GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I should like to thank Mr Deva for a very good report, of which it might be said that it is as long as the Commission’s text is short. It no doubt says something about the relationship between Parliament and the Commission at the moment that the text presented to us has been produced very urgently and is therefore very brief and very simple.And, as Mr Howitt also mentioned, is it, of course, not particularly satisfactory to receive it four or five months after the regulation has in fact expired, but this is actually the usual way, although I do not suspect Mr Patten of being up to no good. It is the usual way things are debated in parliaments. A report is submitted which says that we must now extend the regulation. It is four months since it expired. Parliament is thus, in actual fact, compelled to say: all right, then, we really have to accept the extension for, otherwise, there will be even more people dying of hunger and destitution. It is not a fair way of doing things, and I shall therefore, like Mr Deva and others, also listen to what Mr Patten has to say. That said, however, I would also say that we need to implement this proposal as quickly as possible, for we must try to help as best we can and just hope that we can find a more satisfactory way of doing things in future. One simple little matter, which Mr Deva also emphasises, and which I too think we ought to discuss in the future, is the situation of women and children, which is, of course, extremely difficult and always will be in these situations. We therefore need to concentrate very heavily on this area and find some methodical ways of doing so, partly by involving NGOs and others who can make a contribution.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I hope that the two members due to speak before me were not travelling by train and have been delayed. I think they are in the House and will arrive in time. Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that we are fighting numerous problems on the railways which are a legacy from the past. For example, in 1970, the railways’ share of the freight traffic market was 21%, compared with just 8.5% now. The railways have lost out massively in freight traffic and their share of the passenger traffic market has fallen from 10 to 6%. The winner has been road freight traffic, which is increasing constantly and winning market shares: 16% per annum on the eastern borders of Austria, for example. It is now 2.4 times higher than in 1990. If you take lorries and buses from eastern Europe on the A1 motorway, which is the most important east-west route, traffic increased sixfold between 1995 and the year 2000. In other words, freight traffic, especially transit freight traffic, is growing massively. According to forecasts, it will rise by more than 100% between 1995 and 2015. That is why it is important and urgent that we concern ourselves with the European rail network. It totals 156 000 kilometres in length, of which 78 000 km are accounted for by the TEN network. 12 600 km of new lines for speeds of over 250 km/h should be constructed by 2010, with at least 16 300 km of lines due to be upgraded for speeds of over 200 km/h. The total costs – and they are huge – are estimated at EUR 186 billion between now and 2010. So it is obvious how important this investment is for the European Union and that is why we are being called on here to set the priorities quickly. I think that it is high time we adapted the railways to the market economy, so as to ensure that the railways invest more money more often in customer requirements and that we can jointly set the priorities and draw up a tight, efficient timetable. The main requirements are, of course, to harmonise the gauge throughout Europe, especially where more than two countries cooperate. At the moment, we still have five different gauges. We need uniform electrification, especially in relation to voltage and frequency. In other words, the technical properties of the electricity must be brought into line so that extra electricity can be bought from the national grids and fed into the national grids without any significant losses. The third, and I think the most important point is the safety of trains. We really do need external inspection and certification agencies. We cannot have a situation in which the agency operating the railway is also responsible for inspecting it. No-one questions the fact that cars and lorries are inspected by external certification agencies. I think there is an urgent need, given the recent train crashes, for external inspection agencies to look after the safety of passengers in Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the presidency has set out two propositions in the Helsinki conclusions, namely that an efficient and credible enlargement process must be sustained and that applicant countries are participating in the accession process on an equal footing. When this is set against the fact that candidate status has been granted to Turkey and the simultaneous statement that there will be a conference in the spring of 2000, in which Turkey will not take part, then it is clear that this candidate status has been granted prematurely and is a blank cheque which will come bouncing back. Even the improvements within Turkey noted by the Commission and the Council presidency must be subject to cautious appraisal when you think about the death penalty being upheld for Mr Öçalan, the fact that the Sakharov prize-winner Leyla Zana is still in prison because she stood up for her right to freedom of speech, the fact that the Kurdish question has not been resolved and all the other aspects of this document in connection with progress in Turkey. Discussions on stage and in the wings clearly show that Europe is not being frank when it comes to Turkey. The Helsinki conclusions are extremely positive in other areas, such as foreign and security policy and defence policy; but when it comes to Turkey’s membership, they are contradictory in the extreme. There is a danger that far too much is being expected of Europe as regards this part of the enlargement process and that too much is being expected of Turkey itself. Anyone who wants to be a member must be prepared to become a member on our terms. I read that Mr Ecevit stressed at the conference that Turkey had a fundamental right to membership of the European Union. I consider that a very risky statement. I am not sure that the political classes in Turkey have any idea of what is in store for them when they have to waive sovereign rights. We therefore consider that this decision by the Summit was rushed and inappropriate. If you read the conditions, which state that negotiations with Turkey will still not begin and that Turkey will just have candidate status, i.e. no separate legal instrument has been opened, then this means – as it says here – that the UNO must endeavour to settle disputes, which should be settled by 2004 on the basis of UNO resolutions. These are all things which, in our view, do not justify giving Turkey candidate status at this point in time. Once Turkey joins, Europe will have to undergo a radical change of face and objectives. Mr Prodi himself said that we must urgently discuss values and borders. For us, an independent approach is the best alternative: security partnership, further development of customs union and permanent political dialogue, rather than announcing candidate status which, in the final analysis, is worth nothing and is more likely to create than to solve problems.

Political group: PPE-DE
When the Iron Curtain came down 13 years ago everyone in the West thought that the great changes in the East would consist mainly of greater freedom of speech and greater freedom for the voters to appoint politicians of their own choice. These changes have since been overshadowed by others. We now see a growing divide between rich and poor, a substantial collapse in employment, dilution of public service, uncontrollable numbers of cars, growth projects that are at odds with environmental protection and growing dependence on expensive imports and foreign companies. The people in these countries have been prepared to accept sacrifices, dilution and chaos in the hope that they would be rewarded with major inflows of money from the EU from the time of their accession. In their view therefore 2004 is coming too late and the subsidies for agricultural and regional development are far too low. Politicians in the west of Europe who are still unwilling to admit these newcomers or who want to economise on their accession are creating the impression that they are only interested in benefits for their own country and the companies established in them. As an Eastern European I would perhaps reject accession to the EU, but as a Western European I feel obliged to show solidarity with those peoples if they themselves wish to accede.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, those of us who come from regions with permanent structural disadvantages have real reason to be grateful to Mr Pomés Ruiz for his report and the innovative ideas it contains. I speak not only for my own country of Scotland but also from knowledge of some of the more remote Greek islands and of the north of Finland and Sweden. However, the problems of island status, mountainous terrain and sparse population affect many areas in other Member States and in some accession countries too. One very great merit of the report is its recognition of the effects where these problems are combined or aggravated. I welcome particularly in this regard the proposed amendment to Article 158 of the Treaty, as also the thrust towards mainstreaming issues of structural disadvantage into EU policy more generally. However, I would like to single out the calls for mountainous regions to be classified as agriculturally disadvantaged in relation to Structural Fund regulations, for permanent geographical handicaps to be taken more fully into account where rules on state aid are concerned and for the causes of emigration to be addressed. In the latter context, the relevance of isolation and difficulty of access is already well known, particularly where islands are concerned. Therefore, I wish to couple my welcome for today's reports with that of the analysis of island regions sponsored by the Commission. Some concern was expressed in Scotland that because certain types of island were excluded from the study they might suffer where future policymaking was concerned. However, looking to the emphasis it places on the disadvantages associated with small size and population of archipelagos and on double handicap – for example islands with mountains – it was clear there was no need for such concerns. Indeed, the suggestions made in the study for more research and exchange of information and for innovative projects under Interreg looked to bring real practical benefits to all those whose lives are island ones. My thanks are thus due to the Commissioner and to the rapporteur – indeed, both rapporteurs alike.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, that was an astute proposal by Mrs Thors. If she now joins us straight away in voting for immediate referral back to committee, that will sort the whole thing out brilliantly.

Political group: PSE
Thank you very much for that answer, Mr Fischler. Yet I would ask you to be more specific. You say that you are expecting a result to be achieved. The grassroots, the people who go to sea, are asking: when are we going to do something concrete? Could you give a date on which we can specifically introduce a very practical policy, for example a policy with hours instead of days, so that someone who sets sail in the evening and only actually starts working the next day is then dealt with according to the number of hours? Can you be more specific? What kind of result have you achieved with the agreements that you have made during the meetings today and yesterday?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think we often underestimate the fact that a balance struck with the Russian Federation is a guarantee of peace in Europe. This highlights the importance of the strategy towards the Russian Federation and, at the same time, the importance of your report, Mr Oostlander. However, as we have already said, the Russian Federation is a difficult partner. Even if President Putin guarantees the democratic development of his country, that does not automatically guarantee a stable and democratic Russian Federation. Basic democratic order is not a fact of life in the Russian Federation and this is a problem, especially when it comes to cooperation with the European Union, because, for us, any such cooperation must be based on respect for human and minority rights, and we have made that clear. This means that the twin-track strategy posited in the report is very, very important. We want outstanding cooperation with the Russian Federation, but we cannot accept the Russian Federation's continuing to wage war on its own people in Chechnya, a war which has continued uninterrupted for a year now. We are also hugely critical of the Russian Federation's provocative visa policy towards Georgia and call for this decision to be revoked at once. Nor can we tolerate the manner in which the freedom of the press is trampled underfoot in the Russian Federation. I think the Prodi plan may bring a new dimension to cooperation with the Russian Federation and provides an important basis. Let us not forget the basis we had in the European Union, with the coal and steel plan guaranteeing lasting peaceful cooperation between France and Germany. And look where we are now. The energy community with the Russian Federation may well take on a political dimension in exactly the same way. That means that we have a joint responsibility for peace in the Caucasus, for environmental protection in the Russian Federation and for the rights of its indigenous people.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, it is high time we adopted a universal moratorium on the death penalty, this ‘veritable administrative murder’, as Albert Camus called it. This is what I was saying in this House back in October of last year, when mobilisation was urgently called for to prevent the black American journalist, Mumia Abu Jamal, being executed. What is the position today? A total of 77 states still see the death penalty as the appropriate response to certain crimes. In 1999, 1813 people were executed in 31 countries and there are at least 3 857 people condemned to death in 63 countries. The life of Mumia, who is waiting for a possible review of his trial, is, more than ever, hanging by the thread of international solidarity. So what approach is the European Union going to adopt to ensure that the death penalty disappears before the end of the century? During phase 2 of his life on death row, Mumia Abu Jamal sent this courageous message: ‘Phase 2 is the second phase of the fight. We will win’. Indeed, encouraging signs bear witness to the rising abolitionist trend at a global level. Like the European Parliament, the United Nations is now participating in the inevitable debate that is taking place across all levels of society. In the United States, opinion is still very much in favour of capital punishment, but its hold has been shaken. A study by the University of Columbia brought to light an almost 60% rate of errors committed in twenty years in the executions that were carried out. Innocent people are being killed and racism is evident in the application of the death penalty. The residence of the governor of Texas and the Republican candidate for the White House is regularly the target of demonstrations by opponents of the death penalty. The European Union must put its full weight behind achieving this moratorium and imposing it as an inviolable principle on all nations still practising this form of state-sanctioned murder which, as Victor Hugo declared, ‘traumatises the human conscience’. Nineteen years after the abolition of the death penalty in France, initiatives are currently being taken in favour of a national day for the institution of a universal moratorium on capital executions. And I am in favour of this proposal being advanced at a European level. On 10 December, hundreds of thousands of petitions will be handed in to the United Nations. The Presidency of the European Union could also join this campaign, thereby giving inspiration and crucial backing to those who are fighting for abolition. The mobilisation of Europe is critical.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, much has already been said about Turkey today. That is not at all surprising since this Parliament is a reflection of the population of the European Union and this topic is very much on the minds of our citizens at home. There are growing signs that in Copenhagen in December it is intended to give Turkey a date for the start of accession negotiations. Were the Council representative’s words today not very clear? But we are not under any pressure to move. The Copenhagen criteria have not been met and they are not negotiable. In this connection I would like to thank Mr Verheugen for speaking so clearly on the subject of Turkey. Important as Turkey is for us, there can be no political discounts for the Cyprus question or for Turkey’s geostrategic role. Turkey has always wanted to set its own rules for accession under the slogan ‘We are not like other candidates’. Turkey has always tried to put pressure on us, but that is not the way forward. It would, after all, be an affront to the representatives of the candidate countries present here today. Nevertheless, people like the German Federal Chancellor, for example, never tire of saying they will support Turkey’s demand for a date to be set. That is not just a sign of severe incompetence in European policy. This chancellor, who has lied to and deceived his own people, is trying to make good the mistakes of his election campaign. Now relations between Germany and America are to be improved again at the expense of the European Union as a whole. Is that not pure opportunism? Is it not beyond belief? It is intolerably dishonest. It is particularly dishonest to the Turkish people. Is it not more honest to say to Turkey that there are still problems there and that we must address those problems in their own interest, because otherwise they cannot be solved? The honest thing is to say that rapprochement between Turkey and the European Union can only come about in small, steady steps, if at all. The road is still not an easy one. We hope that Turkey, this great and proud nation, will pursue its road steadfastly in its own real interest and that it will at some point consider whether it really wants to cede so many sovereign rights to the European Union in accession or whether it would not rather cooperate with us on another level. We are making this offer even now.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the truth is that the Italian Presidency has not had an easy agenda. I am going to refer to three points. Firstly, the difficult birth of the Constitution. We are impatiently awaiting the proposals which the Presidency—in-Office is going to make in order to try to overcome the outstanding issues in the second half of November and we are glad that we have been told that these proposals will deal with the problem from a global perspective. By global, Mr President—in-Office of the Council, I mean a solution which can affect all the institutions, which can achieve the agreement of all the institutions, and also of all the Member States – some of which have announced that they are going to hold a referendum – and of all the new States – which have also held referendums within another context. I believe, Mr President, that this is an aspect of the problem which should not be avoided. The second difficulty faced by the Italian Presidency is how to recover the path of sustainable growth and job creation. Mr President of the Commission, growth, yes, but also stability. We are happy with the Commission's proposed growth initiative, according to which infrastructures must play a fundamental role, because it is usually said, Mr President, that when the Europe of infrastructures, the Europe of construction, goes well, the construction of Europe goes well. There is a simple reason for this: the integration of the markets is not just a political or judicial notion but, above all and fundamentally, a physical notion. Hence the fundamental importance of infrastructures, which – being inert systems – make accumulated delays irrecoverable. Either Europe resolves the problem of infrastructures once and for all or it will have to abandon forever its aspirations to become the most competitive area by 2010. The final difficulty I wanted to refer to in this speech is that of how to restore relations with the United States following the Iraq crisis and following the events of 11 September. I believe, Mr President, that we must place the emphasis on the fundamental rather than on the peripheral. The fundamental thing is a shared history, common values which clash – as our President, Mr Poettering, and others have reminded us – on issues such as Guantánamo and the death penalty, and also our shared passion for freedom. We now have a wonderful opportunity to express the united view of our European Union project at the coming Conference of Donors because – as I had the opportunity to say yesterday in the debate on the budget – the rehabilitation, reconstruction, pacification and democratisation of Iraq is not a responsibility which should fall exclusively to the United States, but to the international democratic community. Mr President, I said at the beginning of my speech that the Italian Presidency did not have an easy agenda. It is clear, however, Mr President—in-Office of the Council, that without difficult goals no summit is worth climbing. Therefore, Mr President, I would like to wish the Italian Presidency luck and success in the decisive months remaining to it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I see from Rule 114 of the Rules of Procedure that procedure without debate applies when the committee responsible has not tabled any amendments or when all the amendments for deliberation have been adopted with no more than three Members voting against them. This report has now come to us without debate, although the Committee took a vote on the Swedish candidate, Mr Tobisson, when more than three Members voted against him because he has no experience as an auditor whatsoever. For this reason, I would like to hear your interpretation as to whether it is right that this matter can be voted on without debate, without the possibility of openly putting forward these points of view, as more than three Members have voted against a nominee. I insist this matter be referred to Parliament’s plenary for debate there.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I will be voting for the new Commission. The Commitments given by Mr Prodi to change the culture in the Commission to ensure more transparency and better financial management are very welcome. Mr Prodi’s desire to pursue enlargement of the Community, to give job creation the highest priority and to work closely with a the Parliament on the Intergovernmental Conference are also encouraging. The individual commissioners’ acceptance of their personal responsibilities and commitment to work closely with Parliament show they understand the new environment within which the Commission will have to operate. The new Commission has not been given a blank cheque; they have been judged fit to be appointed. Their ability to do their job will be judged later. That judgement will be based on whether this Commission brings Europe closer to the people, tackles fraud and inefficiency within its own service and above all equips Europe for tackling crime, unemployment and social exclusion.

Political group: PSE