GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, as I said last time: before the courts and on the high seas, we are in God's hands, but at least the Erika I and Erika II packages will help to make the high seas a little safer. I should like to offer the rapporteurs my warmest thanks. I think it makes sense and that, with a monitoring and control system, with an independent agency and with a compensation fund in the event of accidents, we have taken a step in the right direction. As part of this – and this also applies to the Esclopé report – the Commission has proposed setting up a fund for oil pollution, or rather for oil pollution from tankers. But it has been our experience over recent years that it is not just tanker accidents which cause pollution; other ships also pollute the environment with dangerous substances, often harmful substances such as so-called bunker oil. That is why it makes sense to opt for a more comprehensive approach here. For once, I would gladly have heard the Commission comment along the lines of a huge car advertising campaign running in Germany: ‘Can't be done, doesn't exist’. So, Commissioner, when you take a stand here, please do not start by saying it ‘can't be done’. Start by saying, ‘how can I accommodate Parliament?’ and then make it legally and technically possible. I think the committee is right to spread the risk by making shipowners and charterers, as well as oil companies, bear their share of the risk, by apportioning responsibility on an equitable basis and by including local representatives of the regions affected in a fund committee, so that their interests can be represented. And representing interests does not mean taking their own decisions; it means being included and being heard on a case by case basis. That is why, as I said last time, we should up the ante now because people, because the Erika – damn it all, this accident occurred over two years ago and we have still not passed any legislation and everything still hangs in the balance. That is why I call on my fellow Members and the Commission to up the ante now. I think it makes sense to make a start on maritime safety by setting up an agency. I understand why Emmanouil Mastorakis thinks that Piraeus would be a good place for the agency but may I say that I think that Lübeck, where I come from, would also make an excellent base for such an agency. (heckling: or Greifswald, Rostock)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, today we have heard two Foreign Ministers speaking on the issue of Turkey. We heard Mr Fischer, the great general of the European Union, who is in command of the incursions in the Balkans, speaking about Turkey and the only thing he said was that in Helsinki Turkey should be upgraded to a preaccession state. What Mr Fischer seems to have forgotten, what he failed to recall, what just escaped him, was the Öçalan factor and, not least, the existence of 20 million Kurds in Turkey. The Finnish government minister made reference to the Öçalan case which was most encouraging. But we must not limit ourselves to a few simple references in our speeches. There are two very good reasons why the European Union should intervene proactively. The first is that we were under the impression that it was interested in human rights both within the Balkans and further afield. So, there are 2 million Kosovars, fine – but what about the 30 million or so Kurds? The second reason is that the European Union is guilty of not granting asylum to Öçalan. In this case, we need actual intervention, not words. I would like to end, Mr President, with a question to the President-in-Office of the Council of Foreign Ministers: If Turkey cannot give assurances for Öçalan's life and if Turkey does not take steps to ensure the political rights of the Kurds, then does the Finnish Presidency believe that Turkey should proceed to the preaccession stage in Helsinki? I would like an answer from the Minister.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Madam Vice-President, I do not believe that Mr Rack, or other Austrian Members can claim the moral high ground. That is simply false. If you argue along those lines, we will one day organise demonstrations to blockade Austria, preventing you from getting out and infringing our rights. The same laws must apply to all in the Community, and it is not acceptable that the Austrians should claim privileges. Let me give you a simple example. If you travel through Austria – to Hungary via Linz and Vienna – in terms of the topography involved, that is exactly the same as when Swedes and Danes travel to Rotterdam via Hamburg. Do those who live in the lower-lying parts of Austria have more of an entitlement to special rules than do those in other countries through which transit routes pass? Never could you justify such a thing! We are all in favour of vulnerable parts of the Alps being protected, but are you entitled to have the vulnerable parts of the Austrian Alps enjoy protection different to that enjoyed by those in France or Italy? If we are to introduce special rules for vulnerable areas, they must apply to all of them. There is, however, no privilege for Austria on the grounds of its citizens being of more value than the citizens of Italy or France. In moral terms, Austrians have no greater entitlement. Mr Swoboda was right to point out that we are trying to improve the environment for everyone. That is why, with reference to the changed charges for road use, Parliament has demanded that the burdens be more widely spread, dependent on the emission level. The Council has not gone along with our idea of this broader spread, so now we are going through the same rigmarole with them all over again. In December, it came up with this wretched compromise – which I will call a sham solution rather than a compromise – and, after ignoring our arguments at first reading stage, re-adopted the nonsense from December. So it is the Council that obstructs every sensible solution! I hope, Madam Vice-President, that you will shortly put before us a revised version of the rules on the charges for road use and that we will make distinctions along ecological lines as well. That, though, is how rules work; we have to set uniform standards for all parts of the European Union without laying down special rules for Austria. I therefore ask our Austrian fellow-Members to be a little more reflective. Austria cannot get on its moral high horse when no work has been done on building the Brenner tunnel since the 1996 decision on the trans-European networks was taken. It is just not on! The Dutch transport minister, Mrs Karla Peijs, has recently tried to achieve a consensus with the Council – and what have we heard? The Austrians reject anything of the sort. Whenever there have been discussions, the Austrian transport minister has waited two days before coming out with the same old nonsense. Along with most of the Members of this House, my plea is that we should seek the sensible compromise for which we are all ready.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on behalf of the , I would like to welcome Madam President-in-Office of the Council and Mrs Wallström, of the Commission. Parliament must give you both its fullest support in your aim to include the issue of climate change in all European Union policy. We know that very far-reaching decisions will be made at the Helsinki Summit on how to take account of environmental considerations generally, and climatic issues in particular. Mrs Wallström spoke of a very positive matter with regard to Mr Monti. The Member of the Commission responsible for issues of competition is thus ready to look into how subsidies and taxes will impact on climatic issues. Parliament’s draft statement forcefully emphasises the importance of reducing those very large subsidies that are granted at present for fossil fuels. I believe that Mr Monti will tackle this problem in earnest. Perhaps we could then redirect the subsidies to areas that further the Union’s intentions, especially that of sustainable development. I also support the idea that we must try hard to ensure that market forces work to halt the development of climate change. In this, the importance of an energy tax cannot be underestimated. The Commissioner responsible for the Internal Market, Mr Bolkestein, told Parliament yesterday that he also intends to become involved in this issue, although, unfortunately, he said he still needed a year to convince Spain that an energy tax is really needed. I would have been interested to hear the opinions of the Member of the Commission and the President-in-Office on how a common energy tax would evolve, as, without one, the European Union will be unable to fulfil its objectives.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The Moderate Party delegation to the European Parliament has today voted in favour of the Council directive on minimum standards for when citizens of third countries and stateless persons will be considered refugees or as persons who, for other reasons, require international protection and on the legal status of these persons. However, we have voted against Parliament’s amended proposal. We believe in the clear right of refugees to find sanctuary from persecution and other oppression by entering the EU. Establishing minimum standards is an important first step on the road towards a common asylum policy in the EU. However, it is important to emphasise that, over and above the minimum standards proposed by the EU, it should be possible for Member States to provide people with protection for other reasons. Transparency must lie at the heart of creating a common stance within the EU on immigration and migration. Designing an immigration policy, in other words rules for being able to move to a country, is always a balancing act. Open borders could easily lead to us closing the door on dynamism and improvements. Immigration is an asset. The opportunity for foreign citizens who are not refugees to immigrate to Europe as migrant workers should be expanded.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, over the past few weeks, three politicians from the Sam Rainsy party have been murdered. Chea Vichea, a founder member of the party and president of the free trade unions, was shot on 22 January. He is the latest victim in a long series of killings. The absence of retribution for political assassinations is tantamount to an invitation to commit further atrocities. The Group of the European People’s Party utterly condemns these assassinations but also condemns the slowness of criminal investigations. Cambodia needs vigorous political leadership. Its leaders must enact reforms that put an end to the continual violations of human rights. I also refer in this context to the country’s record on child prostitution and forced labour. For some time now there has been an agreement between the Cambodian Government and the United Nations on the establishment of a war-crimes tribunal. All that stands in the way of its creation is the ratification of the agreement by the Cambodian Parliament, and that must be done without delay. We therefore call for a UN delegation to be sent to Cambodia. We must help, and we want to help, so that a sustainable process of normalisation can take place.

Political group: PPE-DE
This resolution contains many points that I fully support on the IGC, on the Charter of Fundamental Rights and other aspects of Community policy. However, I find myself unable to support it because of the inclusion of paragraph 8 on Austria. I was proud of the EU when it imposed sanctions on Austria when the new coalition formed because of the views and actions of the Freedom Party: a party whose policies have xenophobia running through them like Blackpool through rock; a leader who has praised Hitler and the Waffen SS, refused to condemn terrorist bombings against Roma and congratulates Nazi war veterans for keeping to their principles. Since then little has changed. Freedom Party ministers continue to echo Nazi party slogans and rhetoric of the Thirties and Forties. It is too soon now to allow Austria fully back into the European fold. It will send the wrong message to the Freedom Party and their fellow travellers elsewhere in Europe. In memory of the victims of yesterday I will vote 'no' to their collaboration with the criminals of tomorrow.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, every war is a moral defeat for politics, and, in this instance, war is also an expression of Europe's weakness. The good news associated with this is that this war will mean the end of Saddam Hussein, who has so many people on his conscience and who would wreak even more havoc. Even so, many of the public have doubts when considering whether this good objective justifies the sacrifices involved. Let us just consider the problems related to the region's stability, the issue of the legitimacy of a war started by unilateral actions, and the consequences for the United Nations. My own doubts about this have not been dispelled, either. We now have to be prompt in providing aid for the people in the aftermath of war and for the purpose of stabilising the region. This is where we Europeans have to make the effort, and we have to get the quartet down to work with a view to resolving the problems in the Middle East. Especially, though, we have to do our own homework. None of Europe's governments appear to be coming out of the present situation in a particularly good light, and we should recognise that it is only together that we have a part to play in matters of war and peace, that the Convention must therefore come to a successful conclusion, and that foreign policy, too, must be founded on decisions by a qualified majority, in order that Europe may soon speak with one voice. This must also be the basis on which we again strengthen our transatlantic ties, which bind us to the great democracy on the other side of the ocean, but these must be founded upon our own strength, on which any partnership must be dependent. Then, I believe, the democracies on both sides of the ocean will be able to make it their concern to establish a just world order, for no world order can be established by violence. Other ways and means must be found to create this world order, and this is something we must achieve together. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too would like to congratulate Mr Brok and the many speakers who have helped to present the report before us today on their work. I share the position of the many Members who have called for caution and rigour as well as boldness when we bring the accession process to a close for each individual country. The entry of the candidate countries is a decision, a political objective and a necessity for the Union’s States. The decision to allow individual countries to enter the Union is based on merit and strict compliance with the Helsinki Council and the Copenhagen criteria. I welcome the participation of the candidate countries in the Convention’s work, for it will become quite clear to them from that debate that, as well as the need for good government and combating corruption and crime, as well as economic, judicial and social reform, as well as agricultural and fund distribution policies, there is another point on which the Union is not prepared to compromise: civil rights and equal opportunities, which must be non-negotiable preconditions for EU membership. In actual fact, the present time is a phase in the enlargement of Europe. It is true that previous enlargement has been gradual, with Europe growing from the six original countries to the 15 it comprises today. What frightens us is the speed with which this new phase of enlargement is taking place, particularly considering that ten countries are joining the Union which have not long been democracies. It is for precisely this reason that we both fully support the political decision and advocate caution and the need for rigorous respect for the acquis.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Lamy for his presentation. I have a few questions. I was very glad to hear what you said about tariff escalation. Could say a little more about the specific actions that will be undertaken within this new GSP scheme and the particular margins that might be anticipated on that particular issue? Secondly, regarding enhanced GSP that will, hopefully, provide an incentive for improved social and environmental performance, could you say how successful the existing scheme has been, and whether you think a doubling is going to be enough? A doubling sounds very good, but we are starting from an extremely low base. One can always say it is never enough but do you seriously think you have any indications that this is going to attract more people into the scheme than before? I also have a question about the longer term. Given as you say that the value of GSP is being eroded all the time because of the lowering of tariffs overall, what other mechanisms would you foresee in order to try to strengthen social and environmental performance among different developing countries? The GSP, or its worth, is not going to be there for ever, as tariffs go down across the board. Finally, could you say little more about human rights violations as a whole? The enhanced GSP system obviously works as a system of incentives. Have you had any thoughts about whether it might be necessary to reform the GSP, so that those who are perpetrating human rights violations, Colombia in particular, are actually excluded from the scheme across the board?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would just like to make the House and the Presidency aware, as I believe it will be of interest to them, that yesterday, on the occasion of the Conference of Reconciliation in Vienna, an agreement was reached between the Austrian government representative, Mr Schaumeyer, and the American Deputy Finance Minister, Stuart Eizenstat, on compensation payments for the victims of Nazi forced labour in Austria. The lawyers – and I feel I should take the opportunity to mention this as well – Michael Hausfeld and Martin Mendelson, who represent some of the governments of Eastern European countries, commented at the time that, in some respects, Austria is in fact providing more generous compensation payments than Germany, because in the first place, we are including the agricultural workers, and secondly, we are also paying compensation for children under the age of 12 and women who gave birth whilst in forced labour camps. I believe this is worth sharing with the House. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we have, then, finally obtained a compromise proposal concerning compensation for air passengers, and we in the European Parliament, in particular, should be pleased about this proposal. Of Europe’s assemblies, ours is probably the one whose Members travel most as part of our daily work. We are therefore only too well aware of overbooked, delayed flights and poor service, as well as the resultant frustration. I therefore believe that the proposal, involving limits upon delays and compensation in the event of cancellations, would put pressure upon the airlines, which would thus be given a clear incentive to tighten up on departures and get their planes away on time, to the benefit of passengers. It would also hopefully lead to more sensible departure times and clear compensation for passengers whenever they do not leave on time. Details of the compensation payable by the airlines must, however, be publicly available so that people can see clearly what it amounts to. There is, however, a problem I fear may arise. In connection with the legislation, the principle, which is also to apply to package trips, has been introduced of refunding air tickets. That is something I can, of course, only welcome since it places European consumers in a better position. The problem is just that it can often be difficult to discover the correct price of an airline ticket that is part of a package trip. I am certain, however, that this is something that can easily be solved in practice, as and when the problem arises. In general, I am, as I say, well satisfied with the proposal by the Conciliation Committee and hope and expect it to be adopted.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, on 1 May, a whole array of new states will be joining the European Union, but that day will not, of course, accomplish integration or the real unification of Europe; for that, many measures will be needed, in particular where infrastructure is concerned, and in the extension of the railways. I recall how, in this Chamber, Mr Jarzembowski, we crossed swords on the subject of the Transit Regulation and how some of you – including you, my dear Mr Jarzembowski – said: ‘so let us invest more in railways!’ Well, we now have the chance to support not only Austria but also the countries bordering on it if, tomorrow, we vote in favour of these rail projects linking East with West, North with South, becoming reality. I am referring here, on the one hand, to the project that has already been mentioned – from Prague to Graz via Linz and then further southwards – and also, on the other, to the southbound line through Vienna. These will help not only our neighbours, the Czech Republic and Slovenia in particular; if we think ahead a bit, we will be including the whole of the Balkans, and if we want to free up the roads for those who have to use them or for whom it makes more sense to use them, whether with private vehicles or HGVs, then I believe this extension of the railways is what we need. Madam Vice-President, I am very glad that a representative of the Commission, addressing the Committee during its deliberations, took a very positive view of what is known as the Summerau project, that is to say, the line running from Prague to the south via Linz. I hope that the Commission will support these projects, for what matters is that we provide this Europe of ours with an infrastructure that is environmentally friendly, that is efficient and that really does link the countries in Central Europe with one another. I would not wish to deny that profits may well accrue from this to Austria, which suffers a great deal from heavy goods vehicle traffic, but I do hope that we will receive support from all sides of this House; this is not about self-centred interests, but about those of Europe as a whole, and when it comes to pursuing and maintaining those, we should as far as possible be in agreement.

Political group: PSE