GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I must admit to the Commissioner that I found his speech extraordinarily disappointing. He gave a series of general considerations on a situation that we are well aware of. Those considerations were centred around the restructuring of companies in a series of sectors, but did not specifically deal with the problems that we are currently experiencing in several regions. I must admit that I was very surprised to hear the Commissioner condemning the attitude of a company that everyone considers to have behaved in a particularly scandalous manner, Metaleurop, and at the same time praising another company which has been headline news in recent months, Arcelor. The decision taken by Arcelor to gradually close its hot-working steel facilities on its continental sites was, of course, received with concern in the regions concerned. It was also received with anger, in particular in the Liège region, because it is ruthlessly breaking the commitment made by Usinor before merging into the new Arcelor group to invest in the smelting works in Liège, in order to ensure that hot-working production lines were maintained. Along with this commitment there was a commitment in return from workers to make efforts towards productivity to ensure that the site was competitive. The workers’ commitments were kept but Usinor’s have now been betrayed and the workers feel they have been duped. This is why all of the movements in the region and also the Walloon Government and the Belgian Federal Government are now asking Arcelor to explain itself. I think it is important that the European Commission also takes this stance. The resolution that we have all put forward together has the prime objective of ensuring that Arcelor keeps its commitments. There is all the more reason for Arcelor to keep its commitments given that you said – and this is the important element in your statement – that the steel industry was not in crisis, that companies in general were competitive, and that there is therefore no reason for Arcelor to want to go back on the commitments that it made unless it is for purely financial reasons. We should not therefore envisage first of all restructuring processes with Cockerill-Sambre, and then with Usinor. The Liège region has already experienced and paid heavily for the steel crisis. What is needed now to ensure restructuring is time. What the Liège region does not accept is for commitments to be broken, shortening the deadlines that were set for us, and we therefore clearly ask the Commission to remind Arcelor of its commitments. We should also question Arcelor’s behaviour, as we are learning that it intends to purchase a number of sites in a candidate country that will be part of Europe in the future. That raises a number of questions at European level. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to ask for clarification of the Commissioner's remarks in relation to regional advisory councils. In his earlier statement he said that RACs had been established in the basic regulation, that they can be consulted, but there was not a general obligation and indeed there are legal obstacles to that. Now he has said that regional advisory councils will be consulted where there is a regional aspect to a proposal. In general, whose prerogative is it to decide when and on what RACs will be consulted. In particular, does he accept that technical measures, if they are to be meaningful, must be tailored to regions, and that therefore there is a regional aspect. Therefore will or will not regional advisory councils be consulted on this technical measures report?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Russia is of interest to us and is a partner that presents challenges. For some reason, when we give our opinions we often stress in particular Russia’s various problems instead of concentrating on its positive achievements and the potential that exists in future cooperation. Many things are obviously better in the Union but we also have problems Russian Members of Parliament could seize on if they so wished. To their credit, they do not. I do not mean that we should keep silent, for example, about environmental problems, lack of democracy or human rights violations in Russia. It is a matter of how we weigh things and how we handle them. Right now it is important for us to discuss the effects EU enlargement will have on cooperation between the EU and Russia. We have been able to resolve problems to do with Kaliningrad’s status but there is still much work to be done. In this regard the ball is very much in Moscow’s court. We need them to be unbiased in their approach to implementing changes in Kaliningrad so that there is investment there coming from the rest of Russia and abroad too. Now that the border between the EU and Russia is to lengthen we must make renewed efforts to develop northwestern Russia and boost cooperation in the border regions. The Union must make a more serious effort than it has until now to engage in programmes of cooperation in the Barents Sea and Baltic Sea regions and furthermore direct substantial economic resources at those areas. Another question of current importance is the development of cooperation in the area of energy. That would enable us on the one hand to help Russia develop its energy economy and protect its environment and, on the other, safeguard our own energy economy. It is in this spirit that progress must be made in the area of cooperation.

Political group: ELDR
British Conservatives, of course, deplore the practice of female genital mutilation, wherever it occurs, and we are pleased to note that in some countries it is already against the law, but we do not feel that this report will assist in ending the procedure altogether. For this reason, Conservatives have abstained, as we feel, from an international perspective, that more diplomatic pressure should be brought to bear against those countries in which the practice of female genital mutilation is still allowed, and that world-wide education and diplomatic initiatives would be the best means to employ in order to put an end to the procedure. Certainly, in any event, we do not wish to see an extension of the Geneva Convention of 1951 in terms of the criteria it sets out on asylum, however worthy the cause may be.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I was delighted by the Commissioner’s explanations. At the moment, however, our shipbuilding industry is, unfortunately, in a very bad way. I would like to remind you that the issue we are dealing with today is by no means a recent one. Quite the opposite. For more than two years we have debated and condemned the unfair practices, originating mainly from Asia, which our shipbuilders are being subjected to. At the moment it is exclusively the Commission’s responsibility to define the defence mechanisms for protecting our shipbuilding industry, or what remains of it, in the face of Korea’s unfair practices. After so much time during which the European sector has been decimated, while people signed friendly agreements, carried out consultations and held meetings, it is now time to act decisively. The Commission must adopt a strong position on this issue and unequivocally defend our industry, by approving, as soon as possible, an ambitious plan which provides aid for operations, research and development and, of course, environmental aid. Only through a raft of measures of this type can we protect and compensate this important industry which, on more than one occasion, has felt abandoned by the Community authorities. This would also send a clear and powerful message to the Government of South Korea and would possibly persuade that government, in the medium term, to change its current policy of commercial dumping. Finally, I must point out that it is our duty to guarantee an atmosphere of fair competition on a world scale so that this industry, on which so many families in Europe, Spain and in my region, the Basque Country, depend, may move forward.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, everyone – in Finland at least – has probably played a game called Star of Africa. Each time we discuss Sierra Leone or Angola, I think with dismay of this game that was, indeed, regarded as just a game but which, at the same time, showed in a bloody way – one moment in Angola, the next in Sierra Leone – that what could actually be a country’s blessing can also be a curse upon it. My friends, I truly believe that we are beginning to see signs of a more intelligent policy in respect of the monitoring of resources. We have seen many proposals for peace – the Lusaka Protocol, peace proposals in Sierra Leone and such like – but so long as war pays better than peace we will not get especially far. I therefore strongly support what Mrs Maes has stated, namely that it is this way we must choose in order to move forward. I also think that Canada, which has started work on sanctions, deserves our support and forms a reference point for our activities in respect of sanctions and our work in opposition to landmines and child soldiers. We need to introduce similar work that is just as ambitious. It is interesting to note that many who speak Angola’s language are speaking today. I also believe that there are many amongst us who have a bad conscience concerning what we said about Angola in the past. We have all in our own way contributed to the tragedy. Now it is a matter of putting a stop to this, of looking at what is singled out in the UN’s reports – including the reports requested by the parliaments of the Member States – and also of pointing the finger at the presidents: those holding power in Togo or Burkina Faso who have, in their own way, contributed to the buying of diamonds or oil. When it comes to the World Bank, which was mentioned in the debate, I actually believe it can be a very positive player in Africa, for example by monitoring, as it does at present, the income that the Angolan government acquires through the oil trade.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, practically all the parliamentary groups and – it appears – all the Member States claim to want a new legal framework for the Union in the form of a Constitution. Work by many people over many months has resulted in a proposal with which a great majority appear to be in agreement. The good work of the Italian Presidency has furthermore allowed us over the weekend to add something very important to the agreement, which is the establishment of a European defence doctrine. All of this acquis, the fruit of negotiation – as Mr Berlusconi has said – must be recovered and consolidated as an approved text. What then has led to this failure? I believe that the failure stems from a proposed institutional reform which the President of the Convention came up with at the last moment, which was not debated sufficiently, and on which there was certainly no consensus within the Convention. Apparently in Brussels six months has not been enough time to complete a compromise. This is no great tragedy. We must remember that of the five previous Intergovernmental Conferences which negotiated reforms of the Treaties, only one ended within the six-month period in which it had begun. The Irish Presidency must simply carry on working where the Italian Presidency has left off. What I believe should be ruled out, Mr President, is the following: firstly, the absurd idea of postponing this debate until after the European elections; secondly, the idea that what interests me is Europeanist and that what does not interest me is anti-European; thirdly, the nonsense of dividing Europe even before it has been enlarged; and fourthly, the recriminations which get us nowhere, except for some people, of course – such as the President of the Group of the – who believe that the government of their country is solely to blame, whatever it does and whatever happens. I believe that the only phrase he knows in Italian is Piove, porco governo [it is raining – damned government]. He indulges in this type of national opposition in the European Parliament and is then surprised that he loses election after election. It must be the electorate’s fault, naturally. In any event, we now all have responsibility. Mr President, we must keep the IGC open, we must contribute to dialogue and the commitment we all aspire to. Let us pray that we achieve it before 13 June.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities had a lot of reservations from the beginning about the work of the Convention, simply for the reason that only 17% of the Convention’s members were women. Whether or not the deputies were counted alongside the members proper, the same result was produced. What is more, the average age in the Praesidium was 53, the members concerned being men. There was only one woman, who might almost be regarded as a female hostage. Our reservations remained intact when we saw the first draft. There was absolutely no mention of equality, ‘mainstreaming’ or anything at all along those lines. Fortunately, things went well in the end. Equality was made one of the fundamental values, and I should like to take the opportunity also to thank all those who have contributed to the Convention’s success. There is still a lot to be done, and I wish to emphasise that, if the constitutional Treaty is implemented, there are still areas of relevance in terms of equality where matters are not perfect. That is something of which I should like to ask everyone – the Commission, the Council and the representatives of the European Parliament – to be aware.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I produced the opinion for the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs at first reading and I would like to raise two specific points that still arise from that opinion. The first concerns paragraph 2 of Article 27 in the classical directive and the equivalent text in the utilities directive. It is important that we leave out the phrase 'collective agreements declared or deemed to be generally binding'. That phrase would create difficulties and legal uncertainty, most particularly in Germany and the Scandinavian Member States. I have worked very closely with the European Trade Union Confederation and with the public service unions both at first reading and second reading and I have received – and a number of Members here will have received – a large number of representations from concerned individuals in those countries. I hope, via split votes, that we can leave that text out of the finished text at second reading. My second concern applies to Article 53 in the classical directive. Several amendments will probably be on offer to align this text with that of Article 55(1), in the utilities directive, as it now stands following the adoption of an amendment by Mr Karlsson in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. I disagree with what Commissioner Bolkestein said earlier on this point. If we align the classical directive with the text of Article 55(1) of the utilities directive, we would be bringing them into line with the emerging jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice. Not to do so would be a retrograde step. The Commissioner and his services have consistently given far too negative an interpretation of ECJ jurisprudence on this point and that is why we have such clear difficulties emerging in our debate here over applying environmental and social considerations. I hope that these considerations can be taken into account tomorrow. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Not only do businesses produce goods and services, they also produce pollution and accidents. The costs of repairing the damage to the environment fall on the injured parties or the government. The benefits of the economic activity that has led to the damage, on the other hand, fall to the business. To combat this injustice the 'polluter pays' principle was developed long ago, but businesses continue to exert pressure to undermine it as far as possible. We can see this in the right-wing amendments submitted, which seriously limit liability. After 21 years of preparation nothing seems to have come of the original intentions. The directive is applicable to just 13% of the EU’s territory, the regions indicated in the Birds Directive and Natura 2000. Marine pollution and damage due to nuclear energy do not count and even if people were acting on the basis of a licence or the state of the art at the time, there is no liability. Oil disasters at sea and contamination of natural crops by genetically modified crops do not lead to liability. Advances in environmental protection at national level are made impossible if Article 95 for a uniform market is placed ahead of environmental protection in Article 175. Only the left-wing amendments, taken as a whole, can make this proposal in any way acceptable.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Last October I expressed my views on the Hatzidakis report on the transport of dangerous goods by rail. The views I shall express today are not far removed from those I had then. Essentially, my opinion is as follows: I deplore the fact that, in a field as crucial as the transport of dangerous goods, we keep putting off the adoption of harmonised standards to the detriment of human beings and the environment. I shall point out that a directive on the approximation of Member State legislation on the transport of dangerous goods by road came into force on 1 January 1997. This included a number of interim conditions valid until 1 January 1999. This is the time when we should have expressed our opinion of the Commission proposal to put an end to the derogations. In line with the usual procedure, it is the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) which puts forward standards in this area, and they are then integrated in to the European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road signed in Geneva in 1957 (known generally as ADR), applicable throughout Europe, whose terms and conditions form the basis for the legislation applicable within the EU. The CEN has been unable to complete its work in the time allotted. Consequently, the Commission proposal under discussion today is intended to amend the directive in order to provide a short-term solution to these problems, rather than to put an end to the transitional arrangements, as should have been the case! This is exactly what happened in the case of transport of such goods by rail, except for the fact that a time limit had been decided. Right now we do not have the slightest idea as to when the CEN will be in a position to put forward practical proposals. Until then, there is really no point in Member States amending their national regulations. The report also accepts that some flexibility may be adopted, and grants States the option of adopting or applying alternative standards. They may, therefore, continue to enforce their own standards regarding certain types of pressure vessel used for transportation, where there are no applicable European standards. They may also adopt alternative conditions for transportation of a local nature and for ad hoc transportation. In offering this explanation of my vote, therefore, I wished to express my deep dissatisfaction and my deep concern. – Schroedter Report (A5-0108/1999)

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I signalled I wanted to raise a point of order, although it is not actually on the Minutes. I do not want to delay the House unduly, but I think that as we prepare to debate the construction of Europe, it is important to take note of a landmark court judgement in the UK. The so-called historian, David Irving, has lost his libel case against the American academic, Deborah Lipstadt, who accused him of manipulating evidence to deny the Nazi genocide of the Jews. The judge has ruled, in a devastating judgement, that he was “an active Holocaust denier, anti-Semitic and racist and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism”. This judgement is important, not just for Europe’s past, but also for its present. With the rise in racism and anti-Semitism and the electoral success of extremist parties, this judgement boosts the fight to make Europe a society free of racism and at ease with diversity. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
I voted against the Jackson report on Codex Alimentarius because I am heartily sick of the gross intrusion into the European Parliament e-mail system of mass mailing of lobby letters. It has been totally counterproductive and every effort will be made in future to prevent similar intrusions. - Dary report (A5-0443/2001)

Political group: PPE-DE
I congratulate Mrs Zrihen Zaari on the excellent report she has drafted on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on promoting gender equality in development cooperation, the proposals for amendments to which I fully support. In this context, I wish to express my particular support for establishing a regulatory text that does not contain an exhaustive list of projects to be supported and which provides a real boost for launching actions to promote gender equality in development cooperation. I also wish to emphasise the importance of giving support to the collection and dissemination of statistics in this field, because unless statistics are correctly collected, the entire process of analysing them is undermined and unless they are properly disseminated, society will not have the full picture.

Political group: PPE-DE
When prices increase, the value of wages decreases. To protect themselves against this, the trade unions in many European countries have battled for years for indexing. This means that it is not necessary to negotiate on compensation for the reduction in purchasing power every year but only on the extent to which workers should participate in productivity increases and on the making up of arrears suffered by some occupational groups who have been underpaid for years. Pressure from employers’ organisations and the support afforded by neo-liberal governments have in very many cases reversed this indexing. This can result in increasing intransigence in wage disputes. Attempts are repeatedly being made to place the blame for inflation or the lack of money for useful government expenditure on the shoulders of the workers. This means that in the eyes of the Right and the employers, the economy will flourish only if a majority of the people accepts a creeping drop in purchasing power. They do not consider the loss of domestic purchasing power that this can cause, or the excessive profits and too low taxes. Official statistics on wage costs and the development of prices become an important item of information in labour disputes and in the way in which governments and employers attempt to manipulate these disputes. The regulation on labour cost index will not eliminate this conflict of interests.

Political group: GUE-NGL