GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, as far as the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party is concerned, it is crucial that the Europe of the future should also be a social Europe. The political task is therefore to find the best way of achieving that objective. For us in the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, it is important that decisions should be taken as close to the people as possible. This applies especially to labour market and social policy. At the Lisbon Summit this spring, the EU’s Heads of Government adopted a far-sighted vision for the development of a social Europe. Importance was attached to promoting the EU’s position in the knowledge society, as it was to open coordination in pursuit of common objectives, but with flexibility and freedom in the choice of resources. This was established as a leading principle. In its communication, the Commission has found a framework for the social agenda which I think admirably reflects the spirit of the Lisbon Summit. In our view, open coordination is the correct route to go down if we are to secure a social Europe. There may be a need for legislation in some areas, but we have no need for a host of bureaucratic and constricting rules which bring European cooperation into discredit without producing real results. I also want to express my appreciation of the major effort which Mrs Van Lancker has put into drawing up the report. Her contribution has been very constructive, and if my Group is sceptical about a number of the main elements in her report, that is because we disagree politically, and that is, of course, understandable. We do not therefore share the report’s predilection for legislation at EU level. There are a number of areas in which we feel that too much detail is gone into. I want to emphasise that, in the EU countries, we have different traditions and different problems in the areas of the labour market and social policy, and the decisions of the Lisbon Summit acknowledge this. The Commission’s proposal strikes a good balance. Technological development and new methods of organisation call, of course, for flexible cooperation in which we concentrate more on objectives and on achieving results and less upon rigid regulation. Open coordination of this kind is not necessarily devoid of obligation. Of course, it must be binding, but it must be constructed from the bottom up and not developed by us specifying a host of rules and quotas centrally. Specifically, open coordination must be open both in the choice of resources and in the way in which everyone concerned is involved. It is therefore important that more public interest be created for open coordination and that the latter should be focused on to a greater degree, whether it be in employment policy or with regard to the issue of social exclusion which we are now addressing and to which open coordination can also be applied. It should not be secretive. The process should be much better known, and it is here that I think Parliament has something to offer. It can make the process more transparent and give it more public focus.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I fully agree with the Commissioner’s words, but I shall try not to repeat them. The aim of this directive is to improve safety and, as is unfortunately traditional, is seeking to do so following a series of accidents. It is very simple: when ships sustain damage, they must remain accessible to search-and-rescue teams for as long as possible so that the greatest possible number of human lives can be saved. Studies and experience have shown that, to this end, the quantity of water on deck must be limited as much as possible. The IMO, the International Maritime Organisation, naturally became involved very early on in these issues and concluded what is known as the ‘SOLAS’ agreement in 1990 for a certain height of water to be allowed – but I shall not go into the technical details – stipulating that all ships should comply with this agreement and its standards by 1 October 2010 at the latest. As you may remember, however, In September 1994, the Estonia disaster occurred in the north of Europe, causing 800 deaths. Following this disaster, eight Northern European countries, seven EU countries and Norway, worked together to adopt stricter standards than those in the 1990 agreement in order to prevent ships from capsizing. The question, for the Commission and for us, was knowing what needed to be done once these new standards were introduced, whether they needed to be extended to the whole of the Union or whether a distinction could be made between the north and south of the Union. Once the technical and financial studies had been carried out, the Commission rightly proposed extending these standards to the whole of the Union under the conditions the Commissioner has just explained. That is therefore what will happen. It is considered possible and reasonable and the cost to companies is deemed acceptable. There will thus be no difference between passengers travelling by ship in the north and those travelling by ship in the south. Obviously, a number of ships have only recently been subject to these ‘SOLAS’ standards, so requiring them to adopt such a directive means asking them to start again. We must therefore consider the matter of the timing and date of the final deadline. In a spirit of compromise that everybody will understand, the Commission, the Council and Parliament have reached an agreement to conclude all of this in the year 2015. That is the essence of the fundamental amendment tabled. A few other amendments have also been tabled, which allow for adoption at first reading. I would therefore advise the House, and I believe Mr Ripoll will do likewise, to resolve this matter as soon as possible, as it does not pose any major political problems, and all ships and companies operating in waters governed by EU law should comply with the standards as soon as possible. In this way, the risk of accidents and loss of human life will be kept to a minimum, even if there is no such thing as zero risk in our society.

Political group: PSE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport. – Mr President, the culture, education and information element of the budget accounts for barely half of 1% of the EU budget, compared with 50% of the budget that goes on agriculture. So I will remind Parliament and the Commissioners, as culture spokesmen do every year, that perhaps we have not got our priorities quite right. To turn to the issue of information: this should be a shared responsibility between the institutions and the Member States. We wonder whether the Member States have got their responsibilities quite right in this respect. Earlier this year the Culture Committee visited Copenhagen, and we would like to pay particular tribute to the Danish Government and Danish Parliament for the information they give to their citizens about the working of the European Union. The EU has a responsibility to see that its citizens are well informed. Certain members of staff make great efforts in this respect, and we would also pay tribute to Commissioner Vitorino for the work and the vision that he is putting into this. However, we are not succeeding. The citizens of the European Union do not have enough information. We do not live in a neutral situation, we live in a situation where there is a great deal of disinformation and it is the responsibility of all concerned to see that is answered. I therefore make no apology when I point out that the proposed budget for information policy on the various B3 lines is less than EUR 100 milion or less than 37 cents per citizen per annum. That is a very small sum indeed. As I speak, I know that Euronews – the television channel that seeks to give objective information about all European issues – is itself suffering very serious financial difficulties. I hope the Commission and the budget rapporteur will look very closely at their pleas and make sure that Euronews is a success. I will remind the House that the successful slogan for the Irish 'No' campagin was 'If you don't know, vote no.' We must see that the European citizens do not vote no, because they understand what the European Union is about.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to make three short suggestions about open dialogue. Firstly, a proposal for political dialogue. We have already spoken about Indonesia, East Timor and Burma. I would like to mention the situation between the People's Republic of China and Taiwan. I believe we should make it clear that the election of the new Taiwanese President is a historical opportunity to overcome the differences on the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, and we should do this. As Europeans we should also, at long last, have the courage to open the EU liaison office in Taipei, because Taiwan is a major economic force with which we have very close relations. But there is the matter of political dialogue. My second point is that we should be economically open, and we also have to tackle difficult topics sometimes. We should take the opportunity of being in Seoul to stress once again that the subsidies Korea grants to its shipyards are unacceptable. They put jobs throughout the EU at risk. It is not acceptable that we assisted Korea during the ASEAN crisis by means of IMF loans and suchlike, only for Korea still to be subsidising its shipyards, which is creating unjustifiable problems for our own shipyards. My third point is one that affects not only us but also the countries of Asia. As has already been mentioned, we need an interparliamentary dialogue, a dialogue between the European Parliament and the parliaments of the 10 Asian states. You quite rightly mentioned that one of the key points at the Asia-Europe Summit will be the wide-ranging dialogue, that is to say the expression of various different interests on the part of Europe and Asia. It is not acceptable for these interests only to be the subject of exchanges between governments and officials, with academics and journalists generously being allowed to participate. Members of Parliament also need to take part in this process – this is no longer a question of pure foreign policy. These are all political issues which significantly affect the situation in individual countries, and so Members of Parliament must be involved in this. When the Japanese Members of Parliament come to see us in Strasbourg in November, Mr President, we will ask them to see if the next meeting between Members of the European Parliament and Members of Parliament from the Asian countries can, if at all possible, be organised in Japan.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I deeply regret the need for this resolution concerning journalists condemned to death for blasphemy for what is claimed to be a mistake. It is the latest in a whole succession of human rights abuses in Pakistan: growing religious intolerance – which we have just been hearing elsewhere in the world – the lack of a fair trial, so-called honour killings of women, child imprisonment and so on. I currently hold passport and other details for a constituent of mine, a Pakistani citizen, who has had to travel there for family reasons and in the past has had difficulty leaving that country, even under the previous regime. This highlights the appalling state of affairs that we now see with the present regime in power in Pakistan. The suspension of a constitution, as mentioned in the resolution, and the constitutional court, has removed a crucial safeguard for him and others like him who fear arbitrary detention. The state of affairs there appals many Pakistanis, both within the country and throughout the world, people who are proud of their religious faith and who are also committed to fundamental human rights.

Political group: Verts-ALE
We are paying our respects today to the UNHCR and to all humanitarian workers. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other humanitarian organisations work together, helping refugees to start a new life in a new country or, where possible, to return home. The UNHCR is currently helping 5 million displaced persons and some 11.5 million refugees. The UNHCR has always fought for the protection and welfare of refugees and displaced persons. It has taken part in specific operations when asked to do so by the Secretary-General or another authority of the United Nations, in agreement with the countries concerned. In the former Yugoslavia and Timor, the UNHCR has decided to protect all displaced persons and provide humanitarian aid for them, irrespective of whether or not they are refugees. It should therefore have access to civil victims and its teams on the ground should be able to work in complete safety and with all the resources needed to carry out their mission. On the fiftieth anniversary on Thursday, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees stated that the long life of the UNHCR gave little cause for celebration and that it was more important to pay homage to the millions of refugees, to their courage and to their contribution to the entire world, stressing that refugees were entitled to everyone's respect. We should view the speech made by Mrs Sadako Ogata, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, as a challenge; basically what she said was that the long life of the UNHCR reflected the international community's inability to prevent prejudice, persecution, poverty and all the other reasons which result in conflict and movements of populations.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, with summit after world summit the hopes of better days for humanity are disappearing. As in Monterrey, the World Food Summit has now also roundly failed to realise the auspicious objectives that its initial agenda led us to expect. This FAO Summit has nevertheless confirmed, however, what we have repeatedly asserted: the objectives of the fight against hunger and malnutrition set in 1996 are far from being achieved and perhaps increasingly so. This is the current state of affairs, despite the fact that the right to healthy and sufficient food is a fundamental right of all human beings. This situation has arisen because there is no objective programme, because there are inadequate resources and because no appropriate guidelines or measures are in place, specifically with regard to access to land and water and ideally underpinned by a concept of sustainable development, of which the right to food sovereignty and support for family- and community-based agriculture must be essential elements. This situation has arisen because there is no appropriate policy for wealth distribution and because what is lacking, above all, is political will, clearly demonstrated by the low number of Heads of State and Government of developed countries present in Rome. This is also happening, however, because at the same time there are too many negative factors preventing the current tragic situation from being turned around, such as the utmost priority that is given to trade issues and ultraliberal policies, subsidies given by rich countries to their goods exports in the primary sector, which have clearly influenced the recent decisions taken by the US in this field, or even the preposterous way in which biotechnologies are now being promoted. We can now only hope, even though we do not have huge grounds for remaining optimistic, that in Johannesburg, a new, more promising phase will be launched. Once again we reaffirm the need for the European Union to play a major role in defending the right of the poorest countries to protect their fish stocks and to develop their rural economies in the aim of guaranteeing their food sovereignty in the context of a much-desired sustainable development.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I see the Second progress report on economic and social cohesion as a valuable, up-dated analysis of the current situation and of the possible future direction of cohesion policy in the enlarged Union. The compromise that was reached after lengthy discussions with the rapporteur and the adoption of numerous amendments in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism is to be welcomed, and as the report now stands it should achieve a majority in the House. I am thinking here both of the budget for cohesion policy of 0.45% of GDP and of keeping Objective 1 areas as the main focus of our support. I welcome the threshold of 75% of GDP per head at NUTS II level being retained as the main criterion for determining Objective 1 status, provided that at the same time the so-called statistical effect is neutralised. We are all aware that at the end of the current support period those regions affected by the statistical effect will not of course have exceeded the 75% threshold in the present EU. Overnight, or to be more precise between 30 April and 1 May next year, a stroke of a mathematical pen will turn poor wretches into wealthy people, although they will not have a cent more to their name. That is the so-called statistical effect. These regions continue to require resources from the Structural Funds to consolidate and further the process of economic and social convergence, which they have begun so successfully in previous support periods. That is why the report clearly underlines, on the basis of our amendments submitted in the committee, that particular attention must be paid to the regions suffering from the impact of these statistical changes, and that in the future too these areas should be treated as similar to Objective 1 areas with the equivalent level of support and with the aid administered in accordance with Article 87, paragraph 3(a). Existing transitional arrangements – phasing out – do not do justice to the specific problems of these areas caught by the statistical effect. The report, as it stands, should also find the support of the majority of this House.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this morning President Prodi reported that over a million new jobs were created in Europe last year, and that two-thirds of these were for women. This demonstrates that employment programmes and work in this area can have very positive effects. I also believe that the method adopted by the Commission is the right one, that is a combination of benchmarking and promoting best practice with a view to making Europe the world leader in the knowledge-based society. The Commission has also applied its funding very carefully. Expenditure was only 50% of commitments. So a great deal has been achieved with very limited means, which is particularly commendable. And perhaps it will also be possible to trim administrative expenditure further in future. The potential is certainly there. On the other hand, we should do everything in our power to improve and extend this programme in future. The relevant committee has made appropriate proposals to this effect, and the European Parliament would be proud if the positive achievements of the past year could be carried forward. In the field of information technology alone – the information society – we will be unable to fill around a million jobs by 2004 because of inadequate training. I believe that it is a great challenge for us to create new, interesting and good jobs in this area and also in the field of biotechnology, where we need research to solve the problems associated with BSE. In short, we specifically need to invest in these new areas.

Political group: PPE-DE
I congratulate Mr Hudghton and fully support his report and would urge the honourable Members of Parliament to do likewise. As he said, fish farming is a critically significant source of employment in remote parts of rural Scotland and at a time when the rural areas of Scotland are suffering their worst recession in over a hundred years, the aquaculture industry provides an essential boost to the rural economy on which many thousands of direct and indirect jobs depend. Now, as he said, in excess of 85 000 tons of Salmon is now produced in Scottish fish farms in an industry which generates more than EUR 800 million annually. Regrettably, although ISA was first detected in Scotland only two years ago, it has now spread to 29 farms directly and around 240 other farms are affected in some way or another. Wild salmon, trout and eels have been found to carry the virus which now seems to be endemic even in the wider marine environment. But I must say that despite the scare-mongering of the , it has to be emphasised that ISA cannot under any circumstances be transmitted to humans, and I must repeat what Mr Hudghton said, that the virus cannot survive above 25o – which is human body temperature – it is a virus of a cold-water species. It can, nevertheless, in the affected fish, lead to severe weight loss and early death in its advanced stages and it therefore has had a serious economic impact on the whole Scottish aquaculture sector costing the industry around EUR 60 to 70 million in losses arising from the mandatory premature culling and other eradication measures. So this report, Mr President, provides an encouraging range of proposals for improving the way in which the authorities in the UK and elsewhere should respond to the disease. By recommending the introduction of a method of containment and gradual culling, similar to the system used successfully in Norway, the rapporteur seeks to introduce a more flexible approach to the disease which will provide confidence, not least to the insurance sector who have hitherto shied clear of providing any form of cover due to the insistence on a policy of compulsory slaughter. By recommending the research, development and ultimate use of vaccination to control and eradicate ISA, the rapporteur also provides comfort to the pharmaceutical industry who have hitherto had no incentive to invest in the development of a vaccine. So I thoroughly recommend and hope that the Parliament will support this excellent report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, last week, I gave secondary school children in my province a few lessons on Europe and the imminent enlargement. My audience was, and this is striking in this day and age, attentive, interested, and also unperturbed. My political statement that it is not our political, or our personal, merit that we were born on the sunny side of the Iron Curtain and that it is through no fault of their own that the acceding countries had to live in our shadow for so long, was taken on board with due respect. However, whether my argument was sufficiently convincing was evident from the questions afterwards. How does it serve us, what are the precise benefits to us? This morning's debate also shows the other side of the coin. Alongside the firm conviction that it is important to have this one indivisible Europe to guarantee that people can live together in peace, there were also other notions. How welcome are we? Are we not turning into second-class citizens and what are you giving us in terms of extra funding to help us convince the citizens on our side? We have managed to convincingly set in motion an enlargement scenario that should succeed. However, we should take to heart the fact that we have been less successful totally convincing our citizens of the importance of, and need for, the political ideal that this enlargement is for us all. We have communicated too little, and this means that uncertainty, or latent gut feelings, have a chance of surfacing, and enlargement degenerates into a political game with short-term gain. I am also taking part in this debate in my capacity as enlargement rapporteur for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy and I therefore follow the issue closely. Something else that we should take to heart is the fact that people worry. These worries revolve around food safety, free movement, environmental issues and the cross-border approach to them. These also involve the nuclear power plants, shut down on the one hand and shrouded in doubt on the other. I think that now, after Copenhagen, we should tackle this issue firmly with both hands and far more effectively.

Political group: PPE-DE