GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, I will get straight to the point. Our group supports the Commission proposal with amendments. Of course, we question the way in which we put up defensive mechanisms when there is talk of opaque, unclear and unfair competition. The rapporteur has suggested that we should not take any generic measures, as is now the case, namely according to types of ships and possibly a broader concept thereof, but has favoured measures according to regions and shipbuilding yards instead. Separate support must be granted within the agreements we have concluded in this connection. The question then actually arises as to the way in which people who, let us say, want to uphold the liberal principles, need to act the moment damage is being done. I will quote one example. At present, the Commission has instituted proceedings against the Schelde-Damen construction, that is to say, Damen, has taken over the company Schelde for 1 Guilder. Questions have been raised as to whether that is acceptable. My question is whether, in the spirit of the directive which is now being proposed, it could be possible that the Commission, let us say in an oblique way, is now also turning a blind eye to constructions which are being used in this context and in the above example.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioners, if we are critical of the results of the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development, it is because we were in fact expecting much more. We are aware of the critical situation of the planet, the deterioration, the pollution, the lack of natural resources, and the extreme poverty of a large part of the population which means that these people live and die in inhuman conditions, and are forced to emigrate to other parts of the world where these conditions do not exist. And, although it is true that there have been agreements, it is also true that it has not been possible to conclude many other agreements. Mrs Wallström, you said it was time to turn our words into actions, and the Secretary-General of the United Nations also said this, using other words, but just as forcefully. This, however, was not possible and despite the good will of the European institutions, the problem of reaching the agreements that were supposed to have been the minimum basis for solving the serious problems we have in this world was not solved. I believe that the Commissioner is right to say that frustration should not mean that we politicians stop making ambitious proposals. Frustration should make us far more ambitious and, even if only by means of voluntary agreements, we in the European institutions, the Commission, the Council and Parliament, must move forward with all these proposals – many more than those on the table – because, in fact, the maintenance of living conditions in the world might depend on the example we set here in the European Union, where we do have that political will. If we – each and every country – show this will and this commitment to agreements, programmes, dates – not with words but with actions – the agreements that are currently still voluntary could be extended to other countries and in ten years European good practice could mean that in future Johannesburg will not be what it is today.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on behalf of the Socialist Group, I would also like to congratulate Mr Lange. Over the last few weeks, and literally single-handed, he has achieved – that was a pun! – quite incredible results with the Council. We now have a second reading agreement which we can all probably support. With one or two reservations, I think Mr Callanan will also be able to put his hand up for most things, so I think that we have a very good result. This is a very important step forward in controlling emissions in a sector not really yet touched. A whole range of non-road mobile machinery – construction equipment, barges and all sorts of niche equipment we have not yet though about – is going to be brought sensibly under control, putting an end to a lot of smelly diesel fume emissions in all sorts of strange places that prompt complaints. Sensible arrangements have been made for seasonal agricultural equipment and special equipment such as the diesel engines used to launch lifeboats in the UK, all of which have limited hours of operation every year. I think, quite frankly, that the ambitions of Parliament, as expressed by the Committee on the Environment, have exceeded the wishes of the Commission and the Council, particularly with regard to diesel engine trains. This is an area that we need to revisit at a future time and examine the particular circumstances that exist in the new Member States when they enter the Union. But we are now reaching a point where we can thoroughly support, by a large majority, the outcome of the rapporteur's work. I congratulate him on his efforts and hope that we will make future progress on the outstanding matters within an appropriate timescale.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the absence of an institutional agreement would lead to a delicate situation as the rapporteur has already acknowledged, given the urgency of adopting a new Fiscalis framework that is operational on 1 January 2003. It is a shame, however, that the Council’s agreement with the positions adopted by Parliament has been established only for a minimum period. It is significant, incidentally, that whilst acknowledging that the aim of the Fiscalis programme is not to harmonise tax legislation, the Commission has welcomed the fact that a statement to this effect has been included in the minutes. Even though it may be acceptable to classify the Fiscalis programme as a mere tool for strengthening administrative cooperation, the European Parliament will nevertheless have to concern itself with the political effects of implementing this type of programme. Although it is true that tax evasion and fraud have a national dimension specific to each country, they also and increasingly have a supranational dimension rooted in the use of sophisticated techniques and schemes. At a particularly delicate time for the Union’s public finances, these factors cannot be ignored and much less can we fail to take advantage of the opportunities arising in order to change and improve the tax situation. It should be added that the EU is on the threshold of an historic round of enlargement, which means that, with the entry of new countries and different tax policies, new and hitherto unseen problems will also arise. In fact, the new programme extends the scope of the programme to cover not only direct taxation, but also the candidate countries. Improving the functioning of tax systems in the internal market is, in itself, a praiseworthy objective, but combating tax fraud and evasion as well as launching bases with a minimum degree of harmonisation are also opportunities that should not be wasted. I therefore regret the fact that the Commission has invoked Article 95 of the Treaty with regard to this matter, and has not dared to invoke Article 93. With the reserves that have been created and bearing in mind the need for the new programme to get off the ground, I support the rapporteur’s recommendation.

Political group: PSE
The purpose of the GALILEO programme is to design and build a satellite navigation system which allows users to determine their position on earth extremely accurately. Apart from the fact that it is much more accurate than the American Global Positioning System (GPS), which has been up and running for several years now, the main point about GALILEO is that, unlike the GPS, it is to come under political, rather than military control. It is also the first European space project and, if it can be successfully installed and commissioned, apart from helping to improve navigation, it will give a tremendous boost to space science and technology. The European Commission communication under examination does not relate to the GALILEO system per se but to the creation of a joint public/private undertaking to finance its development. Mr Glante's report proposes several important improvements to the Commission proposal. However, the European Parliament approved two amendments by a large majority, led mainly by the , with the backing of the , which seek to militarise the system by making express reference to military use of the system for so-called 'peacekeeping operations'. If the Council and the Commission follow this line of thinking, it will completely negate the non-military purpose of the system and will, of course, be an addition to the European Union's arsenal in its interventions against the people. It is worth noting that the European Parliament approved a similar amendment in my report on the European Union's space policy on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy at the last part-session. This is no random coincidence; as we pointed out on that previous occasion, it demonstrates a clear intention to use space for military purposes. These developments prove that the global grass-roots movement needs to step up its fight against imperialist aggression and the militarisation of space. It is for these reasons that the MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece voted against the report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Bradbourn, I would first of all like to welcome the ambitions of this trans-European network programme. It is necessary for employment and growth across the continent, for solidarity between the countries of the EU, in particular the new members, and for supporting the internal market. I will make a few comments on the text before us. The first comment concerns the motorways of the sea, on which I take the opposite position to Mr Bradbourn and Mr Jarzembowski. I think that they are spatial planning tools. They are transport policy tools. If they were only market tools, the motorways of the sea would not become a reality, because they would not be able to compete with roads and would be reduced, at best, to motorways of the sea between Antwerp, Rotterdam and Hamburg, which would be woefully insufficient for relieving the majority of European traffic. I think that they need public support, because they are public policy tools and not just market tools. Secondly, I would like to draw your attention to the need for the European Parliament to have as much involvement as possible with the latest revisions and to be kept informed, if possible, of their implementation. We know that Quick Start exists, not legally, but actually. I think it would be reasonable for Parliament to be kept regularly informed, as the projects that it undertakes are implemented. Finally, on the subject of funding, you said yourself, Commissioner, that you needed EUR 4.8 billion per year in order to set this particularly ambitious programme in motion. Unfortunately, I now have the impression that we are being given the luxury of choosing a spending programme without the restriction of finding income. I would like to say that Parliament will support you, in the Council, to help you ensure that this programme does not exist solely on paper and that it does not end up with the Essen syndrome, in other words that it is not just something that is talked about but has no future. IN THE CHAIR: MR VIDAL-QUADRAS ROCAVice-President

Political group: PSE
Mr President, our group has just been discussing this issue, and it is our opinion that the topicality and urgency of developments in North Korea make it imperative that this issue be dealt with this week. In the event of further discussion of this issue becoming necessary, we will sort that out at a future date. We are therefore against the topic of North Korea being removed from the list of topical and urgent matters for debate. (Parliament rejected the request) President. – I have received from the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party a request to replace the item 'Chechnya' with a new item 'Death penalty in the United States – Decision in Illinois'.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am pleased to announce the presence in the gallery of a delegation of regional representatives from the Lombardia, including my daughter Elisabetta Fatuzzo who, knowing that I was due to speak on the report on agricultural incomes within the European Union, pointed out to me that once there were fruit trees that produced apples, pears, cherries, beautifully sweet cherries, and there were wheat fields and vegetables. When will we again have the pleasure of harvesting this produce near our homes like we used to? When will we again be able, like Adam, to receive apples plucked by Eve directly from the tree?

Political group: PPE-DE
The amendments are inadmissible on the following grounds: the objectives of the Fund do not include promoting large-scale inward investment. The Fund exists to promote urban and rural development, community development, to enhance skills and to improve the environment; the justifications cited in the Green amendments are spurious. The Fund has no role in the Raytheon project, nor could it have. The amendments simply seek to prevent the Fund from doing something which it could not do anyway; the purpose of the proposed Regulation is to permit the continuation of the financial contribution of the EU to the Fund; it does not in any way seek to amend the substance of the existing Regulation EC 2614/97, which is why the urgency procedure was agreed in the first place. On the matters of substance, the projects referred to in the Green justification are not military projects.

Political group: PSE
This is the first directive that we are debating under Article 13 and it is a very good start in our fight against all discrimination across the EU. MEPs and NGOs worked very hard to get Article 13 into the Treaty. I look forward to seeing further directives, perhaps starting with disability. Initially, I was against racism being taken separately. I would have liked to see it taken with the directive on employment and with the Action Programme. I was persuaded of the urgency, because of the current rise of racism across the EU. A number of Members have cited individual cases today. I hope the Portuguese Presidency can work very hard to push this through and make sure that we do get this racism legislation. We have to send the message that we are opposed to racism and xenophobia across the EU. I am glad for that reason that we are having the vote today. May I turn specifically to some of the amendments. I am very well aware that some European jargon excludes people. This is the reason I wanted Amendment No 48 on simple language to go in. Amendment No 43: people have talked already about the burden of proof. This is working towards a shared burden of proof. The plaintiff does have to provide facts and it has already been said that equal opportunities for men and women cover this in European legislation as well. Amendment No 51: I am delighted that charities and non-governmental organisations are going to be consulted. They are at the sharp end; they know what they are talking about. Finally, I would like to add my congratulations to Mrs Buitenweg and to Mr Howitt in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs for working so closely together to put forward an excellent report.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I agree, although I hope that there will be sufficient time to discuss my report this morning.

Political group: PPE-DE
I would like warmly to welcome Mr Schmitt’s report which calls for the establishment of a European Safety Agency with a view to improving air safety. If this proposal comes to fruition, a uniform, high level of safety in civil aviation with common safety requirements will be created. There are many benefits, both financial and practical, to be gained by creating a single pan-European Aviation Safety Agency: if various national regulatory and certification procedures can be replaced by a single European, uniform system, various asymmetries will be abolished. This will ultimately lead to lower costs, a standardisation of procedures and more importantly, less red tape and bureaucracy. Indeed, it is easier to monitor one safety system as opposed to fifteen. It is highly important that passengers feel safe when travelling on the airlines and establishing common European rules on civil aviation will go some way to achieving this. - Swoboda Report (A5-0266/2001)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I too wish to thank Mr Davies for the report he has prepared. It is an extremely important report, especially from a health perspective. Seen from an environmental point of view, it is also intimately linked to the next subject, namely Mrs Myller’s report. I am convinced that these two reports together provide a sound basis for positive developments in Europe in the fields of health and the environment. During the short time I have in which to speak, I should like to try to scotch some of the flourishing myths which exist with regard to the ozone issue. This especially applies to the situation in southern Europe. The climate in southern Europe is often used as a reason for, or explanation of, the high levels of ozone which are often to be found in the summertime. It is true that climates with long periods of high pressure increase the presence of ozone. At the same time, research shows that the reasons why ozone affects cities such as Barcelona, Athens and Milan and many of the tourist resorts along the coast must be sought elsewhere. The reasons have to be sought in traffic levels, in industrial processes and in energy production. It is also these matters which we can influence by means of the Directives concerned. It is therefore something of a pity that the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy should have such a detached attitude towards the present Directive and only see it in a perspective which favours industry. Instead, we ought to see what happens when the limits set by the WHO are constantly exceeded and when people (both residents and tourists) are constantly exposed to a danger to their health. We know that the risks are greatest for people who are in the open air a great deal, especially children. We know that exceedance of ozone limits directly affects children’s lung capacity. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy ought to consider this when the present directive is voted upon tomorrow.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I will have no difficulty in voting in favour of Mr Brok’s report and the ten reports that make up this general report. By doing this, I will be happy to contribute, in a modest but heartfelt way, to the arrival of the ten new members of the European Union. The same applies to Mr Van Orden’s report on Bulgaria. It is true that the rapporteur’s comments may sometimes appear very favourable, or even too much so given the situation in Bulgaria. On the whole, however, the conclusion of this report seems to me to be the right one. The impression given by Baroness Nicholson’s report on Romania is different; in fact the contrast is striking. There is a feeling of unease when you see the indulgence of the report on Bulgaria and the severity of the one on Romania, when the two countries have a great deal in common. Baroness Nicholson did a significant amount of work over several months to monitor the case of Romania, and I welcome her efforts. However, the close attention that she pays to particularly painful problems, such as adoptions, led her to make very harsh judgments, so harsh, in fact, that the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy has already significantly amended the original text, which I welcome. Other amendments that we have tabled will, I hope, be adopted in plenary. Finally, the resolution before us contains blatant contradictions. Several of the provisions come from different points of view and I fear that as a whole, it lacks the coherence needed for the European Parliament’s message to Romania to be clear, precise and firm. I regret this, because Romania, which faces huge problems and massive underdevelopment, needs to be understood, criticised when it deserves to be, but also advised and encouraged as to the path that we wish to see it follow and which will lead it towards becoming one of us.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, first of all I would like to apologise to the rapporteur that I was unable to be here at the beginning. I have only just arrived in the Parliament because of delays. I welcome the fact that we are able to have a debate on the fundamental rights within the European Union. It is very important, particularly when we are urging the applicant countries – and indeed countries which are not yet applicant countries – to address certain issues, that we should be prepared to look openly at ourselves. Having said that, I regret some of the statements made in the report criticising the United Kingdom and other countries, on matters to which there are no easy answers. I refer particularly to the points about asylum and immigration with regard to the United Kingdom, which is not perfect on these issues, but which is faced with a real challenge. This is not an easy situation. The United Kingdom, along with many other countries within Europe, has many applicants for asylum, and there are large numbers of people on the move, seeking to migrate from one country to the other. We need to work towards a common European asylum policy. When this is in place, we will be able to make certain that not just the fifteen Member States, but twenty-five countries, have policies that are working and are fair to the countries themselves and to applicants. The report contains references (at second hand) to prison facilities in the United Kingdom and indeed in other Member States. However, it is very difficult to spend huge amounts of money on prisons when there are demands from other areas. It is indeed a mark of a civilised country that it takes its prison service seriously, and all allegations in the United Kingdom, and I imagine in other countries, against malpractice or cruelty in prisons are properly investigated. The same is true of the police service, and the British police take seriously any allegations of malpractice or racism by police officers. It is right that we are able to have this debate, it is right that these issues are being brought to our attention, but I do not believe that the United Kingdom should be singled out any more than other countries.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, a thorough investigation is certainly required into the implications of the foot-and-mouth outbreak. Many considerations arise. Why were infected animals not quarantined at the outset and emergency vaccinations administered instead of adopting a policy of mass slaughter as we have done? I would like to ask the Commission where it stands on the policy of mass slaughter and whether we should differentiate between slaughtering for the welfare of the animal and gratuitous mass slaughter to satisfy the market and media interests. I also call into question once again the transportation of live animals for slaughter over long distances, which increases the risk of the disease spreading. The closure of small abattoirs again needs to be reviewed. Transportation of live animals is currently being investigated by the Commission and I eagerly await the Commission's report on this very important issue and urge the Commission once again to change its policy on the transportation of live animals and to introduce stricter controls. Consequential loss is not covered when discussing the issue of compensation. Does the Commission not agree that it is imperative that we look at the whole picture and evaluate the loss to farmers directly and indirectly affected by the foot-and-mouth outbreak as well as the connected industries and tourism? How many more disasters do we have to witness in the agricultural industry before Member State governments agree that the reform of the common agricultural policy is urgently needed?

Political group: Verts-ALE