GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Can I ask the Commissioner: if this morning's debate is anything to go by, Parliament will probably accept the common position subject to the en bloc agreed amendments. But I am slightly at a loss to know exactly what that will mean in this particular area. So perhaps the Commissioner could clarify, for example: if an application for embryonic stem cell research came from the UK, or from Italy, or from Germany, would there be EU funding in each of those cases?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too would like to refer first to aspects of research and development that can be the driving forces generating value for businesses. I agree with Mr Linkohr that it would be useful to open a debate on Mr Lange’s contribution. Unfortunately this is not possible. I should like to present one example. If Europe eventually takes the decision to actively support and promote clean technology, research and development in that field will become an obvious source of employment and investment in the Union. One of the major challenges currently facing the international community concerns implementing the Kyoto Protocol and meeting its objectives. This has generated heated debate between the industrial world and the administration. In my view, widespread application of cleaner technology is one solution, precisely because it would facilitate the reduction of polluting emissions. The competitive and dynamic Europe we are all hoping for is unlikely to emerge without investment in such technology. My second and last point is a corollary of the first. It is absolutely vital to be far more active in promoting the efficient use of natural resources. The reason is, quite simply, that decoupling economic growth and the increased use of resources is a sine qua non for ensuring the continuity of sustainable growth. It is also crucial to the creation of a knowledge-based Europe. Such a Europe would be a world leader in terms of competitiveness and full employment. It is the Europe we are all striving for.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I should like to thank Mr Bébéar for his excellent report. NEPAD is a vision, a concept in the minds of African heads of state, covering the whole African continent, and sets out a strategic framework for Africa's renewal. This vision must include a democratic voice via a parliament and the involvement of civil society. It is, however, the African Union that should be the main instigator of policies laid down under NEPAD, based on regional integration. The objectives and principles are everything that we in Europe would ask for and insist on, including eradication of poverty, raising the status of Africa on the world scene, making good governance a basic requirement, building a peaceful, secure and stable continent able to energise its economies to take advantage of world trade, and trying to ensure that the millennium development goals in the area of health and education are met. In Europe we are already assisting with all these objectives. We must continue to support and encourage the NEPAD vision, but action would speak louder than words. It will take very large sums of money to achieve these goals. One can only hope that the oil-rich states will contribute. With peace and stability, there are huge natural reserves that could also help them achieve their vision. With a peer review body, one hopes that the heads of African states will now take responsibility for their own destiny and that the problems of instability and poverty will be eradicated, with human rights being a top priority, especially for women and children.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, before discussing the budget, I would like to convey our good wishes to our Commissioner, Mr Fischler, on his birthday today. We are particularly pleased that he is here for the budget, but also that he is celebrating his birthday with us. We appreciate that very much. This is not the only support I am giving this Commissioner, as my words will also be critical of the Council and will contain support for the Commission’s policy. For the sake of clarity, much has changed in the budgetary system. Amongst other things, pre-accession aid for the new members has been added to the agricultural budget. What is particularly striking, though, is that the Council has cut the Commission’s original preliminary draft of the budget right down to the bone. For a start, a distinction has again been drawn between the old or existing Member States and the new Member States. The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development regrets that. A linear reduction has also been made, however, which amounts to a considerable sum in many cases. A linear reduction has been implemented ruthlessly in budget amounts of more than a billion in particular. I would like to say this to the Council: you must realise that the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development stands four square behind the Commission. It wants the approbations included in the preliminary draft of the budget reinstated. I can understand that the general rapporteur, Mr Mulder, wanted to submit a block amendment that includes this. This is also urged in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development’s report. It would be a good thing if the Council were to realise this, particularly given the fact that next year will be a difficult year; a complete review of our agricultural policy and the accession of new Member States. The Council must therefore realise that it is essential that the Commission be given sufficient financial leeway to implement this policy. I would like to mention some of the various items. It is true that we are aiming for a more market-compliant policy, but at the same time the Council wants to make too many cutbacks, which the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development considers unacceptable. To begin with the school market programme; we propose earmarking an additional 10.3 million for this. We also refer to the support for young farmers and for future-oriented and innovative projects. I am referring to the LEADER programme and the SAPARD programme. If it were up to the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, there would be an extra 144 million. The same applies to promotion, control and prevention. With regard to the latter point, I would like to say that we must not allow more cutbacks on the veterinary funds and the emergency funds for animal diseases to be made. We want 30 million extra for these two items.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, asylum policy is one of the hottest and most sensitive issues on the Community agenda. The last elections abounded with depressing examples of political advantage being taken of situations linked to asylum and immigration issues. The fact is that the drafting of mistaken asylum and immigration policies has contributed to the terrifying increase in xenophobic and racist reactions, which we can only condemn. Hence the need, which is greater than ever, for common immigration and asylum powers, confirmed once again at the Laeken Summit, which reiterated the need for a common asylum and immigration policy to be adopted by 2004. In fact, it is the Europeans citizens themselves who are hoping and calling for action that will add a European value to national policies, whose limitations are becoming increasingly clear, both in terms of security policies and of policies for safeguarding rights and fundamental freedoms. The proposal we are debating today supports the introduction of an open coordination mechanism, in which the implementation of a coordination policy must function as an incentive and as a means of harmonising national legislations and practices. We agree with the comments that Commissioner Vitorino has just made to the House underlining the need for legislative measures to be adopted at Community level. We agree with him not only when he refers to the need for this legislation and to strengthen the Community-led approach that he mentioned, but also because this mechanism, instead of representing genuine communitarisation, is a process that denies the European Parliament an active role in this process. It is also crucial that we create an equitable and effective asylum procedure, because this asylum procedure has frequently been the easiest means of gaining access to Union territory. Although we must be able to separate issues that must remain separate, specifically what falls under asylum and what falls under immigration, it must nevertheless be emphasised that it is equally crucial that we establish a common immigration policy that is rational and credible and which necessarily involves a policy of integrating these immigrants, and of effectively combating illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings. Not only for reasons of humanity, but also because we are constantly aware that this is also necessary in order to reduce the pressure that has been afflicting the asylum system.

Political group: PPE-DE
We have, of course, voted against the joint resolution on the WTO because we are opposed to the capitalist system, and to all international organisations that represent it. We have also voted against or abstained on most of the amendments because, even though they contain good intentions on making the capitalist world a better place, they are simply participating in the overall dishonesty. It will take more than a few stopgap measures in the shape of amendments by the European Parliament to improve capitalism.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the report before us gives the EU carte blanche to establish a military intervention capacity. I regard that as unacceptable. In the early part of 1990, when it was foreseeable that the Warsaw Treaty would collapse, the Government of the German Democratic Republic which I headed adopted a new military doctrine based on freedom from nuclear weapons, on international security partnership and on gradual disarmament. Non-use of force was our principle. The end of the confrontation between the two blocs had rendered NATO superfluous. Yet instead of dissolving itself, NATO is mutating from a defensive into an offensive power and alliance and is spreading its radius of action ever further eastward. The arguments advanced today for the creation of an EU intervention force resemble those that have been put forward for the continuing existence of NATO. This move is not primarily designed to pacify trouble spots but rather to permit the use of military means to safeguard access to markets, raw materials and spheres of interest. I am in favour of the EU continuing to make peacekeeping the hallmark of its foreign and security policy and to detach itself from the apron strings of the United States. This, however, depends on a completely different set of conditions. First of all, the war that was fought against Yugoslavia in defiance of international law and the results of that war, such as the new tensions in southern Serbia, show that military force must not become a political instrument again. Secondly, NATO should be gradually winding down rather than engaging in eastward enlargement. Thirdly, a nuclear-free corridor, such as Olaf Palme once suggested, should be created from the Baltic to the Black Sea. Fourthly, the OSCE must be strengthened and endowed with enough resources for the prevention and resolution of conflicts in accordance with the fundamental principles of its security policy and not through the creation of storm troops. Fifthly, the United Nations should be asked to convene a world peace summit, at which lessons can be drawn from the wars of the twentieth century so that the peoples of this earth will be offered the prospect of a peaceful twenty-first century. Europe could set an example here, and the creation of an intervention force is surely the wrong signal for it to send.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, most people now realise that Nice was a flop, apart perhaps from those who think that Europe should tread water. So it comes as no great surprise to learn that a broad post-Nice discussion is now underway. It seems to me to be absolutely crucial for the Commission to keep the upper hand in this discussion, particularly as it will now culminate in a number of procedures to be established at the Laeken Summit. Parliament has now taken the initiative to produce an interim report by the summer and a definitive report by the end of the year, i.e. shortly before the Laeken Summit. Despite this preparation, it would be useful to set down a few markers now. Our group would also like to do the same in this debate. First and foremost, we must establish what the most serious shortcomings of the Treaty of Nice are, so that the post-Nice agenda has the right content. We believe we should be chiefly concerned with improving the democratic quality of the Union. The mistake made in Nice, i.e. the go-ahead that was given to start deciding on certain issues by qualified majority voting but without affording Parliament codecision rights, is indefensible, because it puts the national parliaments, as well as the European Parliament out of the picture. This will have to be rectified. In addition, the highly complex decision-making processes will have to be reformed. The new rules can no longer be explained to the people, which surely cannot have been the intention. In this debate, I do not find the discussion about producing a clear demarcation of the areas that form part of the policy of Member States and those that fall within the Union’s remit, to be threatening. On the contrary, I feel it is step in the right direction. It would be better still if such a clear division of labour could be linked with the European constitution. Finally, we must put a stop to the endless series of IGCs, which largely consist of officials. It would be far preferable to adopt the convention model, as used for drawing up the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It is my fervent hope that the Commission will withdraw its idea to set up a forum, because a broad body of this kind is not suitable for reaching sound decisions. Moreover, a convention has the advantage that the national parliaments can take part as well.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we in the European Parliament's SAARC delegation had an opportunity in April to see for ourselves the conditions in which tens of thousands of refugees have been living for years in the camps in eastern Nepal. The assistance from the European Union and the international organisations is quite respectable, but no one can guarantee long-term financial aid at that level. It is high time that substantial agreements were reached. Bhutan and Nepal are not neighbours, but they are close to each other in spirit. Both are kingdoms, both have parliamentary systems with short histories, one is Buddhist and the other is Hindu. Both are aware that lasting conflict will paralyse their national and economic progress. Bhutan criticises Nepal on the grounds that its constant changes of government make it incapable of action. That has changed. Nepal accuses Bhutan of not being ready to adopt effective solutions. I hope that will change. The undertakings given by the Bhutanese Foreign Minister when he visited us in Brussels on 8 June have been honoured, as crucial negotiations began mid-year. There is agreement on the four categories of people living in the refugee camps. However, there has to be a common definition of the term ‘family’ for the purposes of the compromise put forward by the UNHCR, which Mr Collins has referred to. Nepal has already agreed. We are also appealing to India to stop primly holding back. It is linked with both neighbours through agreements and economic ties. There are 6 million Nepalese working in India. The borders are open, and there are no asylum problems. I am very familiar with the charter stipulating that bilateral conflicts should not be resolved at SAARC level. Nevertheless, the largest democracy in the world does have the greatest influence in the region and bears some humanitarian responsibility here. Some movement is discernible. The Group of the is putting its faith in far-sighted people of good will in Thimphu, in Kathmandu, and also in Delhi. We are hoping that the talks in New York between the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the Prime Ministers of Bhutan and Nepal will lead to a decisive breakthrough.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, this is indeed a matter of an amendment to a Regulation by means of which competence would be transferred from the Council to the Commission. With this amendment to the Regulation, the Commission would be empowered to amend the list of goods not covered by Annex 1. The Commission already has this power in the area of agricultural produce, such as grain, sugar, rice and eggs. It would be logical if this power were extended to cover milk products. This would be the case as a result of the amendment. When we consider that funds set aside for aiding exports will dwindle in a couple of years from EUR 587 million to EUR 415 million, as a result of WTO agreements, it would be a good thing if the Commission had the power to examine the list of goods. There are many goods for export that also contain substantial amounts of non-milk products, such as yoghurt containing sugar and fruit, and yet dairy products attract export subsidies. This being the case, the question here is very much one of logic, allowing us to proceed in the same way as with grain, sugar, rice and eggs. It is also very much a question of budgetary discipline, of being able to observe budgetary discipline consistently in the years to come, as appropriations for exports grow scarcer. There has been some discussion that the transfer of power from the Council to the Commission might not be such a good thing. My own view on this, and on such situations as this, is that it is what we call a zero-sum game. We must be logical and adopt the right use of power and the right course to do our job as well and as consistently as possible. This has nothing whatsoever to do with shifting the balance of interinstitutional power. I think it is rooted in common sense, and a very far-reaching sense of consistency. In my opinion, in the future, when prices and situations change rapidly in the world markets, this is the way we should be able to progress with regard to practical matters and react quickly. I believe the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development is also unanimous on this. This amendment to the Regulation must be made. It will be a very good and positive move for everyone, and agricultural and dairy producers in particular.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, it is possible that the rules concerning immunity which exist in many national parliaments, and also in our European Parliament, are in fact an historical remnant which is really not needed. As long as these rules exist, however, they must apply equally to everyone. In the case of Mr Brie’s crime, which we are now discussing, this clearly relates, in the first place, to political activity. It is a matter of a demonstration. What is more, his crime really only has to do with the administrative rules in the police regulation and of his not having sought and obtained prior permission in accordance with these. This is, of course, not enough to justify waiving immunity for, in that case, serious offences need to have been committed, for example assault or some other crime or an action which puts other people’s lives and security in danger. This case is concerned only with a purely administrative violation. I understand that the same view has been expressed by members of different parties in Germany. I therefore think that the matter is quite clear. On behalf of my group, I would therefore express support for the draft decisions tabled by the rapporteur. IN THE CHAIR: MR PROVANVice-President President. – That concludes the debate.The vote will take place at 5.30 p.m.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, on a point of order. In your legal tour d'horizon you seem to imply that at some point the UK authorities had asked for my immunity to be waived – or that is how it came through in the interpretation. I should like to assure you that never happened, although I did give evidence in a case which involved a Member for whom a similar request was made.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to start by expressing my thanks to Mr Maat. I think he has approached this subject in a very realistic way, many years of discussions on animal transport mean that, in my view, an emotional approach is no more use to us. Nobody, when talking about animal transport, means the kitten in the hand luggage on an aircraft, and nobody mentions the little dog on a lead on the Intercity train and certainly not the racehorse in its specialised horsebox on the motorway. No, in the Maat report we are discussing the well-being of animals on their way to be slaughtered. Now, I have been in this House for a very long time, and so it is to the Commissioner that I am speaking when I say this: On paper, or so it seems to me, we have produced variations on this theme for years, and we have been constantly demanding more. All the same, we are still repeatedly shocked by the often intolerable situations revealed in individual cases by the checks, which are far too few and far between. Better transport conditions are wanted not only, indeed, by campaigners against cruelty to animals, but also by producers and consumers. In reports and amendments, we demand expert staff, purpose-built vehicles with adequate space for the animals to lie down in, ventilation, supplies of food and water and, for animals for slaughter, journey times limited to a maximum of eight hours. The proposal to end the payment of export refunds for live animals is one which I find quite crucial and also particularly deserving of support. There are objections to this, amounting in the final analysis to this being an interference with the market. Even Jewish ritual slaughter is brought into the argument. I could smile a little at that, for even that is now possible in the EU. It would be better to transport the meat afterwards. Commissioner, I find that a person's weak spot is very often his or her wallet or purse. More inspection, more controls, high penalties and loss of the licence where offences are found to have been committed, these would bring about more effective improvements for us all.

Political group: PPE-DE
I cannot support the present resolution because, in paragraph 8, an individual factory in Italy is singled out with the express wish that precisely this establishment should remain in place, while the current management is being advised to try to sell the factory to a European tyre manufacturer. It is not the European Parliament’s business to express an opinion on which factories in the European Union’s 15 Member States are to remain in place and which are to be shut down; to expand their work forces or reduce them; stay in the same location or else move; be sold or not be sold; and, in the case of those which are to be sold, to comment on whether they are to be sold to companies within or outside Europe. Ultimately, it is a question of different spheres of authority, where the European Parliament and its Members do not have any legal means of changing the current corporate decision or do not even have a particularly deep knowledge of the situation in the factory as it stands. The Swedish would emphasise the value of the European Union’s and the European Parliament’s concentrating on their basic tasks and not undermining the value of their actions in these areas by also acting in areas outside their jurisdiction. IN THE CHAIR: MR COLOM I NAVALVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE