GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, I congratulate Mrs Kauppi on this report. I have to admit that representing London I do not have too many fishermen in my constituency and I am delighted to be able to put forward a few comments on behalf of Mrs Scallon who, unfortunately, cannot be here today as she has a pressing engagement. She has followed this dossier very carefully because of the large fishing industry in her constituency in Ireland. I should like to pass on her and my thanks to the Commission for focusing on this important issue. When speaking to stakeholders in this industry, Mrs Scallon found that they were very concerned about the concept of flagging out, which was one of the root causes of the sharp decline in EU seafarers and the increase in the use of third-country ratings and junior officers. EU crew members suffer a severe competitive disadvantage; with their working conditions of working one week on, one week off with full pay on passenger ferries, they find it very difficult to compete with non-EU crew members working nine months on, and one month off without pay. As a result, there are few training places available for EU junior officers and ratings and, sadly, redundancy is being offered to many in this industry in the EU. In line with many of the points highlighted in the report, Mrs Scallon heard that there was concern regarding the lower standard of EU training and the possible danger to public safety that might be caused by language difficulties with multilingual crews, where no translation was available. Both Mrs Scallon and I would definitely like to see more training places available if we are to stop this decline. Experienced seafarers are also ideal for other temporary, onshore work off-season in areas such as recruitment, training, freight forwarding, insurance and arbitration. As part of the suggested awareness campaign, we should also look at the possibility of funding the promotion of seafaring at secondary-school level. Mrs Scallon closed by remarking that it was sad that even in the fishing villages of her own country, seafaring, rowing and sailing were not subjects which played a great part in the curriculum. That is something that we both regret.

Political group: PPE-DE
I very much regret that France continues to maintain its ban on beef from the UK and, as I have made very clear in previous debates here, I expect the European Commission to urgently proceed with enforcement action. However, I also believe that political representations should continue to be made, and for that reason my SNP colleague Neil MacCormick and I remained in this Chamber yesterday rather than sulking outside in the corridors. We took the opportunity to personally draw President Chirac's attention to the quality of Scottish beef. Since the start of the beef crisis, SNP members here have consistently advocated that the situation in Scotland should be assessed separately with a view to a phased re-introduction of export trading. I am challenging the Scottish Minister for Agriculture to bypass London and support the SNP's request, which I delivered yesterday to the French Government, that the French authorities study in detail and with urgency the scientific evidence, the traceability and labelling situation in Scotland; and I call upon French colleagues in this House to advocate that line with their government.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, together with Mr Oostlander I have for many years now had the privilege of following the accession process from the point of view of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. The written report says what still now remains to be done. Unlike Mr Pirker, I should like to emphasise the tremendous progress that all the candidate countries have made in this area that is as broad as it is difficult – and in which they have also been supported by the Commission and our Member States: the abolition of the death penalty, which still existed at least in the laws of a few candidate countries, discrimination against various minorities, Russian minorities for example, the improved integration of Roma minorities, the construction of a democratic police and democratic criminal prosecution authorities and other important authorities in the justice and administration sector and much more besides has been achieved by really unparalleled efforts. This has been the case in all the candidate countries, to a greater or lesser extent to be sure, but it is particularly true of the Czech Republic, which is particularly close to my heart. I therefore find it all the more regrettable that the present Austrian Government is showing no recognition of the positive things that have been achieved and that at least one of our ruling parties is trying to win votes for itself with anti-Czech slogans in the current election campaign. They are of course focusing on the past again. I hope that after Sunday’s elections we will have a government in Austria that makes the common future of the Czech Republic and Austria central and stands in the way neither of the enlargement nor of the deepening of the European Union.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Lagendijkand Westendorp reports on the Agency and the CARDS programme – it is difficult to distinguish one from the other – base their proposed amendments on the experience gained from their forerunners, the OBNOVA programme and the Kosovo agency. I think we all realise that a slimmer, more efficient structure is needed if the good work which the Kosovo Agency has carried out in recent months is to be consolidated for future purposes. In future, responsibility must be vested in a few people, including a director, if you like, so that really one person is responsible vis-à-vis the committee which selects the individual programmes. I think responsibility must be vested in very few people if we are to raise the profile of European work on the ground. As we have seen in Bosnia time and again, the Americans manage to show themselves to good advantage with very limited funds. In numerous areas, we have spent and continue to spend more money than anyone else but still we are not visible because it sort of runs through our fingers rather than being vested in any one institution. I also feel that duplicate work by the governing board and management board and unnecessary ritual meetings of their members, where it is the director responsible who needs to take the necessary decisions on time, should be avoided. I hope that Parliament's proposals will be accepted by the Commission and the Council. I repeat: unnecessary expenditure on unnecessary meetings really should be cut back. The money is desperately needed on the ground, where it can be put to better use. If, although this was not the case with my report on the Kosovo Agency, the Council could perhaps at last learn from its mistakes, that would help the taxpayer no end. The objectives of the CARDS programme were in fact all right. But something important, one important objective is missing from this CARDS and that is support for education and training in these countries. Without education and training there is nothing, which is why I am delighted that the members of all the committees have helped me to table this proposed amendment. As I understand it, the Commissioner also takes the view that this should be an important objective in the CARDS programme. It should also be an objective which is close the Council's heart. I really do hope that the French Minister for Education, Jacques Lang, will be able to persuade his cabinet to ensure that the French government does not oppose the inclusion of the objective of education in the CARDS programme in the next Coreper. I think it would be counterproductive and I am certain that Mr Lang will do his utmost and if Mr Moscovici were here, he would perhaps do so too. So my thanks to all my fellow members who see this as an important objective and I am delighted that we shall be able to bring these countries more in the way of content in the future. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is of course interesting to listen to Commissioner Wallström and Representative of the Council Hassi. You express a certain optimism when it comes to the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol, which I appreciate that one has to do in your position. I personally am not so optimistic. Greenhouse gases continue to increase throughout the world more than seven years after the Climate Convention was signed. I have been participating in a worldwide energy analysis which is just now being carried out. This shows – and, unfortunately, this has perhaps to be emphasised – that there will be plenty of fossil fuels for the foreseeable future. Even if demand increases in the future, we shall be more or less swimming in oil and gas, and it will be cheap oil and gas. It is therefore absolutely necessary to take political measures. The market cannot put the environmental consequences in question into the equation. We must levy taxes and charges, and we must devise norms and standards if we want the alternatives which exist in the energy sphere to have a chance. The United States’s passive attitude thus far has already been mentioned. I have come to the conclusion that the European Union must very much take a leading role in this work. The resolution states a number of steps which could lead to the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol if Europe were to take the lead: a reduction of emissions here at home; concrete plans to reduce emissions in the most important sectors, above all within the transport sector where emissions are increasing most quickly; the introduction of economic instruments of control; early ratification of the Kyoto Protocol; and intensified dialogue, both with Japan and with the developing countries. I realise, like earlier speakers, that we must involve America in this, but we cannot wait for their leadership. My question both to Commissioner Wallström and Representative of the Council Hassi is this: you have expressed a general optimism; now where is the conclusion? My other question to Commissioner Wallström is this: are you prepared to give pro-active leadership a chance and, if so, how will it be possible for this to develop in the current political climate?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, there is not a lot more which needs to be said, because most of it has been said by Mr Blokland. I would like to start by agreeing with the last speaker. This is a good report and the rapporteurs have worked really hard on it. A first-reading agreement, though it is not absolutely certain yet, is what we would like to see. We think that by and large the amendments are sensible additions to the text. We are a little concerned about the proposals on Member States including chemicals in the PIC procedure and think that everyone should be properly consulted if that is going to happen. We need this measure without delay. It will help to improve our public health and environmental protection, both inside and outside the European Union. We are anxious to go through with it and we will be supporting the vast majority of the amendments and following the rapporteur tomorrow. We would like to see a solution as quickly as possible. We need more international agreements like this and we need speed. Many pieces of chemical legislation have taken too long to be properly implemented in the past.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this week is an important week as far as the debates in this House are concerned. Yesterday, we discussed the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and today, in discussing Community initiatives, we are debating the matter of combating discrimination. We are thereby boosting the positions of the European Union regarding the practical situations experienced by European nationals in connection with discrimination and equal treatment. I should like, straight away, to emphasise the importance of these two texts: on the one hand, the directive, acting as it does on the state of the law and, on the other hand, the action programme, because it makes it possible to implement effectively new practices intended for adoption on a widespread basis. In this regard, I cannot accept the muddle that some parties are making of the necessary anti-discrimination measures, equal treatment and the mention of other cases of prohibition. I do not think we can mix things up in this way. The proposal for a directive discussed in the Mann report is a key one, and I should like to discuss it briefly. It seeks to boost the principle of equal treatment at the same time as reducing the number of opportunities for exemptions, which we think excessive. Let me return to the subject of the exemption for religion. I should like to express our reservations on this difficult issue and restate our commitment to the principle of secularism, especially in the context of the fight against discrimination. This seems fundamental to us, particularly after incorporating the questions of activities in the social or health fields. The desire for action is a matter of jurisdiction, not religious belief. One last word on the discussion which may ensue on the need to maintain statistics on the subject. They are essential. Let us beware, nonetheless, lest these statistics be used against the men and women they concern.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I wish to make a comment about this resolution. As far as we are concerned, the matter is very simple: we put our signature to a document which specifically mentioned Michelin, and so for us the compromise is clear on this point. If there were to be some ambiguity or if the word Michelin were not to be included in contradiction to the text we approved by signing, then obviously this signature would no longer be valid.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I would like to compliment Mr Howitt on the very considerable work that he has done on this report. As he is aware, many of his colleagues have not been idle either and much of the work that we have done has been, as a result of the work of Mr Howitt, to try and unscramble or reshape his particular report. Certainly, in committee we have worked well together across the groups and have produced compromise amendments that some of us can live with, some more easily than others. Our basic position is that, yet again, we see being proposed today, the standard Socialist solution to every problem: legislation. The irony is that on this particular occasion it is being offered as a solution to an area for which there is no problem in the first place. Corporate social responsibility is something that is very much on the up, it is very strong within Europe. Europe is giving a lead on this and that is to be encouraged and supported. As a group, obviously we support the very concept of CSR, but we do not welcome legislation which would stifle the very initiatives that we are trying to foster. This represents not just the view of governments, but also of businesses across the EU who have supplied input to the rapporteur. We have tabled and re-tabled some amendments. Amendment No 1 is key and needs to pass if the group line will be to support the report. I hope that many of the other amendments which failed by one vote in committee, will also secure the support of the House today. We welcome the idea of some sort of stakeholder forum where companies can bounce ideas off each other and share best practice, but do not see this as a forum which will lead to the signing-up of agreements. Finally, I particularly welcome the position taken by the Commissioner and would thank her for the letter that she wrote to my colleague, Mr Pronk, last month which said that the Commission has stated that the CSR is essentially a concept whereby companies decide voluntarily to contribute to a better society and a cleaner environment. The Commission maintains this opinion which has been confirmed during the consultation process on the Green Paper. I trust you will note that the final report invites the Commission to bring forward legislation and I hope this is an invitation which you will very politely, but very firmly, refuse.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, since the Chair of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market cannot be here today for health reasons – she will be here next Monday when the coordinators of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market debate this issue – and therefore is not able to reply to Mr Medina, I would like to say something to him. Madam President, we Spanish Members of Parliament – all of us – have the right to be judged in Spain only by the Supreme Court, a right that has not been recognised in this case by the Spanish judge because he believes that it concerns a non-Spanish Member of Parliament from a non-Spanish Parliament. However, this petition for waiver of parliamentary immunity has been dealt with as if it concerned a Spanish Member of Parliament in a Spanish Parliament. Madam President, I simply say this to illustrate the legal complexity of the affair. I believe that the Presidency of the European Parliament is acting very prudently on this issue in order not to jeopardise the legal process. There is only one precedent in my country, which dates from 1991. That precedent was dealt with through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and was received by the then President of the European Parliament – a colleague of yours and mine, Mr Medina – Mr Enrique Barón Crespo. Madam President, I am sure that nobody here is suffering an attack of Alzheimer’s, but that some people are surely seeking to manipulate this Parliament for reasons of party politics in their own countries, which I believe we should all oppose, Madam President.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too should like to congratulate Mr Kinnock on his new post. I hope for worthwhile and constructive dialogue with him over the next few years. As far as I am concerned, two basic questions arise from what Mr Titley has said. Russia, as we know, is suffering not only from financial crisis, but also, and above all, from the erosion of basic democratic mechanisms such as transparency, public supervision of the administration and an independent judiciary. In a situation like that, how can the difficult process of social transformation take place at all? This is just what I have already been saying – our problem is that, in our action programme, we are setting false priorities for Russia. The democratic bases of the market economy must be operating before we can create a free trade area. On the other hand, it is evident that banks in the West have also been weak enough to permit money laundering and the mismanagement of money at an international level. How can it have been possible for the destination of international credits not to have been understood? How is it that money laundering on such a large scale is possible at all in the West? These questions are also waiting to be answered.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I too would like to repeat all the thanks that have been conveyed to all those involved in this excellent committee of inquiry, particularly the Chairperson, Mrs Redondo Jiménez, and Mr Kreissl-Dörfler, both of whom played exemplary roles in the whole process. I would also like to register a note of thanks to the countless people in the United Kingdom who helped organise our visits to the various parts of the UK during the course of our investigations. It was quite a challenge for many of them to deal with this rabble of argumentative poly-lingual MEPs who suddenly descended upon them, but on the whole those visits went extremely well. The report, as many speakers have said, is judicious and balanced. It is bold and forthright in exactly the right areas, particularly on vaccination and import controls. The report conveys some very clear messages about what should be avoided in the future and what should be done in the horrific eventuality that another outbreak occurs. On both of those points, it is clear that the report has already had an influence on the shift in public policy which is starting in the United Kingdom. I would join Mr Sturdy and others in saying that the response, particularly on the issue of import controls – certainly within the United Kingdom – is still too slow. Insufficient resources have been allocated to that important task. I see that the Group and the rapporteur have tabled some amendments to protect the reputation of the United Kingdom Government. I would only suggest to my colleagues that they should not be so over-sensitive. It is simply part and parcel of the independence of a committee of inquiry such as this that there should be some critical remarks. Frankly, it is an aspect of independence that the government has deliberately shunned by refusing to hold its own public inquiry in the UK. Some of the amendments which have been retabled seem to be just plain wrong. I pick out arbitrarily an amendment which says that there was no evidence of health or environmental problems arising from some of the burial sites in the south-west. I would invite my colleagues, for instance, to see and visit, as I have, the Viridor site near Kingsteignton in the south-west and then come back and say to me with any real confidence that they think there are no environmental or health effects. If they speak to any of the residents in that locality, they will see what a silly amendment that is. Finally, I would ask colleagues to pay particular attention to paragraph 128 of the draft report. The Group will be asking for a split vote to delete the last sentence of paragraph 128. That last sentence suggests that any compensation in future should be conditional on appropriate insurance mechanisms being in place. We are very keen that a study should be made on the feasibility and the pros and cons of insurance systems, but we do not feel it is appropriate at this stage to make any future compensation automatically dependent upon the existence of insurance schemes.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I am speaking on behalf of the Group in support of the Virrankoski report, which gives Parliament the go-ahead to grant a further contribution – as the rapporteur himself explained – to complete the Chernobyl Shelter. I endorse Mr Virrankoski’s reasons for his choice and, in particular, I endorse the European Union’s decision to contribute practically to creating safe conditions in the wake of the 1986 disaster. The European Union has been the largest donor by far, not just as regards Chernobyl but also with regard to safety and preventing the nuclear contamination of the Newly Independent States. We were right to do this: none of us can forget the 1986 disaster and nobody is yet fully aware of the devastating effects it has caused and, I regret to say, may still cause. As Mr Virrankoski pointed out, the tomb of Chernobyl still contains 200 tonnes of uranium and a tonne of plutonium, which represent a permanent danger which might – and I stress, might – also be a prime target for traffickers. However, this was and is still a transparent, legitimate choice in legal terms: indeed, the new Tacis regulation states that the contribution to the initiatives supported by the European Union, such as the initiative on the closure of Chernobyl, will be one of the nuclear safety priorities. In conclusion, this was and is, above all, something which the European Union has a duty towards the new generations to do.

Political group: PSE