GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, once again what most stands out to me about the Commission proposal is the imbalance between the importance that it says it attaches to certain issues and the means that it then puts in place in order to resolve them. If we believed solely in the declarations of intent, it would seem that the Commission really does see the fisheries control policy as a top priority. The Explanatory Memorandum to this proposal commends the importance of this policy as part of the common fisheries policy, which it describes as crucial, a description that with which we all agree. The Green Paper that was recently presented goes even further, saying that either the system must be improved, or a fatal blow will be dealt to the credibility of the CFP. However, when the moment of truth comes, we are once again seeing that, following great declarations, two of the three essential elements are missing, and neither are the sufficient resources provided to carry out the measures, nor is the essential policy of transparency followed in order to make them credible. It is impossible to understand how, when this policy is such a priority, and it is so essential to reinforce it, the budget allocated to it on this occasion is not only not being increased, but is being decreased from EUR 41 to 35 million per year. Also, this being the third decision from the Commission going the same way, this time the Commission has not made the report on the results of previous measures public, so that we do not know, aside from whether the choice of the measures to be funded was more or less correct, whether they achieved practical results, including the highly desirable results of linking the sector to this policy, which until now was described as discriminatory and confused in Community waters and weak and lacking credibility outside them. We therefore support the more than pertinent comments from the rapporteur in this respect, and all of his amendments and, more specifically, those that stress to the Commission that this House believes that, if the Commission has the powers regarding the regional fisheries organisations, it also has the political and financial responsibility for implementing the appropriate measures. This of course includes control measures, in which the European Union is putting the credibility of its supposed commitment to sustainability of resources on the line in the eyes of the world.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I fully agree with the rapporteur. Contrary to what the Commission claims, the draft agreement that has been put to us is radically different from the data protection directive and therefore from Article 286 of the EC Treaty. In fact, whilst Article 7 of the Directive gives Member States the power to control the processing of personal data for security reasons, the Community takes this competence away from Member States in the draft agreement to give it to a foreign authority. The draft provides for European airlines to be obliged to process European passenger data as requested by the United States Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection in line with United States legislation. Pursuant to Article 300 of the Treaty, this change to the directive, which the Commission continues to deny, would have entailed Parliament – the colegislator of the directive – giving its assent, as Commissioner Bolkestein had already announced to the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs on 9 September 2003, which did not happen. What is needed, therefore, is a truly international treaty that gives a legal basis to amending the directive and transferring sovereignty as is desired. Furthermore, the draft violates one of the fundamental rights of European citizens, that of confidentiality of personal data, laid down in the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Not least, this law provides for access to information that has been collected and for it to be corrected, which is not guaranteed in the draft agreement. From a practical point of view, this aspect is important since data that are collected for commercial purposes, and neither checked nor filtered by a responsible authority, may be inaccurate or even deliberately incorrect. These discrepancies – which would not arise if data were intentionally transferred for security purposes – could cause serious inconvenience and actually harm our citizens. It is therefore necessary that the agreement text is changed and that, in any case, recourse is made to the Court of Justice to obtain an opinion. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, first of all, I would like to turn to Mr Heaton-Harris who, about a month ago now, thought that the sporting event at Charleroi would have to be cancelled: there would, he claimed, be terrible trouble. I would say to him, very sportingly, as he was once a referee, that I was right to blow the whistle on him then. Secondly, I believe that we should look at this matter in depth and that if, as the resolution indicates, we could achieve greater cooperation between the various Member States during an event such as Euro 2000, progress would be made. If, in future, we could manage to prevent repeat offenders from attending other events, and if, finally, as Mr Fodé Sylla indicated earlier, we were able to monitor a subject such as that in order to develop new teaching on behaviour in stadiums, then sport, and not political concern, would win through. I will end, Mr President, by hoping that the content and pace of my speech have been as you requested, that is, on a human scale. Iraq

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, in fact Seattle did not fail solely because the agenda was perhaps too ambitious or too overloaded. Seattle also failed because it became clear that, in its present form, the WTO is neither transparent, nor subject to democratic control, nor public. Perhaps, for once, we should also reflect on the objectives which the WTO pursues. Many groups are in fact saying that the WTO is holding us back in our further development of social and environmental standards. We have actually consistently called – and now there is time to do this – for a long overdue analysis to be carried out of the impact which the Marrakech Round has had on individual countries and on the various laws in those countries, and how mankind, and not just trade, can develop further. If we look at the agriculture protocol which might have emerged we can be glad that nothing did emerge. It is precisely this programme which would have pitted the small and medium-sized businesses in the developing countries and in the European Union against each other to compete on the lowest wages, the lowest standards and the lowest social conditions. That is precisely what people are concerned about. They no longer have any desire to delegate power on a permanent basis, power which is then delegated on to supranational organisations over which it is impossible to exercise further democratic control. We saw very clearly at the European elections this year that people will not continue to vote if it is no longer in their power to have a say in what should happen in the future. This makes it all the more important for Parliament to be given full codetermination and power of codecision in the field of foreign economic affairs, because the national parliaments have relinquished their power and supervisory role. We in the European Parliament have not been accorded it. We owe it to civil society outside to demand precisely this. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would address especially the Portuguese Presidency and welcome Portugal as the new holder of the Presidency of the European Union’s Council of Ministers. I believe that, in the future, there can be a new way forward for Europe’s role in the Middle East. It must be possible for Europe, in the same way as the United States, to be credible, to win respect and to obtain broad popular support among citizens and voters in the Middle East’s only democracy, Israel. We have progressively to win the confidence of Israel’s citizens. We can look at a country outside the EU, for example Norway, which, through its prime minister Kjell Magne Bondevik and its foreign minister Knut Vollebaek, has continued to have good relations with both Israel and the Arab side, and in a way which creates confidence. These good relations are enjoyed not only with Israel’s Government but also with its people. We can also learn from the Netherlands and its water project. I believe that Portugal, as the country holding the Presidency of the EU, has everything to gain by working, on behalf of the EU, on the water supply issues as one of the EU’s absolutely central tasks in the Middle East. Let me conclude by saying the following. Israel is the Middle East’s only democracy. Let us never forget in our fight for democracy, political pluralism and human rights that Israel is a model and that Syria with Hafez el-Assad is one of the region’s very worst dictatorships.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I think we can say that none of us would like to continue to hear that every year in the European Union 500 000 falls from height are recorded, out of which 300 000 result in sick leave of more than 3 days, 4 000 involve serious injuries and 1 000 are fatal. Nor would we like to have to repeat that these accidents take place mainly in work carried out on scaffolding, platforms and high places. I do not wish to refer to issues that should be dealt with by the rapporteur, whom I must congratulate, even though he is not here, not only on his work, but also on the sensitivity that he has shown on these issues affecting workers, who often lack training and preparation. We should not forget that construction is a bridging sector, which enables workers to move from the agricultural sector into the service or industrial sectors. I think that the rapporteur’s sensitivity has enriched the debate as many of the amendments tabled were accepted, all of which aimed to enrich the debate and contribute to the adoption of measures to make employment safer. We know that zero risk does not exist, life is risky and work, which is the ultimate in active life, involves risks. We have a generic text, in our Charter of Fundamental Rights, which has been published but not incorporated into the treaties, which in Chapter IV, under the heading Solidarity, states that 'Every worker has the right to working conditions which respect his or her health, safety and dignity'. I would also like to say that respect for health, safety and dignity means a commitment from everyone, first of all from the workers themselves, and also from employers. Perhaps we should not establish a hierarchy, as we would obviously put the employers first, but the workers themselves must always have the necessary awareness and training to take on the risk, accept the risk and know how to respect it. No type of administration should be outside this commitment. Finally, I would like to discuss this commitment from all in the sense that, as Bertrand Russell said, in order to be happy we need three things: the courage to accept the things that we cannot change, enough determination to change the things that we can change and the wisdom to know the difference between the two. I think that, in this sense, the fight against accidents at work should be one involving constant determination and constant courage from everyone.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mrs Rothe for an excellent report, which revealed much understanding of the situation, We obviously have to support an increase in the use of electricity produced from renewable energy sources. The share should aim to be doubled in the next ten years; it could well be more than that. However, the Union’s dependence on imported energy is growing too fast at present. In twenty or so years’ time it will be as much as 70%. That will create uncertainty in our lives – in the economy as well as other areas. I think we not only need to develop renewable energy sources but a modern energy savings programme to run in parallel with that process, as this dependence is also starting to become a matter of security for us. Peat grows continuously. The formation of peat by assimilation and the production of organic debris are the same as with other plant biomasses. Instead of a hundred years, as with wood, peat needs thousands of years to regenerate. We need peat especially in the eastern and northern parts of my own country, where all other fuels, apart from wood, have to be brought in from far away. We do not wish to burn and be dependent just on coal and oil. For us an annual growth limit in peat is quite enough. It is a lot – too much. We Finns regard the forest and the marshes as almost sacred, and we know how to use them in compliance with the principle of sustainable development.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we processed all aspects of Mr Ferber's report in committee and it has now been tabled before Parliament. I make no bones about the fact that, as a Greek, I had – and still have – acute cause for concern because some of the European Commission's proposals, if they are implemented, will hit the universal postal service in Greece very, very hard, not in the densely-populated areas, but in the remote mountain villages and on the small, remote islands. This, of course, does not only apply to Greece. In the end, the rapporteur accepted a number of views which, if they prevail, as we hope they will, do much to improve the situation. Crucial issues such as the 150-gramme limit rather than the derisory 50 grammes proposed by the Commission, a price four times the basic standard tariff, rather than the two and a half times proposed by the Commission and the express service are handled much more realistically in the report, as are cross-border postal services. On the last point in particular, I was most impressed by the European Commission's arguments, based as they are on the low average ratio between cross-border postal services and total mail volumes in each Member State. It is extremely unscientific to use the average as an indicator when there is such a wide spread between the figures used to calculate it. For example, in the present case, a country with a much lower than average ratio will obviously not have any problems, while a country with a much higher ratio will despair if it has to liberalise cross-border postal services as Mr Bolkestein proposes. In other words, it is like calculating the average income of the richest and the poorest person, which of course gives a perfectly satisfactory figure per se but can hardly be deemed to be socially acceptable to the poorest person. I should like to finish, having congratulated and thanked the rapporteur, by expressing the hope that Mercury, the winged messenger of the Gods, will continue to fly to the most remote inhabited points and that the knock on our door in the morning will herald either the milkman or the postman.

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I can be quite frank in saying that I welcome the Council's common position on harmonising the training of safety advisers for the transport of dangerous goods by road, rail or inland waterway. Firstly, we needed to take action on a formal level in order to meet the requirements of Directive 96/35/EC, which obliges the Member States to appoint safety advisers and to organise the training, instruction and examination of these people but does not explain this explicitly. Secondly, by adopting this directive we achieve a) an increase in safety when dangerous goods are both transported and transhipped; b) a reduction in distortions of competition resulting from wide variations in national training structures and training costs and c) equal opportunities for safety advisers on the European labour market. Thirdly, this directive, as it currently stands in the common position, guarantees – in particular because it confines itself exclusively to minimum standards – a high degree of flexibility and modest regulation by the European Union; by adopting it we contribute to the Member States' bearing a high level of individual responsibility. All of this is in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity and is therefore to be greatly welcomed. Our amendments from the first reading have, I believe, been taken into account very satisfactorily. They have either been accepted or transposed with no change in the substance, or they have been rejected because the corresponding European arrangements have not been included, for example a system of penalties for violations of the rules or a complex classification structure for related groups of questions. The one unanimously adopted amendment of the Committee on Regional Policy and Transport, which concerns the timetable for implementing the directive, is something which I would urge you to support. By not setting a specific date for the Member States to implement the directive and instead giving them a period of three months after its entry into force, we are introducing a flexibility clause which ensures that the directive will be implemented without delay. I would urge you to endorse this.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in recent years, transatlantic trade relations have often come under strain. We have been able to resolve many trade conflicts in a professional way that satisfied both sides, but only because we have accepted binding rules for free and fair world trade within the framework of the WTO, and also because the WTO is the only international organisation that has a dispute resolution system that also provides for sanctions. However, with the punitive tariffs the United States is now imposing on steel imports, they are abandoning the common ground that we have so far occupied under the WTO. It is extremely hard for us Europeans to understand these measures, as they primarily hit our steel products. Almost half of Europe's steel exports to the USA are affected by these punitive tariffs. What is more, we Europeans can expect to suffer twice over from the American measures, because of diverted trade flows. That is something we are not prepared to accept. We will not support the Americans' game of playing off their workers' interests against those of our own workers. Over the past few years, the European steel industry has had great success in carrying out restructuring, but this has involved enormous job losses, making this a very painful process. It must be clear for the United States that it is not in their interest to undermine confidence in the WTO's system of multilateral rules and its impartial conflict resolution system at the beginning of the Doha Round. In the case of bilateral contacts with the USA, the European Union needs to firmly demonstrate to our American partner that this serious and unwarranted interference in free world trade will not be simply accepted, and that we will make use of the mechanisms currently at our disposal. Why is the Commission not considering using the mechanisms available to it in accordance with the decision of the WTO panel on US export promotion and taking countermeasures? I believe it is now necessary for us to make that clear to the Unites States.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur for his serious and very painstaking approach to this work and would support many of his introductory remarks and also many of those made by my colleague, Mrs Van Lancker. There is no doubt that working abroad is increasingly popular for young people, in particular, and businesses are also looking to recruit from a wider field, but for this to be possible, people need to feel that they can have accurate, up-to-date information about what working in another Member State may entail, because that information provides them with a real choice as to whether they work elsewhere or not. At the moment we have a very confusing set of different rules and regulations and it is clear from complaints to many of us and to Parliament's Petitions Committee that clear advice is not always forthcoming from the appropriate authorities, even in Member States themselves. The apparent anomalies have not helped either in social security coordination and entitlements, even different definitions as to what constitutes self-employment. The EURES network provides a very valuable resource for potential mobile workers. It also provides a valuable, if underused, resource for employers. Many small and medium-sized enterprises do not have the capacity or experience to carry out their cross-border recruitment. EURES has an important role for them and it is a great pity that employment and employers' organisations are not more involved in the development of these services. Up to now, it has been particularly important in border regions, but EURES still does not cover all such areas, which is regrettable. It is obvious, as others have said, that EURES needs to be adequately resourced, expanded and promoted if it is to meet its full potential and respond to the needs of individuals. We must also recognise that enlargement will bring additional and quite legitimate demands in terms of information. We support the request for more detailed information to be provided and agree that multi-annual funding is essential to the smooth development of this services. However, its task would be made much easier if Member States adopted a more determined and coherent approach to making free movement a reality rather than an ideal that they keep banging on about, but seem incapable of delivering. There has to be positive action by governments in favour of enabling people to experience working elsewhere: Mrs Van Lancker has already refereed to the coordination of social security systems within this. There is also the question about dealing with tax problems for frontier workers. We still have enormous problems with adequate recognition of qualifications, particularly vocational qualifications. Members States must recognise that free movement is not a threat to them, it is not an inconvenience, it is a valuable way to increase understanding and to develop cooperation within the Union.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The EU may make grandiose statements, but the pitiful outcome confirms that Johannesburg was nothing more than a meeting steeped in hypocrisy and crocodile tears between the countries of the so-called developed world on the misery which their capitalist interests have imposed on the third world. Unfortunately, the European Parliament resolution, for all its wishful thinking and 'sensitivity', is merely a mouthpiece for the same hypocrisy. It is infuriating to hear claims that capitalist globalisation will work to the benefit of poor countries, given that the unrelenting terms on which international capitalist trade is conducted do absolutely nothing to improve the life of the people on this planet. Not a word on the foreign debt which brings developing countries to their knees or the responsibilities of the multinationals; just disgracefully hypocritical self-satisfaction when the same multinationals are called on to demonstrate 'sensitivity'! The claim that subsidies for agricultural produce in the EU are responsible for the underdevelopment of the third world and should therefore gradually be abolished has been swallowed hook, line and sinker in a frenzy of hypocrisy. The same wishful thinking, the same begging for 'sensitivity' and no progress on applying the Kyoto Protocol, while the capitalist world, and especially the USA, turns a provokingly blind eye to impending catastrophe. We shall vote against the resolution in protest against those paving the way for even greater exploitation of the masses.

Political group: GUE-NGL