GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, on behalf of my group, I should like to express our wholehearted support for the Chairman of the Committee. It is not a matter of curbing the right to demonstrate – absolutely not – nor do we intend to make the House into a high-security wing; it is a matter of establishing an essential minimum level of security. We shall not have any more foreign guests at our committee meetings if we cannot offer them the minimum security cover that will guarantee their safety. We had both the President of a nation and the Foreign Minister of Turkey at our committee meeting when this incident occurred. Please take this very seriously, so that we can continue to receive guests in future and so that we can treat them as guests ought to be treated.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I have wanted for a long time to comment on the bell which summons us to meetings. We are very glad that it is rung, but is it necessary to ring it for several minutes at a time so that we get sick to death of hearing it? Would you mind telling the department concerned to ring it in small doses.

Political group: ELDR
I support the holistic orientation of the report, but would like to stress that my opinion differs as regards Paragraph 49. Here it is requested that States that do not wish to participate in a task shall be ordered to make a financial contribution to be divided between the participating States by reason of the mutual solidarity linking the Member States. In my opinion such a requirement is too far-reaching. - Brok report (A5-0340/2000) and Lalumière report (A5-0339/2000)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I shall be abstaining from voting on Mr Trichet's appointment partly because, as the UK is not a member of the eurozone, I tend to act cautiously in speaking on these internal matters of organisation in relation to the euro, and partly because I have mixed feelings about Mr Trichet's appointment. He is clearly an exceptionally talented, able and intelligent central banker. However, at the end of our discussions in committee, I felt that despite these qualities he really did not have anything new to say about the euro. He did not have any answers to some of the real economic problems that we are seeing in the eurozone. There are increasing levels of unemployment in Germany and France and their economies are in trouble to the extent that neither are able to meet the rules of the Stability Pact. It is clear that there are real economic problems in the eurozone and I have heard nothing from Mr Trichet that would indicate his ability to solve them. It came as no surprise to me that the Swedes have decided that they do not want to abolish their national currency. The continuing economic difficulties in the eurozone are one of the many reasons why the UK should not abolish its national currency either. For those reasons I shall be abstaining from voting on Mr Trichet's appointment.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, for us, the European Commission’s proposal in this area is completely unacceptable. It seems as if the starting point for the proposal was that it should be about goods being transported as efficiently as possible in an internal market. This is a mistaken point of departure. We should instead be proceeding on the basis that what is at issue here are animals, that is to say sentient creatures. It is this insight that is the very basis of the rules to be adopted. We in the welcome the fact that the committee has made this progress. We believe, however, that still further progress can be made in several areas. We shall vote in favour of the Member States being entitled both to introduce and to retain national rules that are stricter than the EU rules in this area. That applies not only to journey times. We recommend that an absolute maximum of eight hours be introduced for journeys and that it should not be possible to circumvent this time regulation with reference to rest time in the vehicles that are being used for transportation. The rules in the Commission’s proposal relating to space in the vehicles used for transportation are inadequate and need to be improved. We believe that the same rules should apply to all types of transport, irrespective of whether it is transport to slaughter or transport for fattening elsewhere. Strict rules regarding this point are positive above all in terms of the animals’ well-being, but also because they will favour local abattoirs and the development of mobile abattoirs. I wish to add a few words about the EU’s export refunds in connection with the export of livestock from the EU. Large sums are at present used for these export refunds. This practice is completely indefensible. It means direct support for comprehensive cruelty to animals, with very long journey times. It is entirely obvious that there are large problems involving the misuse and direct misappropriation of money within this sector. Budgetary control is very deficient in this area. It is not reforms that are needed where this issue is concerned. Refunds for the export of livestock from the EU should instead be completely abolished as quickly as possible.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, there has been some interest in my commitment to Austria. I have to say to Mr Pirker that I have been interested in what has been happening in Austria for some time. I was there in 1986 protesting about Mr Haider’s discrimination against the Slovene speaking minority in Corinthia. While I accept, of course, that individual members of the Freedom Party may well be impeccable and upstanding individuals, there is a phrase that those that lie down with dogs get fleas. So it may be unfortunate that some people who have chosen particular political parties get labelled in that way but it is their own ultimate responsibility. Can I congratulate Baroness Ludford on her report. She has put a great deal of work into it. I have to say, however, and it is not her fault, that there are sins of omission as far as I am concerned. Commissioner Diamantopoulou made the point very clearly that there are two monsters facing us here in Europe, terrorism and racism. We have to recognise that those monsters exist and I am not sure that we do in this particular resolution. There is still a view that there is not really any racism in Europe. If there is any racism, it is fairly small and, if it does exist, it is the fault of the victims. I reject that. We have had in East Germany the assassination of a Mozambique man, attacks on migrant workers in Spain, an attack on a Jewish professor in Italy, and the continued rise of racism within football that was presented to us yesterday by those people who are campaigning around the “ Show racism the red card” slogan. We have had the recent condemnation of a terrorist bomber in the United Kingdom, David Copeland, who killed gay people and non-gay people in a gay bar and, of course, we have had the effective sacking of Professor Pelinka from the Observatory by the Austrian Government. If Europe wishes to play a central role in the World Conference Against Racism it has to start seeing itself as others see it rather than as we would like to be.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the drafting of the Charter has now reached a critical phase. We have drafted 60 clauses and provoked 1000 amendments. Frankly the Convention is staggering and may stall completely should the Feira Council fail to bring a fresh stimulus. We have so far tried to reach a consensus across the body. This is now proving an improbable task. We require a far more formal decision-making procedure of a parliamentary type. This means voting, and voting by a qualified majority, as would be normal for the procedures within any modern European State. Some representatives of the European Council cannot stand the prospect of being forced to vote and they disapprove of the nature of the Convention itself. This prejudice must be suppressed by the Feira Council if the project is to succeed.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I believe that it would be appropriate if we now, having observed a minute’s silence for the victims of the earthquakes in Greece and Turkey – with good reason since, quite apart from the large numbers of casualties, these events have a deep political significance – observed a minute’s silence for the victims of Indonesian repression in East Timor.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to thank the Minister for his reply. I would like to put an additional question: do you think it is conceivable that Croatia could be included in the next enlargement round? Not this one, of course, but the next round planned for 2007. Do you think it is conceivable that Croatia could be part of this round, and will you propose this in the Council? Personally, I believe that Croatia fulfils the criteria at least as well as some of the countries which we have admitted today.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would simply like to point out that, once again, groups in this Parliament and Members, specifically of the Spanish Popular Party, are manipulating Question Time and supplementary questions to the Commission. It is truly incredible that this behaviour should reoccur and that every time there is a question from a Member, especially a Socialist, the Popular Party uses Question Time to hide the shame of its government and does not ask the corresponding Commissioner a question. This should cease to happen in this Parliament and I would ask that the Presidency, when Members from the Popular Party are seen to behave in this manner, not to wait until the end of the intervention.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to thank Mr Berenguer Fuster for his excellent work. Commissioner, I have said it before, and have said it in Sweden. You are perhaps the most important Member of the Commission for citizens of my country, where issues of competition have never been high on the agenda. Things have started to improve now, so there is cause for hope. Competition policy is particularly important for small countries, where the risks of monopolies and concentrations of undertakings are obvious. It is great that the EU is now prepared to carry out a review of the way acquisition control is to function in a globalised economy. The world around is changing, which places new demands on EU merger control. In my country, we have had a broad discussion on these issues since a number of high-profile intended mergers failed to happen. I am not saying that the Commission has made incorrect assessments in these particular cases. However, I feel that broader considerations could be applied in assessments of mergers. Once again, this is particularly important for small countries. I would like to mention a few particular points. Firstly, acquisition control should be more focused on promoting the development and rationalisation of companies in the internal market as a whole. We must create a complete market without obstacles and segmentation. This is not currently the case. Secondly, acquisition control must become more predictable. Thirdly, the Rule of Law could be strengthened. It is a sound principle that the authority investigating an issue should not be the same one which then makes a decision on the case. Mr President, we need stronger companies in Europe. We need more competition. We need global players which can grow strong enough to handle increasingly tough international competition. Therefore, there is a need for a more long-term and dynamic approach in the Commission’s assessment of mergers. In this respect, the EU may have something to learn from the US, entirely with the aim of creating an EU with better growth and more competitiveness, in line with what was said in Lisbon.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, no one with any common sense would deny or question the absolute need to preserve and protect our fishing resources, that is threatened marine species. We cannot accept a purely predatory attitude as if we were still living in prehistoric times but hunting with twenty-first century technology. There is no longer any reason for fishing to continue as a predatory activity. Nevertheless, the reform process has got off to a bad start, Commissioner Fischler, it has got bogged down in polemics and started off rather farcically, to put it mildly. Which means that it is already mortally wounded, which is a shame. It is attracting the opposition of those it is intended to help, who are up in arms. The reform process needs objectivity and a calm and pedagogical approach, not the climate of guerrilla warfare that has broken out. Furthermore, this reform is too brutal and is being attacked by those it affects. It is an unbalanced reform which keeps the fishing industry of some countries intact. It is an unfair reform because it does not take into account on the one hand those who have flouted the rules and on the other those who have respected the policies established up to now in this field. It is a reform without any particularly rigorous scientific basis. That is what everyone is saying. Lastly, it is a technocrat's reform: it does not reflect the importance of cultures dating back thousands of years and lifestyles that must be protected. That is why we have reservations and are protesting.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, of course, we are absolutely in favour of the adoption of rules guaranteeing a high level of consumer and environmental protection and safety, but we are also in favour of measures being implemented with certainty and transparency, and one of these measures is clearly labelling, which we feel must be accompanied by a control system based on scientific verification. I would like to thank the two rapporteurs for the enormous amount of work they have done on an extremely difficult, complex subject, but I have to say that there are elements of the two reports which give some cause for concern, such as, for example, the arbitrary lowering of the tolerance threshold for the adventitious presence of genetically modified materials, previously set at 1%, to 0.5%. We feel that this complicates the authorisation procedure unnecessarily without providing greater security or other benefits for the consumer. Then another point which gives cause for concern is the lack of adequate measures in respect of the accidental presence of traces of genetically modified products. I would like to say something about the concept of ‘adventitious presence’, a concept which is used to indicate the unintended presence of small quantities of a specific atypical material in another material. Well then, in the field of agriculture – and here, as always, agriculture is a sector requiring special consideration – the adventitious presence of traces of other varieties in crops, plants or propagation materials can occur at any stage of sowing, harvesting, transport or distribution. In some cases, this adventitious presence could even be the result of an exchange of pollen between crop varieties in adjoining fields. Amendment No 9 in the proposal places farmers operating according to normal farming practice in real difficulties. It is important to avoid thresholds which do not take the concrete facts into account.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, Europe is not technically in recession, but it is clearly experiencing a situation of slower growth, and we cannot yet predict all the economic, political and social consequences that this will have. Within this framework, many people are questioning the validity of the restrictive and fundamentalist way in which the Growth and Stability Pact has been interpreted and the consequences that this interpretation may have on the very process of development and cohesion in Europe. The Stability Pact is a global commitment, which combines the realism of a specific macro-economic scenario with a healthy concern for the consolidation of public finances. The Pact should be interpreted in its entirety and, obviously, if one of the terms of the equation is altered, the other term must be adjusted and made flexible. I do not want to get into an argument with the followers of the school of single thought, who have, unfortunately, come to play a leading role on the European economic policy scene. But I cannot refrain from stating that any true defence of the Growth and Stability Pact requires, first and foremost, an understanding of it. Now, understanding it means that it is correct to agree, in an unfavourable international situation, to accommodate the unavoidable loss of income and the consequent increase in the public deficit, provided it does not exceed 3%, as Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck rightly stated. This cannot and must not be confused with any laxity or inefficiency by the revenue authorities, much less with relinquishing in the medium term a policy of adjustment supported by budgetary procedures and a serious and ongoing effort to control public spending and improve administrative efficiency at every level. Controlling and streamlining public spending are worthy objectives. We are not, therefore, talking about a revision or cancellation of the Stability Pact. Consolidating spending does not mean irrationally demanding a linear reduction of deficits. It does mean considering that in the medium term budgetary balances from one year should be balanced with those of the next.

Political group: PSE
In a bid to safeguard industrial peace in urban areas, the price of the food package has been kept artificially low for dozens of years now. The only way farms could survive was to scale-up and undergo mechanisation. That made them heavily dependent on loans. There is a lot of money about in the agricultural sector these days, but that does not appear to be a guarantee for a good income or safeguard the future of the business. My colleague Mr Salvador Jové is only too aware of the bad position which southern European small farmers and farm labourers find themselves in. Within the existing structure of extensive agricultural subsidies, he is looking for a majority to reach a compromise which will do more to safeguard the chances of survival of this group of farmers. I support his view, as long as this results in income support for those on incomes which are too low. If I were to have my way, I would invest less funds in agriculture but within this sector, give more to the poorest. This line of thinking is at odds with the idea that Europe should collect more taxpayers’ money to subsidise the richest and most profitable businesses. The growing Dutch glasshouse horticulture, which yields a large volume of vegetables, fruit and flowers in a small space, is in a much stronger position than cereal or dairy farms. Since it appears from Appendix III that glasshouse horticulture does not benefit from the proposed subsidy scheme for vegetables and fruit, I am putting my objections on hold for the time being.

Political group: GUE-NGL
This report does not address the fundamental issue of the problem of demand in the EU and makes no assessment of the economic and employment guidelines that addresses the current economic crisis and the increase in unemployment. The cause it suggests is the ‘rigidity of the European economy’, which prevents it from ‘reacting swiftly to external shocks’. The problem lies in what rigidity we are talking about. We do not use the word ‘rigid’ of current monetary policy, which sets the same requirements for interest and exchange rates for countries with differing needs and different levels of inflation, thereby reducing regions’ ability to react to asymmetric economic events. This ability is further weakened by the Community budget, which does not make up the shortfall in Member States’ redistribution and solidarity needs. We do not call the budgetary policy contained in the Stability Pact ‘rigid’, even though this determines levels of public investment, including the application of the structural funds, and endangers crucial public services and areas that are vital to innovation and productivity, such as investment in education, health and research and development. The report insists on greater flexibility in pay and in the labour market, which contributes to pay disputes and to job instability. It wishes to see greater flexibility in the products market, in particular by pursuing the approach of privatising, liberalising and deregulating the markets. Hence our vote against the report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I as an EU citizen feel greatly affected by the fact that it was possible for this disaster to take place. This is yet another disaster, although we said after the last one that it was too late to lock the stable door after the horse had bolted. The stable door had clearly not been locked. The facts had not been sufficiently spelled out, something for which the politicians are at fault. I agree with Mrs de Palacio when she states that the Council has failed to assume its responsibility. It has done a disservice to the people who live along the Spanish coast, a disservice to the fishing industry, a disservice to the environment and, above all, a disservice to transport by water, a topic to which we want to devote so much attention. It is particularly unfortunate that we need another disaster to put this topic on the agenda. I also think that we should adopt this resolution and that we all need to ensure that it is accepted across the political spectrum so as to avoid another repeat. After all, citizens are not concerned with which political body is responsible for this. They are left to pick up the pieces, so they need help. I think it is our joint duty to keep a very close eye on this and also to monitor the implementation of the solution of the problem which we are now facing. I see that the first towed hopper dredges are now at work. However, according to the weather forecast, the winds will pick up this evening and then we are back to square one tomorrow. In short, I hope that, given this thick crude oil, you will also ensure that oil can possibly be drained from the actual tanker.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, regarding the order in which amendments would be voted, I would suggest that when we look at those amendments referring to the date we take first those furthest away from the Commission's proposal, which includes a date. Those would be Amendment 68 from Mr Bowe and others, followed by Amendments 10, 64, 25 and 24. That would be a more logical order, given that they are furthest away from the Commission's suggestion. I hope the voting lists can be changed along those lines.

Political group: PSE
We all know that alcohol consumption is high, with all of the unfortunate consequences that this entails, specifically when young people are concerned. As a recent survey of fifteen- and sixteen-year-old adolescents revealed, the highest levels of excessive consumption are seen in Ireland, the United Kingdom and in Denmark. It is these last two, however, together with Finland, France and Sweden, that have the highest percentages of young people who have been drunk at, or under, the age of 13. Studies that have been carried out show a strong link between alcohol consumption and anti-social behaviour such as violence, and that immoderate consumption of alcohol is a proven factor in unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, crime and road traffic accidents. Furthermore, consumer habits acquired in youth can also affect health and set longer-term consumption patterns, which means that we must not only give a commitment to health promotion, education and information policies, but also to measures limiting alcohol consumption by children and adolescents and structural actions in the field of treating young people and helping them to better adapt to society. The Commission’s proposal, however, is extremely superficial and starts from the premise that those who stand to benefit from alcohol sales will work to prevent greater consumption amongst children and adolescents, which is quite a utopian idea, as is well known. The rapporteur goes somewhat further in her proposals, and tries to lay down certain rules and stresses the need for more precise codes of conduct, but what is really needed is for the Member States to pay greater attention to this problem.

Political group: GUE-NGL