GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I will keep it short, but I would like to say something to the people who might be listening to this debate there – who knows. It is very striking; this is the first time I have ever heard such a battery of members of the /European Democrat Group all saying the same thing one after the other. For the benefit of those listening, this Parliament does actually have other groups with different opinions . Having said that, I would like very briefly to eliminate a few prejudices. For there are people here who would dearly like to class me as ‘a bit other-worldly, a bit naïve’, ‘someone who sits in their office working out rather peculiar proposals’. I really have not done that; I have, however, had a look, I have taken advice and I have, for example, seen that there has effectively been quite significant reduction in other Member States of the European Union, like in our esteemed Commissioner’s country. What can be done in Sweden can also be done in the Netherlands, in Belgium and in the United Kingdom. We can do that if we want to. I challenge everyone to scrutinise my report. Nowhere do I say that I am opposed to pesticides. I know they are necessary, even advisable. We can, however, cut down on their use. A reduction in use naturally goes hand in hand with a reduction in risk, which I believe to be more important, but because there is a consensus on this, I have not focused on it. I have also always maintained in the committee that this 50% is not a fetish of mine. Perhaps we should put 30%, perhaps 40%, perhaps 60%, but I would definitely like to see a target. After all, we all know that if this Parliament does not set a target , we will not actually make any progress. We must make sure – and this is one of the amendments I have submitted in the plenary session – that the efforts that have already been made by the other Member States and the efforts we still need to make, which differ from Member State to Member State, are also taken into consideration. Let me once again ask the members of the /European Democrat Group not to look at my report dogmatically. I also try not to do that myself. I would like to say one more thing briefly. Everyone has run over their time, and they have all said the same thing, so I just want to say something about taxes. Someone said: ‘Naturally the taxes will not make the risks decrease.’ I am not stupid, I know that too. Why do we need these taxes? In order to ensure that the polluter-pays principle is implemented effectively. There are very many social costs, and I ask you: do you think that it is normal for everyone to bear the social costs or should they be borne in an honest way by the products that pollute? That is one of the many challenges.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, sadly, the specific case raised by Mrs McKenna is not an isolated one. There are other examples of conservation in special scientific areas being damaged as a result of EU funding. Will the Commission consider issuing instructions to all Member States saying that, if in future it discovers that European environmental directives have been breached or proper environmental assessment has not been carried out, it will not only stop future funding but will withdraw the funding already granted, in other words, reclaim the money from the Member States? It is only such action which will discourage this practice in the future.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the situation around the entrance to the Channel Tunnel has been chaotic for months. Since last November, rail-freight services at Fréthun, near Calais, have been severely disrupted by the illegal activities of migrants. I have already raised this matter on two occasions on the floor of this House, on 4 February and 11 March, and our urgency resolution reflects the desperate seriousness of the continuing crisis. On 19 March, the French government replied to initial queries from the European Commission, stating that immediate steps had been taken to carry out new security work at Fréthun and to provide 24-hour police coverage. However, on 27 March, along with some 150 parliamentarians, rail-freight operators, officials, police, media and others, but with the noticeable absence of any British or French government ministers, I visited the rail-freight terminal at Fréthun. We were amazed to see illegal migrants clambering all over trains in broad daylight before our very eyes. The situation was clearly out of hand and it has got no better, in spite of undertakings by SNCF to achieve a normal service from 2 April. Only this last Tuesday, some 100 migrants broke out of a freight train at Dollands Moor in Folkestone. This train had apparently waited virtually unguarded at Calais for 24 hours. This situation is unacceptable. Besides the human tragedy in the situation, I am concerned that British businesses and some 8 000 jobs are directly at risk, as a result of the state of affairs, including in my own area of the East of England. There are also very serious environmental and other consequences. It makes a mockery of the idea of the free movement of goods across the European Union. Given the lack of action by the British and French governments on Tuesday, I took a deputation to meet the European Commission: Lord Berkeley, Chairman of the Rail Freight Group and Mr Alan Roberts, a constituent of mine from Hertfordshire, whose family rail-freight organising business has been very hard hit by the crisis at Fréthun, went with me to see Commissioner Bolkestein. He was very sympathetic and expressed frustration at the lack of government action. I now implore the Commission to take the necessary further action, including legal action against the French government, as a matter of urgency. Businesses require urgent financial assistance in order to be able to continue trading, as well as compensation in the longer term for the losses that they have sustained because of the lack of effective action by the French and the British authorities.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is indeed a shame that Mr Farage is no longer with us. He obviously has learned nothing about public policy if he thinks that we can run the whole of Europe on a series of referendums. This discussion is probably one of the most important that we will have before enlargement. It is neither as hallowed nor as sexy as an IGC, but until we get the actual delivery mechanisms of democracy and public policy right, the boring, tedious administrative detail, then we do democracy an injustice. We have to reform our governmental processes. There are many proposals in the White Paper that cause nobody any problems, but issues like co-regulation and the delivery of public policy by external agencies do cause problems. We cannot afford not to address these issues. Our institutional overload, as we all know, is quite dramatic in the Union and with enlargement it will get worse. We need to ensure, however, that when we reform those processes – whether it be issues concerning co-regulation or external agencies – we see democratic control as the key factor, democratic control in a democratic framework. This will not be a resource-free exercise. It will also require significant person power to deliver it, at least in the early stages. The Commission has to face this. It will not be a cost-cutting exercise by any means. Finally, if there is a criticism that has to be made of the Commission, and I am glad it has realised the importance of this criticism, it is that its White Paper did not address the role of Parliament. Now I realise that the Commission might be sensitive about doing so, in case it brings the wrath of this House down on it. That represented a fundamental failure in the early discussions between the Commission and Parliament. So I am very pleased that this has now been rectified and we can move forward to produce the sort of governmental structure which we require.

Political group: PSE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. – Mr President, both these reports before us today recognise the increasing mobility of persons and the rise in contractual and commercial transactions across our Union. As the internal market develops, our citizens really need a legal framework that guarantees them access to justice wherever they are and whatever their problems. I will confine my remarks mainly to the report on the service of documents. I concur with Mr Lechner that the rules that formerly governed this are some 25 years old; they are complicated and out of date. With the increase in commercial transactions across the internal market, we need new, simple and certain rules. When our citizens or our businesses have to resort to the courts, they need to get past that first step, which is the service of documents, possibly in another jurisdiction, before initiating proceedings. Here we need a simple procedure. As a lawyer in private practice in the UK, I myself, have often wrestled with a pile of books to find the right rules and the right way to go forward for my clients in these circumstances. The proposals that we have before us take matters forward but perhaps they do not go far enough. My group will re-table certain amendments that were put to the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market to try to take matters forward even further, to make the systems that we are going to put in place more readily available and open to practitioners. We need to take this area of law outside the remit of a few specialists who may be able to charge a lot for it. We want to give our citizens across the Union real access to justice so that when they have to resort to the courts they can get things up and running quickly and without difficulties.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, I would also like to congratulate the three rapporteurs, Mrs Pack, Mrs Prets and Mrs Iivari, on the reports we are debating tonight. I will refer firstly to the report on the youth programme and I would like to say that I believe it to be very positive because it proposes, amongst other things, bringing the European Union's institutions closer to young people, and I believe that this is absolutely correct because we must not forget that they are the future of Europe and it is they who must know us best. Furthermore, it is very important that the opinions of these young people can be communicated to all the Members of this House and other people in the European institutions, because when it comes to making decisions it is very important to be aware of those opinions. And providing youth programmes with stability and continuity, provided that the principle of subsidiarity is respected of course, is essential to their smooth operation. With regard to the report on education and training, I would like to say that I completely agree with the constant quest for quality in teaching and education, and I believe it to be wonderful that this is being promoted at European level. But I would like to add, in relation to the three reports in general, that we must attach more importance to education, youth and culture, because although we always say here that they are extremely important issues, the reality is that this view is not then reflected in the European Union's budgets. And if they are not reflected in the budgets, it is very unlikely that our voters will believe us when we say it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we would also recommend that the matter be deferred to the next plenary part-session. Therefore, no referring back to the Committee, but deferral of the vote. That is what we shall support.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, at first reading the gave its support to the Commission's proposals. We want to see a significant reduction in air pollution within a period of time that reflects the serious environmental problems we face. The Commission argued that the economic benefits would far outweigh the costs involved, but Member States dissented and said that they could not go beyond the targets agreed at the Gothenburg Protocol. Parliament was right, then, to back the Commission. I am pleased that in negotiation the Commission was able to overcome Member States' resistance, make some progress and secure more ambitious targets. But at second reading we are in a rather different position. The Commission has said that it has made a firm agreement with the Council and is sticking to it. It will go no further, it says. It will not support the amendments tabled by the or the Socialist Group. I would like Member States to be more ambitious. But at first reading, Parliament supported proposals based on a Commission model which I find fiendishly complicated. In the absence of the Commission's support now, I do not see how we, as legislators, not technical experts, can propose more ambitious targets for individual countries unless we pull figures out of the air, which seems to me a rather poor and amateurish way of making law. So I have accepted that this is as far as we can go for the time being. But I am also aware that this is a poker game and I am a rotten poker player. It may be that Member States have cards up their sleeves which they are prepared to offer up if pushed in conciliation. It may be that the Commissioner secretly wishes Parliament to pursue its original agenda. If that proves to be the case then I have misread the game. I am waiting with interest to hear from the Commissioner whether she has been keeping cards close to her chest or whether her public position remains the same.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, during the Strasbourg part-session, I put a question to Mrs Fontaine concerning prisoners in Turkish jails, and I received a very sympathetic answer. Unfortunately, it was in French, but I have had it translated, so now I understand it too. That letter describes the process, now under way, of negotiating with the Turkish Government concerning democratisation as a run-up to the whole application and enlargement process. I should like to emphasise that it is now more necessary than ever to take action on this matter because, in addition to the problems by which it is already affected, Turkey is now faced with a severe political and economic crisis which will signify a setback for the democratic process and will mean that political prisoners in jails will be in an even worse position than they were before. Hence, this request – it is not Mrs Fontaine who is in the chair, but it is, of course, you who represent the Presidency – to the effect that this matter should once again be addressed and the Turkish authorities once again urged to set the democratic process in motion and move it forward instead of bringing it to a standstill, for what we are witnessing now is a retrograde step.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I should like to congratulate Mr Bushill-Matthews. Tonight he has made his best speech ever in the House. It would appear that we have had some influence on him. We all recognise that there are millions upon millions of people in the European Union and around the world who suffer indignities every day of their lives because we have failed, not only to pass legislation, but to change society's attitude to them. We constantly obstruct their path towards enjoying a full human existence. There are six hundred million disabled people across the world, 80% of whom are in the developing world. It is clear, as the Commissioner said, that we need to address this in our development and aid policies. It is clear that a voluntary approach to guarantee rights for people with disabilities is not working. We need legally-based rights, as this report points out, at an international level. We need a convention to do that. We are here as representatives of states, all of which have failed to implement a directive that they freely entered into not more than two years ago. They have all failed to implement the framework directive. Therefore we have to accept our own responsibility for that. It is a matter of regret for me that in my own country we have a proposed disability bill, intended to implement the framework directive, which refuses to accept a rights-based approach for people with disabilities. I simply cannot understand how, after all the years of experience, this continues to be the case. I listened with care to the Commissioner when she gave her reasons as to why she has not brought forward a draft directive under Article 13 of the EC Treaty. I have no doubts at all that she is committed to providing legally-based rights for people with disabilities, but her argument on not bringing forward a new draft directive is wrong. By bringing forward a new draft directive greater pressure would be brought to bear on Member States and people in this House to ensure that what is there already will be implemented. If we sit back and allow Member States to stall on the current directive, by not putting pressure on them through a new directive, we would be making a grave mistake. What mandate, if any, has the Council given the Commission to negotiate on behalf of the European Union in relation to the United Nations Convention on People with Disabilities?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I have been reading the Minutes and it does not say here that he would not have voted.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, as we see in the explanatory statement that forms the basis of the report by Mr Aparício Sánchez, sufficient data are not available to make an objective assessment of the effectiveness of the directive and the Regulation on the export of cultural objects and their return when they have been unlawfully removed from the territory of one Member State to another. We are unable to make such an assessment largely because of the delays in Member States transposing these instruments into their national legislation. All the indications suggest that, in the meantime, the illegal trafficking of cultural objects has increased, particularly of those that find their way onto the art market. The whole situation calls for the Member States to obey the principle of strictly respecting the integrity of national cultural heritage and the whole situation calls for the measures designed to prevent and eradicate this form of trafficking to be made more effective. We also face other problems, however. Even here, within the very confines of this Parliament, not long ago, we all had the opportunity to see an exhibition of the wanton destruction of the cultural heritage of Cyprus, which was perpetrated under the complacent gaze of the authorities of a country which also happens to be a candidate for the Union’s enlargement. The measures now being proposed can, therefore, make a valuable contribution to improving the legal instruments available and the system as a whole. Every nation’s cultural heritage is of undeniable importance to national identity and to European identity. There must be closer police and judicial cooperation in this field between Member States. We must make it more difficult for cultural objects that have been stolen or unlawfully removed to move around freely. In this field, cooperation and the coordination of actions between the Commissioners responsible for culture, for the internal market, and for justice and home affairs are of fundamental importance. The Commission ought to issue a communication on the illegal trafficking and trade in these goods, with an assessment of the current situation in this field, listing and identifying objects that are continuing to be recovered and studying the consequences of the way in which the 1992 Regulation and the 1993 directive have been implemented. The communication should assess the foreseeable effects of the candidate countries joining the Union and recommend a multilingual form with details of goods that have been unlawfully removed. It should also conduct a public information and awareness-raising campaign, making all the necessary information available on the Internet. If we are to achieve all of this, Mr President, I feel that we must vote in favour of this report, and once again, I congratulate Mr Aparício Sánchez for having taken the initiative with it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, the new annual policy strategy instrument allows the legislative and budgetary cycles to be combined and makes a political reading of our budget easier. We believe it is essential that policies that have been codecided should really be entered in the budget without sacrificing other European policies; this will require a higher income than proposed. I will, however, stress that more funding needs to be budgeted for the Lisbon objectives. At the half-way stage we have not reached our targets. It is therefore imperative that budget resources be concentrated on employment, innovation and social cohesion policies. We must in that way ensure that the social partners take part in modernisation talks. All the budget lines allowing progress to be made with the Union’s economic governance must also be funded. We are agreed in recognising the essential part played by small firms in modernising employment. They play a recognised part in the creation and preservation of jobs. We must continue to help them by improving their environment, however. It must be made easier to support non-governmental organisations in the social sector and we shall have to find a way to put an end to their financial insecurity. Finally, I agree with our rapporteur that information and communication are areas to which the Commission needs to give greater priority and on which it must take action. Not only must these budget lines be funded, but more especially the Commission must fully realise what its role is in this information policy because all policies must come back to and finish with the citizen.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the hypocrisy of the talk about fundamental rights in this House can hardly be surpassed, especially when it comes from the Right. When the Council and governments initiate more and more new surveillance programmes, plunging thousands of migrants into sheer despair with their Fortress Europe policy, leaving them stuck at borders, allowing them to drown at sea, and the few that make it are then interned in the EU only to be removed again as soon as possible, the European Parliament, which claims to be the guardian of fundamental and human rights, actually applauds. Unfortunately, the reality looks rather different to all those who are deprived of their most elementary civil rights. State, police and racist violence are everyday occurrences in the European Union’s capitalist society. The blatant justification of torture in Germany by numerous politicians and representatives of the judiciary and police in 2003 is a specific example of this. Unfortunately, when my draft resolution condemning this justification of torture was rejected in the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, this was brought about by those groups that are now defending their political friends.

Political group: GUE-NGL