this context? Is action within a NATO context always the first option, as the Americans claim? Should NATO be given first refusal before the European Union can act autonomously or will the European Union allow itself more room for manoeuvre? I have the impression that this question is being avoided on both sides of the Atlantic, which will compromise future cooperation. The second point is about democratic control. In the Netherlands, there has been a lot of discussion recently about who was involved in what decisions in Bosnia and Kosovo. This mainly relates to the government. But if some kind of policy of faits accomplis is already mentioned sometimes at this level, then what about parliamentary control? Will the common European security and defence policy turn into a cosy intergovernmental get-together or will national parliaments and the European Parliament be truly involved? Here too, the pertinent question arises as to whether the Council pays any attention to this at all? Operating at an informal level has its advantages but not if issues of war or peace are involved. The support base required for using the EU military instrument needs to be more extensive than that required for creating it. Mrs Lalumière’s resolution contains a relevant proposal for tackling the threat of a democratic deficit in this connection. The government conference can benefit from this. The least the European Parliament could ask for is to be considered a fully-fledged partner in this very important debate.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I want to propose a technical oral amendment to Amendment No 28. I apologise for not spotting the technicality in committee. Amendment No 28 reads at present: 'The Community shall each year set a global ceiling for funding action under this Regulation.' As Commissioner Patten pointed out during the debate, it is not the 'Community' which sets the budgetary ceiling, it is the Budgetary Authority. I should like to propose orally that we delete the word 'Community' and insert instead the words 'Budgetary Authority', so that the amendment would now read: 'The Budgetary Authority shall each year set a global ceiling for funding action under this Regulation.' (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0338/2000) by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on the situation of frontier workers [2000/2010(INI)] - After paragraph 2

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I am grateful to Mr Fabra Vallés, especially for the sensitivity by which he has been guided in recent weeks as regards the question of how his report should be publicly presented to the committee, believing as I do that it was necessary for us not to do this sort of thing behind closed doors while a report of this nature is also doing the rounds of interested parties in Brussels. So let me express my gratitude for that. I want to say something about the points that have already featured in numerous comments, such as, for example, the issue of the accounting system. Over the coming months, we Social Democrats will need to make the Court of Auditors' observations the foundation of the work we do, and, on that point, I have complete confidence in our rapporteur, Mr Paulo Casaca, who will not release the Commission from its obligation of providing information. There is though, one thing that I want to have put on the record, and that is the fact that the Committee on Budgetary Control attached conditions to the invitation to the accounting officer to whom a number of references have been made. She was to provide additional evidence of the things that the Court of Auditors' comments had in any case already denounced. We then learned from an article in a newspaper published here in Brussels, that she was not willing to do so. This is also part of the story and should not be concealed. I noted down what Mr Fabra Vallés said, in very diplomatic language, about the other point – that there was a lack of rigour and objectivity. Let me say it in my own words: we Social Democrats – like the other groups – have refused to let this House and its procedures degenerate into a circus of personalities, and we will continue to do so. (Applause) Of course we do not include in that the Commission's expressions of delight at the state of the accounting system. The comments made by the Court of Auditors indeed give every cause for concern, and this is not, indeed, a matter in which we will be handing out credit points. We will pursue this matter, and the Commission will have to give an answer as to why, for certain periods of time, practically nothing was done to take into consideration the comments made by the Court of Auditors. We will not let them get away with telling us that this could not be done, because work had to be done on the new Financial Regulation. The two things have nothing to do with each other, and we expect prompt and clear information enabling us to follow up the reasons why certain things did not happen. If these explanations prove to be less than satisfactory, things are going to get unpleasant for everyone involved. That, I can promise you, is when things will turn ugly! (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the protection of biodiversity is one of our most important, but also one of our most difficult, tasks. Time and time again we find ourselves in a situation in which it seems that now is not the time to opt for biodiversity. Time and time again there are good reasons to abandon, for the time being, strict and specific measures for the protection of endangered species. This is the case now. I am talking specifically about African elephants. I believe that there are good reasons for not imposing a total ban on the ivory trade. Firstly, in accordance with scientific advice, the African elephant simply does not fulfil the criteria; the elephant population is growing and is healthy. Secondly, I am not convinced that a total ban would mean that poaching would cease. A ban might lead to a fuelling of illegal trade and push up the price. That will not help any elephant. Thirdly, the idea of the destruction of ivory meets with considerable resistance. Destruction goes against every notion of sustained use. Why should we have to destroy a natural, valued and valuable material such as ivory? Finally, I am convinced that protection does not work without commitment from the local authorities and local population. We can try and prescribe laws for others from our ivory towers here in Strasbourg. We can preach morals from our ivory pulpit, but we have to realise that it does not work like that. Five countries in southern Africa have presented alternative plans. They have gained experience and have also had some success. We ought to take their arguments seriously at least. Conservation is not something that can be imposed by the international community, and we should not want that to be the case. There are, therefore, good reasons not to transfer the African elephant to Appendix I tomorrow. However there are also good reasons to do so, and that is sending a political signal. The signal that the European Parliament takes the protection of biodiversity seriously. That the European Parliament is now committing to going all out to preserve biodiversity within the European Union. To summarise, I can reluctantly approve the resolution, but, as far as I am concerned, it must incorporate a political pledge – the pledge that we ourselves will also do something about biodiversity. That we must try to find a solution that will also work for the African peoples.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, you will not be surprised to learn that I see things in quite the opposite way to Mr Schmitt. What is true is that we need a European legal framework for public local transport, as there is legal uncertainty and the market has already been opened up. The question is, though, how closely to the citizens Europe's decisions must be taken on a given subject. Local public transport is, in my view, primarily the responsibility of local authorities and that is how it should stay. Towns and parishes should themselves decide whether they want to run their local public transport by their own enterprise, and then whether they are able to do so. It is also clear that those who say they are going to do it themselves must not be allowed to compete elsewhere. I wish to thank Mr Meijer, the rapporteur, for pursuing this basic idea with, if I may say so, a certain stubbornness, as this issue of community decision-making is an important point. My second point is that where there is competition in local public transport provision, it can lead to minimal wages and social dumping. My dear Mr Schmitt, a bus driver working on regular services does not earn a fortune – barely DM 200 above the social security rate in Germany. It is for that reason that social minima must be maintained when there is a change of operator. My third point is that local public transport is run in many Member States' rural areas by small and medium-sized enterprises. These must not be unnecessarily squeezed out of the market, quite the contrary. I believe they must also have a chance in the market when routes or networks are awarded directly. The situation prevails in any case, in many areas of Germany, that up to 90% of local public transport is to and from schools, and here too, the direct awarding of contracts must be given more of a chance. I think we can agree that the Commission's time limits for contracts and handing-over are both too short, and we strove together for their extension. As regards the other things, our opinions simply differ and, unlike Mr Schmitt, I believe that tomorrow will not see a catastrophe, but that we will be very close to the communities in deciding in their favour on public local transport. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on the report. I can inform you that the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party will support the report when it is put to the vote.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by expressing my total support for Mr Deprez's views, that is his rejection of both the Portuguese initiative and the Finnish initiative. These two proposals undermine Article 202, which establishes the general principle that the Commission alone has powers to implement the rules which the Council lays down, although the Council may also reserve the right, in specific well-founded cases, to exercise directly implementing powers itself. The justification put forward is that the Council wishes to reserve for itself the right to exercise implementing powers for a five-year transitional period because the Member States have an enhanced role in respect of the development of visa policy, reflecting the political sensitivity of this area. This is not in itself, however, a sufficient reason for breaching a general principle of Community law. And it is not a valid argument, because it is contrary to the principle of the Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the legal framework of the European Union, which specifically applies in this area. With regard to the Frahm report, I believe that we should also support the rapporteur's position, which is to reject the Portuguese initiative. One of the reasons for this is that this initiative would lead to a lack of consistency in the rules governing the movement of third-country nationals within the territory of the Schengen Member States; the Schengen Convention covers three categories of third-country nationals who have a right to travel within the Member States: those required to have a visa, those exempt from any visa requirement and those who have a residence permit. This initiative only covers the second of these categories, thus fragmenting the right to travel of third-country nationals without indicating to what extent these rules revoke, replace or modify the Schengen acquis. The Nassauer report also – and quite rightly – proposes that the French initiative should be rejected. Given that there are three proposals that we intend to reject, I would like to make an appeal to the Commissioner, António Vitorino, and to the Commission, that they should take the initiative in this area, thus ensuring the overall consistency of the Community framework of which it is the institutional guardian.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I have asked for the floor, on the one hand, to congratulate the Commissioner on this vast and intelligent range of measures being adopted on oil spills and, at the same time, to ask a supplementary question about vessels cleaning out their hulls, which is becoming a real scourge on Portuguese coasts. All countries which, like Portugal, are fortunate enough to have long coastlines, occasionally experience spills that turn up on beaches with no indication of where they have come from or of who is responsible. I know that the measures that are being drawn up and which will be applied address this problem. There is, however, a fundamental issue; vigilance and monitoring. The difficulty lies in identifying those who are responsible for spilling these substances. I wish to ask the Commissioner whether measures are also being considered in the field of vigilance and monitoring.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this report requesting banning the use of phthalates in some soft PVC children's toys is flawed in many ways and rests on a dubious legal basis, given that the Chairman of the Scientific Committee for Toxicity, Eco-toxicity and the Environment, Professor Bridges, when he appeared before this Parliament's Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy on 23 May, stated: “It is hard to see how it” – the ban – “would come under a scientific interpretation of serious and immediate risk”, which is the required criterion for the ban imposed in December. The Commission seems to have ignored its own scientific committee on the basis that some Member States are imposing their own ban. They are entirely within their rights, of course. Instead I support the development of tests to determine migration limits, and for these to be legislated on in due course, rather than a long-term ban as proposed. It is particularly galling that, of the six named phthalates to be banned, five are not even used for children's toys and only two are suspected on the basis of unreplicated tests on rats. I too am concerned for the welfare of small children, but based on reasoning and science, not on emotions. This whole business contrasts markedly with my request for restrictions to be placed on the use of mobile phones by young children, in a formal question to the Commission under the same precautionary principle. This was, of course, refused even though it admitted there was no research evidence on the safety of child use of mobiles and there was some data for adult brain damage in the prolonged use of mobile telephones. A recent UK government report has recommended restrictions to child use of mobiles as a developing brain is more sensitive to electromagnetic radiation. We have to face the fact that here in the West brain tumours have risen dramatically by some 100% over the last ten years for totally unknown reasons. Therefore I call again on the Commission to use the precautionary principle consistently or admit that the whole thing is a politically motivated exercise with powerful commercial interests at play, undermining the precautionary principle and risking turning it into a farce.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I feel that the content of this important measure has been clearly and very well explained by Mr Westendorp y Cabeza. The Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which I have the honour of chairing, has endeavoured, through its opinion, to emphasise the importance of this reconstruction work in the Balkans as a possible way of integrating these areas into Europe as a whole. At the same time, in order to include a specifically cultural angle, not in abstract or generic terms but in terms of solidarity, we have proposed amendments which have found favour in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and which, I feel, contribute to providing, on the one hand, economic, civil, supportive assistance while restoring the civil society of these very unfortunate areas and, on the other, the possibility for cultural and institutional – and I stress the word institutional – support, to give these areas a sense of association with Europe, association in terms of civilisation, in terms of cultural initiatives, as well. The fact that the amendments expressed as an opinion by the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport have been accepted and that unanimity has been achieved is, in my opinion, an important factor which this House should note and take into consideration.

Political group: PPE-DE
Some politicians are keen to bring Turkey into the European Union before that country has radically changed. They are therefore prepared to turn a blind eye to a number of extremely negative consequences. Admitting a country like this, which is an exceptional case, will have a fundamental impact on the existing standards for democratic freedom and human rights in the EU. The rapporteur wanted to create the impression that in Turkey it was a question of minor deficiencies which could be resolved quickly and easily. Fortunately, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Security and Defence Policy has adopted a more critical stance, but still not critical enough by far. In fact, the announced reforms are heading in the right direction, but do not yet go very far at all. The release of prisoners and the abolition of the death penalty apply to criminal prisoners but not yet to political opponents, whose rights they refuse to recognise. The mass murder of Armenians is still denied or justified as a normal way of suppressing opposition, which they want to continue to be able to use in the future. The displaced populations from 3 500 destroyed Kurdish villages in the south-east are not being allowed to return to the area. Fear of what is called 'separatism' results in a language, songs and writings being punishable. This country is still a long way from being en route to the EU.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am a convinced supporter of the European model of the environmentally-responsible market economy, which makes it clear that the liberalised market is not the irresponsible thing it is often suspected of being, but has social and environmental responsibilities and hence a responsibility to future generations. It follows that there is no doubt that a responsible European economic and environmental policy must, together with the approval procedure, ensure that serious damage to the environment can be prevented, and that any damage caused can be made good, with the costs being borne primarily by the persons or bodies that caused the damage. As yet, not all the Member States apply the polluter pays principle, and so European regulations are needed to prevent the incidence of distortions of competition in the market. It is in relation to this that my colleague Mrs Flemming and I support the re-submission of two important amendments calling for nuclear damage to be included within the scope of the directive. I ask to support Amendments Nos 41 and 42, since this directive is meant to cover activities that actually are dangerous. I regard the decision by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market to exclude nuclear power stations from the scope of the environmental liability directive as incomprehensible, as it cover all the alternative forms of energy; whoever is responsible for damage done to the environment by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, must be held liable. Why not in the case of damage done by nuclear power? In Amendments Nos 41 and 42, then, we are asking for this to be included. I also want to put the case for greater legal certainty, which is why we are in favour of the period of liability taking the form envisaged in Mrs Thyssen’s amendment, and of legal certainty being created by approved plant being excluded de facto from liability. The issue of how costs are to be shared between several different polluters must be clarified. I am very grateful to the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market for the sensible and moderate approach that it has taken. This is a legal directive rather than an environmental one. Above all else, I am grateful to our rapporteurs, Mr Manders and Mrs Niebler, for the work they have done.

Political group: PPE-DE