GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I add my congratulations to Mrs Maij-Weggen for an excellent report. It is quite clear that Parliament must get its own house in order after the agreements we have had vis-à-vis the Commission. Access is important but too much lip service is paid to access. I thought that at the beginning Mr Corbett was being rather congratulatory. I agree with him that we are moving in the right direction, but we still have a long way to go. I want to bring to Parliament's attention the specific problem that the Committee on Petitions is still experiencing with access to documentation. I know the problem here is largely the Commission, but it impacts on Parliament. A number of European citizens have petitioned this Parliament about problems with Lloyds of London. A very detailed questionnaire was sent to the British Government. Only Members of the Petitions Committee have been allowed to see that questionnaire; no other Members of Parliament. Even Members of the Petitions Committee, behind closed doors, are not allowed to have any legal advisers, or political advisers, and are not allowed to take copies. Nobody in Parliament has been allowed to see the reply from the British Government. Mr Bolkestein said that he cannot reveal this information because it could be subject to legal action by the Commission against the British Government. The British Government reply was that they would not let us see it because they regard it as an informal communication at the request of the Petitions Committee by the Commission. Twenty-one detailed questions to the British Government and the British Government says that it is an informal communication! We want some clarity here, so that we know precisely what we do and do not have access to. At present, Members, committees and Parliament itself cannot do their jobs properly because of excessive secrecy. I would certainly urge that a representative – the chairman of the Petitions Committee – should be on the Interinstitutional Committee so that citizens know that the Members of this Parliament who look after their interests ensure that this secrecy does not go any deeper than it does at present.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, guaranteeing public health is the objective of one of today’s most important areas of legislation. This is something to which this regulation will contribute, making traceability from farm to plate as effective as possible, as well as compulsory. At the same time, European consumers have the right to clear and easily understandable information, so that they know where the meat they are eating comes from. I am certain that the Council and Parliament can reach a good compromise on minced meat, in so far as Parliament adopts Amendments 4 and 6 which guarantee consumers information about where the minced meat comes from and when it was produced. I would ask all colleagues to vote in favour of Amendment 6 which Karl Erik Olsson and I have tabled with a view to making it compulsory for minced meat to bear a label stating the date when it was produced. Minced meat involves a much greater bacteriological risk for consumers than larger pieces of beef, so the production date is a very important piece of information. It is good that categories have been removed. The Council’s common position, together with Parliament’s six amendments, constitute legislation of benefit to agriculture and consumers in the EU.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, Commissioner, when developing any strategy, before starting to distort the past and adopt new operating guidelines, one must analyse how much has been achieved. It would now seem to be irrefutable that since 1996 – the year which saw a complete revision of the COM in processed fruit and vegetables – there has not been any form of discussion, even though it had always been intended, on the impact of the COM in that sector, despite the fact that it has reached its third year of application: a period of time that has to be seen as long enough for introducing any reform initiative. The interests of an entire industry are at stake, an industry which employs almost 2 million people in the central southern areas of the Mediterranean countries, universally acknowledged to be among the poorest countries in the European Union. The fruit and vegetable sector is struggling between production quotas and world-wide liberalisation of the markets for want of a policy for research into biotechnological innovations. It is the processing sector which feels the effects of the Marrakech international agreements most of all, even though it accounts for 16% of the value of European Union agricultural production. If the philosophy behind the new COM is to promote the system of associations of producer organisations as an alternative and a complement to the European economic system of large-scale distributors, it would be appropriate for this policy to be bolstered with the financial resources needed to implement the operational programmes, ensuring real financial assistance of at least 4.5% of the marketed production instead of the 3% proposed by the Commission. In order to be able to continue to work, producers are calling for the adoption of legislation which will support the development of the fruit and vegetable sector, not hamper it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, when we, in the Group, tabled Amendment No 4 we added the words: '... expects the legislative procedure to be concluded by the end of June 2003 at the latest'. I suggest that Amendment No 8, by the Group and others, is split so that we have the first section from the start, 'welcomes the fact that the Commission has presented ...', down to the words '... in the Commission's budget' as the first split. The second split should be the remainder of that amendment. We would support the first part and oppose the second. That split would then be followed by a third vote – it need not be a roll-call vote – which would take up our words which stand alone from the rest of it: '... expects the legislative procedure to be concluded by the end of June 2003 at the latest'. I ask for your permission, Mr President.

Political group: PPE-DE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. – I too would like to congratulate both the rapporteurs on their budget reports and thank them for the collaborative approach that they have adopted. We have had a tough budgetary procedure especially in relation to the priorities of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. This will present my committee with problems in meeting obligations on a number of programmes. These programmes are not just crucial to achieving a dynamic knowledge – based Europe but, in the light of the tough current economic climate that the European businesses and organisations are facing, our key to achieving our aims of creating new jobs and supporting businesses. However, I appreciate the constraints that we are working under and, as someone who in the past has emphasised the need for prudence, efficiency and economy, I know that my committee will do its utmost to deliver growth and prosperity for the EU. The issues that I really want to raise concern the implementation of the budget. First, there is the Commission habit of ignoring some of the priorities of this budget authority and I want to give you an example from my committee in relation to the synergy programme. It is a small programme, but nevertheless an important one. However, it did not actually suit the particular director-general to implement this programme last year and so it was just ignored because they believed it did not have a big enough impact. Secondly, there is the use of transfers, which I believe are open to misuse because often these happen very late in the budgetary process and the Commission will transfer money from areas which are priorities for Parliament to those that are priorities for them. We must have mechanisms in place to stop this recurring year on year. Thirdly, there is the lack of synchronisation between the budgetary process and the launch of legislative programmes. It makes a mockery of the budgetary process and the authorities when you have the launch of the budgetary process in February and the launch of the legislative programme in November. Very quickly, I wish to move on to the other institutions budgets. This concentrates largely on preparations for enlargement. I understand that Parliament has made plans for new buildings to incorporate the new Member States. However, if we are increasing buildings in Brussels, it is important that we learn from the lessons from Strasbourg and that we do not make the same mistakes as we did with this building which generated a lot of negative publicity and reflected very badly on Parliament. Therefore, for the future, it is important that we have a clear explanation of what these buildings are going to be used for and that these buildings are environmentally friendly, user-friendly and cater for people with disabilities. I must express surprise that we are already negotiating on new buildings in the absence of major decisions in a variety of areas including the language regime.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, I wish to express my gratitude to the Commissioner, believing as I do that third-party certification will be a particularly important consideration for us in the future. The CE conformity marking does indeed confirm that the product complies with all rules within the European Union and is legal here. The only thing is that the public do not, in fact, want just this legal status quo; they want certification by a third – and of course neutral – party to give better products a higher market profile, so that what we end up with, for all practical purposes, is a quality pyramid. The CE marking would be its lowest level, with a standard mark being required to indicate significant improvements in quality, practical usefulness, or safety features in comparison with the normal CE marking. I believe that such upward gradation of quality would be of great importance to consumers and the public.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, a successful man once said that half of heaven is borne up by women. But the voices of women are absent when it comes to taking key decisions and setting priorities. In other words, women, who make up more than half of the world’s population, are seriously under-represented in political, economic and social areas. This is unacceptable in a democracy. Nowhere is the rift between de jure and de facto equality greater than within the decision-making process. In order to achieve a balance, a concrete plan of action with a set timetable is needed. An important part of such a plan is a benchmarking system. I am therefore very pleased that Mrs Karamanou would like to see such a system. I propose that the EU’s objectives regarding women in the decision-making process be based on the average of the three most successful Member States within each field, with annual reports from the Member States. It is mainly women who are victims of violations of human rights, such as rape, sexual offences, abuse in the home and trafficking. Women are under-represented on the legal and legislative bodies that judge these crimes. This leads to the latter being given low priority. Often, the perpetrators are not prosecuted. The equal participation of women in decision-making processes is not only a matter of demanding social justice and democracy, but is also essential if women’s experience and knowledge is to be made the most of. Failure to utilise women’s decision-making abilities is an unacceptable waste. In Sweden, the Social Democratic Party has opted for the allocation of quotas. This comes after many years’ struggle to increase the number of women involved in the party, which is to say qualified women. Women represent 50 per cent of our Government and 44 per cent of the Swedish Parliament. The only party to have openly opposed this is the Conservative Party. All these women, however, are qualified. Women should not only bear up half of heaven, they should also accept responsibility for decisions concerning our whole world.

Political group: PSE
This proposed directive is most welcome within the European Union. It forms part of the overall Community strategy for the reduction of marine pollution and for waste management and requires all Union ports, including yachting marinas, to provide appropriate waste-disposal facilities suited to the requirements of vessels. International regulations were already in existence, since the Marpol Convention imposes binding international regulations upon all vessels, according to which all discharges at sea are prohibited. The real problem, however, is the application and observance of these standards! The fine ‘polluter pays’ principle, so dear to many Member States, including my own, is far from being complied with! The Erika disaster is testimony to this unfortunate state of affairs, as are the thirty-nine instances of degassing which went unpunished in the space of a single week! This is why the European Parliament and its Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, confirming the outcome of the first reading in the previous legislative period, have proposed that every vessel entering a Member State port should bear 90% of the costs of waste disposal and management, regardless of the actual use made of the facilities. We feel that this is the only realistic and fair way to prevent the illegal dumping of waste at sea. If the port facilities were in fact financed (at a high level) only by the vessels actually using them, then there would be grounds for fearing that many vessels would avoid these charges, since dumping waste at sea would prove less costly. Moreover, we wish to set the level for mandatory inspection at 25% of all vessels. On the eve of the French Presidency of the European Union, this is the position which the French Socialists are preparing to champion. All I can do is urge this House to do as much. It is a political fight, in which our role, is it not, is to wage this campaign, even if it does lead use to make ambitious political decisions which occasionally go further than those of our own governments, and which are always far-reaching and positive?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I made my point about the STOA report when we were discussing the order of business. Successive Irish governments have voiced their concern about the operation of the Sellafield plant, formerly known as Windscale, and in particular the innumerable security breaches by the BNFL and the arrogance of the British authorities towards the legitimate concerns of a sovereign and friendly neighbour. The commissioning of the MOX plant when the eyes of the international media were firmly focused elsewhere in the wake of the tragedy of September 11, 2001 is but the latest example, and is particularly serious, given the heightened concerns now of terrorist attacks. Could the Commission confirm that the same security standards that are now deemed necessary in Cap de la Hague – that is protection with fighter planes and ground-to-air missiles and a no-fly zone – are in place in Sellafield? Does the Commission agree that there is an urgent need for common security standards for all nuclear installations, not just in the EU-15, but in accession countries as well? Could the Commission also comment on the lack of effectiveness of the present inspectorate in this regard?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this directive on the marketing of forest reproductive material is really based on the merger of two earlier directives. In addition, there has been considerable progress made in research and development over the decades and, for that reason too, it is naturally a good idea to review matters. Furthermore, the accession of Sweden, Austria and Finland meant that the EU’s forest resources immediately doubled. On account of all this, it is excellent that these reviews and adjustments are being undertaken. In addition, there is the matter of harmonisation with OECD schemes. That is also a good thing and will enable us in future to trade in this material beyond the borders of the EU, which should also be taken into consideration. The material in question has now been classified into four categories, whereas previously there were two. This now guarantees there will be a sort of certificate, a guarantee that the right goods get to the right place. It ensures that no errors – which the large afforested countries of the north have also experienced – occur. Details relating to the area of provenance must also be defined on a map. The maps are to be sent to the Commission and a comprehensive list of goods associated with forest reproduction must also be kept. The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development tabled numerous amendments, and they were mainly targeted at the timetable for implementation. The Commission had proposed too tight a schedule and, for that reason, the entry into force of the directive has been postponed until 2003, so that the Member States can revise legislation as called for by this directive. The transition period for some countries was also taken into account and thus the period of transition was increased by a couple of years for those countries whose period of transition would otherwise have expired. In some countries there are rather large stocks because good seed years only occur at intervals of 10 to 15 years, and so the seeds have to be stored for very long periods of time in order that stocks are not exhausted. The possibility of utilising and exhausting stocks was a very important issue, as has been remarked upon in this report. In addition, we spoke a lot about genetic resources. That is a very sensitive issue at the moment and, naturally, we tried to bring this proposal in line with EU practice. Similarly, this proposal also consider the health of plants and changes in their health. As I understand it, there will be two more amendments to this report in tomorrow’s vote, if I may be allowed to comment briefly on them. As rapporteur, I can agree with Amendment No 23 if three words are added to the recital where the amendment will appear: “special climatic conditions of certain regions, such as the Alps, the Mediterranean and northern regions”. If this is added I will be able to agree to it, as rapporteur. As for Amendment No 24, which has also been made for tomorrow, I can state that this amendment is now already incorporated into Article 4(3)(a), which is a new subparagraph and which was added for precisely this purpose.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the Commission and the Council have asked for urgent procedure. We need to respond without delay, so that the appropriate assistance can be provided quickly in Kosovo. The Committee voted on the report yesterday, and we can therefore commend this request for urgent procedure to the House. (Parliament approved the request for urgent procedure) *** Proposal for a Council decision [COM(2001)277 – C5-0231/2001 – 2001/0112 (CNS)] granting macro-financial assistance to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, can I start by thanking the rapporteur for the care and dedication he has shown in respect of this topic? He was, and still is, receptive to the problems that this proposal entails. I should like to thank him for, and congratulate him on, the enormous skill, but certainly also on the perseverance with which he is attempting to bring the emissions trading scheme to a successful end. I share Mr Liese's view that the rapporteur has not opted for the southern European angle, but has tried to join North and South together in a very judicious way. The proposal is an outworking of Kyoto, where it was agreed that the emission of greenhouse gases was to be reduced. I am able to say, with due pride, that the emissions trading scheme is already working well in the Member State from which I come. A sound emissions trading scheme must meet a number of criteria: it should not discriminate between companies and sectors and it should reward pioneers for the measures they have already taken. I will return to this subject in a moment. The scheme must not obstruct the market and must therefore also provide opportunities to newcomers on the market. Furthermore, the scheme must be competitive in Europe and may not adversely affect the European position on the global market. In my view, the Commission proposal does not meet these criteria. A cap or a trading scheme can be achieved by auctioning or grandfathering. Auctioning would be a solution if the market were to function well, but if auctioning takes place only in Europe, competitiveness with the rest of the world is distorted. The main disadvantage of grandfathering is that the rights are initially allocated for free on the basis of the emissions at the time. Such a scheme of grandfathering, therefore, takes no account whatsoever of the reductions in energy consumption which have already been introduced within the Dutch market, and certainly in the German one, and also in a number of other countries. This is why I believe it would be best to set up a scheme whereby rights are allocated on the basis of performance standard rates. These are rights that must be earned first by operating more energy-efficiently before they can be auctioned. I wholeheartedly support the adapted proposal, which includes a number of the amendments that I have tabled on behalf of my group. And I should like to say to my German fellow MEPs that I understand their view.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I might have been very happy and proud on this 8 March, as we are finally going to be heard in Parliament and you, Mr President, have honoured us with an address. In a few days and in a few minutes, however, we are going to vote on yet another report that argues in favour of perpetuating discrimination between the sexes. Studies have shown that gender is not the determining factor in life expectancy; other factors – such as family life, socio-economic factors, professional status, where one lives, smoking habits and eating habits – were shown to be more significant. Lifestyle is, therefore, a multidimensional factor that has a far greater impact than gender on life expectancy. According to studies that removed aspects such as lifestyle, social class and environmental factors from the equation, the difference of life expectancy between men and women is between nought and two years. The growing discrepancy in terms of life expectancy in the populations of certain countries cannot, therefore, be attributed to biological differences. Having made this observation, however, we must also acknowledge that lobby pressure, even on women’s rights issues, remains a strong influence. In the coming weeks, insurers will, naturally, make every effort to convince us that the report, which concludes that men and women must be insured in a fair and equitable manner, is unworkable and unacceptable. Given that the Commission determinedly supports this proposal, we are thus forced to accept further discrimination. I, for one, can do no other than deplore this; I wish people would stop saying one thing and doing something different in practice.

Political group: PSE