GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I shall attempt the trick of representing two people here today – myself and Mrs Corbey, who was present at the New Delhi conference. That does not mean that I shall convey two different messages. Instead, I shall try to make the message as stringent as possible. Having read the Commission’s and Parliament’s report on the New Delhi conference, there is a question that keeps going round in my head. What is it that causes us, or the EU, to fail in communicating our message and our desire for change to, above all, the developing countries? Why is the United States more successful in doing so? The United States’s message is, at least in our eyes, worse in terms of combating the climate change that is under way. It is essential for the EU now jointly to begin to reflect upon how it might try to reduce the credibility gap that in actual fact exists between ourselves and those whom we wish to get on our side. That also applies to the possibility of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. These all no doubt constitute the most important aspects of our continued strategy for trying to progress further. It is, above all, a question of making further progress with the important work that will now commence when this part of the Kyoto Protocol has been concluded. Mrs Corbey, who was present at the New Delhi conference, made some notes that I think are worth communicating to the House. They are, above all, about the Kyoto process in actual fact constituting a serious political danger because political support for the whole process is evaporating. There are two essential aspects to trying to increase political support again and to raising the issue for discussion at a more subtle and serious level. One factor, for example, is the one I have just addressed, namely the situation in the developing countries and our relations with those countries. At the New Delhi conference, quite a few of them reported extreme weather conditions. It was not just one country but a number that did so, and they also expressed opinions as to what costs the situation would entail. Even though we in the EU cannot accept responsibility for all these forms of climate change, we must nonetheless regard ourselves as one of the parties which, together with the rest of the industrialised world, has contributed most to creating the climate change now under way. We must adopt a clearer role in helping the developing countries to protect themselves against climate change. We must, of course, also help them find ways of making progress in terms of development that are not merely a case of taking the route that we ourselves do not consider to have been entirely successful. What is perhaps most important is that, in spite of everything, the EU should continue to push for something’s happening after 2012 and that we should not give up, in spite of the surrounding world’s actually wanting something different. That is perhaps the most important message to have come out of the New Delhi conference.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, even if the European Community is a passionate advocate of the new round of negotiations within the framework of the WTO, in the course of what will probably be the last big push for liberalisation, we should not ignore social issues. Participation in prosperity, a healthy environment and healthy working conditions are by far the best investments for a good future. Following the 1994 Uruguay Round, we expected to see greater prosperity through higher growth for the ACP countries. Growth was to a large extent achieved, but according to studies by the OECD and the UNCTAD, standards of living at the lowest levels have not changed at all. In fact, what has happened is quite the opposite! It cannot make sense to have a policy of increasing our prosperity while making poor people poorer. This is why we should not miss the last chance to demand that the seven most important core employment standards, which were ratified in the IAO agreement, be made checkable social clauses. This does not imply a new form of protectionism, but is to do with standards of fundamental rights with which employees suffering discrimination can protect themselves. This is a human rights issue and we must strive for this minimum standard. Once we have these things, we can offer the ACP countries positive incentives to do the same. There is a whole raft of ideas on this in the Commission’s report. If we do not succeed in having the social components included, the last great step in achieving liberalisation will not work. I expect greater commitment on the part of the Council on this matter.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I rise on a point of order concerning my friend Roger Helmer. We share the honour of being representatives for the East Midlands – information I give to this House more in shame than in anger. Mr McCartin pointed out quite rightly that Mr Helmer had no understanding of history. In the interests of accuracy: Mr Helmer has no understanding of politics, of statistics, of literature, of courtesy towards a fellow Member State of the European Union – and I could go on for a considerable amount of time. (Laughter and applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I hope that Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi will give a written explanation of vote on behalf of our political Group, but I want to say a couple of things. First of all, I wanted to vote against Amendment No 11. It was purely a mistake that I voted in favour of that amendment, since any amendments to the Commission proposal were very bad and endanger the whole procedure of getting the safe harbour agreement enforced. We have negotiated with our US counterparts for over two years. We had a very good compromise but now the work here in the European Parliament means that European consumers and citizens have to wait until the new compromise proposal is made. It is not certain that the new compromise proposal will be as good as this was. We are now going backwards. I voted against the committee proposal along with other members of my Group. We are all very sorry that we have to wait for this agreement to come into force.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, safety on Europe's roads is a vital matter and the figures speak for themselves: 42 000 deaths a year and 1.7 million people injured. Something has to be done about this. We must seek to make our roads safer. There is very great suffering among those who lose a family member as a result of a car accident. Our society is becoming increasingly mobile, and I am in favour of it. But that is precisely why it is our duty to tackle the risks. Here, we as politicians must assume our responsibility towards society at European, as also at national and regional level, and call for better and more adequate road traffic measures. The analysis of road accidents is decisive. The way to compile accident statistics therefore includes recording, processing and interpreting accident data. A systematic examination of what happens on the roads can provide important data to help ensure greater safety and prevent accidents. The construction method of transport modes, as also road design and people themselves, are weak points. We must identify and seek where possible to remedy them. I see this as a most important aspect. And here I think road user education is essential. We must raise people's awareness of the dangers and risks involved in road use, as the precondition for their acceptance of measures. Even children, a specially high-risk group of road users, must be taught through play how to behave on the roads. Young people must be informed of the risks they and other road users face once they have obtained their driving licence. One point is especially close to my heart: measures against drink driving but also against the use of medicines and drugs when driving. Many measures have already been taken to combat drink driving, including many awareness-raising measures. Yet people often do not realise that taking drugs and medicines can cloud their minds and affect their driving just as much. The EU road safety programme aims to define the main priorities clearly. Above all, we need to take a systematic approach to these problems. It is vital to call for cooperation between the Commission and the Member States.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for his reply, which was quite thorough with regard to the use of this aid. I would still like to home in on one matter with a question that was contained in the original question. Were these ships, which are now being scrapped or sold to Moroccan buyers with EU aid, possibly financed out of other EU funds at the stage when they were purchased. In other words, I wish to draw attention with my question to how short or long-term EU fishing policy is.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, it is sometimes hard to keep a clear head when grievances fill the air and I think we are seeing the results of that. It is clear that certain allegations have been made about the activity of certain Commissioners and others in a case involving fisheries, but this matter has been considered by the Conference of Presidents. The Fisheries Committee has been asked to look into it and report back to the Conference of Presidents and I understand that the Budgetary Control Committee is also looking into it. It is important that we allow due process to take place in Parliament before raising these issues in plenary. It is also important that we do not mix the question of these allegations with a very important communication that the Commission has brought forward on the future of the common fisheries policy on how to safeguard fish stocks for future generations. So I would ask you, Mr President, to ask Mr Schulz, on behalf of the Socialist Group, to bring this back to the Conference of Presidents in due course.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, one word of explanation. This report now has a series of agreed amendments which we believe will be carried. There is one unusual procedure – the House has voted already on the criteria for the site of the European Food Safety Authority. The Council was not prepared to admit that as a part of the report. We, however, believe that it was necessary to state what the criteria should be and to insist upon that. The best way we can do that without going to conciliation is to vote it as a legislative resolution, binding therefore only on Parliament. We hope that the President of Parliament will convey that information and our view on the matter to the Laeken Summit in two days' time.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, unfortunately, I believe that the Committee, which adopted this version of the report by a majority, is on the wrong track. Let me explain briefly what I mean. About a year ago, when the Commission submitted its working document, we attempted to reach a compromise on this very difficult and sensitive issue. We agreed that we would distinguish between three specific groups: firstly, asylum seekers; secondly, persons who come to us on a temporary basis from crisis regions; and finally, people who wish to migrate to the Member States in order to make their lives here. In particular, we all recognised that we could only regulate the last pillar, that is, immigration, sensibly by ensuring that the number – I am choosing my words carefully – of unfounded asylum applications can be reduced, at least that we can process them consistently. We all know that no more than 10% or 15% of the applications submitted are genuinely well-founded and likely to be recognised under the Geneva Convention. This is where the Committee and a majority of its members have made two errors, in my view: firstly, it has abandoned the consensus which we worked so hard to achieve and, secondly, it has done no service at all to genuine applicants who are politically persecuted, because it also treats everyone who enters Germany or another Member State without a well-founded claim in more or less the same way and thus undermines the standing of genuine applicants. Expanding the rights of asylum to include new forms of (non-state) persecution, restricting the opportunities of Member States – at least those Member States which have to cope with large influxes – to make effective use of the ‘safe country of origin’ principle, but also the issue of how manifestly unfounded applications should be dealt with – indeed, the entire contents of this report – means that there is longer any way of taking effective action when large numbers of unfounded applications are made. I appeal to you yet again! I know this is a difficult issue. I also know this is a sensitive issue. However, let us try to uphold the details of these common pillars which we discussed a year ago, and where there was plenty of scope to reach a consensus. I hope that the German Social Democrats – who adopt an entirely different tone in their dealings with their Home Affairs Minister in Germany – might change their voting behaviour today. I also hope that we will again find a way of achieving consensus which will enhance the status of those who have genuinely suffered political persecution and seek asylum in the Member States.

Political group: PPE-DE
I should actually like to congratulate your colleague Mr Pat Cox, President of this Parliament, warmly on his excellent contribution during the European Liberal Democrat Conference recently held in England. He made every effort to point out to his Dutch fellow party members that their attitude towards enlargement was totally untypical of true Liberals, because we know that the Liberals have always been keystones of European integration, that they are particularly kindly disposed towards extending the international rule of law and have always used this as a basis of their movement on principle. I am delighted that the bookkeeping obsessions that are currently doing the rounds in the Netherlands in combination with frightening scenarios in those circles have been contradicted in a way which can be described as truly impressive. I am indebted to him for this. His words will help ensure that, with the support of Her Majesty's constructive opposition, the Netherlands will certainly not be adopting a conflicting position. I have to say that the European Parliament, from all manner of quarters, has also done what was necessary in this matter. I have also listened with great interest to our good friend Mr Berthel Haarder, who spoke about Kaliningrad and said that the interests of the Lithuanians should not be trampled underfoot. Considering it was a speech made by the Parliament's presidency, I think it was worthy of imitation. After all, if we set up a joint committee together with the Duma to discuss issues surrounding Kaliningrad, the Lithuanian parliament will also need to be represented in this committee, not with a view to putting Lithuania under any pressure, but so that this representation could clearly protect Lithuania's interests. The way we view Lithuania and its sovereignty is a litmus test for the way the enlarged Community will deal with small Member States in future. This is why the speech by Mr Haarder strikes me as particularly important and I should like to thank him for it. My final comment is about Turkey. Needless to say, there is still a difficult issue to be addressed there. I would plead strongly in favour of Turkey being treated in the same way as the other candidate Member States. This means that, since Turkey is very different from the other candidates in terms of meeting the political criteria of Copenhagen, we have to put another problem to Turkey. If we apply the same criteria, we would need to treat Turkey in exactly the same way as we have treated Slovakia and any other country in the past. This may be difficult for the Turks at the moment, but in my view it is of major importance for Turkey to clearly develop in the direction of a democratic constitutional state that functions well as such, and for them to realise that they cannot participate in the game until they have reached that stage. It should also be a matter of honour for Turkey not to want to take part as a token member, having made half a pledge concerning the constitutional state. As far as I am concerned, we can look forward to the European Council with confidence.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, works on paper enjoy recognition in the art world, where they fetch high prices. The trans-European networks, are, unfortunately, in many cases, still only works on paper, and not even beautiful ones – simply a load of coloured lines on the map of the EU, numbered in sequence, running across Europe in every direction. The problem is that the many coloured lines do not always represent a modern, fully operational transport infrastructure of trams, waterways, and air routes. The network resembles the parts of a rag rug. Looked at from that angle, it is good and necessary that the Commission wants to do some repairs and so attaches primary importance to the transport facilities having greater and better interoperability and intermodality and intends to see to it that the candidate countries are better interconnected, tied in and involved. What is less edifying about this business is the way that Parliament has still not been satisfactorily involved in the decision-making structures, and it is utterly inappropriate that a number of Members, belonging to different groups, should push themselves forward in a sort of free-for-all motivated by the self-serving desire to gain standing in the eyes of the voters back home. Let us hope that the Commission's programme for a real revision of the TENs in 2004 is kept to, and let us see it as being of great importance that Parliament be involved, fully and in good time, when the time comes. What the Commission has submitted is a good intermediate step for the moment that is now upon us. We should indeed follow the rapporteur in the position he has taken and, apart from a few small corrections, support this intermediate step.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we all recognise the importance of the Erika II package, which seeks to improve safety and avoid the repetition of environmental disasters at sea and along the coasts of the European Community. It took the disaster of the Erika in December 1999 for us to launch a series of measures on the safety of sea traffic. However, it gives me great pleasure to be able to say that the debate on the measures making up the package is progressing fast in a coordinated manner, demonstrating a clear convergence of objectives within the European institutions. I congratulate the European Parliament on its work, for it conducted the analysis of the proposals rapidly and resolutely. With regard to the safety of the transportation of hazardous, pollutant goods by sea, it is now clear that the current legislation is totally inadequate. In fact, Directive 93/75/EEC lays down a notification system for the goods but does not establish rules for collecting information. In this regard, Mr Sterckx's report draws our attention to the need to increase the safety of maritime transport by using new technologies and the instruments made available to us by international provisions establishing a Community monitoring, control and information system. We must guarantee more stringent monitoring of ships which represent particularly high risks to safety at sea or the environment. I agree with the rapporteur when he calls for an increase in the powers of Member States to act in their capacity as coastal States when faced with accident hazards or the threat of pollution. In addition, we are all convinced of the utility of installing a black box on board vessels, and we hope that it will be possible to bring older ships into line with the new standards within the transition period, even if this means installing a simplified version of the black box or VDR. I would like to end by drawing your attention to the fact that VDRs and transponders are not in themselves sufficient to avoid accidents. Other factors such as the level of training and the competence of the crew are equally as important.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too believe that a socially committed market economy with sound environmental credentials is a good model on which to base the economic policy of the European Union, provided it can continue what the Lisbon process set in motion, namely the integration of economic, employment, social and financial policies, thereby paving the way for the development of a genuinely sustainable strategy and for the implementation at long last of a balanced and appropriate policy mix in the European Union. Sadly, the broad economic policy guidelines still contain too little in the way of qualitative and quantitative targets that could inspire us to think beyond the narrow confines of tax cuts and spending cuts. I believe that a new debate on the quality of public finances in all Member States, which the Commission has gratifyingly initiated, can enable us to move more freely along the road to a form of investment-led growth that will create employment. That is essential too. In my opinion, the broad economic policy guidelines must focus more sharply than hitherto on investment-led growth and on motivating people to enhance their employability. At the moment we are confronted by a certain degree of pessimism in the European Union. I do not believe that a sustained slide towards recession is threatening, but every possible step must be taken to ensure that the recent developments in the United States do not become such a risk to the European economy that the European Union is powerless to contain it. I should like to emphasise that the broad economic policy guidelines, the aims of our economic policy, do not apply to the euro zone alone but to the entire single European market, the home market of the European Union, and that is how it should stay, because what we do not want to let ourselves be split in two but rather to go on growing closer together. We in Europe, however, must not slide into another recession for want of initiative, into a slump that destroys what we have achieved, namely the lowest level of unemployment for ten years. Let me therefore re-emphasise that, compared with other regions of the world, we invest too little in research and development and in education and training, and even in the realm of infrastructural investments, which this House has so often commended and demanded, we are still lagging behind. Besides monetary stability and sound budgetary policies, it is also imperative that we find innovative ways of achieving social stability and a stable employment situation. This is what the Lisbon process requires of us. I regret that we have not seen even more new ideas emerging during the Swedish Presidency of the Council. But I also bitterly regret that we do not have more transparency and democracy. The participation of the European Parliament in the macroeconomic dialogue, in the formulation and adoption of the broad economic policy guidelines and in the preparation of other processes connected with Lisbon and Stockholm is indispensable. If need be, we must use the next intergovernmental conference in 2004 to lend weight to our demands.

Political group: PSE