GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, while the European economy is having a coughing fit we must decide whether to say a final good-bye to ‘Eurosclerosis’ and protectionism, whether to allow port monopolies to remain as they are or whether we should give free rein to the dynamics of economy. Sabena is a warning example of the kind of inefficiency that centrally managed industrial policies can produce in the worst possible case. Should we exclude cargo handling from the directive on ports, all that would be left of it would be an empty shell. This is why Amendment 52 is dangerous. Although I am in favour of the inclusion of all major ports, I can, nevertheless, give my support to Amendment 79 proposed by Mr Atkins. This amendment would restrict the directive to covering public ports only. My British colleagues could then accept the inclusion of cargo handling without any concern. We must not forget that British exporters benefit from reasonably priced port services in continental Europe. The numbers of port operators should not be restricted except for compelling reasons. Should economic efficiency be accepted as a criterion for restricting the numbers, this would leave a great deal of room for speculation as to when operations are efficient and when they are not. This is a reason why Amendments 6, 25 and 44 should not be seconded. On the other hand, Amendment 50 on the definition of the port system is not acceptable because, according to the amendment, a port in Greece and a port in Germany, for example, could be construed as forming a single port. I am sorry but this is an absurd idea. As regards pilotage, we, the members of the committee, concluded that strict national rules should apply. Therefore, safety aspects cannot be used as an excuse for a monopoly. Is it our intention then to prevent the development of EU ports by diluting the directive that has been awaited for so long? Cargo handling and pilotage, based on national rules, should be included, absolutely. Also, the port system should be defined in a concise manner. My highly honourable colleague Jarzembowski’s ideas on this matter are, unfortunately, a long way away from the actual needs of port users. We cannot change Europe into a giant Hamburg. The committee has reached a good compromise and we should clearly stick to that. ‘Eurosclerosis’ hits the poor hardest. Now we have a good opportunity to do a favour to European employment and sustainable development. Let us pilot Europe towards competitive ports.

Political group: PPE-DE
We voted against this report, which takes a cynically paternalistic attitude towards African countries. For example, how dare it state that these countries ‘should devote resources to establishing a strategy of sustainable, equitable and viable development opening the way to genuine employment of the right to food, health, education, housing and other necessities for African peoples’? Even in rich western countries, the dominant class deprives a large proportion of the population of these rights! African peoples have to bear, however, in addition to those of their own privileged class, the far more considerable impositions of industrial and financial groups of imperialist countries. From the time of the slave trade to the present day, where these countries are bled dry by the global banking system, through the pillaging of the colonial era, western capitalism has never stopped impoverishing this continent. Today, the European Parliament, the parliament of the countries whose leaders can be blamed for reducing African countries to misery, gracefully leave these countries to repair the damage done to them over the centuries themselves! It is deplorable.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I should like to thank Mr Ferber for a job extremely well done, for his patience and good will and for his willingness to work with all sides of the European Parliament and with the Council and the Commission. Thanks to Mr Ferber's hard work, we have what I think is a first class result with what appeared to be an exceptionally tricky issue. When the debate started and during the first reading, we all saw huge problems in store, with major differences between the various political persuasions in the House. The vote, in committee at least a few days ago, demonstrated that a large majority in the European Parliament agreed with the positions put forward just now by the rapporteur. What we were looking to do was to reconcile two needs: first, the need to safeguard the universal service, a universal service in island regions, in mountain regions and in remote regions of the European Union and, secondly, the need for a free, competitive market, the need to guarantee a single market in this sector by widening consumer choice. And I think that, in the end, we managed to find a creative way of reconciling these two needs. So we have a good result, both for those worried about losing the universal service and for those who wanted to advance the single market and widen consumer choices. And of course, in doing so, we have carried out the instructions of earlier European Councils, such as the Lisbon Council, which talked of the need to push ahead and extend the market in the postal services sector. I think that the three amendments proposed by our committee improve things still further and are, I believe, acceptable both to the Commission and the Council.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I do not discern any discriminatory content. It was accepted almost unanimously in committee, in the presence of Baroness Nicholson in fact. I do not see a problem. This is the first time that something like this has arisen.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, all of us in this House are agreed that it is a good thing to move towards the creation of a common European judicial space. We are also agreed, particularly in respect of the arrest warrant, that it makes the adoption of common and high minimum standards a matter of urgency. Mr Watson and Mrs Terrón i Cusí have asked us today to take it on trust that it will be done as a matter of urgency. We have to take some things on trust, but I would be reluctant to take all on trust. Furthermore, standards alone are never enough because standards can be broken. The only thing that guarantees high standards being observed is effective remedies. One of the most effective remedies ever devised was devised by the English common lawyers – I speak as a Scotsman – in the way of making sure that those who are wrongly detained are brought to court and released if the jailer cannot show cause for keeping them there. That is a really effective remedy. In adopting the European arrest warrant each of our states makes its own judiciary the instrument of justice in another state. That is a good thing, that we help each other. But it should also be the case that if the powers of one country's courts are abused by misconduct of prosecutors in another country, they can be recalled with an effective remedy. An effective remedy must be a Europe-wide remedy and one that diminishes the risk of undue detention pre-trial like the old 110-day rule which we celebrate in my country. Let us have Amendment No 4 and make sure that we have remedies that are effective as well as standards that are high.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I too congratulate the High Representative, Mr Solana, and Commissioner Patten for their untiring work. We share your frustration at the lack of outcomes. Has the time come now for us to move on from dialogue and move into shared partnerships, overcoming perceived religious differences to tackle common human evils of poverty, ill health and illiteracy? Surely the place today for dialogue is within Islam, between Muslim and Muslim, to work out ways of discarding false jihads, rejecting distorted interpretations of the Koran that lead inevitably to misguided martyrdoms and terrorist assaults. Islam is a faith that promotes peace, equality and a secure life. Meanwhile we should tackle the lack of democracy in the oil-rich states. Here we can assist through building civil society and use means such as our association agreement with Egypt to exert undoubted influence. High Representative Solana mentioned the Islamic Republic of Iran. My view is his as well. I believe we should open a Commission office in Tehran as soon as possible. This is an Islamic state, and yet a democracy; it has Sharia law, and yet a parliament. Surely Iran is part of the solution rather than part of the problem – a peaceful society in a violent region. I thank our Commissioner and our High Representative and their staff for all their work.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, this draft regulation is one of the first regulations in the sphere of development policy to be adopted by means of the codecision procedure. The European Parliament has done justice to the weightier responsibility it bears by virtue of its increased decision-making powers. Many people felt that this regulation should be passed as quickly as possible, which has meant Parliament having to distance itself from many of its proposed amendments. The path we chose was undoubtedly the right one. We were able to make a few improvements to this draft regulation. One of the most important improvements – the rapporteur has already mentioned it – is that the potential activities provided for by this regulation are to be adequately funded. It was a great achievement on our part to secure an increase in the funding from EUR 54.4 million to EUR 93 million – i.e. it was practically doubled – even though we know that we would need a much larger amount to do justice to the importance of this issue in terms of our common future. But that would lead to a general political discussion, which would of course be beyond the scope of this regulation. Our proposed amendments enabled us to make a number of changes to Article 3, which is concerned with the nature of the measures to be carried out. I am disappointed that Parliament’s proposed amendment was not adopted, because it advocated dispensing with bank guarantees or credit safeguards if need be, in order to make the range of applicants and the target group as large as possible. Despite everything, I believe this represents a great achievement on Parliament’s part, and also on the part of the rapporteur.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it is my turn to salute the President of the Commission, who is here, and the Presidency of the Council, which is coming, and to underline that there has probably never been such unanimity expressed in this Parliament on the results of a summit. This morning we heard every group speak of failure. If we look for the causes of that failure, the main reason seems to be that in Nice we saw the European project suffer a little more damage and the European dream recede a little further. What is that dream about? It is not about a trading area. It is not even about a cooperation area. The European dream is about a continent with common values building itself into a political power. Put another way, it is about neighbours who regard each other as members of the same family, and decide to build a ship together to weather the storms. But that would mean recognising that the common project is more important than selfish interests. Now, in Nice – and this is the criticism we all have – the project was not being considered, only the interests were being considered. It is as if the ship were already built and we were at the stage of sharing out the cabins, the officers’ uniforms and the cargo. That explains why many of us found Nice heartbreaking. It was heartbreaking to see the debates concentrating on who would get one vote more or one vote less, and who would gain – Germany or France, the Netherlands or Belgium, Portugal or Spain. The only question that was never asked was whether or not Europe would gain. The results were heartbreaking. In future it will be necessary to assemble three different majorities for a decision to be taken – 75% of the votes, 50% of the Member States, and 62% of the populations. That is inexplicably Byzantine for the citizens. Heartbreaking results for the Commission which was regarded, not as the guardian of the general interest, but as yet another intergovernmental body, wrenched away from the collegiate rule and symbolically excluded from the ‘confessionals’. Heartbreaking results for Parliament: the refusal to see majority decisions seriously extended; the exclusion of Parliament from codecision and – I say this in passing – the shocking fact that the composition was fixed without Parliament even being consulted on that composition. Finally and above all, heartbreaking results for the citizens, who find themselves excluded once and for all from these carpet salesmen’s debates about a Europe where they are condemned never to understand anything. The European dream must be relaunched and the European project rebuilt. That will be the whole purpose of the third stage, the new stage we are entering. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, it was very difficult to assess this text as its focus has shifted slightly. We were supposed to address the issue of competition in ports and we are now being presented with a text on competition between ports. I do not know what will happen tomorrow, but I am sure there will be some confusion. In passing, I regret that the mooring service providers’ lot is not the same as the pilots’. I do not see why we would maintain competition for mooring service providers while excluding pilots. These professions are fairly similar. With regard to competition between ports, I feel that transparency is a good thing, but I would warn you against going straight from that to decreeing competition between ports without closer analysis, for ports are first and foremost tools for regional development. They do not have the same nautical qualities. Moreover, if we were to increase competition, your entire sustainable mobility policy would fall through. I actually think that, in years to come, we will have to help the southern ports and the ports on the Atlantic coast take over from the over concentrated mass of North Sea ports. Otherwise, we will be going against both the Erika-Maritime Safety package and our desire to remove lorries from the major transit countries. In my opinion, the Commission will actually have to present us with specific proposals on State aid to ports focusing on regional development rather than just competition between products.

Political group: PSE
I am delighted with your response. We had a minor dispute about Chechnya yesterday, but I am satisfied now. Things can change, as you can see. Mr de Miguel, I completely share your view that a better description must be produced and that the budget must be planned more effectively. All of this must be done. However, if there happens to be a budget surplus, if there has been underspending, if you establish that this amount was 10 billion last year, and 11 billion the year before that, and maybe a few billion this year, then would it not be a good idea to put this money in a fund of some kind? This fund should also be used, really used, for emergencies which we know are heading our way. Enlargement is going to be far more expensive than currently envisaged. Let us put the money in a fund so that it cannot return to the Member States, for in the final analysis, we agreed in the ping-pong game between the Council and Parliament, the two budgetary authorities, that a certain amount will be spent in a certain year, and that we actually spend this money on Europe and not let it make its way back to the Member States.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I wish, on behalf of my group, to congratulate Mr Musotto on his report, which calls attention to some pertinent matters. The measures to achieve economic balance have been insufficient: they have been heading in the right direction, but they have been insufficient. Regional and social differences in terms of prosperity have even increased in the present Member States. In future we must pay attention to strengthening rural vitality and diversity in regions which are unfavourable in terms of geographical location and natural conditions. Additional costs resulting from difficult conditions, for example in island regions and mountain areas, must be compensated for with combined efforts and precisely defined regional policy measures. Furthermore, the sharp disparities in unemployment rates and structural problems must be taken seriously in planning regional structural policy. The commitment of SMEs and skills and know-how to projects is an important priority. Aid action under the Structural Funds must also be better coordinated with national employment targets. GNP alone is inadequate as a criterion in determining eligible areas. We have to equally consider permanent problems associated with climatic and geographical conditions. For example, extremely sparsely populated areas, long journey times, and cold and hot climates mean additional costs, which will also be there after enlargement. An effective cohesion policy requires that sufficient financing is safeguarded. There are actually rather different views in my group regarding how that can be addressed. Whatever the case, it is important to have improved coordination between the various forms of aid granted out of the funds available. The enlargement of the Union requires a reinforced cohesion policy. Enlargement must not go ahead at the expense of the worse-off regions, but through joint efforts. It is important to ensure that all the Union’s resources are spent effectively, and that includes the most remote regions. We have to ensure together that the whole area of the Union is included in the single market and derives benefit from it. For that reason, cooperation with the peripheral areas is more important than ever.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Minister Winberg, however much I can identify with what else has been said here today, I should like to focus on one topic. More specifically, I should like to talk about the transport of live animals. I have asked you a question in this connection. It is clear to me: animals intended for slaughter should not be seen as products. Meat can be transported over long distances; animals cannot. That is my guiding principle. You stated that you need to monitor this long-haul transport in the Member States. It is evident that the means are desperately lacking. You responded to me by saying that you have no more than four inspectors at your disposal, that those four inspectors have carried out twelve inspections, only six of which covered animal welfare during transport. That translates into less than five percent of the inspection assignments. You will understand that we are not satisfied with this. Nevertheless, this has led to results, for two infringement procedures have been instituted against Member States and, in three cases, there was a serious lack of animal welfare during transport. I believe that those figures illustrate adequately that more inspections need to be carried out and that legislation needs to change, but, more than anything, that monitoring must be stepped up in terms of compliance with legislation, so that we can be certain that animals are no longer tortured during transport.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to join in the heavy criticism which has been levelled by the parliamentary Committee on Budgetary Control and the Committee on Development and Cooperation and which has been outlined in the otherwise very constructive report of Mr Deva. These committees complained about the fact that the annual reports have not been issued by the Commission, and what is worse, the independent evaluations have failed to materialise, although these are, of course, vital in order to establish that the validity period of the regulations definitely needs to be extended. But how can we do this without the necessary reports at our disposal? As has already been expressed in other criticism, this is probably once again a case of outstanding payments, unnecessarily complicated procedures for financial control and a fragmentation of efforts. Also the fact that the amounts spent are disproportionate to the number of displaced persons raises questions. Commissioner, of the EUR 240 million, 40% has been allocated to Latin America which has less than 1% of refugees in the world, while 60% has been granted to Asia which has 40% of the displaced persons. Were it not for the fact that a sudden discontinuation of the programmes would cause undesired effects and result in innocent victims, we would follow the advice of the Committee on Budgetary Control, but instead we will now follow Mr Deva’s recommendation. He has called for an extension of that programme by one year, although Mr Howitt has already pointed out that, in actual fact, we are already halfway through that year. We hope that the report and in-depth evaluation will as yet be forthcoming. Mr President, we are not talking about humanitarian aid but about viable projects aimed at self-sufficiency and the reintegration of refugees and displaced persons, ex-soldiers, etc. Surely we should be able to come up with the goods and establish that there is indeed reduced dependency on aid. Mr President, we are prepared to give the Commission some respite because we know that so many people are making huge efforts and because Parliament too is not exactly whiter than white as far as the Council is concerned, which you are under-staffing, but I think that, in any case, we will need to get the Commission to keep its promise to us, because otherwise this cooperation will be futile.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, I come from Spanish Algeciras, opposite Gibraltar and not far from Morocco. I have seen the fishing boats tossing in the harbour, a picture which spoke volumes, vividly illustrating the enforced inactivity of the fishermen. Or was it, or is it, an illustration of our own incapability? The fishermen are inactive, tired and disappointed. For eleven months, there has no longer been an agreement with Morocco. Mr Fischler is negotiating hard, but unfortunately without success so far. Inhabiting, as they do, a region in any case lacking in infrastructure, the Andalusians are alarmed. Four thousand ships lie at anchor. The Committee on Fisheries is alarmed, too. Who is responsible for alternative jobs in the EU? Under which Budget heading can we pay for possible forms of restructuring? The new Finance Agreement is of no use, and I see that mistrust of EU politicians is growing. A serious, robust and optimistic Budget is therefore all the more necessary. The combination of need, scope of action and flexibility is a whole new chapter. The Committee on Fisheries takes a lot of flack. It is very often a target of multiple attacks for financial and political reasons. Unjustly so. We are open to justified criticism from our own ranks, too. However, we also want to be listened to and, in the field of employment alone, we speak for as many as 41 000 jobs, for which there are no alternatives. Of course we are dependent upon a significant amount of imports. It is true that the market is increasingly looking for private sales channels, but we ought not to evade our socio-economic duty. We therefore at least need adequately worded fisheries agreements, provided that they have been assessed convincingly. We therefore agree with the division into compulsory expenditure without reserves and into the token entry with reserves which take effect whenever we want to sign new agreements, namely those which do not come into effect until next year. I am confident of a positive vote in this area, that is to say in the fisheries area as a whole, for I believe that only this will constitute an expression of our common political will.

Political group: PPE-DE