GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, after two and a half years of debates, amendments, demonstrations and votes until well into the night, there is now a compromise proposal before us. Not everyone is pleased with it. The result is a step forward in the European maritime sector. I should like to thank Mr Jarzembowski for the fact that he has still achieved a certain result. It will not have escaped anyone’s attention that this topic has unleashed strong emotions; that is quite clear from the dockworkers’ demonstrations here in Brussels, and even in Rotterdam. I should like to touch upon those demonstrations. The demonstrators have made good use of their democratic right to inform us as MEPs fully and effectively. I welcome the idea of demonstrating to press home a message. However, it is regrettable if this degenerates into causing destruction, disturbance, threatening people and suppressing other views. I have first-hand experience of the uncomfortable feeling one is left with if one adopts a stance that deviates from theirs. This is very unfortunate. As a result, people are forced into excessive action and mudslinging. Despite this, something has been achieved – a legal framework that allows for clear and transparent relations between ports, authorities and service providers, with transparency in the use of public funds to finance ports and the agreement to draft a clear guideline on the reconcilability of state support with European law. Pilotage services have been included after all, together with the option of self-handling, which, to my mind, is too restricted. Shipping companies have acquired more entrepreneurial room, which they need in order to secure a good return on investments. More room means growth and employment. More jobs, that is the best social policy, in general. In Parliament, we have very little say in the quality of the work. We should, therefore, not turn this into our ambition. In the Netherlands, where a great deal of port work is done, progress is being made and industrial peace has been reasonably limited. In order to remove the concerns surrounding the enhanced self-handling possibilities in shipping companies, quayside service providers and trade unions, I have received written pledges from both the Social Affairs Minister and the Transport Minister, our former fellow MEP, Mrs Peijs, that they want to create new policy to put strict guarantees in place to ensure that Dutch labour law is observed in the ports. Pledges of that kind should also be possible elsewhere. In short, we are making progress, and the Liberals will be predominantly voting in favour.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, in 1991, I joined with other colleagues in this House to vote against the abolition of vaccination at that time. I believe that against the background of enlargement, we will be forced to rethink the situation. Last week, 4000 animals were culled as a preventive measure in my region, after piglets had arrived there from quarantine areas in Holland. Since 2 p.m. today, foot-and-mouth disease may also have reached Germany and my home region of Münsterland near the Dutch border. If the cases are confirmed, Commissioner, the disease will have broken out in a region which is widely regarded as the 'meat belt' of North Rhine-Westphalia. The EU's 'no vaccination' policy has always been justified in terms of exports to third countries. So my question is this, Mr Byrne: is it not clear that this policy really has failed? What does Europe gain, in financial terms, from these exports, and what is the epidemic costing Europe? The Commission should put these figures on the table for the Council. I called for this two weeks ago in the Committee on Agriculture. Put the figures on the table, and do it quickly. Then the Council can decide, and the Council can take responsibility for its policies. The European Parliament will undoubtedly set out its views on this issue in its resolution tomorrow. I am in favour of emergency ‘ring’ and suppressive vaccinations, and I say: let us do it right away. I believe that the current situation is putting untold emotional and psychological strain on farmers. What about Europe's moral responsibility for its policies? Please, Commissioner, answer the questions we have asked. Please do not just read your prepared text because otherwise this whole discussion will be a waste of time. Thank you. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Europe is experiencing tension between low population growth and a genuine demand for manpower in the labour market, on the one hand, and a population that is distrustful of immigration on the other. Faced with this situation, political decision-makers can react in two ways: either by exploiting people’s fears to their own advantage, at least in the short term, or by attempting to manage the different aspects of immigration as best they can, bravely explaining the reasons for this phenomenon, the benefits it brings our societies, its more problematic aspects and the policies that are necessary. We have seen some examples of this first approach right here this very morning. In its two communications, the Commission has, fortunately, positioned itself firmly in the second camp, and we can only congratulate the Commissioner for this and show our approval. It has also achieved this – I would like to stress – in accordance with the agreements and mandates reached at the European Council in Tampere. Whilst I fully subscribe to everything my friend and colleague, Mr Evans, said about asylum, I would like to focus during the short speaking time available to me on the communication on immigration and the report. Both define a clear path to be followed. The communication discusses, and the report also focuses on, the external and internal causes of immigration, the need for codevelopment policies and a new partnership with the countries of origin, a common European legislative framework to organise entry in a fair, transparent and straightforward way, residency and integration, which to me means rights. Only after this does it talk, once these standards have been established, of addressing the subject of illegal immigration, because we need legal channels to do this. Lastly, the report speaks, and we shall be discussing this here in detail when we see the legislative proposals, of establishing new immigration policies in the twenty-first century for a new society and a new economy, that cannot simply be a rehash of guest worker policies from the industrial societies of the 1960s. I hope that the Council will also align itself with those politicians who want to broach this subject clearly and courageously. I really hope this will be the case and I say this in the full knowledge that, on the subject of immigration, we are speaking with both our minds and our hearts – I say this knowing that listening to me today are EU citizens, some by birth and others through choice, all invited by my colleague Mr Aparicio, and who have high expectations of this debate. Parliament will try to prove equal to events, and, despite the fact that on occasions events make things difficult for us, we are going to try, and this is something that has never been done by the Group with regard to asylum, to give strong support to this Commission communication and we hope in exchange, Mr President, that the European Council at Laeken will be able to once again initiate a dynamic and robust policy that will allow us to tackle this much needed common immigration policy.

Political group: PSE
I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on his excellent contribution, which adds great value to the Commission’s initiative. In spite of the scepticism of some people, there is consensus on the need for a concerted strategy for modernising social protection. The discussions that were held in the 1980s and 1990s demonstrate the importance of social transfers. More than 50% of people in the Union receive benefits that are not part of pensions. Denmark and the Netherlands are positive examples of the effort for cohesion that we must all make. In those two countries, over 60% of people at risk live above the poverty line, whereas in the Southern countries, only 7% to15% of poor people manage to do so. This fact creates the imbalances in society and in competition that have already been highlighted. The convergence criteria have created the temptation to reduce public spending, a phenomenon which has led to anti-European feeling. The truth is that high levels of protection coexist well with the best indicators of productivity. Nevertheless, where social policies are concerned too, a strategy for convergence which the report is advocating will benefit both the public and the success of the internal market. All systems face new problems and these are identified in the report. The demographic issue is central, but the following are not minor issues: new forms of work, mobility within the Union and a shorter working life – young people start working later now and although the legal age for retirement is 65, in practice, people are retiring between the ages of 57 and 59, due to restructuring in industry. In addition to this, poverty is an ever-present phenomenon, particularly for retired women because their salaries and contributions have been low. These challenges must be responded to as a matter of urgency. We are happy to welcome the Portuguese Presidency’s initiative, which is to establish a high-level group which we want to be the preparation for action for legislation and for programming, not just another postponement or a simple diagnosis of the problem. We need common objectives with a realistic timetable.

Political group: PSE
The border between Andalusia and Gibraltar has been the scene of absurd and inordinately long delays over the last several months. What steps is the Commission taking or going to take to ensure that travellers can freely and easily move across this internal EU border without undue formality?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I do not want to delay the proceedings, I just want to ask the Bureau to consider refusing to accept any more motions for deletion in the future which delete entire paragraphs so that we can avoid the problem which has arisen today. I would ask for this to be considered.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe the regulation must be effective because it is a voluntary instrument. To that extent, it is only right and fitting that we should try to guarantee the manageability of the system, which is why we have taken pains to reach the present agreement between the two major groups, Mrs Scheele, so that the validation is not limited to one year but can be organised in a pragmatic manner, particularly for small and medium-sized businesses. It goes without saying that they cannot be expected to do a validation every year – that would be absurd. We must find an effective and manageable solution to that problem. But I also believe that we need a rational approach to the question of the best available technology, because it is surely unacceptable that two companies producing at entirely different levels – one to a low technological standard and the other to a high standard – should both be able to operate the eco-management and audit system and should both be certificated. That is patently absurd and will ultimately mislead those who are liable to buy products advertised as EMAS-compliant. For that reason we need to set a standard. Perhaps the amendments we adopted in the Environment Committee go too far. For that reason I am pleased that Amendments 43, 44 and 45 have been proposed as a means of covering the available forms of technology in a similar way to another directive and of limiting the initial scope of the regulation to industrial activity, since it is undoubtedly far harder to legislate for the service sector in this domain. Accordingly, I would suggest that if we can reach agreement on the frequency of validation, we ought perhaps to be able to reach agreement on this aspect as well. So the first thing to do is to establish the verification procedure; the application of that procedure will perhaps reveal various ways in which the system can be improved.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Point 6, on which we have to vote in this amendment, stipulates a deadline of 15 May. If we were to accept this, we would be contradicting a paragraph that we agreed earlier. Earlier on, under Paragraph 10 of the proposal for a decision to be precise, we agreed that we wished to see options for buildings management and a financing plan, taking into account the situation on negotiations, by 1 July. We have already agreed on this, and this was also unanimously agreed in committee, because we accepted that this was only possible if we took account of the situation on negotiations. If we were now to set a deadline of 15 May without taking account of the negotiating situation, we would not only be agreeing to something which it was agreed in committee simply cannot be done, we would also be contradicting something that we have already agreed upon. I therefore appeal to the to withdraw this point, failing which I would recommend that you vote against it, so as to ensure consistency with the rest of the decision.

Political group: PSE
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you have not answered my questions on the maritime areas located between the Canaries, Madeira, the Azores and the European Union. 70 000 ships pass through these areas, many of them large oil tankers, real monsters, of 100 000, 200 000 or more tonnes, and at any time an accident involving one of these oil tankers could lead to the economic ruin of many of these islands which are dedicated exclusively to tourism. You will understand better if we imagine this in the context of your own country. Imagine the results of an accident in the Aegean, or an accident in the Eastern Mediterranean, even outside the territorial waters of Greece. What would be the consequences for your islands? Do you not believe, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, that the European Union must adopt rules to regulate the maritime areas which endanger its coasts? The United States and Canada have done so, outside their own territorial waters, and I believe that the European Union would have the power to do so.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, after first congratulating and thanking Mrs Jensen for her good work, I would like to start my speech with reference to the fact that last Sunday, in Galicia – my country – a former Member of this European Parliament, Manuel Fraga Iribarne, founder of the Spanish Popular Party, obtained, for the fourth time running, an absolute majority in the elections to the Galician Parliament. I mention this because, during its twelve years in power, the Fraga government has been constantly concerned about the issues and problems arising from the lack of employment in Galicia, and for this reason, during the latest election campaign, it made a commitment to providing jobs for the young unemployed under the age of 30 consisting of a one-year contract for those who have been out of work or unemployed for six consecutive years. This concern about employment, as laid down in Article 3 of the Treaty and which takes the form of a European Community action for promoting the coordination of employment policies in Member States, confirmed by the special European Councils on employment in Luxembourg and Lisbon, which resolutely advocate a global employment strategy, implies and demands a systematic mobilisation of all Community employment policies, whether these be framework policies or support policies. If we want to become a knowledge-based economy that is both competitive and dynamic, able to grow economically in a sustainable fashion, with more and better jobs and with greater social cohesion, so that we can once again meet the conditions necessary for full employment, we should encourage the coordination of employment policies between Member States, upholding, of course, the right to make decisions that correspond to the particular circumstances of each Member State, the exchange of good practices, including the aforementioned forms of participation for social partners and also local and regional authorities, without forgetting the need for the coordination of policies directed towards the creation of employment. I therefore think that the commitment made by Mr Fraga Iribarne is good practice that could be exported or exchanged with others. It will provide Galician youth with the chance to become integrated into the labour market, make it easier for them to gain the necessary training and experience, both in their quest for a first job as well as subsequently being able to keep that job or to move on to other jobs. I think that this is good practice, in the same way that the practice for the conciliation of family life with professional life was also good, another initiative of the Galician government. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
The enlargement of the EU in the direction of Eastern and Central Europe brings the European Union’s financial requirements to the fore. The EU is not at present entitled to raise taxes itself, nor should it be entitled to do so in the future either. The Haug report does not involve our automatically introducing taxation by the EU, but it opens the way for a debate on the subject. Enlargement ought to be financed mainly by means of reduced costs. This would involve better prioritising and concentrating on the major and crucial questions. The enlargement of the EU is one such priority. As long as almost half the EU’s budget goes on subsidising agriculture and as long as five sixths of it, including the structural funds, goes on subsidies of one kind or another, there can be no doubt that changes still need to be made.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Van Hecke report raises a fundamental question: to what extent is international aid to countries involved in conflicts a factor in these conflicts and to what extent does this aid favour corrupt and belligerent governments? In connection with one of the poorest and most unfortunate areas in the world, I should like to give two examples of the pernicious role played by unconditional international aid. I am referring to one country which has been constantly at war since the 1960s and to another now enjoying a shaky peace, which, perversely, may be threatened by international aid: they are Angola and Mozambique, respectively. In Angola, the government and UNITA are waging one of the cruellest civil wars in Africa, and unfortunately it is clear that international aid to the Luanda government in particular has played a part in perpetuating this conflict. Unfortunately, I am afraid that my own government, the Portuguese Government, is involved in this military effort. In the case of Mozambique, where there is a shaky peace that was only achieved with great difficulty, the ruling party’s use of international aid to favour certain provinces to the detriment of others according to their election results may in itself be a major factor in destroying the peace that was achieved through such efforts a number of years ago, thus reopening the civil conflict in Mozambique. This is an issue that should be of fundamental concern to the European Union and the donor countries: whether in certain countries like Mozambique international aid is being used as an instrument of power to legitimise a government at the edges of democracy, and is thus helping to destroy a very shaky peace. These are issues raised by the report that warrant considerable reflection on our part. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr Duisenberg, it is probably not necessary to say it, but please allow me to emphasise, as a humble MEP from a small country – the Basque Country – that you have a lot of power but it is a democratic power. And contrary to what somebody said a little while ago, we do know who granted that power. In the current phase of European construction we are seeing significant economic and monetary integration processes, which have been speeded up since the adoption of the single currency. In the real economy we are witnessing great mergers and concentrations which must be carried out in accordance with good practice and respect for consumer rights. At an institutional level the Central Bank plays a key role and we would also like this role to be counterbalanced with the transparency demanded of those institutions which result from the votes of the citizens. Somebody said that one should not grow fond of banks because they will never grow fond of you. We do not intend to present you with a rosy picture or a wonderful idyll, but we do not believe that it is too much to ask that at least they are transparent with the citizens of Europe who are affected by their policies and measures. In general terms we agree with the Huhne report, which emphasises the quality of the annual report of the ECB and the progress made in the communication of the Bank’s policy. We also agree with the measures proposed with regard to the increase in transparency and the need to clarify what the European Central Bank understands monetary policy to be, beyond price stability – which is evidently its main function – because this will undoubtedly contribute to an appropriate and balanced policy mix which is aimed at promoting sustainable development and lasting employment. I must insist once again on transparency: do not apply a bandage until you are injured. Mr Solbes said in an appearance before this Parliament that he would try to cooperate with the Members without prejudice to the quality of his work. Transparency does not have to be incompatible with the protection of aims of monetary policy. We are not asking for miracles nor that a great song and dance be made about what is going to be done, but simply that its management model be more transparent. If you take note of what other Central Banks have done and if you trust in this Parliament, have no doubt that we will make progress with transparency without endangering the objectives of the European Central Bank.

Political group: Verts-ALE