GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, both the Commissioner, Mr Patten, and the Members of this House are well aware of the situation in Peru, and the last speaker, Mr Ojeda, has summed up the situation very well. The starting point for Parliament’s resolution is, in effect, the Commission’s rapid action, and I should like to join in congratulating the Commission and particularly the Commissioner, Mr Patten, on this rapid action. Nevertheless, the purpose of our resolution is to remind us that this initial aid is likely to be insufficient, given the extent of the disaster. We have in fact just been visited by the new President-elect of Peru, Mr Alejandro Toledo, who has met members of Parliament and also the Commission and has told them of his needs. We do not think this is the moment to adopt a resolution on Peru’s economic policy and, in this respect, we do not consider it prudent to support the amendment tabled by the Group of the , since we believe it is a subject that requires rather more time for consideration. Above all, we do not believe it is the right moment to tell the government of Peru how it should prepare its budget for 2002. We do hope, however, that, regardless of the overall context of the resolution, the Commission will over the coming weeks and months consider the special situation of this country, which has been through quite a critical time from a constitutional and economic standpoint, and which now, after an impeccable electoral process, seems to have started on the road to recovery in democracy and with the confidence of the whole population. We hope that, based on these views – I repeat, regardless of what happens here – the Commission will go ahead. There is a subject to which the Commissioner, Mr Patten, is quite sensitive: the effectiveness of Community aid. It seems that, in the past, the financial resources earmarked for the Latin American area have not been used fully effectively. Since the start of his mandate, Mr Patten has been concerned with the effectiveness of the operations, and we should like to know whether at this moment (although it may still be premature) the aid that the Community sends is achieving its results, and also what measures he foresees for the development of future aid. While aid is being granted, it is important that it should be monitored and that the Commission should inform us whether in effect this aid that we are approving, which is paid for with our taxpayers’ money, is achieving positive results. Apart from that, I repeat, I want to join in congratulating the Commission and the Commissioner, Mr Patten. I hope that in this new stage Peru may find an important ally in the Commission and the European Union, and that the Commission may soon present to us proposals for aid for the recovery of Peru and aid for cooperation with the Andean Community, which, as we know, finds itself in difficulties, not only in Peru but also in other countries.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I hope my question is addressed to the Council, because Member States still have authority over matters of foreign and security policy. I would like to point out at this juncture that although GALILEO is primarily a private-sector project, and one in which we also want to have private-sector services, in a common project for a stronger European Union foreign and security policy we should be setting the course now to ensure that in future infrastructure services and information services will be available and can be purchased at European level. Up to now, unfortunately, we have not had the infrastructure. We talk about a rapid reaction force, and in order to be able to act in future in the area of foreign policy, we must be able to rely on GALILEO. This is why a line should be made available here, and this is certainly something that is also in the interests of the Council.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to thank Mr Pérez Royo for his report and the efficient conduct of business in committee. He had our full support. But we have some reservations. In this policy of buying, on behalf of Community fleets, fish from third countries, I often ask myself whether it might not be better to spend the money in another way, in the interests of the regions which we set out to help. I have no difficulty whatsoever with the need to develop the fishing ports that are, in many ways, hard-pressed through restructuring and depleted stocks. I have no difficulty with the original political decision of the European Union to help the regions, particularly those of Spain and Portugal, that are highly or partly dependent on fishing. But I have a serious problem about dealing with countries like the Comoros, which has a population of half-a-million people, and a GDP per capita of USD 700. I cannot believe that these people have any capacity whatsoever to police their waters or in any way manage their stocks. We are obviously sending – as the rapporteur pointed out – something like 65 vessels (mostly Spanish and French) into these waters. These vessels catch 40 000 tonnes of fish. How can anybody have any control over what they do or what they bring back? I tend to believe that, to put it bluntly, this is a licence to plunder. First of all, I would like a proper evaluation, as Mr Pérez Royo requested, an economic evaluation and a cost-benefit analysis on behalf of the Union. I would like to take it further and have a social evaluation of the money we spend, to find out whether or not we contribute to the improvement of the economic and social situation of certain regions in Spain or France, where this money is supposed to go, or whether in fact we just give a licence to a small number of people, who control quite a lot of capital, to exploit the waters of a country which is in no position to control its own resources. That is my main concern. I would prefer to take this money and spend it in the regions concerned, in Spain, Portugal or France, and spend it in such a way that we have direct control over the development we promote and in a way that we could be sure would be sustainable – for fish farming or alternative industries, perhaps. Nevertheless I support the report. Mr Pérez Royo represents the view of the committee on this.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to question the order decided upon for the votes. In my opinion, Amendment No 9 is the amendment which is furthest from the text adopted in committee. However, it is for the President to decide.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the pictures of the fishermen and the volunteers fighting the oil slick from the Prestige with their small boats and their bare hands demonstrate the enormous strength of an entire people – the Galicians – and prove the culpability of the European Council and the Spanish State. It is now clear that Galicia’s citizens are suffering the consequences of the serious political conflict which opposes the positive proposals put forward by the Commission and which has led to the selfishness and irresponsibility demonstrated by the Member States of the Council. The Copenhagen decisions have not answered the anguished questions of the citizens but instead the interests of the predatory capitalism of the oil companies which, taking advantage of the murky and primitive international situation, reject all and any attempt to establish European legislation to protect our seas. The Council, as well as Mr Aznar, has shown contempt for the people of Galicia by having taken no rapid decision to help that region. It has shown contempt for the fact that Galicia suffers more disasters than any other part of the world. The Council has granted Galicia and the neighbouring territories a miserable EUR five million more, whereas the United States, which has strict and specific legislation, clearly lacking in Europe, is claiming USD four billion for the Exxon Valdez accident. Ladies and gentlemen, our citizens are demanding that we put an end to this situation, starting with setting up a committee of inquiry. This must never happen again. Never again! (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to make three comments on the occasion of this extremely important debate. My first comment is to say that, first of all, we should see to it that the European legislator stops berating itself on this matter. It has been 18 months since the Erika sank, an event marked by commotion, emotion and by ensuing controversy. It is easier to hurl abuse and to argue than to legislate, and I believe that the length of time waited, at the end of which six texts have been proposed, and these are six extremely important contributions to implement a legal basis for maritime safety in Europe, which did not previously exist, is normal. I also believe that Parliament and the Commission must be congratulated for the work that they have done – the Commission for having proposed six texts and Parliament for having examined them, thanks to the rapporteurs, in record time. To do otherwise, in my view, would have been to deceive the public, in other words, to lead the public to believe that it was possible to work much more quickly. My second comment relates to the content. I believe that, with both the Erika I and Erika II packages, today we have, or very nearly have, a fairly solid legal basis, and we have created a European maritime area, or the beginnings of a European maritime area from scratch and within, essentially, 18 months, with the constraints that are all too familiar to you, which are, in particular, the constraints of our agreements at the IMO. We have made much progress, particularly with regard to risk prevention, or safety, in other words, as regards the effectiveness of monitoring and as regards legal and financial liability. I, like many, believe that the European Union must legislate in order to be more powerful within the International Maritime Organisation. As for the future, and I would like to mention two cases here, I believe that there are two important aspects of safety which have not been dealt with. The first aspect is the emptying of tanks. I think that it is absolutely essential that the EU legislate and pass tough legislation on the practice of emptying tanks, which is collectively more damaging as far as the environment is concerned, as you know, than the accidents that we have witnessed. In this respect, there is a gap in the legislation, which must be filled. The second aspect is that, like many, I am astonished that rivers are not covered by any safety regulations. A large proportion of today’s traffic, particularly in northern Europe, uses the rivers. This puts people living in the vicinity at risk, and we should not wait for a disaster to happen to take legislative measures on traffic using inland ports.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the elected Vice-President of the island of Taiwan has been called “the dregs of the nation” by the government in Beijing. Extra troops have been sent to the Chinese province of Fujian, which lies across the water from Taiwan. This elected Vice-President, Annette L, said last week that although Taiwan and the mainland are very close to each other geographically, they had become distant relations over the course of history. China reacted furiously. Lü had shown her true colours as an extremist and incorrigible agitator for the independence of Taiwan. According to Beijing, with her poisonous words she wanted to stir up her Taiwanese comrades to hate their fellow countrymen in the mother country, i.e. Beijing. Lü said that these slanderous comments reminded her of the way in which the Kuomintang had treated her – during the long dictatorship of this party she was imprisoned for five years – and that she is only interested in improved relations with Beijing. That is indeed the case. We know Annette Lü and the new President of Taiwan Chen Shui-bian. Their election is the crowning glory of the democratisation process in Taiwan. Is that a threat to China? Yes, indeed, after all it is clear that the Chinese people are quite capable of building a democratic system with respect for human rights. The Taiwanese have shown that. For the old man in Beijing the internal developments in Taiwan must be a nightmare. Do they really think their threats will bring results? Beijing’s behaviour confirms our opinion that the future of Taiwan lies in the hands of the Taiwanese themselves. As Europeans we do not need to interfere. Our business is to ensure that this great and independent island is properly represented on the world stage, at the World Health Organisation, the World Trade Organisation, and such like. The idea that Beijing could represent the Taiwanese in such organisations is absolutely ridiculous. It is extremely important for this Parliament to forge closer links with the elected representatives in Taiwan. Democratisation in that part of the world is also important for Europe. China will only be able to be reunited if both Taiwan and the mainland adopt democracy, human rights and the rule of law as their guiding principles.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, our experience of the Community eco-audit scheme has been very mixed. In Germany and Austria a great number of businesses have taken part in it, whereas the uptake from businesses in other Member States has been very low. The aim of the present revision must therefore be to make the eco-audit scheme more attractive. For that reason it is important that there should be scope to involve companies from the service sector and to support small and medium-sized enterprises. All that, however, is not enough, in my view. More needs to be done, particularly in terms of reducing the administrative burden and establishing ways of projecting the public profile of the service. From discussions at various company headquarters it has emerged that EMAS has an internal impact and that workforces are playing a far greater part in protecting the environment, but the time has now come to improve the external impact of the system. In all the reflections on how to improve EMAS, one thing has to be remembered, namely that EMAS is a voluntary system which companies can join. It must not therefore be encumbered with concepts such as best available technology. These are binding specifications which set excessively difficult targets. All we shall achieve by adopting them is to make businesses quit the system. That surely serves no purpose at all. The system has proved useful so far, and we should build on the valuable experience that has been amassed. If we cherish certain environmental ideals, I am certainly willing to pursue them too, but that will take us down the road of directives and regulations. We cannot realise such ideals by opting for a voluntary system like EMAS. One last point that seems important to me if the eco-audit is to be a practicable mechanism is the frequency of its validation. The proposal envisages renewal of the validation at yearly intervals. That, to my mind, is far too frequent. Companies have to spend nine months on the preparation of an environmental report. They cannot do that if annual validation is required. I therefore propose an interval of two to three years, and I hope you will support this proposal.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to congratulate both the committee responsible and Mrs Flemming for the work they have done. The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development welcomes the communication from the Commission. A suitable pricing policy for irrigation water will play a fundamental role in encouraging more efficient and sustainable use of water in agriculture, its largest consumer, and will free up resources for other uses, thereby reducing environmental pressures. The analysis of the pricing of irrigation water is complex, due to the wide range of agricultural uses in the European Union and also regional differences in the need and availability of water for agricultural usage. Water is, essentially, the very backbone of the agricultural community in the Mediterranean regions. Without water, nothing grows, apart from the controversial almond trees. The pricing policy should be heterogeneous, taking into account the ‘polluter pays’ principle, as well as the social, environmental, economic, geographical and climatic variations in regions that no doubt will be the most affected by this pricing policy. The financial, environmental and resource costs of irrigation farming require differential treatment if gradual-recovery objectives are to be achieved. For this reason, the introduction of this policy should be progressive, transparent and must be adapted to local requirements. In this way, information to irrigation farmers and the adaptation and optimisation of infrastructures and irrigation techniques should be applied in parallel so that farmers can accept this policy. Ladies and gentlemen, in its current form the CAP does not help to achieve the objectives set out in the framework directive, which means we must seek coherence between these two policies in order to guarantee the protection of European agriculture’s functional model. Today, in Europe, water is a factor for cohesion between countries. The revision of Agenda 2000 on the development of agri-environmental measures should include the objectives of water policies. This will require the revision of certain types of aid, the application of eco-conditionality and the recognition of the right to adequate compensation for more vulnerable farmers, such as those who work on family holdings, with the aim of promoting the sustainable use of water and an integrated rural development.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr Minister, since I raised this issue the last time, thousands of immigrants have continued to arrive on Andalusian, that is European, beaches in small boats, risking their very lives. Women, men, young people, both boys and girls, and children, some of whom have arrived dead, discovered lifeless on the beaches and rocks of the tragic border between Africa and Europe. Others have been arrested and many have escaped inland to try to find the work that did not exist in their own countries. Given this unacceptable situation, when will the European institutions understand that this is their problem and one that affects them directly? When are they going to take action to prevent such occurrences, so that when these people arrive, they enjoy conditions that befit them as our brothers and the human beings that they are? I have already said here on another occasion that the European Union cannot turn a blind eye from a tragic situation that should shame the European and Spanish institutions and that this should force them to implement the measures necessary to remedy the situation.

Political group: Verts-ALE
In abstaining, we have finally refused to vote in favour of this report because of the adoption, at the time of the vote, of an amendment, Amendment No 15 from the Group of the European People’s Party , which is favourable towards the private interests of large water operators.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the first thing that the annual reports on cohesion policy for 1999 point out is that the results have been very poor. During the eleven and seven years, respectively, which these Community Funds have been operating, the average per capita income in Spain, Greece and Portugal, which in 1988 stood at 68%, has risen to 79% of the European average in 1999. In other words, it has increased by an average of one point per year. At this rate, it would take 21 more years for the whole of the European Union to achieve an equal level. I have serious doubts about the political will to eliminate the differences and the genuine solidarity of the governments of the Union. And I say this because, as Mr Nogueira has pointed out, in 1999 the Funds of the cohesion policy for 92-99 represented 0.46% of GDP, while those from Agenda 2000 until 2006 will only represent 0.31%, that is to say, they will be reduced by 15 points. Furthermore, there are some who do not intend to increase their contributions but nevertheless, through these reduced amounts, expect to show solidarity with the new Eastern States which will be part of the enlarged EU. Mr President, if we are really committed to equal opportunities, solidarity and a genuine united Europe, we must stop being miserly and we must all give more money, especially the richest amongst us, for the benefit of the poorest.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Behind the convoluted wording of this text, there is an outline of a raft of measures, all harmful to workers. What is the meaning of the expression “the deadline within which Member States are required to guarantee unemployed individuals a chance to access an active employment measure should not exceed two years”, if not a threat to unemployment benefits? What is the meaning of “the introduction of the opportunity to move towards retirement gradually, via part-time work”, if not a threat to the age of retirement, which is already far too high in many countries? There is no ambiguity about the repeated calls for making flexibility in employment more common. With regard to the passage on work experience in companies, apprenticeships, joint work/training contracts, it aims to make more widespread a practice already adopted by many States which consists, on the pretext on helping workers or unemployed young people, of making a partially or completely subsidised workforce available to employers. The icing on the cake for the property-owning classes is the report’s recommendation of something already practised by many States, which is “the contributions in respect of fiscal and parafiscal charges” by the authorities on “domestic work”, which clearly means taxpayers’ subsidising the maids and chauffeurs that the rich are likely to hire. Texts like these confirm the fact that the role allotted to the European institutions, including Parliament, is to be of service to the narrow band of the well-to-do.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we want to put a stop to the noise we have to endure in the vicinity of airports in Europe. Keeping noisy aircraft out is one way to achieve this. We were right to lay down regulations to this end in the past: regulations that are better than those in other parts of the world and that imply a break with the era of the Tupolevs, Concordes and old, noisy aircraft with engine-mufflers. In the US, the importance of profit still far outstrips that of the people and the environment they live in. One way of making a profit is to carry on flying old, noisy aircraft, or to sell these aircraft on to future Member States of the European Union. In retrospect, we have to admit that Europe sent out the wrong message to the US a year ago. We thought that postponing our own measures would help us to reach rapid agreement on restricting noise levels world-wide. The Americans, on the other hand, thought that we were no longer taking the matter quite as seriously and that we would be satisfied for the time being with less stringent noise level standards. We have since learnt that there is no prospect of us reaching agreement either rapidly or easily. We can no longer harbour illusions about swiftly reaching an accommodation with the Americans, this year being election year. We may want to avoid a trade war at all costs, but what we are doing is likely to lead to precisely the opposite. We now have a choice between caving in to the United States or standing by the stringent demands that we drew up earlier on. It is no disgrace if the European Union continues to push for more stringent regulations than the US or the ICAO at international level. It is regrettable that in the run-up to this debate some individuals once again conveyed the impression that reaching agreement with the Americans is more important than environmental protection. I can only hope that any misconceptions arising from this will not stand in the way of us bringing clarity to the situation at tomorrow’s vote. Europe must be prepared to consult with America on joint, stringent environmental standards in the short term, but must not accept delays or give in to short-sightedness.

Political group: GUE-NGL