GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, since I have been mentioned by the presidency, I would like to say that I have in fact received a reply, which I do not agree with. I do not agree with the presidency's interpretation of the questions made by Members of this House. I do not agree with it because it seems that that interpretation can be seen as a way of reducing the legitimate initiatives of Members to monitor the Commission. My question specifically asked whether the Commission – not the President, but the Commission – felt threatened by the words of a Spanish MEP, a member of the People's Party, in which he said that, if the Socialists criticised Mrs de Palacio for her involvement in the flax scandal which took place in Spain when she was Minister for Agriculture, they would threaten to bring down the Commission. If this is not considered by the presidency to be a priority, if this is not a question which, because it is not considered a priority, could not be answered by, for example, Vice-President Kinnock, then I am truly amazed. In any event, and while I express my disagreement, this is not what I wanted to say. Like my colleague, Mr Izquierdo, who was requesting support from the presidency, I wanted to say that it was unacceptable for replies addressed to Members of this House to be published in a pro-government newspaper in Spain, before the Members are made aware of that reply. And, while strongly protesting at this anomaly, I would ask you to consider my question withdrawn. I do not want the Commission to reply to the ABC newspaper before replying to me. And since I do not want the Commission to go through the shame of having to notify the Spanish press of its replies before the Members to whom they are addressed, I am not going to participate in this behaviour and I withdraw my question.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mrs Hassi, Commissioner, the issue under discussion concerns the outcome of the fifth conference on the Kyoto Protocol in Bonn. As clearly stated in our motion for a resolution, the results of the Kyoto Protocol are unsatisfactory on several accounts. Climate change is continuing, for which reason further strict measures for reducing greenhouse gases must be taken by 2010. It is already seven years since the Earth Summit in Rio where firm commitments were made without any really positive consequences having resulted to date. Regrettably, there is still a major element missing from this motion. This is the people. We should not forget that, regardless of the measures which may be taken by individual Member States or the European Union as a whole, it is the people as consumers who, through their habits and behaviour, will promote change and impose this on decision makers. There is therefore a real urgency for wide-ranging measures to now be adopted in order to involve the people in decision making on this subject. In this way, they will feel more responsible for the climate change phenomenon. This could be achieved, for example, through wider information campaigns bringing pressure to bear on people’s behaviour. Our resolution on the Kyoto Protocol, adopted in October, was clearly heading in this direction by demanding a coordinated strategy for informing the public in a clear, understandable and accessible manner. I am thinking, for example, of certain aerosols which we use extensively in our daily life. It is through these concrete and tangible measures that Europe will enter our homes and our habits. Finally, I must comment on the subject of a CO2/energy tax which the motion mentions in paragraph 14. Although I am not against the principle of taxing polluting emissions, I do believe that these measures must respect two principles. On the one hand they must try to guarantee tax neutrality and, on the other, they must cover the whole of the industrialised world, or at least the OECD, so that ecological dumping or competition distortions do not arise. Climate change is not inevitable, yet it is only by involving the main actors – people and industry – and by making them responsible that we will overcome the obstacles.

Political group: ELDR
This explanation of vote is intended solely to highlight what we see as a reversal of priorities as regards the budget, something that this report might be said to illustrate very fully indeed. First and foremost, it is only possible to discern the limits of budgetary restrictions once we look at how they operate and can be improved, and, almost importantly, how to deal with both existing and new requirements. By way of illustration, we wish to underscore the fact that for us multilingualism issues are not technical ones but rather of vital political importance. Similarly, the creation of a parliamentary assembly for the WTO is one which we have great reservations about, and not just for budgetary reasons. We will be referring on other occasions to the many other questions contained in this report. - Report: Gröner (A5-0081/2004)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, I also wish to thank the rapporteur on his work for a new organisation of the market. There are two basic factors here supporting all those speeches which express the desire to raise the status and underline the importance of these professions. The first one is that this is especially important for the regions – absolutely vital for large regions. The other is that we can produce a lot more – as we have heard here – because there is underproduction in this area. For that reason, all attempts to help and revive these products and this production trend, and highlight their importance, is work done for the common good – the cheapest and most economical of regional policies – and this is an area where agricultural sector has quite obvious shortcomings. Here, if anywhere, a certain sort of Robin Hood policy will be especially good and useful. I hope that when it comes to the vote, those of the opinion that we should start to move these matters forward, through greater investment, will win.

Political group: ELDR
Thank you, Mr President; in 2002, EUR 1.8 billion went astray as a result of fraud and irregularities, which amounts, approximately, to an increase of a cool 36% over the previous year, and the greatest increases are to be found in the areas of own resources and structural policy. That may be interesting, but there is nothing new about it. It all adds up to a sorry story, Commissioner, and you cannot put a positive spin on it. It could be said that fraud is continuing regardless. A 36% rate of increase may well be desirable in other areas, but it is nothing more or less than a disaster in the anti-fraud field. It actually reveals that you have nothing to show for the four and a half years that you have served as a Commissioner. Let us remind ourselves how the Prodi Commission took office in the autumn of 1999 grandiosely committing itself to, and demanding, zero tolerance for fraud and irregularities. Everything was to be different after the fall of the Santer Commission – and what happened? One might say that one scandal gave way to another. Let me remind you of the way you froze out the chief accountant after she said that the whole reform was not going as smoothly as you had told the outside world it was. You changed the Financial Regulation, but without, in my view, making it more transparent or any clearer; instead, you did it by way of a jungle of regulations that nobody, at the end of the day, knows their way around. Indeed, your cardinal error, in my view, was to do away with the independent position of Financial Controller, and to replace it with an internal audit service, one that is neither independent nor – it would appear – very appealing, in view of the fact that you will, in April, be losing its director, who is also making good his escape. An accounting system has come to light that is described quite rightly in the press as being ‘as full of holes as a Swiss cheese’ and ‘as open as a bank vault’. Finally, we have the Eurostat affair, with its secret accounts and losses acknowledged as totalling at least EUR 8 million. I do not mean it as praise, Commissioner, when I call that a fantastic result; only a cynic could congratulate you on it. As always, though, you are unaware of any wrongdoing. All the Commissioners responsible are simply wriggling out of it and hiding themselves in the regulatory jungle that they themselves have created. That none of this encourages any confidence on the part of the European public is evidently a matter of no concern to you; it would appear that the prevalent attitude is still that one can be more free and easy with Europe’s money than with that of the Member States.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I can already answer Mr Rübig's question. In a bit of horse-trading, Mr Chirac promised the Belgian Prime Minister that, from now on, all summits will be held in Brussels and that there will also be an additional plenary week in Brussels. I find this really quite dreadful: it contradicts the letter of the Treaty, and I hope that it will not happen.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too extend my congratulations on the important step to be taken at tomorrow’s vote. I would remind you that, in the Convention’s draft of the new constitution for the European Member States of the EU, we undertake to implement a policy intended to secure social, economic and environmental development on a sustainable basis. In that the environmental liability directive deals with the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, I see it as a logical consequence of our commitment to the European model of the environmentally responsible market economy, and so I very much welcome the fact that the polluter pays principle will apply from now on, and that businesses or other operators will be obliged to prevent damage to the environment and, where they have caused any, to repair it themselves or bear any necessary restorative costs. Reference has already been made to the evaluation process and to the agreement that has been reached to the effect that preventive and restorative work has to be carried out in close consultation with the operators. There are two flies in the ointment that I would like to mention; one is that this directive does not deal with nuclear liability. We find it incomprehensible that the polluter must be held liable for any environmental damage done by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, but not, according to this directive, when such pollution arises from the operation of nuclear power plant. I appeal to the Member States to ensure the exclusion from liability of normal operation permitted by the authorities and development risk, to neither of which it has as yet been possible to secure an explicit reference in law. We endorse the joint text.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, domestic work is the oldest work that women have carried out. This work has not been recognised or valued, either economically or socially. Today it is part of what we call the hidden economy and this has a negative effect on those who carry it out and also on states’ finances. However, it is a form of work with a flexible timetable, which is of great assistance in reconciling family life with professional life. Changes in family circumstances mean that this work is of increasing importance in the world of work, and it is therefore essential that this type of work be defined and that studies be carried out to assess the numbers of people involved. This is an area of work that must be fully recognised and that should be included in the directives on employment to regulate the social rights of the worker. The countries of the Union today have greatly differing situations, which should be standardised. The workers, mostly women, should be provided with access to training. The immigrant population is usually a significant group in this sector, and this requires special measures, such as specialised reception centres, which provide the necessary assistance. This initiative report is very timely, since it deals with a growing need within the labour market. Mrs Smet has done a wonderful job and of course we are going to support it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioner, the Group of the generally supports the report by the rapporteur, Mr Jové Peres. We are convinced that the Commission’s proposal is restrictive in budgetary terms, which would mean major financial cut-backs in the sector. It should be remembered that the fruit and vegetable sector is the first common organisation of the market to be financed by its own producers, so it is vitally important to encourage producer organisations and to support an increase in operational funds. It must be stressed that the fruit and vegetable sector represents a considerable percentage of final agricultural production in the European Union. Yet it only accounts for 4% of the EAGGF guarantee budget. It should also be remembered that there was broad consensus within the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development when this report was approved. I must mention the predominantly Mediterranean nature of this type of production, which affects several Member States. It is a sector which directly and indirectly generates a vast number of jobs, resulting in highly dynamic economic activity. In general terms it is the main source of income for almost two million families in Europe. It must be stressed that producer organisations, which will be strengthened and encouraged by the amendment introduced by the Agriculture Committee, are extremely important for the rural development of certain districts. Fruit and vegetable production is closely linked to the Mediterranean culture and diet, the greatest exponent of a balanced, healthy diet for our consumers. Therefore, an objective that producer organisations must prioritise is the encouragement of quality production. The fruit and vegetable sector, however, faces an uncertain future due in part to the erosion of Community preference in the Euro-Mediterranean free trade area, which may wipe out all the work that has been done. We must therefore maintain a constructive and vigilant attitude for the future.

Political group: Verts-ALE
It does not really need to be pointed out, but it was at the Laeken European Council that the recommendation was made, once again, to create a Euro-Mediterranean development bank to remedy the poor economic results of the countries on the southern shore of the Mediterranean and the social and political consequences thereof. Current growth in these countries, as the President-in-Office of the Council knows, falls considerably short of what is needed, not only to ensure sustainable development and to reduce poverty but to halt the massive exodus of hundreds and thousands of people who are looking desperately for an opportunity not to die in their own country. Does the Presidency not consider that the instrument they have decided on, yielding to the position put forward by Ecofin – which was not the position of the Spanish Presidency nor of most Council members – and which appears to be inadequate, is the product – to our way of thinking – of an unambitious and unclear decision, which pulls up short and is even, I would go so far as to say, a real step backwards, which can only be explained by the lack of ambition or by the absence of a clear strategy for the development of the countries of the southern Mediterranean?

Political group: PSE
We are in favour of Turkey’s being granted financial instruments and financial aid in proportion to its size and to its needs on the same basis as the other candidate countries. This particularly concerns the restructuring of agriculture, raising the profile of the rural environment and environmental protection. Any discriminatory action in this respect would penalise not the leadership of the authoritarian Turkish Government but the workers of that country. It would do nothing to support proper conditions for the necessary fight to impose respect for basic democratic rights, quite the opposite. The best way for the European Union to force the Turkish Government to meet its commitments, a method which is lacking in hypocrisy and which does not allow a pretext for further liberal pressure, which only in any case serve the interests of free trade in Europe, would be to support the democratic opposition. The initiatives by militants working for human rights, trade unionists and politicians may, if they are given sufficient funding to mobilise public opinion, make it possible to put an end to a regime which murders the Kurds, causes political prisoners to ‘disappear’, restricts the movements of detainees, tortures democrats and lets Öçalan stagnate on death row.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I believe that the problem cannot be resolved solely by means of Operation Ulysses, and so my question in relation to illegal immigration is this: what happened to the proposals to introduce a European border guard or European border police?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should first like to salute Mr Imbeni, the author of this report, and express my appreciation of his work. It is an excellent report which both identifies the main points of criticism and describes ways to ensure that ECHO is able to work effectively in the future. We have had this office for humanitarian aid in the EU since 1992, and both evaluation reports – which form the main basis of the assessment, together with the Commission's report – contain high praise for ECHO in respect of its work so far, while identifying several very serious weak points. Although the assessment of ECHO's work in terms of efficiency compared with costs, is very positive, there still remains the problem of the infamous ‘grey area’ in the time immediately following the events which trigger the provision of relief. Humanitarian operations in this ‘grey area’ cannot be assessed on the basis of precise criteria, nor do they provide the information and recommendations required for future ECHO operations in the area. It is therefore necessary, in my opinion, to improve disaster preparedness and step up the provision of disaster relief as a priority. It should be noted here that the regional approach adopted by the existing DIPECHO instrument offers a possible solution. At the same time, however, the lack of sufficiently flexible alternative instruments within the Commission is to be lamented. The Commission needs to present a clear strategy for the role which the humanitarian aid provided by ECHO has to play as part of foreign and development policy. ECHO does not have the necessary human resources to do the job of a planning headquarters. Staffing levels are below those characteristic of other Commission departments and well below those in national administrations, which are known to invest considerably less in crisis prevention. Here the appropriations, which currently stand at around EUR 7.5 million, therefore need to be at least – wait for it – quadrupled to allow the work to be done effectively. It is particularly regrettable – and Mr Imbeni has already made this point as well – that when projects are developed and run through partners, around 56% of which are non-governmental organisations, they are not identified strongly enough in the public arena as European Union aid. I believe that there is a considerable need for action here in the future. The public has to be informed, but please not with the funds which are directly available to ECHO. We should continue to pursue the positive initiatives here and use alternative sources of funding to defray the costs of informing the public.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner Prodi, I think that the statement you have made today demonstrates that the Commission does indeed intend to provide consumers with full guarantees as regards safe and healthy food. Today, I want to touch on three points which appear to me to be crucial if these guarantees are to be lived up to. First and foremost, we need effective legislation, at European level too, of course. You did indeed refer to 800 basic directives but in fact there are still huge gaps in this legislation. It just does not make sense for there only to be PCB and dioxin standards for Belgium, and for it not to be deemed necessary for other European countries. Neither does it make much sense to me that we are not to discuss how to proceed with pesticides, antibiotics and with other undesirable contaminants in food. I feel I have no choice but to agree with those here present who have called for a positive list to be compiled as regards cattle fodder, for you would not believe how much goes wrong there. A second important point appears to me to be the introduction of a sound supervisory system. You may say that responsibility for supervision should fall first and foremost to the Member States and indeed it should. However, the Committee of Inquiry in Belgium has shown that things are going badly wrong there. To my mind, it is extremely important for supervision to be undertaken in the same way in all Member States, for there to be guarantees for this supervision, for the supervisors themselves to be subject to supervision, and for the agency in Dublin to be given more autonomous authority to exercise supervision on its own initiative. My third and final point is one that I feel it is very important to touch on in today’s debate, namely that there is a real need for the work of all the departments concerned to be coordinated. We are all aware that there are many of them. Even though the Commission is being re-organised, it is still the case that a variety of departments are involved. President Prodi, Belgium has set up a food safety agency for this purpose. I feel it is also important for a coordinating body to be set up at European level, and that there is also a need for reliable, scientific advice, for coherent policy at European level. I welcome your announcement about the open debate that is to take place on the setting up of a European food agency. President Prodi, if this agency is to be independent of something then, to my mind, it is essential for it to be independent of industrial lobbying. When it comes to our food policy, we cannot allow commercial interests to take precedence over the interests of the consumer. We believe it is absolutely essential that an agency of this kind should always fall within the Commission’s sphere of political responsibility, and always be under the political control of the European Parliament. Equally, we feel it is essential that all the Directorates-General throughout the Commission’s administration should work together in an efficient manner. I hope that Commissioner Byrne will be able to fulfil his role as coordinator efficiently and effectively.

Political group: PSE