GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, we fortunately live at a time when oppressed people and ethnic minorities can have their rights acknowledged and when the deeds of bullies and tyrants can be exposed and condemned. Punishment is not always the crucial factor. What is crucial is to bring out the truth. Prosecutions must be brought because the truth must come out if people are not to be deceived again. Guatemala has ratified the Geneva Convention and the convention aimed at preventing and punishing genocide. The Truth Commission has asked that the authorities now take legal proceedings against those who have practised or supported genocide. The President has supported this, but we see both judges and others associated with the legal authorities being persecuted and killed, and it is regarding these matters that we too in this Parliament must keep the closest possible eye on the situation and keep up a maximum of pressure so that these processes are carried through with transparency and so that the truth emerges and the skeletons come out of the cupboard.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the Frahm report – I am saying this for the benefit of those who are listening to me now and did not take part in the vote – concerns the requirement to obtain a visa for those who come to Europe and who move around within our territory but are not citizens of our Member States. I voted against this initiative of the Portuguese Republic as well, because, in effect, it was not acceptable. However, I do wonder why the relevant committee did not amend the proposal to make it acceptable to Parliament. It is, in fact, important to regulate well and uniformly the movements within the European territory of citizens who enter Europe on temporary visas. - Nassauer Report (A5-0065/2001)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I would like to confine my remarks to the Hermange report, and start by saying this is not the speech that I had intended to make. I had hoped to be in a position to congratulate the rapporteur on her excellent report. It was an excellent report but by the time it came out of our committee earlier this week a lot of the more excellent parts of it were unfortunately removed. What is left is still very useful, very positive, but it is a pale shadow of the excellent and very thorough work that she had put in. Unfortunately her amendments were voted out by the Group who were there in strength on Monday. Unfortunately, apart from herself and one other Group Vice President from the Group, I was the only representative of our Group there. I have no quibble with the Socialists for what they did in pursuing their agenda. They happen to believe they are right in saying there should be no legislative changes and I am not going to debate that particular point now. I congratulate them for their single-mindedness and the efficiency with which they pursued it. However, I do say to our colleagues, particularly our absent colleagues from this side of the House, that if we care about employment, as we do; if we care about unemployment, as we do; if we care about the social injustice that flows from unemployment, as we do; then we must be prepared to make this area a priority. Although there is work simultaneously in other Committees, we have to make certain that we can stand up to be counted, so that our view may prevail in these meetings and so that we can drive change. Change is important on the issues of employment guidelines; I was delighted that the Commissioner again reinforced the importance of the Lisbon Agenda, to which all sides of the House have agreed. However, if we are to deliver the Lisbon Agenda, it is not good enough simply to say that the guidelines will not change before 2006. Similarly, it is not good enough to say it is entirely up to Member States to make changes and implement the guidelines. The guidelines need to be strengthened and refocused and there is a lot of work both to do and to undo in this House in order to give more impetus to the Lisbon process. Finally, I would like to thank Stephen Hughes for saying that he is in full agreement of an oral amendment, which I believe the rapporteur will also support, concerning the importance of elderly people, which I will be proposing later this morning. I am delighted to have that agreement; I hope that augurs well for our relationship in the coming mandate. I know that Stephen Hughes hopes to be back; I also hope to be back, but next time with more support.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this debate on the EU’s own resources and on EU tax is familiar to us all. It comes around every year. The positions are well known, and in a way it seems quite unnecessary to repeat the debate and decisions year after year. Apart from the questions of pure principle, one might wonder whether higher and new taxes are what EU Member States and EU citizens really need. We are all highly taxed. Certain Member States have some of the highest taxation levels in the world – I myself come from one such country. If we look at them, it is hardly these countries which have experienced the greatest economic growth in the last decade. Of course the report talks about tax in total not increasing. However this is a theoretical proposition which has very little to do with practical reality. I also believe it is the case that if a tax is introduced, particularly a new tax level as in this case, taxation will also increase. It is almost inevitable. I would also like to mention the fact that the rapporteur says he is seeking to strengthen the link between the Union and its citizens’. This is no doubt admirable and important, but in my view it should happen in a completely different manner. I am very doubtful indeed whether people would feel any stronger connection with the EU through having to pay higher taxes than they do already.

Political group: PPE-DE
Many in this Parliament believe that the EU should concern itself less with the protection of health at the workplace or with environmental pollution. That became clear earlier, in the course of the voting on my proposals regarding substances harmful to health, such as asbestos and solvents in paint. EU involvement is limited to exerting pressure for a reduction in the costs of health care, and to implementing the Stability and Growth Pact that is to support the value of the euro. Only when I pressed for far-reaching measures to counter the advance of the new disease SARS was there short-lived support for a more active policy. Today, we are talking about the quality of bathing water, which, at first glance, is the kind of thing that would only be a matter for municipalities and provinces. Now that many people are bathing and swimming in lakes and seas far from home, however, there is good cause to introduce international safety standards. It is notable that the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party is proposing to reject the report on this by the rapporteur, and thus also, of course, the Directive aimed at protecting the quality of the environment and human health against chemical and microbiological contamination. In addition, more amendments aimed at lowering the standards for contamination are being kept in reserve in case that fails. I have recommended that my group cast a ‘yes’ vote after these attempts at dilution have been rejected.

Political group: GUE-NGL
We oppose what are termed binding international treaties governing companies’ activities. On this point, we cannot support the present report. We instead recommend that companies operate in accordance with responsibly designed voluntary codes of conduct.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, when the experiment of the Luxembourg procedure was set in motion in 1997 and guidelines for Member States’ employment policies adopted, it was in the conviction that a favourable climate of economic growth might not alone be sufficient to ensure automatic positive results in employment. Today, we are confirming this strategy, these undertakings and guidelines in an economic climate which we all know to be much less favourable, or, rather, full of risks, and we are therefore doing so, first and foremost, by duly recognising the need, already established at the Lisbon Summit, to bring the economic policy guidelines adopted at Community level and by the Member States into line with employment policy recommendations and guidelines. This does not diminish the specific role of the Luxembourg procedure and the economic policy guidelines in the context of what has been defined a coordination process, an open coordination process. We are aware that these alone are not enough; however, they are, or can be, decisive for maximising the effects or reducing the risks for employment, which are also linked to the economic trend. All this must be subject to certain conditions, focused on in both the Commission’s proposals, which we judged to be positive, and Parliament’s position. I will mention them very briefly: we feel that this is a process which warrants careful attention, controls and monitoring. It is not enough just to state the objectives which are then included under the principle of subsidiarity in national employment plans. There must also be consistency in terms of effectiveness and implementation: that is why we call for the adoption of auditable, reliable common indicators at Member State as well as Community level, in order to achieve national objectives without whose achievement it would subsequently be difficult to reach our common European and Community objectives. There must be consistency with budgetary policies at Member State level and at local and regional levels as well; there must be quality employment objectives seeking to combine flexibility, social dialogue, protection, rights and safety, but which also extend beyond that context to include lifelong training, integration policies and employment with a view to increasing the productivity of less elderly workers. Lastly, and most importantly, there must be equal opportunities policies and active employment policies. If these conditions are met, the contribution of the Luxembourg procedure will not be the only factor but it will certainly be decisive.

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, thank you for your response. The Prestige disaster highlights not only the gaps in the implementation of EU legislation which you referred to in your answer, designed to prevent the recurrence of such incidents, but also the lack of an adequate EU response mechanism. In relation to the Prestige, responsibility and liability were disputed. This delayed action and the absence of a coordinated EU response aggravated the environmental impact. If this incident, with the consequences it had for the shared environment and European fishing industries, had occurred in EU waters, and if an EU coastguard had existed, the response time would have been reduced, a refuge port would have been designated and the damage could have been minimised. On top of this, we have had the subsequent incidents involving the Tricolor, the Kariba and the Nicola. All these indicate the need not just for legislation but for the resources to do the job. Would the Commission consider setting up a study? We can learn how the United States tackles this problem, in relation not only to prevention – it saves some USD 6 billion per year by preventing incidents like this – but to its response when incidents do happen. They have successful experience in this field, and we have a lot to learn from them. Since the Commission is the body which initiates legislation, I urge you, Commissioner, to consider acting on the findings of any such inquiry you may care to set up.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, without a shadow of a doubt, Tampere is a significant step forward on the path towards full European integration and I would like to congratulate the Finnish Presidency for its great contribution. Tampere proved that the Union has the political will to carve out joint policies on issues which indirectly affect our daily lives, policies which will, for example, make citizens feel more secure through effectively stepping up the fight against organised crime, particularly in the area of drug trafficking, money laundering and the trafficking of human beings through judicial cooperation and mutual recognition of judgements. Personally, I would like to see a common European family law and further efforts to combat racism, nationalism and xenophobia. The protection of the fundamental human rights of every person, without exception, who lives in the European Union is a sine qua non for the creation of a common area of freedom and justice. It was very encouraging to hear special reference to the Greek-Italian memorandum on strengthening cooperation in the Adriatic and Ionian Seas in order to combat organised crime. However, the Council remained quite diffident when it came to endorsing the common European Asylum System and Fund for immigrants proposed by the European Parliament and the Commission, as opposed to simply approximating rules and procedures. In addition, the Union seems unable to formulate a strategy to combat the social causes of immigration and to provide aid to the countries of origin so as to reduce pressure on the European Union. Finally, Mr President, please allow me to express my reservations on one question in particular. Do you believe that the Tampere meeting has set in motion a five-year process to enhance the democratic and political make-up of the Union or to transform it into a fortress which is unassailable to all the victims of persecution around the world? I believe that only in December 2001, with the interim assessment and with hindsight, will we be able to judge the direction which it has actually taken.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, just to clarify something to start with: We have been discussing the Eurodac report, that is to say, a system of control on the Member States’ responsibility for dealing with asylum and combating asylum abuse, for almost a year now and in spring this year the Social Democrats and the , and others at the last minute, although they had previously been in favour of the introduction of the system, changed tack and came out against the introduction of Eurodac, then in the form of the Convention and the Protocol. That was out of the question and an unreasonable demand, because we need solutions. Now, in the autumn, we have opened the debate with a Council Regulation. We have discussed it at length in the Committee and are in full agreement with the Social Democrats and with the others, with the exception of the who want to fight the system as a whole, that we need Eurodac. On the vote in the Committee there were no proposals for amendment, but rather full agreement with the Social Democrats and also with the Liberals and with all the others that Eurodac must be set up. We must have this discussion and bring it to a conclusion. (Applause) That means that the same might happen as in the spring, that the Social Democrats will suddenly change tack for obscure reasons and suddenly vote against Eurodac, then they would bear the entire responsibility for us failing to have a well-ordered European system dealing with asylum or a system to combat abuse. They would bear the sole political responsibility for this. (Applause) If this report is going to be discussed then I would ask that we ensure that it be discussed today and that we also vote on it today. That must be our goal. We would only allow one exception to that. If against all expectations it does not come to that and the only alternative we had was to vote on it tomorrow, then it would be necessary to hold the vote in plenary sitting. I would therefore ask you to ensure that we can discuss it and vote on it today, because there is no time to lose. We need a system for a common asylum procedure and to combat abuse in Europe and I have no time for party political games to the detriment of this issue. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as mentioned in 1989, the Council and the Commission agreed that they had to address the harmonisation of the regulatory framework applicable to civil aviation in order to maintain a high level of safety and to ensure fair competition in the internal market. Hence, the Community adopted Council Regulation 3922/91. This regulation listed a number of technical requirements – JARs – produced by the Joint Aviation Authority. It was not the purpose of this regulation to re-open a debate on the substance of JAR: the purpose was to ensure harmonisation. In addition, it should be recognised that JAR-OPS has been implemented on a national basis and is applicable to European countries outside the EU. Therefore changes must be kept to a minimum as there cannot be two different sets of operational regulations in force across Europe. The Commission's original proposal highlighted four areas which were found to be incompatible in EU law: exemptions, leasing, registration and cabin crew training. Unfortunately, the debate so far has centred on cabin baggage and flight time limitations for flight crew. On the first point – cabin baggage – the amendments are anti-competitive and cannot apply to third-country carriers. Sufficient regulation is already in place, which does not allow on board hand baggage which cannot be safely stowed – I can vouch for that as a cabin crew member for 26 years. On my second point – flight time limitations, which are already highly regulated and agreed through national governments – civil aviation is now included in working time regulation. Irrespective of the decision taken on 1 May, this issue would have to be referred back to national governments for further discussion. It is not for Parliament to legislate on flight time limitations. Finally, I believe that in future safety and highly technical reports such as this should be subject to a simplified procedure in order to process necessary changes more speedily.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, naturally, the Group of the fully supports this motion for a resolution. The fact that the World Bank is about to make its decision, which has already been mentioned, is conclusive proof of the urgent nature of the resolution. If the World Bank finances the programme to combat poverty in Western China, the Chinese Government is likely to transfer large numbers of ethnic Chinese to Tibet, with the risk, or rather the explicit intention, that the Tibetans will be reduced to a minority. In this case, their cultural, linguistic and religious traditions will almost inevitably disappear as a matter of course. In our opinion, it is essential for Parliament to speak out against the World Bank's decision. We call upon the governments to do everything in their power and use every avenue available to them – economic and otherwise, in view of the fact that China wants to join the WTO etc. – to ensure that China respects Tibet's autonomy and that negotiations are resumed as soon as possible between the Chinese Government and the Dalai Lama with the intention of establishing a new statute for Tibet. This is the first point of our conclusions in this resolution. The negotiations must be based on the Dalai Lama's five-point programme, which has our full support. We would also like to wish him a happy birthday.

Political group: PSE
The Committee on Budgets and the European Parliament agreed in the end in Agenda 2000 to reduce the 1.27% proportion of GDP by 2006. The citizens of Europe want a thrifty administration and the purpose of the concept of real stabilisation is to achieve a further net improvement in the quality of the work of the Council and the Commission. It should enable us to work even more efficiently in the future in the European Union. Do you believe that the concept of real stabilisation can be continued after 2006?

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I do support this amendment, but, for technical reasons, I would ask honourable Members to consider introducing a sub-title, which we would call the ‘European Coal and Steel Community’, in order to ensure coherence within the text.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, our task in the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, was primarily to assess the situation in the candidate countries with regard to the internal market and the relevant legislation. But, as has been stressed repeatedly here today, since this concerns one of the key aspects of European enlargement, and the progress made here can only really be assessed with reference to detail, I would again express my regret that we are having this enlargement debate at a time when the Commission’s progress reports 2000 are as yet unavailable. Only on the basis of these could we form a just impression of the progress made in the individual States. We must therefore content ourselves with a rather sweeping assessment that probably does not give an accurate reflection of the situation in the individual States. We can take it as read that considerable strides have been made, particularly since the last reports were published. As Vice-President of our joint parliamentary committee with the Czech Republic, I can vouch for the fact that this is true of the Czech Republic, but I assume the same applies to a number of other States too. The internal market is a key component in the success of enlargement and it is therefore clear to me that we must tread extremely carefully when it comes to exemptions and transitional periods. However, in common with our rapporteur, Mr Wuermeling, I believe that it would not be in the interests of either party to the treaty for there to be no transitional periods, and being a delegate from a border region, who, like Mrs Schierhuber, owns a farm in the vicinity of the Czech border, it is a matter of concern to me that the formation of close, common economic areas should be managed without any major problems, and lead to a positive outcome on both sides. I would like to close with a comment from the report by Mr Schröder, which pleased me enormously, and which, as I see it, also captures the spirit of what Commissioner Verheugen said at the beginning of this debate. Although the following statement by Mr Schröder only relates to the Czech Republic, I believe the same applies across the board: ‘Many weaknesses that are still discernible in the Czech Republic are the legacy of decades of dictatorship. This being so, politicians from the part of Europe which after the Second World War enjoyed a happier fate, – and this is particularly true of Austria – would be well-advised to be moderate in their criticism of the countries such as the Czech Republic.’

Political group: PSE