GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, it is actually a little strange that we closed a debate half an hour ago on the financial vicissitudes of Russia and have now moved on to another problem facing the country. Perhaps we should have organised things a little better here in this Parliament and had an extensive debate on Russia and all the things going on there, in view of its needs and the great importance of the country, also from the European Union’s point of view, in an attempt to get some kind of grip on the situation. Once again, I would like to endorse what Mr Swoboda said on the matter. Having just discussed the financial vicissitudes of Russia we are now going to discuss the political stability of the country. Recent developments there give cause for concern, indeed I might say a great deal of cause for concern. Violent conflict in Dagestan, bomb attacks in Moscow, and all this in the midst of rumours about plots and all kinds of theories as to what is supposed to be behind it all, and all the different associations being made, for example with the forthcoming parliamentary elections and attempts by certain groups to undermine this process. We lament the violence and the victims and we sympathise with the Russian authorities, who are trying to get the situation under control. We repudiate the violence in the severest terms. Russia has enough problems as it is. Even the political system is under pressure and political violence will only increase instability in the country. The negative consequences of this affect us too. The violence in Dagestan, the subject we are actually discussing, may spread further through the Caucasus, with all kinds of unpredictable consequences. No one is anticipating that either. Whilst it may be clear as to why it is in our interests to find a political solution, we only have a limited amount of influence over the internal situation in Russia. Indeed the debate we have just had demonstrated this and all we can do is encourage the Russian authorities to restore order with the minimum of violence. The Russian authorities must enter into political dialogue with the authorities of Chechnya, who must also take responsibility and stop supporting illegal groups in Dagestan. We believe, and this point is also made in the resolution, that the OSCE should be the one to bear this message. The EU should concern itself more with the socio-economic development of the region, another point made in our text. These are small steps which are unlikely to have a great deal of impact on Russia as a whole. But they are things we can do and which will also serve to convey that we have our reasons for wanting Russia to become stable, both in terms of the details we are discussing here and as a whole. We must be ready to deliver any humanitarian aid that is required. We must provide help wherever we are able to do so. But we do not have much of a grip on the situation. That is one of the greatest risks which Europe will have to face in coming years and I call upon Parliament, but also the Commission and the Council, to put the debate on Russia and its future in Europe on the agenda, and keep it there.

Political group: PSE
I had the opportunity to express my views on this subject during the March part-session. At the time, it was a very topical subject, as the debate on marine safety in the wake of the wreck of the Erika was at its fiercest. Today, the debate is calmer, but no less important. The people of Europe are deeply concerned about the pollution of the seas and the coastlines of the Member States. The European Parliament echoed these legitimate concerns and amended the directive proposed by the European Commission on the management of waste discharged by ships in such a way as to make Member States aware of their responsibilities. As an alternative to the principle that the polluter pays, which has proved to be ineffective, Parliament suggested establishing a system whereby all ships would pay a fee whenever they called at a port, whether they used the waste disposal facilities or not. This fee would help finance 90% of the cost of these facilities. This system would encourage ships to deliver their ship-generated waste and cargo residues to the port reception facilities rather than discharge them at sea. It was clear that the Council would not accept such a proposal. The discussion was then continued, quite logically, within the Conciliation Committee. Those negotiating on behalf of Parliament and the Council reached the following agreement: all ships calling at a port of a Member State shall contribute significantly (a statement from the Commission annexed to the text considers that this means at least 30% of the costs), irrespective of actual use of the facilities. The share of the costs which is not covered by that fee, if any, shall be covered on the basis of the types and quantities of ship-generated waste actually offloaded by the ship. In addition, the Commission shall, within three years of the implementation, submit a report evaluating the impact of the variety of cost recovery systems on the marine environment. It will, if necessary in the light of this evaluation, submit a proposal to amend this directive by the introduction of a system involving the payment of an appropriate percentage, of no less than one third of the costs of port reception facilities, by all ships calling at a port of a Member State irrespective of actual use of the facilities. I am satisfied with the compromise we have reached. This directive is a significant step in establishing a more effective strategy to protect the marine environment.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, the issue with which we are concerned is not the odious regime in Iraq but the way in which that country can best and most effectively be disarmed. The regime is clearly detestable – there is probably no one in this Chamber who has any time for Saddam Hussein – but the issue is one of how his weapons of mass destruction are to be got rid of. Is such disarmament best achieved through military intervention or through continued work on the part of the weapons inspectors? For my part, I am convinced that, in the present situation, the best way is that of continued work by the weapons inspectors, quite simply because military intervention is always the last resort. It may be appropriate once all the other options have been tried. Such intervention would have very grave consequences, not only for the population of Iraq and all the innocent people who would be affected but also, I believe, for continued relations with the Arab world. What is more, I believe that the weapons inspections are working. One might perhaps wish that they were working still better, but progress is at present being made. We must bear in mind that the inspections are working because of the pressure on Saddam Hussein and the threat of armed intervention. It is therefore important for this pressure to be maintained. This situation cannot go on forever, but the time limits that have up until now been proposed by the United States and others have been quite unrealistic. That is why the weapons inspections must continue. To launch an attack without a decision by the UN Security Council would be utterly reprehensible and a violation of international law. It would have far-reaching consequences for the UN’s future legitimacy. The UN system has its faults, but we have no other such system on a global basis. We must therefore join together in helping to maintain this system. The EU’s role in this conflict is a sorry chapter. The proud declarations concerning the common foreign and security policy that are usually made on solemn occasions have of course proved brittle when they have been put to the test. It is mainly the large countries that are at fault, go their own ways and pursue their own national interests instead of waiting, sitting down together, engaging in discussion and finding a common approach. If the EU is in future to play a role in the area of foreign policy, we must learn from what has happened. If we are to be able to play a role in Iraq, in the Middle East, in the Korean peninsula and in other places, common policy must take precedence over national interests. Otherwise, the EU will not be able to play an important role in the future.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, first of all, I should like to compliment the rapporteur, my colleague Mrs Stihler, on her report. I also hope that her coming marathon, I think it is in New York, is just as successful as this report. The situation with cod fishing will then turn out well, too. The problem in relation to cod stocks is well known; only our approach to the problem keeps changing. On the one hand, the ICES is now suggesting that we should stop all fishing, and, on the other, Canadian biologists maintain that there is no point, that it will not lead to the recovery of cod stocks. That means that the problem is intractable and can only be solved if genuine constructive cooperation is achieved between the Commission, the regions and the fisheries sector. In that regard, it is extremely important that the efforts and involvement of fishermen, in particular, play a part in this. It is almost impossible to tackle this kind of problem except by giving fishermen’s producer organisations a strong position: joint management of quotas, trying together to reduce by-catches as much as possible, and also looking together at how to counter the consequences of fishing effort limitations. In that regard, it would be good if the Commission were to make a generous commitment of Structural Funds for the regions hit hard by a reduction in cod fishing. Perhaps those funds can be used to attract new employment to those regions. I should like to express my support once more for Mrs Stihler’s approach, and I hope that the Commission will take this report extremely seriously.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs would like to congratulate the rapporteur on her report. She has already described the scandalous situation in which 18% of Europe's population lives below the relative poverty line. This is not just a subject for discussion in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, it is also of concern to us in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, because these 65 million people are not only excluded from access to financial and other resources, because they are not only excluded from social and cultural rights, but because they are also prevented from using their talents to help shape our society and because they are prevented from developing their own talents, gaining additional qualifications and skills and working in jobs they are suited for. For that reason we in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs were almost unanimous in our opinion about adopting a guiding principle according to which everyone should be in a position to make an essential contribution to supporting themselves through their own work. They should be enabled to gain and update qualifications and skills. We know very well that the problem we are facing here will not be solved by a one-off initiative or by a single catching-up process. No, what we are dealing with here is a permanent situation in which each new technological wave brings with it new winners and losers. That is why we need to offer our societies mechanisms that allow those affected to find their places in society. We consider that there are three issues here. Social integration must be seen as a cross-cutting issue, and the results of our efforts should therefore also be included in the spring report. Secondly, the open method of coordination must be suitable for mobilising local and regional stakeholders and enabling them to make a contribution. Thirdly, the Member States must, at long last, as requested and initiated in Lisbon, agree on concrete targets and benchmarks, so that Parliament can carry out its role as a guardian and as an animateur in this process.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, I wish to start by congratulating the European Parliament delegation to the New Delhi Conference and I would single out Mrs Garcia-Orcoyen Tormo, who led the delegation. I am sorry that once again the Commission and the Council did not allow Parliament’s delegation to participate in the EU coordination meetings. We knew, even before the Conference started, that the outcome would be extremely hard to achieve: this Conference was designed to prepare for the second phase of the Kyoto Protocol, whereas the political priority is still, unfortunately, to ensure that the Kyoto Protocol enters into force in order for the first phase to begin. Although it is regrettable that no result was achieved, it should nevertheless be highlighted that we managed to improve the definition of the Clean Development Mechanism and of emissions monitoring procedures. What I believe to be more serious is not so much the failure to reach an outcome but rather the political attempt to water down the Kyoto Protocol. There was a definite attempt by some delegations, specifically the delegation representing the United States, to take the debate on climate change backwards in time to 1997, when there were neither targets nor protocols intended to achieve action. It is also a pity that the developing countries have fallen into this trap. It is precisely in the developing countries that the consequences of climate change are having the most damaging effects. We believe the choice remains clear: firstly, the Kyoto Protocol is the only instrument capable of mitigating climate change. Secondly, the second phase of the Protocol must be set even more ambitious targets than the first phase, which represents only a tiny step forwards. Thirdly, action must first be undertaken in the industrialised countries and only later in the developing countries.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, very soon the European Parliament will vote on public access to documents. In Ireland, the only country in the European Union which will vote on the Treaty of Nice, I am informed by my constituents that the Irish Government is not providing copies of the Treaty of Nice, but only its White Paper on the Treaty. Our Government has made clear that it will support a yes vote for the Treaty of Nice, as of course democratically it is allowed to do, but my constituents would like to decide for themselves and would like to have copies of the Treaty itself. Can you offer any advice in this situation?

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, health is the most precious of gifts and everything must be done to maintain and restore it. That is why medical science should be given every possible means of properly protecting individual and public health. Unfortunately, although the right measures are taken, they are unable to prevent new risks and diseases from emerging which the drugs available are unable to treat, and the medical community is obliged to find modern, more effective ways of meeting these challenges. Clinical trials are a necessary step in this direction, provided that they are conducted in a way which safeguards the dignity and the mental and physical welfare of the subjects. Current differences between the laws, regulations and administrative provisions in the Member States are creating obstacles to and competition between pharmaceutical companies in their bid to make new drugs quickly available to patients. Hence the need for harmonisation at European level. Because it recognises the importance of this directive, the European Parliament has endeavoured to overcome its differences rather than hold up the legislative process, focusing on the following safety conditions for clinical trials: the written consent of the subjects to the clinical trial, the consent of the guardian or an authority provided for by law and of the treating doctor to the participation of persons with impaired understanding or a mental disorder which prevents them from giving their consent, the criterion being that the expected benefits of the drug being tested must outweigh any side effects. The participation of children in clinical trials must be regulated properly because it is a particularly sensitive issue. Finally, and here I am dissatisfied with the Council's compromise proposals, I think that the main investigator during clinical trails should be a doctor, because only a doctor has the knowledge and experience needed in order to evaluate the benefits and deal with any side effects or risks which arise during the clinical trial. Of course, the team conducting the clinical trial may include other specialists with the relevant qualifications. I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Liese, on his report and thank him for his efforts to reach a compromise.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am in sincere agreement with what was said in the previous speech. Yesterday, we were talking about a Charter of Fundamental Rights; today we are speaking of human rights. Yesterday, in one excellent speech, someone said that we have a moral obligation to defend and develop democracy and human rights. What this moral obligation actually entails and the extent of our efforts and commitment will, however, come to light in the context of that wretched reality represented by wars and armed conflicts. Over the last century, these have totally changed in nature. Humanitarian law is that yardstick by which we can show whether that moral obligation is just some kind of rhetorical stimulus for us or something that leads to deeds and action. Today we are hearing the case of Albin Kurti, of Kosovo. The Geneva Conventions are a vital part of this minimum level of action. We also have to ensure that both the Ottawa Convention against Land Mines and the Charter for an International Criminal Court are ratified.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, in this speech, I shall restrict myself to discussing the key political issue underpinning the future of cohesion policy. This, as I am sure you can work out, concerns the amount of funds to be allocated to this crucial pillar of the process of European integration during the period 2007 to 2013. This is a key political issue because Europe will only be viable if it is founded on a project of solidarity towards its most disadvantaged regions; the European Union will not succeed on the basis of excessive regional disparities. By subscribing to the Franco-German agreement on the freezing of common agricultural policy spending until 2013 on the basis of spending in 2006, the last European Council, held in Brussels, makes the assumption that the same principle of freezing could also be applied to funds earmarked for cohesion policy. In other words, the same Union budget that has served a Europe of fifteen countries will also have to serve a Europe of twenty-seven. To this we can add the end of the illusion that the savings made from the CAP could be channelled into cohesion policy; not forgetting that strengthening the rural development of the CAP has been extremely difficult and the CAP, as we know, has a cohesion-based approach. It could be said that a cohesion policy that is funded to an approximate value of 0.45% of Community GDP would already be a major achievement. At least scenarios of renationalisation, which have been brewing in some countries where cohesion policy is concerned, would be averted. Nevertheless, I should like to emphasise the lack of resources, which endangers the future existence of a balanced cohesion policy that on the one hand does not ignore the cohesion deficit that still exists in today’s European Union of fifteen and on the other, that is equal to the task of the greatest challenge ever set for the process of European integration. I would also emphasise, with regard to this matter and in conclusion, the contrast with the recent past, when financial resources for cohesion have been doubled where other major challenges have arisen.

Political group: PPE-DE
The Danish Social Democrats in the European Parliament have today voted in favour of the joint motion for a resolution concerning preparation for the European Council’s meeting between 7 and 9 December in Nice where, among other things, the current Intergovernmental Conference is to be concluded with the signing of the Treaty of Nice. As we have also made known through the individual votes, we have, throughout the Intergovernmental Conference, been opposed to the much expanded agenda which, by means of repeated motions for resolutions, the majority in the European Parliament has been trying to draw up. Many of the motions for resolutions tabled by the different political groups are therefore also based upon a deep concern about how much success there will be in achieving the goal in Nice, which is to make the EU ready for admitting the new Member States of the EU. The most important task in Nice is to ensure that the EU has effective institutions. As a prerequisite, the solution should involve striking a balance between small and large countries, not only where the weighting of votes in the Council of Ministers is concerned, but also when it comes to the composition of the European Parliament and the Commission. These two institutions contribute very significantly to the EU’s continuing to concentrate its efforts on the common objectives and cross-border tasks, while the rest is left to the Member States. Enlargement is a major project requiring backing not only in the applicant States but also in those countries which are already Members. Many Members of the European Parliament have ambitions to see the Treaties made into a constitution, with the Charter of Fundamental Rights included and qualified majority voting used in all areas. To keep harping on about these aims, for which there is, in any case, no broad support to be won, during the current Intergovernmental Conference is unwise in our view and will contribute to Parliament’s losing influence. We have also emphasised this during the individual votes today. We have chosen to vote in favour of the report as a whole because we wish to put pressure on the Heads of State and Government to achieve a good outcome in Nice.

Political group: PSE