GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, this Commission communication comes in response to the provisions of the Council Regulation on the Special Framework of Assistance for traditional ACP banana producers, whose objectives are to improve the competitiveness and support the diversification of agricultural production in those countries. I would like to emphasise that significant sums, about EUR 44 million, were allocated to this aid project in both 2001 and 2002, and that the Commission has told us the results of the programme for those two years. It gives me particular pleasure to say, firstly, that efforts to diversify production increased during that period, and, secondly, that those efforts were based on incentives for agricultural and rural development projects. Both of these achievements fulfil or express desires noted as objectives by both the Commission and Parliament when this programme was approved. I ought to mention, however, that some problems have been encountered. The Commission is undoubtedly aware of them, but they should be solved through the prompt adoption of certain corrective measures. Firstly, there have in some cases been significant and repeated delays, not attributable to any individual’s deliberate wishes, in mobilising and implementing appropriations over the last few years. These delays, however, have as a rule created significant difficulties for farmers in the producing countries, some of which are among the 40 poorest countries on the planet. Some of these farmers have told us of their doubts and, particularly in the case of West African farmers, of their disagreement with the methods used by the Commission to assess farmers’ competitiveness, on which the Commission’s criteria for allocating appropriations are based. This assessment method takes into account average production costs, insurance and transport fleets as detailed by Eurostat. These figures, though, do not constitute a single definition. That causes mistakes of more than minimal significance in some cases. They are sometimes very significant mistakes, to the detriment of some of these countries. Commissioner, I am concerned at the decline in the amount of assistance allocated in the 2003 budget, especially as we approach the changeover from the current system to a tariff only system. That changeover may have very negative effects, not only on production in traditional ACP countries, but also on European banana-producing regions, if, when the moment comes for us to move from the current system to the tariff only system, we are unable to adopt the right measures. I will conclude by appealing for two concrete changes which are very important to Parliament and also, I hope, to the Commission: greater efforts to avoid any delays in payment from now on; and assessments of growing and production methods, with the aim of withholding funding from those projects having a negative effect not only on the environment but also on the health of banana workers in producing countries. The use of biodegradable substances in the banana-growing process should become a priority here.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this is really a debate for the initiated and we are using the twelfth language of the Community, the budget. Commissioner, the Copenhagen figures, as I understand it, are budget figures, while what we are discussing now, in relation to your presentation, are financial perspective figures. In other words, the financial perspectives – the headings – may be greater than the budgetary sums approved in Copenhagen. Is this correct? Is that what the Commission is going to say, that we should take the Copenhagen figures as a minimum and go further, in case the needs are greater than the Council’s estimates?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the question is simple. Is it a good agreement and did the Commission have the authority to conclude this agreement? My group want a legal opinion on this. The Commission really cannot be against that, even if they are convinced that everything is OK. Commissioner Patten just said that the agreement is better than nothing. I do not agree with that. The Commission has got a number of restrictions through, but the agreement still covers too many data and they are kept for a ridiculously long time. Privacy is not sacrosanct, but infringements must be proportionate. I think, therefore, that we must take the negotiations with the United States further. If the United States does not want to do that, then we simply do not give them those data. Of course that will mean that the US will ask the passengers for that information at the airports, but then citizens will see immediately how much information we are talking about and I think that in this way you will organise resistance on another front. I think that is very important. It is a matter of having the political will to ensure that our own European laws are complied with. I think it is the duty of the Commission to make sure that these are monitored. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, as has been pointed out, the influence of the European Union in Latin America is important from an economic and commercial point of view, but also from a political point of view, and this is characterised by our encouraging a type of relationship which favours egalitarian treatment – cooperation and the promotion of democracy – and this is completely opposed and different to that which has for centuries originated from Big Brother, in the north of the continent. For this reason, we consider it appropriate and necessary to show our solidarity and support for the democratic régime in Paraguay and to reject coups d’état and support democracy. The prosecution of Oviedo, the perpetrator of coups d’état, must be taken as an opportunity to make progress on the road to democracy, but we are also obliged to mention that democracy will not be consolidated in Paraguay unless social justice is improved, the eternal problems of social inequality are eliminated and the problems of unemployment and discrimination are brought to an end. We can help considerably in this field, by appropriately implementing the contents of the European Union’s agreements with the Mercosur countries and in particular the agreement with Paraguay, which is so necessary. We therefore believe that our action in this area can be decisive and we would also like to express our full support for the joint resolution which we have signed.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, free access to port services is very important for guaranteeing honest competition in ports. Competition between ports is also important, so the Commission must ensure greater transparency in government investments that benefit the ports. The present directive got off to a messy start, but we now finally have a good document on the table. I would like to say something about two matters. Firstly, self-handling. Today and last week, there were dock workers demonstrating outside the Parliament buildings. They have every right to do so, but if ever there was a directive that took account of all the rights and interests of the dock workers, then it is this directive. Their position and social standing is extremely well protected by various articles in the directive, right up to their training and professional qualifications. Even if the port employers wanted to, it will not be possible to work with poorly trained, unqualified workers who could be a threat to the safety of the ports. What we do want to set straight, however – and everyone is always talking about workers’ rights, Mr Bouwman – is that employers have rights too, even if nobody ever stands up for them. The employer’s right to know whom he will be working with is, I think, the employer’s right. I therefore do not support Amendment No 13 in which self-handling is again toned down – in a definition, would you believe. In order to guarantee that every Member State has regulations in which everything is guaranteed, I have tabled Amendment No 28, as we had promised in consultation with the FNV. The second point of interest is pilotage services. I wholeheartedly endorse the Council’s viewpoint on this matter. In the formulation of the Council, Member States may liberalise their pilotage services if they want to, but they must do so under the directive. In other words, with all the protection and professional qualifications that this entails. I am not in favour of removing pilots from the directive. Anyway, what else is this directive about? The common position forms a balanced text which we should not tinker with too much. Important points such as the provisions on transparency, the duration of licences, new ports and arrangements concerning the compensation that service providers have to pay when buying themselves out of a contract period, are in my opinion plain and clear. The compensation arrangement can, in my opinion, best be arranged between the market parties concerned without outside interference. The text of the common position does far more justice to the great diversity of situations and regulations on this point than the amendments tabled.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Minister, Commissioner, it is a somewhat peculiar experience to be talking about the Middle East here a few hours after the impressive and emotional presentation of the Sakharov Prize to Mrs Peled and Mr Ghazzawi. But it is just that – the existence of wise people on both sides of the line who have managed to remain tolerant under tragic personal circumstances – it is precisely the existence of people of this kind that makes it meaningful and necessary for us to continue to search for a solution to a problem that at first glance seems so hopeless. It is to the cynics in this room, and particularly those outside Parliament, that I say: yes, the European Union has its own special role to play. We will not succeed without the Americans, but neither will we succeed with the Americans alone. What does that mean from my point of view? It means that the European Union must be critical of both sides; critical towards Israel with regard to her reoccupation of Palestinian areas, the erection of blockades and extrajudicial executions. On the other hand, however – and let there be no misunderstanding on this point – critical of the Palestinian authorities who could have done more and must do more in the future to combat terrorist attacks and dismantle networks. However, whilst we wish to keep a balance, let us not forget that this is not a struggle between two equal parties. It is the State of Israel that bears prime responsibility for the current conflicts and their resolution. This means that we must exert as much pressure as possible on Israel to find a solution. This means exerting pressure in order to prevent them from finding ways out and excuses for not starting negotiations when they could in fact be taking place. This also means exerting pressure on Israel to distance herself from the kind of thinking which, for example, equates Arafat with Bin Laden. This is a highly dangerous comparison which will only serve to make it extremely difficult for a solution to be found. We also owe it to the winners of the Sakharov Prize to do all we can to keep their hope alive.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, first and foremost, I should like to quote a great Dutch philosopher, Michels, a famous football coach who once said that football is war. I would prefer to suggest that if football is an alternative to war then I am in complete agreement with that. I do not intend to talk about the World Cup in France here, but there are a few general points I wish to make. I believe that football, and international fixtures in particular, are indeed a valuable alternative to war, however silly that may sound. Football should be a celebration, and international fixtures such as World Cups or European Championships really ought to belong to the people again. What we are seeing now, and what happened last year in France, is a perfect illustration of this. What ought to be a celebration for the people has, to some extent, become a completely commercialised celebration. We can see that the same thing is tending to happen with national football competitions throughout Europe. These show that football is becoming less and less accessible to ordinary people and has to some extent become a celebration of business, with people tucked away behind plate glass windows and in comfortable business lounges. That is why I want to call on the Commissioner to take positive action for a sport that must remain accessible to ordinary people and that must be protected from commercial interests. Of course, the same applies to competitive cycling, where cyclists sometimes inject themselves with the same hormones that cattle are injected with. On the same note, I would ask the Commissioner to actually produce a policy that is no longer concerned with imposing fines on organisations that have infringed some competition regulation or other, but is, in every sense, a policy aimed at controlling those big organisations and ensuring that European Championships and World Cups that are held in Europe really do continue to be celebrations for the people and not celebrations of business.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, I wish to begin by thanking Mr Della Vedova for an excellent report that has the full support of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party. If I were to grade different areas of responsibility within the EU, issues of competition would be among the most important. The work you do, Mr Monti, is of the greatest importance if the market economy is to operate, if Europe is to be able to grow, if there is to be a business-oriented EU and if all European consumers are to be given a choice in respect of low prices and high quality. Trying to strike a balance between the interests of companies and those of the consumer is not always simple, but I respect you for the work you have done. It is of necessity that the concentration rules are now being reviewed and modernised. The market is changing. Competition is increasing, and internationalisation and globalisation give rise to different basic conditions. We are entitled to demand that the EU’s concentration rules be legally secure and predictable, that investigations and assessments be genuine and rapidly carried out and that both the Commission’s and the national authorities’ rules be clear. These are things we are entitled to demand, Mr President. The Della Vedova report further strengthens the Commission’s proposals in these respects. We believe it would be a step in the wrong direction to enlarge what is called the concept of dominance. Allow me to touch upon the amendments by the Group. The Commission should be able to have a more dynamic and long-term perspective when the market basis is assessed in the case of concentrations and be able to see the common market in a global context. That applies in purely general terms but, in particular, it is important for leading companies in smaller countries to be able to grow stronger, within their own countries as well, and to do so with a view to providing more jobs within the whole of the EU and to increasing competitiveness outside the EU too. We are sympathetic towards the amendments by the Group of the . The employees’ viewpoints are, of course, important, but concentrations of that type should, in our view, not be regulated in this context.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, on a point of order, when I inquired this morning about the time of this debate I was told it would start shortly after 3 o'clock. When I came for this debate at 3 o'clock I was told it would be taking place later, towards 5 o'clock. Clearly there is pressure on our agenda today. I wish to put forward a proposal that might relieve pressure on the end of today's agenda, namely, the debate previewed for the late payments directive – the report of the conciliation procedure with the Council. This is an issue which is now entirely without contention. Everybody supports this matter. The rapporteur, the shadow rapporteur and the chairman of the committee would all support a suggestion that this be turned into a vote without debate. That would end pressure on the agenda right at the end of this evening. Possibly we could have a vote on it now.

Political group: PPE-DE
I am very sorry, Madam President, but there is a problem of exactness here. Yesterday, Mr Busquin told us, entirely officially, that in the European Union’s negotiations with the United States, the latter’s position has not changed on the convention and the protocol on biological weapons. ‘There has been no change’ he said. He repeated ‘on my question'. I feel that there should not be such a lack of exactness in Parliament. This paragraph must simply be withdrawn. This is not a political issue but one of remaining faithful to the truth. (The President noted that there was no opposition to considering this oral amendment) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Joint motion for a resolution(2) on the economic and employment situation in the air transport sector and in the industrial and related services sectors

Political group: GUE-NGL
The Liberal Democrat delegation did not vote with the rest of the Group on the Schmidt report. We voted against Amendments Nos 1 to 13 and the proposal, as we wished the proposal in its current form to be withdrawn. Our reason for doing so is that we believe VAT on postal services, especially in respect of securing a universal service for packages below two kilogrammes, is a matter best left to national governments under the principle of subsidiarity. However, we remain open to considering future proposals aimed at ensuring greater competition.

Political group: ELDR
I am grateful for the courtesy of your reply, Commissioner, but I have to say that it does not fully respond to the very specific questions which I have put to you. I believe that the legal basis of Article 149 provides us with the opportunity to move forward a little more than the cautious Prague mandate. The concept of quality in education is more than a quantitative measure of the resources of the different systems or an evaluation of performance in certain academic disciplines. To my mind, the agenda of the Council of Education Ministers of 26 November could have made use of the proposal of a permanent committee on quality in education. In the light of the results of the first European report on quality in education, which this Parliament will take good note of, would it be possible for this committee or some other form of committee to provide common benchmarks in the area of the curriculum? I urge the Commission to face this challenge with political courage. We must go beyond the Prague mandate. We must go beyond the old debate between uniformity and national idiosyncrasies. The debate on quality in education must help us to duly open up European consciousness to the younger generations.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am very pleased that this debate is taking place as it enables us to put a number of questions to the Commission before we vote on the amendments in the budgetary procedure. In my first contribution of the afternoon, I would like to pause, as Mr Virrankoski did, at the implementation of the budget, as the political decisions which we take here with a lot of fuss often falter on that point. Money is shelved, or red tape hinders recipients of subsidies from spending the money properly and effectively. Mr Mulder, the rapporteur for the forthcoming budget, said just now that he wanted the Commission to be encouraged to increase the percentage of the money spent by putting part of the administrative credits in the reserve. Mr Mulder, and also possibly a majority in this House, are not yet convinced that all the items that the Commission asked for before enlargement are really necessary. A Commission official said the following in this regard: you are tying our legs together and still expecting us to be able to run the 100 metres faster. I think that the rapporteur’s concerns are legitimate, but I have doubts as to the means. I would therefore like to ask the Commissioner whether she can give us her opinion on this. What are the consequences of the reserves? How can you use them in a positive way? Even more importantly, do you think that we are on the right track by spending the money slowly? Up to now we have always put the emphasis on the quantitative side of this. Is it not time we focused more on the qualitative side of the solutions, like Mr Pittella is doing with the structural funds? That means that procedures would have to be simplified, that we would need less paper and more responsible officials. My last point with regard to spending the money properly concerns the fact that we often find that projects that are financed with EU resources often do not respect European environmental legislation. What happens when you discover this? Will the money be frozen or will some other more-or-less soft solution be found? One example of this is the bridge over the Tagus River. This was a project financed with EU funds in which the bird and habitat directives were not respected. There are more examples like this. I would like to know what the consequences are if it is discovered that EU-financed projects are violating EU legislation.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the decision made at the end of September by the Commission’s Directorate-General for Press and Communication regarding the end to subsidies for the operation of the European Info-Points and Carrefours has given rise to significant disappointment and significant surprise among their managers and staff. The citizens of the European Union will also be the losers as a result of this end to operating subsidies for 2004. Let us be frank: at a time when Europe is facing enormous difficulties in moving closer to the citizens and raising its profile, an undeniable gap is opening up once again. For example, the closure of the European Carrefours is a great loss as regards the information distributed in the most rural regions. The decentralised structures are an essential asset and given the immense amount of communications work to be done, these structures must be maintained, or even receive additional funding enabling them to play their role to the full. At a time when Europe is at an important turning point in its history, benefiting from a forthcoming enlargement and Constitution, it would be unacceptable to put an end to the necessary and vital aid of the Info-Points. In light of this context, we must combine all of our efforts to find a fair solution because we are all worried. The Info-Points are, and must continue to be, among the Community’s communication tools. Their activity and the efforts made by these structures have proved the effectiveness of their action. The Info-Points have always made every effort to carry out the role entrusted to them, in this case acting as an interface for a dynamic platform. Close to the citizens, they have made it possible to maintain a European social fabric. So are we going to remain deaf and mute in the face of the expectations of the public, who constantly need to be informed of our interinstitutional activities? Being aware of this need and convinced of the important role played by these structures, I call on the Commission to review its decision and to allow these European information networks to continue to perform the functions we have entrusted to them, which are more essential now then ever. I thank the Commissioner for being here and, in response to his comments, I will say that it is all the better if there are other documentation centres and forums that have the Commission’s support, but it does not disguise the fact that the information deficit is all too real and not appreciated by the public. If a legal basis is required – and this may well be the case – one must be established. However, a minimum amount of time is needed to resolve this type of problem and that does not mean four months, Commissioner. That seems to be much too short and the Commission’s methods far from courteous, so we hope that the proposal for a trialogue meets with a favourable response.

Political group: ELDR