GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Mr Queiró's report has to some extent been overtaken by events, in that on Monday the Council took the decision to create an EU Defence Capabilities Agency. I wonder if this might not prove to be a contradiction in terms, as I see little evidence that many European countries have the political will to improve their defence capabilities or to provide the necessary additional financial resources for this. As so often in Commission communications and reports in this House, the solution that is offered to a particular problem is to extend EU competence. That is our fundamental objection here. The emphasis, as always, is on creating the institutions of an EU defence industrial policy, rather than meeting military equipment needs and industrial requirements. The consistent failure of many European states to spend more on defence not only undermines the transatlantic alliance, but also damages our defence industries. Our armed forces need the best state-of-the-art interoperable equipment for their difficult tasks. Defence industrial link-ups and collaborations should be with the most advantageous partners, wherever they might be. I am therefore very suspicious of any mention of Community preference when it comes to activities by European countries in this field. There are serious deficiencies in the equipment and organisation of the armed forces in many European countries. The argument that there is duplication of effort among individual European countries and that economies of scale, as well as improved interoperability, would inevitably follow from a more harmonised EU defence procurement system is therefore seductive. But where is the reassurance that this is the motivation for an EU role in defence procurement, rather than - in terms of Western solidarity - a divisive intention that lies at the heart of ESDP? Given that just six countries in Europe account for more than 90% of Europe's defence industrial capabilities and 98% of all R[amp]D expenditure, it is a peculiar logic to suggest that the representatives of 15 countries - let alone of 25 - should be involved in decision-making and monitoring in this area. The Queiró report insists on the need for the EU to endow itself with military capabilities so as to ensure the credibility of its foreign and defence policy objectives. Is this not the true aim of the agency and an EU defence equipment policy, rather than the improvement of European defence industries and the development of our military capabilities? Heaven forbid that the British armed forces should come to rely on obtaining their vital munitions and combat equipment needs from sources under the direction of Brussels.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, this report forms a link between three major processes: the revision of cohesion policy, the reform of the CAP and the completion of the process of unifying and enlarging the Union. The future of Europe will depend to a large extent on how the three major processes interact, and the extent to which the European Parliament succeeds in influencing these processes will determine the extent to which its role of codecision is a proper political role rather than just a formality. The debate has only just begun, and I am pleased to say I have just three points to make today. Firstly, cohesion policy must remain one of the driving forces of the European Union. Secondly, the need for cohesion support cannot be determined on the basis of the unfair, unreliable, misleading parameter of GDP. We call upon the European Commission to specify new parameters – unemployment, infrastructure and quality of the environment – which are more correct indicators throughout the Union. We in this House want to help you. Thirdly, the implementing phase of Agenda 2000 must be monitored carefully, not just as regards quantity and expenditure but also as regards quality. Preparing our regions for enlargement means also and above all using these funds to increase the competitiveness of our human and social capital.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, your establishment of the high-level working group is a good sign that, by implementing gender mainstreaming, you are demonstrating what this House wants. Rather than gender mainstreaming and the gender dimension to our policies being left to women alone, the gentlemen in this House must allow themselves to be judged by the degree to which they are willing to join in taking policy decisions that make equality and women’s democratic rights real. In the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, it is a cause of grave concern to us that the proportion of women in the next Parliament will be lower, and so every effort must be made to underline the political will from the top downwards. I can only urge all the committees to adopt projects in their own areas of responsibility – in accordance with the resolution in our report, a year ago, on gender mainstreaming – and to make it clear that mainstreaming gender equality is not just to be left to the Committee on Women’s Rights. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr van Dam, I think it is an excellent report. I think that the Commission has done its work well too. Against the background of the type of accident that we know about from the Erika, but particularly against the background of the knowledge that we have now acquired that there are 8000 ships that do not comply with standards and are actually sailing on our seas in a manner and with a risk of accidents that are not favourable. It has all been said before. One hundred and forty-six ships have gone to the bottom in ten years. That means 780 deaths. That also means that in large areas of the sea, the environment may become polluted. Of the 146 accidents – and it has all been said by a number of others before – one third can be traced back to problems with the hull and one third to navigation problems. We do not need to explore the whole problem of navigation now. We have already done that before, but the problems with the hull worry me in particular. In the knowledge that a captain, together with the terminal operator, has to make a loading and unloading plan which must be put into effect and also monitored, we concur with the consideration not to include the so-called voyage data recorder in this amendment. However, we really would like to give the Commission something to consider, because anyone who has ever been round those terminals, iron ore terminals and coal and steel terminals, in a number of ports in Europe will have seen what goes on there. Not only are cargoes dumped in the terminals but mechanical shovels are used as well and mechanical shovels can cause damage. In my opinion, this report provides a solution to this by specifying who must do what. This does not quite solve the whole problem of training though. However, what is not reported here is that part of the voyage comprises loading and unloading itself. The information about loading and unloading, whether twisting or torsion occurs in a ship, is not reported. In view of the fact that it is mainly ships of 15 years and over – just remember the discussion which we had about oil tankers and in which we ascertained that age is not always an indicator – that cause the majority of problems which result in these disasters, I should like to point out to the Commission that what goes on must be recorded in some way. Finally, it can be said that we agree with the manner in which the other problems in the report have been resolved, matters concerning ISO quality management and, in particular, Community law too, into which a number of the BLU Code's sections have now been incorporated.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, I would like to use these two minutes to praise the work of the rapporteurs, who have been so persistent and clear on a complex issue that is full of nuances, but who have never lost sight of, or abandoned, the main objective; to also praise every one of us, members of the committee, who have believed in their work and supported it; and to praise the Commission, which has worked alongside us and also allowed us all to achieve a result with which I can say that I am satisfied. This, ladies and gentlemen, is not merely technical satisfaction. Some Members have already said that, on this issue, we could certainly have done more, we could have achieved more, we could have gone further in terms of the level of harmonisation, but I would invite you to reflect on the satisfaction that we must feel from a political point of view: we have, at any rate, succeeded in breaking a taboo, since from now on – and armed with a regulation for achieving it – we can talk about a single European sky; of course, not yet at the level that we want and hope for, but nonetheless on the basis of an actual situation of which good use has been made. There is even more reason to be satisfied because this provision belongs within a framework that has already brought other provisions to bear: I refer to the one, approved by the Council, on denied boarding, and the one – and I really hope that it will be adopted – that Mrs Maes is preparing on aircraft safety. I therefore believe that we must also be satisfied, because this is the Europe that the citizens understand best, the Europe that the citizens feel close to, because it is the Europe that increases their safety, enhances their rights and increases their satisfaction with the response to their expressed needs. I believe that the citizens will be our main allies when, on this issue too, we seek to progress and achieve the results which today are not within our reach but which we will certainly be able to achieve in the years to come.

Political group: PPE-DE
Thank you, Madam President, the Kyoto Agreement is an historic agreement, the basis of which was laid in Rio in 1992. Bush senior was in two minds whether he would actually go to Rio, but he eventually went and signed the Rio Agreement. The attempt to conclude an agreement with the Clinton/Gore administration in The Hague at the end of 2000 failed. It was disconcerting to witness how Bush subsequently discarded the Kyoto Agreement. Fortunately, the breakthrough came in Bonn in July of last year – a major breakthrough – and it is for my group of great importance that nuclear energy plays no role, either with the CDM or with the Joint Implementation. Parliament will ratify the Agreement tomorrow. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has already given us a taste of what to expect: 33 votes for, 0 against, 0 abstentions. We will see similar figures tomorrow too. We will be voting unanimously. Hopefully, the Council will do the same, which on 4 March will first need to iron out a minor Danish issue, but I feel confident. Europe has taken the lead, and I, too, should like to thank Commissioner Malmström for her boundless commitment. As far as the content is concerned: 8% less in Europe and 5% less in the industrialised world, is far from good enough. However, Kyoto is the only international Treaty we have for combating global warming. And like the Ozone Treaty, it will need to be improved many times. But Canada, Japan, Australia and Russia still need to ratify the Treaty first. This will hopefully be done before the Rio Plus 10 Summit meeting in Johannesburg. Like Bush senior, Bush junior is in two minds whether he should go to Johannesburg. Hopefully, like his father, he will decide to attend after all. Last week, we were in Washington with a small delegation, and there are indications that the United States is actually under pressure to change its attitude. The Democrats were embarrassed about the fact that their country was not participating in the Kyoto Protocol, and a number of Republicans too have seen the light. Bush will probably proclaim a national climate policy soon: a modest, partial disengagement from economic growth and energy consumption. Not good enough but far better than what he stated a year ago. We have made it clear that the economic costs of such a policy for America will be greater than the costs of taking part in Kyoto. It is also satisfying that a number of large concerns in the US want America to take part in the Kyoto Protocol. The question is no longer whether, but when, the United States will take part. Three major questions remain. First of all, there is the implementation. Attaining 8% less is starting to become a serious matter. Then there is the discussion about the objectives following the initial period. One per cent less per annum is a very good start, and I hope that the Commission can confirm this. Finally, the most important and most difficult issue is to persuade the developing countries to come onboard in due course.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I wish to congratulate the Commission on this second package of legislation, which is not starting from scratch, since the Member States already have technical skills, in their dockyards and shipowners, their scientific community, their operators. The package, therefore, today gives European citizens the beginnings of a legislative guarantee and the beginnings of the secure management of its exclusive economic zone. We think that it is worth pointing out the effort and the persistence that the Commissioner has demonstrated on this dossier. I would also emphasise the contributions of the three rapporteurs. With regard to the COPE Fund, it is, as has already been said here, a supplement. It is intended to meet the needs and the cover the risks of the most serious situations, such as those that have been mentioned here at some length. Beyond this, many other risks remain. Of course, maritime transport, which is subject to the rules of competition, must also have its rules strengthened under the IMO in order to enable its economic activities to continue to be profitable without sacrificing safety, not only in Europe and the United States but in all seas and oceans. The timeliness and the objectives of the agency have also already been discussed here at some length. I think that the rapporteur reasonably points out some loopholes, but I also feel that it is not Parliament’s place to manage the agency, but instead to supervise the administrative rules and good practices, of this and other, similar agencies. What the agency must guarantee is absolute fairness and equal cooperation between the Member States and must also ensure the participation of the public, of those in the profession and of the other economic and social interests concerned. The agency’s independence must, therefore, be a paradigm, an essential factor for it to be respected, for it to allay the concerns of the public and to develop and encourage plans for action and cooperation at European level. This is certainly what is needed and, as many speakers have stated here, there are many potential locations for the agency, since there are several candidates which are all equally competent and well prepared. I think that Lisbon is probably the most appropriate. IN THE CHAIR: MR SCHMIDVice-President

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this debate on Mrs Morgantini's report is about the link that we need to make between trade liberalisation, economic growth and poverty. It is about whether trade and development run in one direction. Often there are no unequivocal conclusions about whether or not that is the case. However, I would argue, as I am sure many speakers in the debate would argue, that trade liberalisation is not a panacea for generating the kind of self-sustaining growth and poverty reduction that we want to see as a result of our policies – we are talking about coherence here – let alone the objective that we have of promoting human development. If developing countries are to benefit from trade then the first thing that has to happen, as the report makes very clear, is that developing country producers have to get a fair price for what they produce for their exports, and that those prices reflect the value of their exports. Since the 1970s deteriorating trade terms have cost developing countries a great deal. Many ACP countries have lost more than seven times the amount they get in development aid. For them, as the Commissioner knows, the central problem is the shortage of competitively-priced exports. But in cases where export capacity exists, in countries like South Africa, Mauritius, Ghana, Botswana and certain Caribbean countries, then one does see export growth as a result. But they also insist – and this is the case not just with Cancún, which most people will talk about, but in the EPA negotiations – that duty-free access to EU markets is simply not a sufficient spur to increase exports. They are aware, as we are, of the importance of addressing supply-side constraints, the need for adjustments and the need to meet the associated costs for developing countries. We need to understand – and I want to make a strong case for this – that capacity constraints are an essential part of how we deal with the ability of developing countries to tackle the trade issues that they face at this time, in bilateral, regional, and multilateral negotiations. They have a huge number of negotiations to deal with. Again, Commissioner Nielson is as aware of this, as am I, insofar as ACP countries are concerned. In all of these negotiations there is a substantial and obvious imbalance between the parties negotiating in terms of economic size, political power and the sheer capacity to deal with the issue. I saw that insofar as the South African negotiations were concerned. Agricultural subsidies have an enormous, crushing effect on developing country producers and markets. I hope that at Cancún, although Commissioner Lamy denies that it is a central issue, we will realise that for developing countries it certainly is. We are a long way from achieving the millennium development goals. Two years after the declaration of a Doha development round, next week in Cancún we have an opportunity to make globalisation work for the many rather than the few. I am sure you will agree with me, Commissioner, that we cannot afford to fail.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the American leaders do not seem to have learnt a great deal from the criticism of how they treated the Indians and other indigenous peoples. We have to admit that our European sense of responsibility is no more developed in this respect. Once again, an indigenous people’s right of existence is being threatened. Once again, the individuality, dignity and health of a people are being sacrificed to the higher economic interest. Once again, we are losing a piece of our planet’s cultural and ecological heritage, despite the many treaties and resolutions on human rights, on the protection of minorities, rights of indigenous peoples, etc., which have already been ratified. If tradition and culture have to make way for economic imperatives at all, we should at least give sufficient attention to the reception and reintegration of the peoples concerned. But if we are to believe the environmental movements, even this is vain hope. There are hardly any reintegration programmes for people who have been relocated to the so-called New Lands. It very much remains to be seen whether these New Lands will be safe in terms of public health. It is of key importance that the American authorities provide greater clarity regarding the way in which they are trying to offer these families a dignified alternative in keeping with a traditional way of life. It is also important that a debate is held where the long-term effects of mining in this region are discussed and weighed up in economic, ecological and social terms. The credibility of the industrialised north is at stake. Indeed, what right do we have to demand of developing countries that they give their minorities a voice, that they protect their valuable natural areas and that they respect human rights, if it transpires that we are unable to meet these demands in our own countries?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in principle, we should proceed to the vote. It appears that the joint motion for a resolution is approved by all the political Groups. There are therefore no complications and there are no amendments. I would, however, like to request that the vote be deferred, if only out of a desire for consistency with this morning’s events, and also because it would be fitting for a resolution as important as this to be voted in by more than 40 or 50 Members.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the dominant theme of 2001 for the ACP countries was the entry into force of the Cotonou agreement. Its ratification by the European Parliament in January will encourage the Member States to follow that example, thus enabling the financial part to be implemented. The Joint Parliamentary Assembly has adapted its work according to the new role that it has been given, in particular to promote democratic processes. As a forum for the expression of the will of the people and of democratic values, it has a central role to play. But its powers are limited. It remains just a platform for political expression, without any decision-making or executive powers. It should therefore be given new powers, both political as well as financial and operational, and the logistical resources to go with them. A working group responsible for evaluating the involvement of civil society in the partnership should therefore be created. In the same way, parliamentarians should be involved in the forthcoming negotiations on the future ACP-EU trade regime. We will therefore vote with conviction in favour of Mrs Carlotti’s report, which makes excellent proposals on the other points, as she set out a while ago, while pointing out that the way that the ACP countries will become democratic is by making the associated institutions and development cooperation more democratic in general.

Political group: Verts-ALE