GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, clearly the European Commission is endeavouring with its proposal to strike a balance between the increased financing requirements of enlargement and the difficulties of the short-term economy and the options of the strong Member States. However, sustainable development in the Member States must be supported and the role of the European Union as global partner must be strengthened. In addition, the new financial perspective must send out a clear political message about equal treatment and solidarity between the Member States and, if you will allow me to dwell on this point, the needs of the regions which suffer the repercussions of so-called 'statistical convergence'. The citizens in these developing regions see political cohesion as the main element in making the idea of the European Union a worthy idea and I do not agree at all with the view heard in this Chamber that there are no beneficial results from this policy. At the same time, the citizens in these regions wanted and agreed to the extensive enlargement which will be completed in a few weeks' time. Morally and politically, therefore, it is fair for these citizens not to lose so much that they lose the feeling of solidarity which they have had to date, enjoying its fruits. Clearly, there must be a smooth withdrawal of Community aid from these regions, with a transitional period in which support is wound down. It is vital during this period to safeguard adequate funding. Any thoughts of making reductions, especially large reductions, in appropriations which, it can be presumed, would have devolved upon these regions without enlargement, jeopardise the efficacy of the political cohesion which is under way and, consequently, must be treated as harmful to the credibility of the European Union.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to take this opportunity to refer to the remarks made by the Commissioner at 0.15 this morning and to point out that Amendment No 1 imposes an obligation of the Commission. I am pleased that Mr Fischler has accepted this amendment, in which the Commission is called upon to open international negotiations so that this droit de suite applies not only within the European Union but in as many countries of the world as possible. In this context, the amendment refers to Article 14 of the Berne Convention. In other words, Europe could play an exemplary role in this domain. (The President declared the common position approved as amended) *** Report (A5-0363/2000) by Mr Oostlander, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, on the implementation of the Common Strategy of the European Union on Russia [2000/2007(INI)] Before the vote:

Political group: PPE-DE
The final agreement on the revision of Directive 76/207/EEC is to be welcomed, although it is inadequate given the initial proposals and the existing problems. In any event, with the amendments that have been tabled and the inclusion of the definition of sexual harassment, direct and indirect discrimination and the ban on discrimination against women on the grounds of maternity leave, the directive better reflects developments in society, working conditions and family circumstances. Amongst the amendments that have been accepted, I would highlight the following: - the possibility for Member States to provide specific advantages to the under-represented sex in a professional activity - the establishment of equality monitoring bodies; their competence to include promotion, analysis, monitoring and support of equal treatment for men and women; - the introduction of effective measures to ensure real sanctions for breaches of the directive; - the same protection against adverse treatment for persons supporting the victims of gender discrimination and harassment; - the planned and systematic promotion of equal treatment at the workplace. Hence, our vote in favour of the report. We now hope that the national governments will implement and promote this directive. – Report Mastorakis (A5-0187/2002)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, many people die on our roads in Europe every year. As MEPs we therefore have a great responsibility to work for greater safety on the roads. We also know, however, that traffic is increasing from year to year and one of the consequences of this is that it becomes a greater source of danger. In my opinion, the question of the compulsory wearing of safety belts has a crucial part to play. In general, I am very much in agreement with the Commission’s proposal for improving the safety of drivers and passengers. I also agree in principle that it should be compulsory for safety belts to be fastened at all times in all seats that are fitted with them or with the basic requirement that seats fitted with safety belts or child restraint systems should be used. I also see it as a fundamental obligation that restraint systems should be used for children under 12. I should like to note, however, that Member States need to be given some leeway for the national transposition of the directive on certain points. I am thinking of the use of restraint systems for very small children. I am also thinking of medical reasons and of quite specific situations such as the requirements for minibuses and coaches which the rapporteur has also mentioned. More details would be taking us too far here. Harmonisation of legislation at European level will make for transparency and clarity and improve the various national regulations. All in all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur most sincerely on this report, which I think is also a very balanced one, and I can already assure you today that my group will agree to this report. I should like to point out, however, that the detailed transposition of the directive must now be undertaken by the Member States and in the end it is the Member States who are responsible for safety on Europe’s roads.

Political group: PPE-DE
The MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece are voting against the Brok report on the main aspects and basic choices of CFSP, because it supports all the imperialist interventionist/aggressive choices of the European Union for independent action or complementary action in close collaboration with NATO and the USA in the name of the European Parliament. It welcomes the proposal by the 'Convention' to include these choices in the 'European Constitution'. It supports the well-known dangerous militaristic memorandum from Mr Solana, who appeared at the summit in Halkidiki in June, adopting the three strategic objectives proposed, such as preventive strikes ('using conflict prevention to react to any anticipated crisis before it erupts'). It promotes as a priority the ambition to accept joint responsibility with the USA 'for peace, stability, democracy, tolerance and sustainable development in the world'. However, knowing the world-domination theories of the US, it is clear that the aim of the ΕU is not all this, but to share out the booty and subjugate the peoples. The complaints formulated by Parliament about its being sidelined are merely the fig leaf to conceal the militaristic orientation of the report. Consequently, the immediate and dynamic mobilisation of the peoples against these choices is needed in order to block the invaders' path.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, when I read the Commission proposal, at first I said: ‘Splendid!’ That was when I read the communication. Then I looked at the articles and found that something had happened between communication and articles. There is always something missing. If you look at it closely, you can see precisely what it is. In the communication, the strategic objectives – and the related measures – are set out quite clearly. In the articles there are only vague allusions. Sometimes something has been lost altogether, in the case of noise, for example, which in my opinion is a key environmental factor for human health. The communication describes the types of pollution and lists the measures. Then you come to the articles; in Article 2 you still find the objective of reducing pollution, especially long-term pollution, from noise. Then when you come to the measures concerning health in Article 6, however hard you look, Commissioner, I can find not one specific measure about noise. I therefore think it is right that we should now bring the things that you listed quite rightly and very well at the beginning of the communication back into the articles, thereby making them binding for the Commission, Parliament and the Council. Either list of examples can be used. If we are to set about using an instrument of this kind, we need a degree of strategic orientation. In connection with water, for example, we read: “phasing out the discharge of hazardous substances”. I don’t think there is even one person in the European Union who says he wants more hazardous substances to be discharged into water. The questions of when such a thing happens, however, and what hazardous substances are, need to be rather more closely defined! There is nothing about that at all. The next bullet point is “Revising the bathing water directive”. What does “revising” mean? Does it mean raising the standards? Does it mean the same standards as in the drinking water directive, or does it mean protecting human health? So we need greater clarity here. Now a word to the PPE-: I admit we have a few motions here about whose content we can discuss. We must do that, but we must do it in the second reading because that is when things get polished up. I really must ask you at the first reading to give us a mandate to negotiate and back the report.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, in addition to analysing the EU’s policy to date, these communications are intended to lay the basis for the Commission’s strategies to promote enterprise in developing countries and to prepare the Commission’s position on the reform of State-owned enterprises. I agree with the rapporteur that the main focus must be on combating poverty and safeguarding the availability of basic services, and that the priority is support for small and medium-sized enterprises. In recent decades Structural Adjustment Programmes have been used to try and respond to the call for economic development. These have involved the opening up of markets and various types of arrangements, including privatisation. This, however, has not always improved the situation; on the contrary, it has contributed substantially to the spread of poverty in developing countries. The Commission quite rightly states that that there are various options for reforming State-owned enterprises, such as reform of a public enterprise without altering its ownership structure, or partial privatisation. It is absolutely vital to take account of the parameters when selecting different types of reform. With privatisation, particular attention needs to be devoted to competition law and its implementation. The various options for reform must be weighed up, and here it is essential to involve civil society, particularly users’ and consumers’ organisations, cooperatives and trade unions, in decision-making and in monitoring the measures taken. At all events, the stated overriding objective of the EU’s development cooperation – combating poverty – must be taken into account. The Commission communication on the approach to future support for the development of the business sector in third countries also contains some good basic ideas. It is excellent that the Commission should put forward an overall strategy for the business sector. The basic aim of that strategy must simply be that there should be investment in the developing countries. People must be able to expect it. It cannot be based on the bottomless well principle. It is important to have tangible support for SMEs and cooperatives by means of advice in the fields of services, training, business modernisation, and promotion of micro-enterprises, particularly by ensuring there is available funding. It is nevertheless essential to remember that enterprises and cooperatives in the developing countries also need customers that are going to spend their money, and the market with the greatest purchasing power is us, the EU. For that reason, the channels of fair and sustainable trade must be made to work in such a way that European consumers are able to support enterprises and producers in developing countries by means of their own purchasing decisions.

Political group: PPE-DE
This recommendation, which had its origin in an initiative in which my Parliamentary Group took part, was pressing and necessary, although I do not agree with the way all its points have been formulated. Unfortunately, however, it is overdue, given that hundreds of people, including children, from some 40 countries, particularly countries of the European Union, have been held at the United States military base in Guantanamo Bay since January 2002 in unacceptable circumstances and conditions and without any rights or guarantees. It is pressing and necessary that the United States authorities should put an immediate end to this flagrant violation of the most basic human rights and of human dignity, in breach of all international standards and law, particularly regarding access to a fair trial and the prohibition of arbitrary detention. It is pressing and necessary that the governments of the countries of the European Union should stop acquiescing in this situation and adopt a firm, clear position, denouncing and condemning this unacceptable situation and demanding that the United States authorities should guarantee these detainees immediate access to justice in accordance with international standards and law.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, today we are discussing maritime safety on the basis of three reports, on which I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs warmly on. Immediately after the Erika disaster the Commissioner started working on an extensive legislation package, and in all honesty, I am compelled to say that apart from the liability aspect, the legislation really was not bad at all. The problem was, and remains, compliance with legislation, inspections and sanctions in the event of non-compliance. Today we are discussing the safety of ships and flag states, port state control and the classification societies. Unfortunately, pressure of time means I have to be selective. Firstly, the issue of the classification societies. It does not really matter that they are supposed to have maximum unlimited liability. The majority of them cannot afford it anyway. What is important is to ensure that when they make a serious and inexcusable mistake, they are shut down, i.e. we must close them, put a stop to their activities, end of story. That would keep them on their toes a bit more. It would also seem to be better than imposing sanctions that do not yield anything. Then there are the flag states. I personally am in favour of banning ships that sail under cheap blacklisted flags from the ports and territorial waters of the Union. However I can see the practical difficulties associated with this. Is it not worrying that the sister ship of the Erika, the Maria S, carried on sailing round undisturbed for more than a year before it was detained and sent to the scrap heap? Why was the Maria S not taken out of service by its classification society? What did the flag state actually do? Various states, which are completely irresponsible to my mind, offer registrations that take a mere twenty minutes via the Internet. It is in every sense a virtual affair, with no form of inspection. Mrs Sanders has already mentioned Cambodia. Cambodia advertises this form of registration in the shipping news. What is the Commissioner doing about ships that have been registered in this manner? Are we going to wait until they are detained? Once, twice, until there is oil on the North Sea beaches. It is obvious that a bonafide company does not register its ships in Cambodia. The second example is Honduras. 750 ships were in an unspeakably poor condition even by Honduran standards. I would like to ask the Commissioner whether we follow these ships with a tracking and tracing system? Because surely the question arises as to which flag states have accepted these floating wrecks? Where are they now? I do not think we can continue to operate with any credibility without a tracking system of this kind. Other countries besides those of the EU must take a firm hand with the flag states. Some of our Member States make a mess of their own registers. A strict test must also be applied under real life conditions to those countries that have systems which look good on paper but which do not amount to anything in reality. If they fail the test then the same rule applies to them as it does to other untrustworthy flag states: we do not want their ships in our ports.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, proactive and resolute leadership is needed on economic policy at the EU's spring summit. We cannot go on trotting out the same old formulae. Unfortunately they fall far short of what is required at a difficult time, which is not only characterised by an economic downturn but also, regrettably, by the shadows that an approaching war is casting over economic and employment policy. That is why Parliament's reports – and I mean all of those on the table this evening – show a glimmer of hope but at the same time make demands that mercilessly expose the weaknesses in the European economy. I should like to underline that it is out of the question to eliminate a Stability and Growth Pact that has been created to bring order to the economy. Instead we need to apply it taking into account the Lisbon objectives in a time and a place and in such a way that it makes sense, because the people of Europe deserve no less. I think that we need to make every effort to halt the economic slide. We cannot deny either that even the European Central Bank is now talking about risks of a downward trend in the European Union. This means that we need to pursue a proactive policy and to that extent the repeated references to structural reforms do not serve any purpose either. Besides, we do not yet know what economic benefits these structural reforms will bring to the European Union and we have no idea what impact they will have on employment policy. Economic institutes, national ministries and also the Commission have not answered this question. But we need this answer to know which direction is the right one. I believe that the saying still holds true: employment creates growth, but growth also creates employment. We have to work on the basis of real growth and not only on the basis of potential for growth. I should like to point out once more that it is absolutely right – as the reports also state – for us to refer repeatedly to the lack of investment in both the private and public sectors. We are not honouring the Lisbon agreement about 3% growth. Neither are we respecting the agreement to invest more in research and development, and that too applies to both the private and public sectors. Japan and the USA are streets ahead of us in both respects. At the moment we perhaps do not really need an economic government, but coordination up and across our governments, coordination that is worthy of the name, is in the interests of growth and employment.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. First may I thank Commissioner Lamy for his strategy on this issue. One the one hand, consistently enforcing our rights at WTO level is, I think, an essential starting point. On the other, at the end of the day, the lack of competition for steel products on the American market is pushing prices up and causing quality problems, which in turn means that European industry has a better chance of selling processed products from the European Union. Do the statistics already show that European products are now being sold much more successfully on the American market?

Political group: PPE-DE
President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President, President of the Commission, it has been said that this summit too was full of so-called decisions. I wonder what the people of Europe think of an organisation that, summit after summit, continues to take decisions with which the Heads of Government do not even get their own ministers to comply. Is there any proportion between costs and outcome? President Berlusconi, you had an opportunity to put a stop to these meaningless resolutions from the summits, and I regret that you did not take it. I also wish to emphasise that I have criticised previous presidencies on the same account. I believe it is important for the summits to be fundamentally reformed so that people regain their confidence in the EU and its institutions. President Berlusconi, you emphasised Christian values in your speech. One of the Christian values I believe that everyone, irrespective of their denomination, should profess is that of alleviating suffering as much as possible. I am therefore concerned about the many ongoing attempts to halt new research in genetic engineering in which all types of stem cells are made use of. To promote that research is to reduce suffering.

Political group: ELDR
Thank you Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, and Commissioner, for the essential clarification that you have just given us, which shows the seriousness of the Commission’s work. For once, a technical expert is about to address the House on the subject, in particular, of depleted uranium weapons. It is most important that we do not, whether consciously or not, have any confusion in our minds – either in the minds of the public or, as I have seen in this House, in our own – about the use of depleted uranium weapons and the use of nuclear weapons. On this point you have given us vital information and I simply want to add my own personal testimony. Depleted uranium weapons are weapons which were developed in order to enable new types of armour-plating to be pierced. The armour-plating used in the Second World War was pierced by shells with a hollow charge, powered by chemical energy. New types of armour-plating, however, can only be pierced by weapons powered by kinetic energy. These are known as arrow shells. It is important to be able to give them a high initial speed. They must also have heavy cores. This is why depleted uranium is used. Here I must stress that the confusion which I am talking about is not innocent. I heard on television a journalist who was covering our Members’ visit to Iraq mention enriched uranium in connection with these weapons, and it was mentioned on two occasions, so it could not have been a mere slip of the tongue. I was involved in the research that led to the development of these weapons, in the Terrestrial Weapons Technical Directorate, where we have very powerful unions which protect our workers and our engineers. I am therefore able to tell you that in actual fact, if there had been the slightest risk, the precautionary principle which we observe in the French arms industry would automatically have ruled out such weapons.

Political group: PPE-DE