GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, this is the continuation of the debate on Mr Collins’ report on occurrences in aviation and the reporting thereof. Occurrences can prevent accidents, and the duty to report therefore helps increase safety in aviation. By gathering statistical data on the nature and number of certain occurrences, existing safety regulations can be improved or new ones introduced. The more information gathered in a broadly-based database, the better the analyses. The proposed measure has a strongly preventive character. It is therefore only logical that a legal framework be created at European level. The future European Safety Agency could also stand to benefit from this. The success of the proposed system will depend on the degree of its confidentiality. Detailed information should only end up in the hands of relevant users. Those reporting occurrences must be certain that the information provided will only be used for statistical purposes. After all, this is not about apportioning blame or liability. Technical defects tend to be reported more readily than human errors, whilst the second category is of major importance where occurrences, and hence safety, are involved. Pilots, for example, will only volunteer this information if confidentiality and anonymity are guaranteed. The European Parliament’s amendments are specifically intended to strengthen this element. The success of the new Regulation will depend on the cooperation of those directly involved. That is also evident from the discussions we have held on this platform and in the committee. There is a need for regular evaluation and reporting on the implementation, to assess whether the reporting systems work. People in the field need to be involved, and that is also the purport of Amendment No 12 which we re-tabled. On the basis of evaluation, the lists of occurrences to be reported must be also be updated. However, not only do we want to know to what extent occurrences are reported, we also want to know the type of occurrences that recur time and again and the safety conclusions that are drawn from these. That is the purport of Amendment No 11. In my opinion, the public is entitled also to obtain that type of information.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, for clarification, I would like to ask the House to accept the addition of the words 'if legally possible' to this amendment. It would now read: 'Believes that the 6-12 mile coastal zone should be maintained and established as an element of the common fisheries policy for an unlimited period, if legally possible.' The President established that there was no objection to the oral amendment. Before the vote on recital K:

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr Prodi, on behalf of the Italian Socialists, I hope that Parliament offers you its broad and unconditional confidence. There has been enough evasion and we need a strong Commission. Besides, without an authoritative leadership, Parliament is in danger of losing its way. This period of adjustment could not have been more difficult. The crisis in the previous Commission occurred just at the time when Europe was going up in flames! If it were not for Emma Bonino, in the face of the Balkans tragedy, the Commission simply would not have existed. However, the European citizens and peoples have been left with an impression of fragility, if not powerlessness and a sense of weakness in the crucial area – the area Europe was created for – of ensuring peace in our continent. You spoke of the Europe of peoples more than the Europe of the institutions. It is the view and feeling of the European peoples that Europe is already one from the Atlantic to the Ural mountains, from the tundra to Anatolia. You rightly put at the top of the list enlargement of the Union to include those countries that are ready, and then you spoke of the different degrees of co-operation by drawing concentric circles of ‘virtual Membership’ to include nearby countries not yet ready to accede. You also mentioned a partnership with Russia and Ukraine and a cultural partnership with the Mediterranean countries. And encompassing all these circles is the joint and strengthened leadership with the United States of America. Mr President, are you sure that this view is shared on the other side of the Atlantic? You will no doubt have read yesterday that the American Minister of Defence is already putting obstacles in the way of common European defence. And yet Mr CFSP is non other than the former Secretary-General of NATO. NATO’s borders already stretch to Warsaw and Budapest while Europe’s borders clearly end in Berlin. Enlargement is the main priority, but it is not without its problems, both for the countries concerned and for the Union itself. And I am not only thinking of the disproportion between larger aims and a smaller budget. If we do not want to lose in substance what we gain in size, if we want to give a soul to the Europe of the single market and currency, if we want to regain the citizens’ and people’s faith, we – Commission, Parliament and Council – must work together on what only a more robust foundation and new energy can bring: European citizenship, a Charter on Rights and a real Constitution. What is the point in having ensured free movement within one border yet maintaining fifteen different laws on immigration and political asylum? What is the point in having one parliament that is formed on the basis of fifteen different types of electoral system? A new frontier remains to the South, and a common citizenship: this is the perspective I would like you to focus on between now and January

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am sure that the informal Summit of Biarritz will not yield any breakthroughs at this stage. We are counting on Nice to fulfil this requirement. However, what the summit can do is to prepare the groundwork for Nice, and this is why this debate is certainly useful to get across our parliamentary message. With regard to Biarritz, I desperately hope that the Amsterdam leftovers can be resolved very quickly. Concerning the number of Commissioners, we believe that one Commissioner for each Member State is enough, and Parliament needs no more than 700 MEPs. Furthermore, and this brings me to the most important point, all EU legislation must be subject to qualified majority decision-making combined with – and this is a compelling point – Parliament’s right of codecision, because I have heard rumours here and there that these two do not automatically coincide. What I would also call for, however, is to look beyond immediate concerns in Biarritz. We know all too well that the present Treaties are inadequate and that the Union will need a better and different structure in future, a more constitutional structure which clearly distinguishes the powers of the Member States and those of the Union. In this respect, President Prodi set the right tone in my opinion. I would like to make a brief comment on the Charter. I had the honour of being involved in the preparatory work for the Charter. I would first of all like to thank Mr Roman Herzog and Mr Inigo Méndez de Vigo for their sterling work and for the way compromises were struck time and again. I would also like to commend the role of Commissioner Vitorino. The outcome was sound. The Charter provides for the dignity of the citizens, the ban on capital punishment, the citizens’ liberties, education, labour and enterprise in all Member States, the very exhaustive anti-discrimination article, which is even more exhaustive than the one in the Treaty of Amsterdam, and the equal treatment of men and women; not only in traditional areas of work, remuneration and social security, but also in all areas of the Union. All this represents a step forward. I hope with all my heart, and I must say this quite emphatically, that an opportunity will arise when this document can be incorporated into the Treaties at some point in the future. Mr President, I would like to end by making a final remark on Professor Prodi’s cry from the heart. I have to say that his warning, a well-meaning one at that, to stop confirming and developing intergovernmental trends, has really struck a chord with me. These only exacerbate the EU’s anti-democratic disposition. Mr Prodi has put an emphatic stop to this kind of action, which has hopefully resonated with Mr Moscovici, and I truly hope that this trend can be broken and reversed at the Councils in Nice and Biarritz.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Recital M evidently refers to the definition which the Council of Europe gives for the term ‘terrorist act’. In fact, reference to this definition is also made further down in that report. I should like to ask whether the Dutch text of Recital M could be brought completely into line with this definition. The Dutch text should read: “...en die leiden tot streven naar...”, and not only: “...die leiden...”, because there is no link between the violence and the pursuit at the moment, and it is clear that the Council of Europe did intend this link in the definition.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the problems of the South Caucasus are as easy to identify as they are difficult to solve. In addition to significant aid, we need an extremely ambitious European strategy and perhaps a broader mandate for Mr Heikki Talvitie, the European Union’s Special Representative for the South Caucasus. Commissioner Patten too has spoken about this, but I do not believe that the fight against corruption to reduce poverty and drug trafficking, or even the analysis of the elections can be enough to establish these measures as a strategy for the zone. It is clearly difficult to operate in a fragile situation in which at least three endemic disputes are simmering. Nevertheless, it is becoming more and more essential that a plan is presented. The usual procedure sometimes calls for global objectives to be achieved with just one conference. I do, however, believe that, in the case of the South Caucasus, we need to proceed gradually, step by step, in the disputes and in cooperation; otherwise we risk obtaining a very poor result. The report by Mr Gahrton gives a very detailed description of both the situation and the needs, and I agree with the rapporteur that the South Caucasus region needs to be given a well-defined status in the context of the policy we call ‘Wider Europe’. If stability is to be achieved, then it is essential that Russia is involved. President Putin – having the day before yesterday dissolved a government that has always maintained considerable ambiguity towards the countries of the former Soviet Union, and in particular, towards the South Caucasus – will also have to indicate some direction for the Caucasus. The meeting between the European Union and Russia, which will take place next March, could be an opportunity for this to happen. The interests and values that are all necessary for cooperation must be clarified in both form and substance. Furthermore, we must consider the fact that the opening, in two years, of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline will be of enormous strategic importance. We do not know if the billionaire Mr Khodorkovsky, for example with his company Yukos, intends to conclude agreements with the US company Exxon and nor do we know to what extent the new President Putin would be in favour of such a development. Similarly, we do not know what the chain reaction would be in either case. Discrediting the pipelines for environmental reasons is merely a rhetorical exercise. The oil must, in any event, go from the Caspian Sea to the Black Sea. During the cold war, the planning of the pipelines sought to avoid Soviet territory, but the situation is now changing. I do, however, believe that the report by Mr Gahrton expresses appropriate concerns about this and other unknown factors in the region. Thanks to oil resources, Azerbaijan will be rich and Georgia will have transit rights whilst Armenia will have nothing. This is how the new sources of wealth can create new imbalances, which can be smoothed out only though political mediation. One simply has to realise that the future situation will not allow a stalemate, or status quo, to continue for long in areas where conflicts rage.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I welcome Mr Duff's report. It important that we incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the existing European Union treaties, but I also hope that the European Convention on Human Rights will be incorporated into the EU as an institution and not simply into the legal systems of the individual Member States. It is unthinkable to have a modern European Union constitution – which is what the Convention on the future of Europe is looking at – without a binding bill of rights. If the Convention drafts such a constitution without the Charter it will, in my view, be a disgrace. Far from giving more rights to the European Union institutions, the Charter limits the exercise of power by the EU institutions because they must explicitly respect human rights. The Charter should be legally binding and enforceable under EU law. It is not, as the rapporteur says, a substitute for the fundamental rights systems of the Member States but a complement to them.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, first a word about the distasteful scenes that have unfolded this week. I am referring to the utterly despicable attacks on Jewish synagogues and citizens in Europe under the pretext of the Middle East conflict. The authorities should warn public opinion most emphatically and must take a tough stance against the perpetrators. However, this also applies to verbal, xenophobic attacks by the extreme right in Europe on migrant fellow citizens. The exploitation of fear and turning others into scapegoats is, as we have seen in the previous century, a cancerous growth in our society. Only by building a future step-by-step and by joining forces, with due respect for everyone, irrespective of creed or race, can viable prospects emerge. This applies to Europe and the Middle East alike. The announcement that Mr Solana and Mr Moretinos are on their way to meet Mr Sharon and Mr Arafat is hopefully a minor breakthrough. It is high time that Europe acted in a more united manner and more effectively than it has done so far. The European Parliament has asked for maximum pressure to be exerted, for a suspension of the Association Agreement and for a willingness, in the event of a ceasefire, to contribute immediately to the monitoring and intervention force which would help develop the Palestinian Authority and help separate the warring factions. The pressing question is: at the level of the European Council, have the necessary preparations been made, as stipulated in the Association Agreement, to convene the Council to discuss the violations of that Agreement with Israel? Has the Council started the internal preparations for a contribution to the UN’s monitoring and intervention force, or have the words still not been backed up by action? At the risk of labouring the obvious, this is not about Europe versus the US. We need each other, as well as Russia and the Arab countries, in order to reach a genuine prospect of peace. As Yossi Beilin, the architect of the Oslo agreements which now seem to have been destroyed by Sharon, told me this week: ‘A ceasefire and an international peace force only make sense if the parties are forced to actually work on a political solution and to negotiate.’ We are both of the opinion that all the necessary ingredients are there. It may be true that in the darkest hour, when things are at their worst, mutual bloodshed seems to go on forever and extreme strategies appear to be never-ending, only serious negotiations can offer a true way out. The pressure exerted by a self-aware, strong and united Europe would serve this purpose. This is the best and most credible way of getting the United States on our side and making a contribution to an effective second Madrid Summit.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, one day in December 1992, a young shepherd in Mozambique forgot the risk: he thought it had gone with the coming of peace. That over-confidence cost him his left leg. Two kilometres away from a hamlet in Bosnia, in 1999, a sign indicated the presence of mines in a field, but this did not stop a little boy going there. For him it was a place to play, like any other. Indeed, every time a war ends, people leave the refugee camps to return to their villages, hoping to lick their wounds and attempt gradually to rebuild a normal life. But a mine is impervious to peace agreements and continues, inexorably, to do its job. Even though 139 states have now signed the Ottawa Convention, mines are still doing their job of destruction. Every 20 minutes somewhere in the world a mine will explode, bringing death or mutilation. Of course, the Geneva Conference has brought some progress and we must stress that positive trend, for it really is the result of the determined battle the NGOs have long been waging. However, the progress made should not blind us to the reality, and that reality is a total of 27 people killed and another 41 mutilated every single day. The reality is 250 million mines in the arsenals of 105 countries. Even last year, mines were used in 20 conflicts, mainly in Europe. So I welcome the work done by my fellow Members, Emma Bonino and Luisa Morgantini, who have once again brought the political debate into the heart of this Parliament. They make it clear how much we still need to do. For my part, I want to highlight the need to adopt the convention universally so that it may become a total success, firstly by ensuring the compliance of the laws of the various states, so as not to have yet another example of an international agreement that fails to be applied. We must indeed put pressure on those European Union countries that have not signed it, like Finland, or not ratified it, like Greece. Why not consider sanctions, Commissioner, against those who do not respect the agreements? Why not include a clause on accession to this convention in the enlargement conditions? You replied to all that a moment ago. I know there are still differences of opinion on this or that amendment. Yet I would ask you to look at them more carefully, because some of them are acceptable to the Commission. Whatever the outcome, we will all of us together show that we are determined to fight against what has to be called ‘a cowards’ war’.

Political group: PSE
The Hague Convention entered into force on 1 January 2002 and concerns Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Cooperation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children. It is, therefore, now crucial that the Member States do everything that is needed to ensure that the Union complies with the Convention. The European Union is working towards establishing a common judicial area founded on the principle of the mutual recognition of judicial decisions. We must ensure that every judicial decision prioritises the interests of the child. We have a duty to protect our children, who are tomorrow’s adult citizens. Our society can only move forwards for the good of everyone if we are able to watch over the way our children are brought up, and over their physical and psychological development. Working for children’s rights means working for human rights, protecting them against violence, institutional violence in particular, and this will prepare them for a world of peace. -Pittella report (A5-0286/2003)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the World Cup is a truly international sporting event which arouses the interest of millions of people throughout the world. However, in the shadow of this event, thousands of children use their valuable time every day making the balls used in football matches. These children are deprived of any chance to acquire a better education at school or play with other children their own age. Child labour and the inhumane working conditions which adults making footballs also work under are, unfortunately, still standard practice, despite the agreements concluded by the International Football Federation with companies which make sporting goods. According to the report by the India Committee of the Netherlands tellingly entitled 'The Dark Side of Football', Pakistan is the biggest producer of footballs in the world, followed by India. In just one area of India, the Punjab, about 10 000 children aged between 6 and 12 sit stitching footballs, while about 15 000 children work in the area of Sialkot in Pakistan. These balls, which are hand stitched by children for a few cents, are the same designer and FIFA endorsed footballs which are sold in sports shops in the west for tens of dollars. Despite the efforts of both international organisations and the sports companies themselves to introduce programmes and control systems to combat this awful practice, production has shifted to small villages where either there is no policing or the children work at home rather than in factories. Similarly, according to the London Times, numerous children have been found making footballs for famous multinational companies. We call on international organisations, sports companies and governments to use the World Cup, which has been dedicated to children, as an opportunity to work together and adopt a reliable system for checking if labour regulations are being complied with. Because child labour is neither a hobby nor a game, I hope both FIFA and the industry will take the lead and make football a truly fair game for everyone. We need to send out a message today that adults should be given work and children should be sent to school. Adults at work, children in school.

Political group: PSE
We Swedish Moderates are in favour of the report on the annual report on the MEDA 2000 programme. We believe however that, with its major problems in establishing a fixed budgetary framework, the EU cannot, in the current economic climate, take upon itself the increase in costs involved in this activity.

Political group: PPE-DE
Thank you for your birthday wishes, Mr President, and my thanks, as well, to Francesco Enrico Speroni. As regards the report on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence, I want to say that, yesterday, I was waiting for the lift on the tenth floor of the Tower, when a beautiful young European girl came up to me – confidentiality prevents me from telling you her name, I can only say that it starts with the letter M – and she said: ‘Bravo Mr Fatuzzo! I listen to your explanations of vote with great interest because, although I am young, I too am interested in older people and pensioners. I have had a problem with the courts, a civil case which has dragged on and on. So if you vote for the report on cooperation between courts, I will always enjoy listening to you even more.’ Bösch report (A5-0078/2001)

Political group: PPE-DE
I should like to thank the Minister for answering the question which I tabled, but I think that he has not answered the specific issue which I raised, which is this: in the year in which I have been an MEP, I have noticed that, although the number of EU programmes and initiatives is multiplying continuously, implying new, additional spending, no additional resources are being budgeted for them. On the contrary, resources budgeted for other commitments are usually cut back; this happened, for example, in order to find money for Kosovo and for developing the Balkans, for the earthquakes and for other issues which have arisen. I just wonder why we are not making an effort to take payment appropriations up to the legal ceiling of 1.27% of the GDP of the European Union, so that other programmes do not have to be sacrificed, and why the European Union is taking on more and more and, at the same time, limiting payments of approved appropriations, which account for a mere 1.10% of GDP. Also, can the Council reassure the people in the poor countries of the European Union that enlargement will not result in budgetary cutbacks... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: PPE-DE