GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I would like to speak on this particular subject but from a regional aspect. I cannot speak about high-speed railways in Northern Ireland, never mind the island of Ireland, because the railways do not go at any great speed in that particular part of the world. It is extremely important that we recognise the importance of a railway system. One thing that has concerned me recently in my region is that, in Europe, we talk about how important to regions it is that we should have the most environmentally friendly type of transport. At the same time within my area people are talking about doing away even with parts of our present minute railway system. I find that totally atrocious. We have one of the main links between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland between Dublin and Belfast. This is a very important link and one that has been upgraded recently. Probably that would be up to at least half the standard of the rest of continental Europe, but it is very welcome to those of us who live in that area. Then we have the link between Belfast and Larne which links us to the rest of the United Kingdom. Parts of this have had to be closed down because there is not enough money to keep it in repair and upgraded. We have also recently had Northern Ireland Railways tell us that they are going to close the link between Coleraine and Londonderry which is absolutely unbelievable and totally unacceptable. This is the one commuting area from the Northwest and it takes in part of the Republic of Ireland and the inner shore and peninsula. They need that railway system as a link for those who want to get to Belfast to reach airports and everywhere else. So we have to take a really serious look at what we are talking about here. For too often within Europe we have talked about trans-European networks – be they road-rail, air or sea – but at the end of the day we are not prepared to put in the finance at either European level or national level. We have to take on board the challenges that come before us and we have to ensure that we have a very highly established rail link. I certainly want it within my region because that is important. There should be no more closures and we should make more finance available to improve the present railway system to have more goods moved by rail and not by road, which is totally unacceptable from an environmental point of view. It is hurtful when I go back to my region and am told the money is not there. It is hurtful when you go back and you are told that: 'No, we must improve the road system – we must not improve the rail system'. The rail system has a tremendous future. It is wrong, it is totally unacceptable that it is allowed in any way to be run down.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am really pleased that the rapporteur, Mrs Ries, and the discussion in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy have tightened up the Commission’s proposal concerning brominated flame retardants. We are of course aware that pentaBDEs, octaBDEs and also decaBDEs are resistant, toxic and also bioaccumulative, since highly brominated flame retardants have been found high up in the food chain. It is within the field of Swedish environmental research that it has been established that decaBDEs too are bioaccumulative. The whole group must therefore be banned. The precautionary principle requires that we act now and not wait for the results of the current risk assessment, as proposed in the case of decaBDEs in Amendment 16, for decaBDEs account for 80 per cent of the use of brominated flame retardants. If we were to wait for a ban in 2006, this would mean tons of high-risk chemicals being released into the environment, something which would clearly contravene the precautionary principle. I therefore applaud the amendment by the Group of the , designed to place an immediate ban on the entire group of brominated flame retardants right now.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we hope that the presidency of the Council can spend more time with us, at least when we hold our mini-sessions in Brussels. In any event, in this joint debate on Supplementary and Amending Budgets Nos 3 and 4, the mandate for the budgetary conciliation and the report on the situation concerning the European Union’s own resources, the Group wishes to state that it is voting unanimously in favour in the first two cases and in favour by a majority in relation to own resources. Clearly, the most potentially controversial issue in this Haug report relates to Parliament’s support for the possibility of opening a debate on the establishment of a direct Community tax which would be a source of autonomous funding for the Community budget. Within all the groups. Mr President, there are differing sensitivities in relation to European integration, and this is all the more obvious when it comes to funding issues. Therefore, Mrs Haug’s tendency towards this possible tax is too much for certain national delegations. However, I believe that the majority of my Group will possibly agree with it. Of more immediate importance is the mandate for conciliation by Mr Costa Neves, and we publicly thank him for being prepared to hold dialogue and for seeking a consensus. We are sure that, thanks to this way of proceeding, we will be able to achieve successful results. We are presenting clear proposals for the conciliation of 20 July, which the Council should not reject, because they represent the majority will of this House elected by the citizens of Europe. Amongst these concerns I would like to stress our doubts about the reserve in agriculture, the low implementation of appropriations in food safety and the future of rural development. I would also like to stress the will for the Council to comply with the Nice commitments with regard to overcoming the problems caused by the absence of a fishing agreement with Morocco and the need to safeguard Parliament’s external priorities, which are always cut at first reading by the Council and, even more, the indispensable consultation procedure which the Council should carry out with Parliament when adopting commitments on external policy. Lastly, I would like to mention the need to deal with the problems that have already been mentioned in Category 5, especially the separation of administration expenditure and the identification of the Council’s expenditure in that category. Ladies and gentlemen, all of this makes up the hub of Parliament’s negotiating position for the conciliation of 20 July, with regard to which we ask the Belgian presidency to maintain an open position and hold dialogue so that we can deal with the final part of the budgetary procedure with guarantees of success for all the parties.

Political group: PPE-DE
Ladies and gentlemen, the fate of the Afghan refugees on their desperate quest for a chance of a new life provides a predominantly depressing story, were it not for the actions of the captain of the Norwegian ship Tampa. Not only did he rescue the people from a sinking ship, but subsequently too he consistently took the side of the people. It is thanks to such humanitarian help that we can retain a vague hope in a better future. For this reason, our group feels that a legal obligation should be introduced to allow the stowaways ashore at the first port of call, in agreement with the 1957 Treaty on stowaways. As a result of the clash between the various spheres of law, the refugees become the exhausted pawns in a game of passing the buck. Consequently, it must be clearly stated that Australia’s actions in this matter have been far from praiseworthy. Local political interests have taken precedence over the respecting of human rights. Through its actions, Australia supports and finances the source of the problems with which the country is confronted. Too little attention is paid to the cause. The main responsibility for this drama lies with the Taliban regime, which is systematically destroying its own country and killing the spirit of its own population, so that migrations of people have become a necessary evil. In this matter, we have an international political humanitarian responsibility. We might have wished that Australia would use its political weight to condemn the regime in Afghanistan and to spur the international community on to constructive action.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I wanted to ask a supplementary question but I am afraid that I am going to have to return to the two parts of my question which have not been addressed. I asked if the Commission was planning to review current priority or non-priority road projects within the trans-European networks framework so as to give preference to more sustainable transport modes. That part of my question has not been answered. Secondly, I wanted the Commission to indicate the share of investment per mode of transport in the framework of the Structural Funds programme period 2000 to 2006. You may say that it is not possible, but I think you could at least give a rough estimate.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on his report, which I believe to be an extremely important piece of work. We really are now moving towards a situation where the terrible mass slaughters of the last foot and mouth epidemic really will be a thing of the past. I am particularly pleased to see that vaccination has been promoted to being a vital tool in the fight against foot and mouth - this shift in emphasis that Commissioner Byrne spoke about. But as far as our own Parliamentary report is concerned, I would like to make sure that we stick with the text agreed in committee, which talks very clearly about vaccination as a tool of first resort. That is the language we used in the report from the Temporary Committee. That is the language of the Royal Society report in the United Kingdom. It is right and appropriate to use that clear and unambiguous language here as well. I welcome the amendment that supports a change in OIE rules so that there is no longer an automatic incentive to slaughter rather than to vaccinate. But we have recognised that in Britain over 10 million animals were slaughtered, many unnecessarily. Priority was given to narrow economic interests of regaining export status as quickly as possible, regardless of the devastating consequences to the wider rural economy and rural communities. On mass slaughter, my group has an amendment to delete pre-emptive culling. We believe that the evidence we heard in the foot and mouth inquiry demonstrates that preventive slaughter is not necessary, it is not desirable, it is not economic and it is not efficient. It should not be permitted by this directive. It may seem a long time ago since we saw the pictures of the burning pyres on the front pages of newspapers in all those Member States affected. Some people have already forgotten that, but the farmers and communities that went through that terrible time have certainly not forgotten it and many are only now beginning to put their lives back together again. I hope that this report and the Commission initiative will be another step in the process of ensuring that such devastation can never be allowed to happen again, either in the United Kingdom or anywhere else in the European Union.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I have voted with satisfaction and relief in favour of the excellent report by my colleague, Mr Bodrato, concerning the Green Paper on European space policy. Satisfaction, because what is at stake is European autonomy: a Europe that is sovereign in strategic terms must have its own military and spatial capacities. Relief, because this vote shows that the European institutions have become aware of the concerns of manufacturers and politicians faced with the recent economic deterioration of this sector and the increased strength of our international competitors. Europe will take up the challenge of space if it takes strong measures in response to the White Paper to be presented in December and if manufacturers engage in restructuring in order to become more competitive. If this is to happen, we shall need a boost in public investments. Otherwise, our big groups will not retain their high profiles in terms of technology and human resources, and we shall lose skills. Following the crucial support given to the Galileo programme and to Ariane V, this vote by the European Parliament shows that the European Union knows how to defend its vital strategic interests and, over and above that, wishes to contribute to the knowledge of a universe about which the human race cannot remain indifferent.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, naturally I extend my compliments for the work on the motion for a resolution but, considering it very carefully, I also have significant doubts, which I hope are not caused by some sort of accumulation in my subconscious. In fact, each time that we talk about these issues, it seems to be almost a form of hatred for the farmers who buy and use phytosanitary products to guarantee their crop yields and exclude qualitative problems caused by pests and diseases. I have a fundamental question: whether quality can be separated from the concept of profitability of farms. It is clear that when I talk of quality – with the breadth of meaning of this concept – I am referring to the various stages of the production chain. Studying the Commission’s proposal, I cannot see a fitting analysis of the costs and benefits associated with the initiatives proposed in the thematic strategies which have been put forward for our consideration. This is a point which we have included in our Parliamentary position, but, following a logical thread, I get lost, because immediately afterwards I would like to understand the reasoning behind item 2 of the motion for a resolution – I am referring to Amendment No 10 – which proposes a minimum objective of a 50% reduction of the use of pesticides. I consider this to be a completely arbitrary figure, which does not take into account the qualitative aspects of phytosanitary products and, above all, overlooks the economic aspects of crop protection. A final point concerns GMOs: this is a sensitive, problematic issue, too often dealt with in demagogic rather than scientific terms. In my opinion, use of the precautionary principle for GMOs calls for an appropriate level of consistency with the Union’s studies which are already underway and have not yet been completed. In this respect, the Commission has taken a very serious and wise position, indicating in the field trials when to evaluate the use of GMOs with the related risk of pesticide use. This is the right way to get tangible answers.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I will continue where my colleague Mr Stenzel left off. We had concerns about Turkey's candidate status, but now it is here, and Turkey therefore also has the right to be included in the financial instruments. I say this without any ifs and buts. I welcome the fact that this regulation has now established clarity, especially as the European Union has actually done very little to fulfil its financial commitments towards Turkey since the conclusion of the Customs Union Treaty five years ago. So this is a fresh start which has our full support. As far as the two programmes are concerned, I wish I could agree with my colleague Mr Stenzel, but I must also point out that it is not enough for us to view the 177 million already envisaged for the pre-accession strategy as a general framework. As Mr Kuckelkorn has said, new money, i.e. additional funding, must be made available to Turkey for economic and social cohesion. This is our common concern, and we therefore support Mr Swoboda's report in general terms – not in every respect, and not all the proposed amendments, but its general trend. The regulation includes an Article 4 which allows funding to be suspended under certain circumstances. This Article 4 is necessary, and it is now up to Turkey to answer all the questions which we have been asking for years, and make progress with regard to a basic democratic structure, the role of the military in the National Security Council, and human and minority right. To our great regret, I believe that relatively little has been done in these areas in recent months; on the contrary, we have the impression that the progress initially achieved in the second half of 2000 has now been reversed and that the Turkish side – the government itself – has lost the courage to adopt these measures swiftly and resolutely. Article 4 is not an instrument which can be used indiscriminately; it is only intended for the event that very serious shortcomings become evident in the pre-accession process, and I hope that it will not need to be used in the near future. But one thing must be clear: Turkey's accession to the European Union can only take place under the conditions set by Europe, not simply on Turkey's terms. So far, neither politics nor the government has addressed this misconception held by the Turkish public. So I would also ask our colleagues on the rostrum to help dispel this misconception at last. Accession will only take place on our terms.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Echelon is an interception system which does not differentiate between communications, data and documents. It does exist and represents a considerable step forwards. From now on, the Union’s institutions, particularly the representatives of the Council and the Commission, will no longer be able to say that information reported in the media is inaccurate. There is, however, inconsistency between what has been ascertained and the conclusions of the report, for the system flagrantly infringes the fundamental right to privacy guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union. In fact, because of its technical capabilities, the system nullifies the relationship of proportionality which, precisely within the meaning of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, has to exist between interference in people’s private lives and the benefits of interception for protection purposes. This is all the more serious in that interception is currently carried out by means of these technical capabilities by a third country on EU territory and to the detriment of the citizens of the countries of the Union, without the possibility of any sort of legal, administrative or parliamentary control. A further problem is that one of the countries managing the Echelon system is the United Kingdom, a Member of the European Union, while other Member States such as Germany have made their territory available for the siting of antennae, listening posts and other equipment. Quite simply, the group of English-speaking countries managing Echelon is doing what it likes with the privacy of European citizens, as is explicitly noted in point 26 of the conclusion, cited by Mrs Flesch moreover, which means that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights is being infringed. However, rather than trusting the United Kingdom not to abuse the information, we should at least have recorded its infringement of this article and noted the fact that its participation in the Echelon system is incompatible with its responsibilities under the European Treaties. Genuine safeguarding of fundamental rights in the USA is essential for the credibility and democratic legitimacy of that country. However, we have, yet again, chosen to waste an opportunity, at least for us, to uphold a democratic principle. For others, on the other hand, at a historic moment when great, dark clouds are gathering over the right to dissent in the EU and at world level – as we have learnt from Genoa – it would be unthinkable to abolish or at least attempt to modify and reduce the capabilities of an indiscriminate listening system, one of the most useful systems for social monitoring and, where necessary, crime prevention. Mr President, this report and its failure to draw the appropriate conclusions reduce the fundamental right to privacy, so solemnly enshrined in our Treaties and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to a right which only exists on paper, or rather to a right which, tragically, is worth no more than the paper it is written on.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The Herzog report attempted to reconcile the irreconcilable, championing liberalisation and defending services of general interest at the same time; hence the discordant voting. Must we support this ‘hybrid’ product which ‘highlights the fact that liberalisation has not been to the detriment of the provision of universal service’, which ‘considers the liberalisation to date in the gas market insufficient’ while considering that the problems encountered in the liberalisation of certain sectors make it necessary to assess the impact on employment in a pluralist and open manner? The rapporteur, faced with his mutilated draft and having taken the ultraliberal forces of Parliament hostage, thought that, all considered, it was worth supporting. As for me, along with all those who have not succumbed to Stockholm syndrome, I have kept a cool head. The amended text is indefensible and I therefore voted against it.

Political group: PSE
The European Commission presented this communication on countering racism in the candidate countries in response to the request by the Vienna European Council of 11 and 12 December 1998. I welcome the communication, which reflects the European Union’s resolve to help the candidate countries to combat racism, xenophobia and antisemitism with determination, and to satisfy the Copenhagen criteria relating to human rights, the sine qua non for accession to the European Union. The profound process of transformation that has been under way in Central and Eastern Europe since 1989 has had its impact on the rise of racism, xenophobia and antisemitism. The high unemployment rate (formerly an unknown social phenomenon, but now officially recognised), which resulted from the economic reforms, is making people feel more insecure. All this creates fertile ground for the rise in forms of racism. There is a risk that the changes resulting from the implementation of the Community acquis will further accentuate the social tensions in the candidate countries. So it is vital to take vigorous action without delay to help these countries to tackle these problems. This could be done through programmes such as PHARE (and more specifically “PHARE-Democracy”, now incorporated in the “European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights”) and the MEDA programme for Turkey, which can provide back-up during these changes. The European Observatory of racism and xenophobia which will open its doors in Vienna on 10 April this year must also make a relevant contribution to continuing the fight against racism, xenophobia and antisemitism in the candidate countries. The report highlights one very acute problem in the candidate countries, the problem of respect for the rights of minorities. I am thinking particularly of the Roma, who face intolerable discrimination in several Central and Eastern European countries. I am also thinking, obviously, of the problem of the institutionalised discrimination against the Kurdish people. Let me take this opportunity to remind you that Mrs Leyla Zana, a Turkish parliamentarian of Kurdish origin, is still being held in Turkish jails after a parody of a trial. So far, all the pressure exerted by the European Parliament has had no effect on the Turkish authorities’ position. Sadly, Mrs Zana’s case is no exception! Turkey needs to make considerable progress in relation to respect for the Kurdish population. That is the condition for its accession to the European Union and there can be no compromise on that!

Political group: PSE