GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the preliminary meeting in Bali does not bode well for the UN Summit on sustainable development in Johannesburg this summer. I think that Bali was the last opportunity to lay down a number of priorities, as well as a concrete and binding action plan. But traditional contradictions, such as the gap between North and South and the transatlantic tensions, have quashed these goals. Yet it all started so promisingly. Ten years ago in Rio, the environment and development were combined for the first time. In addition, the need for sustainable development was recognised by all countries. But since then, little has happened with the results of Rio. The Kyoto Protocol took forever to be established and even now, it depends on Russia whether it will actually enter into force. The US, the largest polluter, has rejected the Kyoto Protocol because it would harm the American economy, upon which Canada and Australia pulled out as well. Washington adopted the same attitude in Bali. It appears that the Bush administration does not want any binding agreements, but favours voluntary, noncommittal agreements from the private sector. However, global warming and the future of our planet are problems that are too serious to be left to the goodwill of industry. By the way, what gives the US the right to make demands from developing countries if the US itself flouts all international agreements? It is clear that the transatlantic gap is becoming wider. Kyoto has illustrated that, based on short-sighted political considerations, the Bush administration deems America’s short-term interests more important than the well-being of future generations. The European Union, on the other hand, has assumed its responsibility in Kyoto and with it, has confirmed its moral leadership. I hope it will adopt the same consistent and decisive approach in Johannesburg.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I feel that the supplementary budget proposal of EUR 971 million to improve the funding of measures to combat BSE is necessary and fair. With this increase, the budgetary margin still available for agricultural expenditure within the CAP will be practically exhausted. There is therefore a clear need to initiate the debate on financing the BSE crisis in the years to come. This debate must, however, be conducted methodically and at the right pace and include an overall evaluation of European farming, the current state of the rural world and of how the CAP has responded to this situation. I feel that the CAP must be reconsidered in order to provide the appropriate responses to what is today known as the ‘European agricultural model’. It will also be necessary to amend the drafting of its objectives within the Treaties. The CAP has today largely outgrown its origins, objectives and implementation tools. I think it would be unacceptable, however, to use the excuse of the BSE crisis to force through reforms that everyone concerned wishes to see. This is what appears to be happening as a result of the amendments now being tabled by the Commission, which seek or propose to amend the bases of cofinancing for support measures for the beef sector. We all know that some Member States want to see the CAP renationalised, but I think this would be a terrible mistake that would cause the European Union to move backwards instead of forwards. Such a move would penalise the poorer countries particularly harshly since farmers in those countries would receive less favourable treatment than their colleagues in other parts of the Community. I do accept the need for debate on this issue, however, although it must be conducted in the context of an overall assessment of the CAP and other Community policies, not in this opportunistic way, taking advantage of a crisis to impose national self-interest when what is required is a Community response showing solidarity with those who are in difficulty.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, at this stage of the debate nobody can doubt that the main threat to our security as Europeans today is terrorism. No distinction should be made between national and international terrorism because, in the world in which we live, terrorism is global and the Member States alone do not have the capacity to combat it effectively. In this regard, it should be recognised that, since the tragic attacks of 11 September 2001, we have made considerable progress at European and international level in combating this scourge. It is not, therefore, appropriate today to make a declaration on our commitment to the fight against terrorism – which is a given – but it is appropriate to debate with the Commission and the Council the practical measures adopted, the effectiveness of their implementation in all the Member States, and, above all, what more we can and must do. In order to accomplish this, we must use, as a framework, the action plan that has already been adopted and, as an objective, the necessary transfer to the Convention on the future of the European Union of the mandate to develop the third pillar and continue to extend the Community legal basis in this field. I am briefly going to talk about a few ideas which, at the proposal of my group, have been included in the common resolution upon which we are to vote tomorrow, as they are in keeping with the role of driving force which the European Parliament has been playing, even since before the September 11 attacks. We must prioritise the adoption of new rules that protect the victims of terrorism, harmonising national legislations and – why not? – creating a Community instrument to protect victims. We also need to introduce democratic clauses into association and partnership agreements signed by the European Union with third countries – the agreement we are shortly to sign with Lebanon can set a precedent – and we must adopt shared measures between the Member States which avoid instrumentalising the democratic framework to the benefit of both terrorists, directly, and their necessary accomplices and collaborators, indirectly. Within the scope of current legislation, and within the scope of the Rule of Law, the European Union must always be vigilant in the face of any attempt to justify recourse to violence, because there is no such thing as good and bad terrorists. They are all equally despicable. The motive behind their crimes is always the same, and their result, which is equally unjust, is that there have already been deaths in the Basque country and in Indonesia.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, what this is really about is that we now have a compromise before us, and I have a question for the Commission in relation to this, because it has appeared that this compromise has a more adverse effect on Europe’s oldest flax growers compared to the rest of Europe than the Commission proposal. This does not seem right to me, because this group has not caused the problem, either when it comes to increasing cultivation or the improper implementation of the regulation. I would like to know exactly from the Commission – because this compromise has been concluded with the Commission – whether a) the Commission is prepared to implement Amendment No 51 which has been added to the compromise and b) whether the Commission is prepared, in consultation with the Council, to bring up for discussion the special position of Belgian, Dutch and Northern French flax growers. In order to plug the gap, we need near enough EUR 3 million, and I would urge the Commission to consider this carefully. I would appreciate an answer to both questions.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I do not want to use this speech to dwell on depictions of the disadvantages under which women labour in developing countries or elsewhere, which have often been described. I believe we are familiar enough with the problem. The Commission is pursuing the implementation of the principle of gender mainstreaming – and, indeed, so is Parliament, as the two rapporteurs have reiterated. Looking, though, at the resources that are made available for this purpose, I ask myself how it is to be achieved. Gender mainstreaming is a top-down process, one that presupposes that the necessary raising of awareness and opportunities for training take place or are present within the organisations or authorities in question – in this case, the Commission. We are well aware, though, of the substantial personnel shortage that exists in this field of work. Unless there has been significant change in the meantime, we only have one national expert from Sweden who is at all involved in the area of women and development cooperation. This is a lamentable state of affairs, one that we have been complaining of for years, and we have, unfortunately, seen no changes in it to date. We do not weary of emphasising that the key to development is in the hands of women, but we have not the remotest possibility of being able even to start to put that into practice. Commissioner Schreyer, please take note of how those very people who are responsible here for development cooperation are profoundly disappointed that what we have described in many papers – and on which there is, as is well known, a programme – stands not the remotest chance of being implemented in a truly satisfactory way. There really have to be some changes here. It is also, let it be added, in Europe's interest, for if we support the empowerment of women in the developing countries, that forms part of the emancipation of the European area and will also in part alleviate the problems we still have to deal with today. If women are not empowered, if they are not given the tools for development, then development simply will not happen!

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I would like to start by thanking Mr Bébéar for producing this excellent own-initiative report. The New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) is an ambitious programme, and we should congratulate our African partners on it, for it is indeed a programme developed by Africans for Africans. This concept has now been in existence for more than two years, and following the successful establishment of the African Union and the scheduling of the first session of the Pan-African Parliament for the third week in March, the time has come for the proposed mechanisms to be put in effect. I would like to focus especially on the African Peer Review Mechanism and explore this in more detail. Yet I have the impression that some of its architects are a little scared by their own courage. The Commissioner has just mentioned the heroes of NEPAD, but they must be the cowards of NEPAD, for adopting principles such as good governance and human rights means implementing them as well – and implementation means effective control and evaluation of the commitments undertaken. Unfortunately, it is apparent that those who are responsible for the worst excesses in Africa, notably Mr Mugabe in Zimbabwe, are naturally not subscribing to this mechanism in the first place. In all, just sixteen out of more than fifty states have joined the mechanism so far. I believe this is exactly where we should take a positive role, be it through the EU or indeed G8. After all, G8 committed itself to an Africa Action Plan back in 2002. We should be targeting our support specifically to those who are genuinely improving their standards and are complying with the mechanism in practice. This is the only way to ensure that we treat Africa individually and not as an entity, which was the Commissioner’s complaint earlier. For this purpose, the EU but also G8 should draw up a specific timetable to fulfil the commitments which they have undertaken in abstract. Positive outcomes could then be anticipated in Africa as well.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the fisheries agreement with Greenland remains controversial, and this is because the fishing possibilities granted to the European Union are not fully used and the other Member States are not allowed to use them. In this way, the European Union is paying a very high price. We must remember that this is the most expensive agreement, together with the Mauritania agreement, since the Moroccan agreement disappeared, simply as a result of what is known as ‘paper fishing’. The fact that Member States other than the ones that traditionally benefit cannot use the fishing possibilities makes this agreement controversial. If we add the fact that, in the agreements with the South, shipowners have to contribute increasing amounts of tariffs for the funding of these agreements, while in Greenland they are exempt from these payments, we have another good reason to describe this as a discriminatory agreement. As chairman of the Committee on Fisheries, I would like to point out that the partial payment brought forward by the European Commission, before Parliament has expressed its view, has been strongly criticised in our committee because, while legally possible, it is nonetheless politically unacceptable. I hope that the mid-term review of this agreement – and of the common fisheries policy itself – will consider and overcome these difficulties, which have nothing to do – I stress – with Greenland, which is offering us its waters. The agreement must serve to genuinely promote fishing cooperation, opening up new avenues to new Member States in order to jointly develop the fishing potential of Greenland to our mutual benefit, that is to say, the benefit of those States and of the European Union, of those who are fishing now and of those other Member States who are not doing so. At this difficult time for the agreements with the South, after the failure of the negotiations with Morocco, I would like to take this opportunity, Commissioner, once again to remind you, for the second time in this debate, of the political priority and urgency of European solidarity, which should take the form of a generous, practical economic plan for the people affected by this agreement, as was approved at the Nice Summit.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the case of Derek Rocco Barnabei makes our resolution all the more urgent. In this specific case, there are reasons to suspect that there has been a miscarriage of justice. Clearly, where the death penalty is involved a miscarriage of justice is particularly serious; let us not forget that miscarriages of justice in similar cases have subsequently been acknowledged, and it was no coincidence that the defendants in these cases were people who could not afford an expensive attorney. I believe that the high quality of the law faculties in the United States is due to the fact that the attorneys are very highly paid, but they are only highly paid by those can afford to employ their services. Therefore, we call for a repeal of this sentence and, in consideration of the petition signed by an extremely large number of Members over the last few days, we call upon the Presidency of Parliament to write to the authorities responsible immediately, insisting that they attend to the matter and, of course, insisting too that the death penalty is abolished in the United States, so admirable a country in so many other respects. And it is precisely these merits that make the continuation of this barbaric ritual so very shocking. Hooliganism

Political group: PSE
Mr President, there is a small translation problem in paragraph 38. Reference is made to a ‘European interparliamentary body on security and defence’. The word ‘organe’ has been correctly used in the French version. Initially I had proposed the term ‘forum’, but discussions in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy produced a compromise and we agreed o use an equivalent of the French ‘organe’ instead. In the English version the word should be ‘body’, and, probably, ‘Gremium’ in the German. My knowledge of the other languages is insufficient. But I wanted to highlight that point so that the various language versions can be corrected.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Seattle negotiations enabled us to see a small political opening up of the European Union’s positions on agriculture as is the case with environmental concerns, food safety and the development of rural communities. This is nevertheless very little when compared with the very negative aspects that our trade partners are trying to impose on us in the text of the Agenda. I am referring to two points in particular: – The first was an obsessive reference to the substantial reduction of internal aid for agriculture without taking the slightest account of the diversity of different countries’ structures of production and without taking account of an objective and consistent classification of the different types of subsidies allocated to agriculture. – Secondly, and most importantly, the rejection of the idea of multifunctionality which is the main pillar of the European farm model and the basis for upholding the principle of the specific nature of agriculture. In fact, if this deliberate reference is not featured, it means that agriculture will be treated as a normal economic activity, whilst there is ever greater pressure from our competitors to end any kind of aid obtained and I stress “any kind”. Now we all know that without special treatment for agriculture we will not be able to guarantee a minimum of Community preference nor as a result, the primary producing role of agriculture. If the producing role of agriculture comes to an end, then all its other functions or multifunctions will end with it. This is why it was a good thing that no agreement was reached in Seattle. In fact, the agreement that was envisaged was very damaging for agriculture and would have left us at the outset in a weakened negotiating position for the future whereas we are now in a stronger position than we ever have been to make an offensive stand in the new Round. I would like to make two final comments. Firstly, that it is crucial that the Commission and the Council establish an initiative with developing countries in order to make them our allies. Secondly, that a joint project with the United States would be extremely useful – as James Elles pointed out – in order to clarify the positions of both parties and to be able then to encourage future understanding.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Culture 2000 programme is ideal for promoting European cultural cooperation. As mentioned a moment ago, it will inject feeling and soul into Europe. I should therefore like to thank Mr Graça Moura for his initiative in drawing up an interim balance sheet. This is very useful. It has become a sound report on which I should like to make a brief comment. Culture 2000 has become an unwieldy programme since it aims to cover the entire field of our cultural heritage and, as I understand it, this has created great difficulty for the Commission, certainly in the first year. And although there is some improvement, the complaints keep flooding in. As mentioned before, red tape puts many potential participants off and, especially in small, often innovative projects set up – as, of course, is often the case in the cultural sector – by inexperienced participants who have nonetheless taken the plunge, there is very often the risk that they will be rejected in the first round on purely formal grounds, which is counterproductive. The criteria are often unclear, and even national bureaux struggle to make sense of them. In my opinion, all of us together must think very carefully about what we want to achieve in future with cultural policy, and we must set priorities for our instruments. I should like to add this to the agenda, so that we can also have an impact on the Convention. In conclusion, I should like to say something about finances. As I have already indicated, I completely agree that the budget is small. But irrespective of whether the financial means are sufficient, I should like to note that they need to be managed efficiently, for a large proportion is not being spent at the moment.

Political group: ELDR
I should like to ask a related question regarding the banning of Staffordshire terriers in Germany under their dangerous dogs law. Many of my constituents in the United Kingdom are writing to protest against this German law banning certain breeds of dogs which appear to pose no threat to public safety. Given the pets' passport project at European level and a right for pets now to move freely within the European Union as a result, does the Commission have any legal competence to intervene and protect animal welfare and, in particular, these domestic pets in Germany, of which there will be a needless slaughter potentially and possibly even extinction of a fine breed of British dogs?

Political group: PPE-DE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. – Mr President, we are referring to the working of the works council directive up to the period 1996, i.e. before the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland signed up to that agreement. The experience up until that point was positive, with clear benefits being brought about by this directive. However, recent events have shown some weaknesses in the works council directive, noticeably in relation to restructuring as we have seen several cases recently of major restructuring in multinationals in which workers have not been consulted. We should note that, even before the adoption of this directive, the Court of Justice in various cases held that works councils were parties concerned for the purposes of merger control proceedings. That presupposes a duty to inform and consult on the part of the employer. We should like to see a strengthening of the directive in relation to consultation in the event of restructuring. The Commission in its report also refers to the vagueness of the requirement for an information and consultation meeting to be held with the workers as soon as possible in the event of exceptional circumstances which affect employees. That also needs to be tightened. Article 27 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights says that workers should be guaranteed information and consultation ‘in good time’, which is a rather more strict interpretation than ‘as soon as possible’. The Committee on Legal Affairs would like to see strengthening in relation to that point. In addition, we find that part-time workers are dealt with differently in different Member States. We would like to see the Commission look into that aspect, and into the question of time off for activities in the works councils, which varies from Member State to Member State. This should also apply regarding the matter of training, which also varies considerably. We would like to see the Commission come forward with proposals to ensure that there is harmonised training across Member States in order to ensure that workers' representatives are able to put their case as effectively as possible.

Political group: PSE
I have voted in favour of the Lamassoure report, which concerns itself most of all with the institutional aspects of Commission reform. During this explanation of vote, I must emphasise the fact that Parliament does not, unfortunately, have all the powers it should have. A change I have never heard proposed – yet one which I consider useful, important and not difficult to implement – is that the initiative in lawmaking should be reserved for Parliament and not shared with the Commission. The Commission should execute: it should be the executive power of the European Union; Parliament should be the legislative power. There should be a separation of powers – as was said at the time of the French Revolution – in the European Union too.

Political group: PPE-DE