GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I am very interested in the statement the Commissioner made. He is quite right to point out that we want to avoid legal proceedings or court proceedings if possible. But if he is correct in saying that the two parties are only two days away from a possible agreement, it is absolutely inexplicable that he should be giving one of the parties two weeks in order to resolve this matter. We were told several weeks ago that today was the deadline – and yes, the Commission has initiated proceedings. But for heaven’s sake Commissioner, by indicating today and presumably also at your press conference, that there is another two weeks, you will make everyone read that as meaning that you have simply extended the deadline. How on earth do you justify the fact that in instigating proceedings today you are also effectively sending a signal to the French that they still have another two weeks to take a decision on this matter?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I wish to begin by congratulating my colleague, Mr Langen, on his excellent report which, as he says, was carried through the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, unanimously. I concur with his observation that we must take account of the third report that the Commission has drawn up on world shipbuilding. I hope that the timing of the presentation of that report to Parliament was not a ploy to encourage us to take this item off the agenda. The committee had to vote especially to ensure that this item was on the agenda for debate today. I am grateful that the Commissioner is here, and I hope he takes note of all the points made. There is clear evidence of a crisis in the EU shipbuilding industry and this has been the case for some time. The evidence is set out very effectively in the Commission report. The conclusions seem quite clear that the principal culprit is predatory pricing from the Korean shipbuilding industry. It is doing this to gain market share to our detriment, but not only to the detriment of the European Union industry. Other countries – Japan for one – are also suffering from this. Action clearly must be taken. It seems to me that the Commissioner must show the industry that he is doing all he can in this context to deal with this external threat to our industry. The trade-barrier regulation route is perhaps an incomplete or insufficient instrument for taking action: there has to be more bilateral pressure from the European Union on Korea to press it to come up with solutions, such as pricing its ships properly and fully. In the third report there is a list of actions proposed by the Commission but its observations are rather disappointing: to continue with monitoring, to examine industry's complaint, to remain open to eventual proposals, to pursue efforts, to continue to encourage, to continue to work closely with the industry or to examine the possibilities of measures. I submit that we need more than just examining possibilities and monitoring the industry situation around the world and in Europe. In that context, it is important that the Commission reconsiders the view about extending the time period for temporary support or for permitting temporary support for shipbuilding industries in the European Union until a solution is forthcoming in talks with Korea.

Political group: PPE-DE
A first text was presented to the European Parliament in September 2000, on the initiative of the French Presidency. This proposal was designed to prevent the tragedies that result from the actions of unscrupulous carriers who are prepared to exploit human distress and misery. I welcome it. Indeed, I think it is high time we tackled this problem head-on, to avoid any repetition of the tragedies of Dover and Saint Raphaël. The aim of this directive is to supplement Article 26 of the Schengen Convention and to define its implementing conditions. This French initiative defines the obligations of carriers who bring foreigners whose application for asylum has been rejected into the Union. It proposes harmonising the penalties, which currently differ widely from one country to another, imposed on carriers who have not respected their obligation to carry out checks. I must admit that I am disappointed by the Swedish Presidency’s text, which steps back from the original text drawn up at the initiative of France. It is confined to improving the situation in only a very limited way within the actual scope of Article 26 of the Schengen Agreement, although, pursuant to the Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union, a far more significant step forward could have been taken. This lack of ambition is apparent when we consider the scope of the text. It does not apply to international rail traffic and it does not precisely define the obligations and financial penalties, which consist of a deterrent penalty of not less than EUR 2 000 per person. Furthermore, the exemptions from the penalties are not acceptable. For instance, the text provides that the carrier is not liable for any penalty if the third-country national seeks asylum immediately after arriving in the territory of the State of destination, even if the application is subsequently turned down. It should surely be up to the State and not the carrier to check the asylum seeker's eligibility. In the same context, the carrier is exempted from the penalties if the person carried is granted refugee status or leave to remain under a subsidiary form of protection. While I entirely endorse the initiative and the approach of the French Presidency, I found some of the amendments made to the proposed text unacceptable. I therefore rejected them.

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, I am able to express my satisfaction with all these supplementary measures, because in reality the conservation of the environment and the prevention of risks within the field of the trade in hydrocarbons is a process consisting of many supplementary measures which are gradually being taken. However, the questions I would like to ask are: to what extent are the responsibilities in Gibraltar defined, and also, to what extent does the Commission’s Directorate-General for the Environment – and I do not know whether I can receive a reply at this moment – will accept this series of measures so that it may genuinely be a transversal operation of guarantees, which includes environmental responsibility for these problems?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, what is achieved by this House’s resolutions on human rights and debates on matters of urgent and topical importance? In the case of Burma, not very much. In June, we called for the speedy introduction of democracy and for the immediate release of Aung San Suu Kyi, who was detained in what was at the time a secret location. She has, since 1988, been campaigning for more democracy, and was awarded our Sakharov Prize in 1990 and the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991. It was partly through our pressure that representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross were able to visit her. There is, however, no prospect of democracy being introduced with any sort of urgency. Although the new Burmese Prime Minister, General Khin Nyunt, published, on 30 August, a roadmap for free elections by secret ballot, no firm date has been set for them. My fellow Members are right not to set too much store by promises of democracy and such things as the summoning of a constitutional convention, for it is the armed forces who take decisions on all important matters, and the convention will have no influence on them whatever. Aung San Suu Kyi has been on hunger strike since 31 August in order to make a forceful protest against her detention. Let us, too, have done with half measures! The EU’s imposition of a visa ban and its freezing of the overseas assets of Burmese associates of the regime are nothing like enough. As a community of values, one that exalts the maintenance of democracy and human rights as its supreme principle, the EU must take a hard line with the junta in Rangoon. Aung San Suu Kyi and her supporters must be released from detention at last. The results of the free elections in 1990 must be accepted, power must be handed over to the forces of democracy, and the roadmap must be implemented, but under international supervision. Commissioner Nielson, I urge you to press for tougher action to be taken and for further sanctions to be imposed. These should, I believe, include an embargo on goods imported from Burma and a boycott of tourism in that country. That, perhaps, will be the sort of language they will understand. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, if the EU is to become the world’s most dynamic and competitive economy, the EU’s decision-makers must act consistently and quickly. This could have been an important directive for creating better preconditions for growth and for promoting restructuring within Europe’s corporate structure. It is the dynamic companies that can be restructured that create jobs. Without jobs, Europe will not survive. That is genuinely an issue in the employees’ interests. The expression ‘Much ado about nothing’ is quite a good description of this controversial directive. For fourteen years, we have tried to bring about these fair and common ground rules. In fact, we have failed, but it is nonetheless a step in the right direction. I personally have had some difficulty with this debate. In principle, my view is that the differentiated voting right does not favour the emergence of efficient companies able to compete in a global market. Over time, the various voting values tend to consolidate deficient corporate structures. I also think there are important legal objections to retroactive legislation, and I can also see the point of entrepreneurs being able to go to the stock exchange to obtain extra capital for their life’s work without losing complete control of it. In spite of this, it is incredibly important for us to obtain common corporate ground rules with a view to opening the European market to more liberal restructuring. We must, however, be able to live with this compromise. We could have obtained more, and more is what we wanted. Now, this directive is more about openness and the protection of minority shareholders, and less about takeover rules. It is, however, a step in the right direction, and I think we can support this compromise, even if it shows that it takes sixteen years for EU legislation to come into effect. An initial 14 years and then a further two years before it is incorporated. If we continue in this pattern, we shall never become dynamic and competitive.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, it may be said that, unlike everyone else, I have thought it important to take the floor at this second reading. It is quite simply because I want to take the opportunity to praise the work done by the European Women’s Lobby. It is of course important what the European political parties do to promote women in the decision-making processes and in all possible other areas. I believe, however, that it is also safe to say that, if the European Women’s Lobby were not active in this area, it would be much more difficult to push through a number of gender equality initiatives. In particular, I think there is good cause for emphasising the need that exists for the European Women’s Lobby in connection with enlargement to include the new Member States, which quite obviously have other gender equality traditions than ourselves in the current Member States. It is important for the Women’s Lobby, together with the organisations of MEPs in the individual nations, to be active so that we can continue to pursue the work concerning women, even though there are cultural differences between the new and old EU countries.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I think the Minutes show that I reject all violence. As a Green and pacifist, I obviously reject all violence, but I also note that international law draws a distinction between violence on the part of occupying forces and the forms of resistance directed by oppressed peoples in colonies and occupied countries against the occupying powers. I personally am, however, a pacifist and prefer to see non-violent methods used even against an occupying power. This may be seen from the Minutes, and it is the view I take.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, achieving genuine equality for women and men is one of the most important social and political tasks. Women still suffer discrimination in the labour market. Women still earn less than men. Women are under-represented in senior management. Throughout Europe, unemployment is higher among women than men. Mrs Hautala's report is an important contribution to equal opportunities. However, I believe that the directive should take more aspects of women's working lives into account. The proposed reform does not go far enough. For example, it fails to provide regulations on equal employment conditions for women. Women must have equal pay for work of equal value! We need targeted re-integration measures after career breaks. I work actively to ensure that women and men have equal opportunities in every area of society. I urge the Council and the Commission to adopt measures to achieve these objectives.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I support this report on the Prestige. It is important. From next year the Baltic Sea will in practice be an internal sea of the Union, a sea whose waters are completely replaced only once in a quarter of a century. It is unusually susceptible to the damaging effects of petroleum products. At the upper end of the Gulf of Finland another oil harbour is already being built which constitutes a threat to the safety of the entire sea. Remember that, when sailing there, there can be pack ice 20 metres high! At the same time ferry traffic between Helsinki and Tallinn is on the increase, so now we urgently need the proposal promised by the Commissioner for traffic arrangements in this sea. Soon a hundred million tonnes of oil will be transported across the Baltic Sea every year, but all countries together have the resources to clean up just 10 000 tonnes, or one tank on one ship, which corresponds to 0.01% of the total. Consequently, there is a real danger that disasters will occur. There were collisions just last winter: ships crashed into one another. The decommissioning of single-hull vessels must not be delayed to the extent it appears to be. From our point of view, the situation is such that this should be done right away, and not in several years’ time. The Baltic Sea should also have special zones which these ships could traverse only with the protection of an escort, for example a pilot ship, with oil slick control facilities. There should also be help from breakers, which many vessels on their way to Russian ports never had at all, not to speak of merchant ships, which sailed there amid the ice for weeks without this help. We need more support and action from the Commission. I support the establishment of a temporary committee of inquiry to deal with this matter.

Political group: PSE
First of all, allow me to congratulate you, Commissioner Reding. In fact, in this period of gloom after the intergovernmental conference, this House does not often shake with enthusiasm. You have given us the opportunity to do so, which is a pleasure to hear. I have many questions, but I will put four of them to you. Three of them are concerned with what you have just said and one strays slightly from an issue that you dealt with, but it concerns our problems. My first question is this: could you be a little more explicit about what you just quickly touched upon as regards quadrupling the budget? Over what period? On what basis? Is this about the whole budget for culture, youth and the media? What news! We are starting with such a small amount. All the same, we would like to know a little more. My second question concerns languages. We know each other well, Commissioner Reding, and I admire the enthusiasm and the spirit with which you defend language initiation programmes and take on the defence of minority languages. In this context, it is the Council that is delaying. Will the Commissioner, in support of the programmes that she has just described, be prepared to go back to the idea that the Council must manage to put pressure on the Member States to make it compulsory to teach at least two modern languages? Furthermore, according to linguists, it would be preferable for one of these two languages to be outside of the linguistic family of the mother tongue. In this way, Europe would become multilingual and not dependent on our jargon that is similar to English. My third question concerns the cinema. It was a pleasure to listen to you on this point, Commissioner Reding. On the issue of promoting cultural diversity and defending it in the area of cinema, however, you did not mention this unsuccessful text that was – it seems to me – drawn up by the Internal Market Directorate General. In the name of protecting competition, it claimed to harmonise, but in fact it is to remove or completely change all our structures for helping cinema and that worries us all. In our opinion, this reasoning was stupid, but we would like to hear it from your own lips. My fourth question is a point of application. It concerns what you said on the issue of European high culture. You spoke about Bruges and Florence. I have just learnt that in Florence, following an international agreement fixing the budget of this institution, the notification sent to it was cut back by the Commission Secretary General by 20% compared with the sum agreed on and adopted by this Parliament, which is sovereign in Europe.

Political group: PSE
I congratulate Mr Byrne on his position. He may well remember that I asked him last week in Brussels to say whether he would instigate proceedings today and obviously he has done so and I am delighted at that. But he must understand the feelings of this House. Today, we have half the Conservative delegation in this Chamber to hear his responses – and I have to say very few of my Socialist colleagues from the UK party. As of today, there are eighty-six infringement proceedings against France, so this is not something new to France. One of those infringement proceedings concerns bovine products – could the Commissioner actually answer the question as to what that case involves. Secondly, has the UK Government applied for compensation, because it should be doing so on behalf of the British farmers who have lost out?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I voted for this important document, and its importance has been stressed by all the speakers, particularly by Mrs Echerer who said: 'You are never too old to learn', by Mr Posselt, who is so eager to support the elderly that I could give him a Pensioners’ Party membership card, and by Commissioner Barnier himself, who has assured us of his strong commitment in this area. However, Mr President, as representative of the Pensioners’ Party to the European Parliament, I call for words to be translated into action. The elderly in the Member States have no opportunity learn, have no help from national states and are not even allowed to use school buildings, which accommodate children in the morning and could accommodate old people in the afternoon.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is well known, and those of us who are members of the Committee on Petitions have been well aware of it for some time now, that this Parliament and the institution of European Ombudsman are not overly happy about the way in which the Commission has been handling complaints by European citizens. There have frequently been many criticisms in this respect. Therefore, the Ombudsman, in relation to a complaint concerning the Macedonian Joint Venture, stated at the time that the Commission would have to reconsider its operating methods in respect of complaints by citizens, in other words in respect of the intercommunication between the Commission and European citizens. So now we have this communication from the Commission, which recognises that the handling of this intercommunication requires a better framework, mainly from an administrative point of view, in the area of permanent personal contact with the citizens who have submitted the complaint or petition, and in the area of the classification of complaints, treating them properly and reasonably. The report by Mrs Fortou has arrived in this context, and I would like to congratulate her on her work. The agreement must be maintained up to the end. We call on the Commission to welcome the proposals in this report, which make a great deal of sense. I reiterate, therefore, that we give our full backing to this report, and to the Commission we say that we are at a particularly opportune and interesting moment, coinciding as it does with the accession of 10 further Member States, to pursue this action.

Political group: PPE-DE
I can remember the 1950s, when most people believed that nuclear fission would yield unlimited resources of clean and safe energy in future. A number of countries subsequently built nuclear power stations as if there were no tomorrow, and the electricity supply was made largely dependent on nuclear fission. The 1960s saw the beginning of mounting criticism, especially when it transpired that nuclear power stations can explode and that the waste product continues to threaten the environment for a very long period of time. The disasters in Harrisburg and Chernobyl had a decelerating effect on the further development of nuclear energy, and some countries have either abandoned it completely by now or are in the process of doing so. But even after that, we will be facing dangerous radioactive waste for many thousands of years. Given the risks involved in transporting this kind of waste, the best solution is to bury it in the nuclear power stations which are condemned for closure and not to transport it to another location. There are many campaigns to stop these transports, and rightly so. The rapporteur is showing some degree of understanding for those campaigns and wants to curb the risks, but continues to allow and justify further transport of this kind. I do not subscribe to this point of view. - Schwaiger Report (A5-0076/2001)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I am sorry that, because of the time, we have a change to the agenda and my report will have to be postponed until 3 in the afternoon. I would ask, citing Rule 145 of the Rules of Procedure and on behalf of my political group, for my report, which is outside the compromise package and concerns labelling, to be voted without debate and would merely ask the Commission to make the relevant statement.

Political group: PSE
Although we do not agree with many of the recitals in the report on countering racism and xenophobia, we voted for that report because it takes a stance against discrimination and in favour of the rights of minorities. Yet we certainly do not go along with the way Parliament is congratulating itself. First of all, because most of the proposals to promote the rights of minorities and immigrants remain vague and are not binding. Secondly, because of the hypocrisy involved in pretending to stand up for immigrants and minorities while conducting an anti-immigrant domestic policy, if only in the form of hunting down immigrants who do not have proper papers. Finally, the report says nothing whatsoever about the deep-rooted economic and social reasons, in particular the rate of unemployment and the worsening poverty among a growing section of the population, that encourage demagogues of the racist and xenophobic extreme right to stir up unrest.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I should like to ask the Commissioner whether he will personally be involved in the drawing up and implementation of the work plan which is being produced by the European Group on Ethics? If he is, will he take into account the fact that these debates involve matters of urgency as well as fundamental principle?

Political group: PSE