GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, is there nothing in the Rules of Procedure which requires Members to be present to hear responses to points they have made to the Commissioner during the course of the debate? Surely it is a gross discourtesy to the Commission to behave in this way. Should this not be something which is raised in the Conference of Presidents?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I thank Mrs Read for giving such a good plug to my electronic newsletter. If any colleagues wish to go on the circulation list, please let me know and I shall be happy to oblige them. Mrs Fontaine gave a speech before the Lisbon Summit in which she criticised the evils of capitalism. I therefore feel entirely justified in describing those views as verging on Marxist. The remark I made about Mrs Fontaine's book Mes combats was, as I recall, that humorists in Parliament had been saying that the German edition should be entitled ‘Mein Kampf’, which is, I believe, German for Mes combats. Thus, I was merely repeating gossip, which I feel I am entitled to do. I would say to Mrs Read, my regional colleague, that the issue of the speech which Mrs Fontaine made before the Lisbon Summit was aired in this Chamber nearly two years ago. So she is a little behind the times.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too should like to start by expressing my solidarity with my southern European fellow MEPs. I am also pleased that the Commission has done so too, but it clearly demonstrates that the disaster that has struck there calls for European solidarity. Europe should therefore show what it can do on the social front. I should also like to highlight another issue in this debate. It is unacceptable that the Commission should derive financial gain from the drought which is hitting European agriculture so hard. This is a likely scenario, particularly in the area of potato growing for processing, to mention one example. It is expected that the yield in the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark and Austria will be a few dozen percentage points down on the annual average. In contrast to other products, such as ware potatoes, this scarcity will not lead to high prices. The CDA delegation in this House would like to invite the Commission, in the short term, to take stock of the amount by which production is lagging behind the preset quota and of the financial gain this produces. For example, a loss in production of 25% translates into a saving for the Commission to the tune of EUR 30 million, because for this crop, as for a number of other crops, the premium is directly linked to the yield. It is useful to bring this to your attention for these reasons alone, particularly since a 40% decoupling is envisaged in 2004 for those crops. This means that the premiums will then no longer be determined by the yield. It is likely that precisely this system will to some extent be used as early as in 2003. In addition, the CDA delegation in this House is of the opinion that the Commission should initiate a European strategy discussion about quantitative water management. Qualitatively speaking, European water policy has been a success, but given that floods and water shortages have followed each other in such quick succession for a number of years now, it is necessary for us to do what is needed in the area of effective water management with a view to a future strategy.

Political group: PPE-DE
We MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece voted in favour of the Evans report because it confirms the tragic situation which prevails today in the trafficking in organs and promotes measures to strengthen organ donation, which is the only hope of salvation for thousands of patients who lose the battle waiting for a transplant to be found. However, we want to point out that the lack of funding for information campaigns designed to overcome reticence, aversion and preconceived notions is resulting in a limited number of donors and strengthening the existence of the repulsive and particularly lucrative phenomenon of trafficking in human organs. We are faced with the worst exploitation and criminality: the abduction and murder of people, mainly young people and children, for the purpose of removing and selling organs. The absolute impoverishment which people know forces them to sell their organs to shrewd intermediaries. The disgraceful but particularly profitable 'transplant tourism' which is developing illustrates the intensity and the extent of the problem and provides clear proof of the link between this huge crime and the legal activities of big business, of the exploitation of the less developed countries and their peoples in particular. However, when health becomes an object of trade and exploitation, when large private clinics reap huge profits from groups of patients who need a transplant, there can be no terms or conditions to the safeguarding of transparency in organ donation. (Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137 (1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: GUE-NGL
To start with, I agree with the previous speaker’s last sentence. I do not need to repeat that ports are important. In my view, the Commission proposal helps us to enhance the efficiency of ports. Like a few of my fellow MEPs, however, I have noticed one shortcoming: there are no proposals on state aid and transparency. It would be best, and I have tabled an amendment to that effect, if these new proposals were to come from the Commission and not from the text which we as Parliament are now drafting. Commissioner, I should like to ask you if you would be able to tell us more about possible plans in that direction during this debate. In any event, I hope that my fellow MEPs will support this amendment and that we will therefore ask the Commission to submit new proposals concerning those two points. For the rest, I back the Commission proposal. We must increase competition at ports. This must also include maritime access, not only for technical-nautical services, but also for the handling of cargo and passengers. We should therefore not dispose of the handling of cargo. I think that pilotage can also be retained in the directive. As you rightly stated, it forms a significant link in the life of most ports. However, if we prescribe a few requirements, impose a number of conditions in the social field, and give due consideration to economic aspects, the environment and public services, as is the case in the directive and in my amendment, we will have more guarantees than if we simply fall back on the Treaty. For I believe that that is the choice: either we include a special rule for ports in a directive, or we fall back on the Treaty and simply apply to pilotage the general rules of the Treaty which provide for the free movement of services. I think it would be preferable to adopt the Commission proposal in this respect. In any case, I am of the opinion that we as Parliament need to cooperate with the Commission constructively, possibly allow for a conciliation procedure with the Council, and ensure that we reinforce the operation of ports and competition in and among ports in a constructive manner to encourage the vital aspect of transport by water as much as possible.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a sustainable and profitable forestry and wood industry is highly important for Europe in many ways. I would like to remind you about both environmental aspects and eco-social and economic aspects. As a raw material, wood is the most important renewable energy source in Europe, and no one should underestimate the importance in regional policy terms of small and medium-sized businesses in the wood industry and in forestry as providers of jobs in rural areas. This sector is a key factor in a multifunctional agricultural and forestry industry. Together, the forestry and wood industries provide millions of jobs in Europe. A sustainable forestry industry can make a substantial contribution to climate protection and to achieving the Kyoto objectives. Globally speaking, we must protect our forests in order to defend ourselves against disasters. I am therefore very grateful to the previous speaker for her comments. I would particularly like to draw attention to protected forests and virgin forests in the Alps. Appropriate proposals for the construction industry need to be pursued. The use of wood and wood products in the building industry should be promoted, and wood should increasingly be used instead of other construction materials. A further advantage of wood is that it involves fixing large quantities of CO2 over long periods. I therefore support the approach of using targeted marketing and advertising measures for wood products to raise public awareness. We need to provide information and advice about the advantages of these products throughout Europe. I am not advocating a Community forestry policy, but rather a common forestry strategy for Europe, with the Commission playing a proper coordinating role. The various aspects of forest-based and related industries should be coordinated within a single directorate-general, and it would make sense for this to be the directorate-general for agriculture, which would also need to be adequately staffed to cope with the wide variety of tasks involved. Without forestry there can be no wood industry. So I hope that the House will accept this logic and vote for Amendments Nos 1 and 2. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, when the report by Mr Evans was being written, we were still oblivious to the tragedy of 11 September. In the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights and Defence Policy to this report, however, a number of recommendations were made which, precisely against the backdrop of 11 September, are very pertinent indeed. This Parliament has often called for a common and unambiguous policy on evaluating whether or not countries are safe. It is not acceptable that some Member States should declare countries safe, therefore refuse to receive refugees and asylum seekers, while other countries do. The security services and embassies of our Member States should join forces in this respect. Since 1992, there has been a structure in place, comprising CIREA and the High Level Working Group, but they do not operate well together. And they certainly do not work well with the Member States. We are therefore asking for an improved and transparent structure to be introduced in this field. In addition, in a Union with open borders, discrepancies in admissions policy are untenable, and a joint foreign policy is also totally inappropriate if we fail to sing from the same hymn sheet. In that sense, I would make an urgent appeal to the Commission to do something about this. Afghanistan is, in fact, a good illustration of how things can work. A second observation pertains to the aid to those countries that receive large groups of refugees. We should provide far more aid to those countries, and especially the UNHCR. In principle, it is better for people who flee to remain in the vicinity of their own country, so that they can return quickly. But they do need support. However, the UNHCR resources have been cut back drastically by the European Commission, and we believe that this situation should be improved promptly. Moreover, we also believe that people should receive more education in the camps so that they do not fall victim to radicalism and crime. Finally, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy would like to point at the need to be a lot more pro-active in terms of conflict prevention. It would be of great benefit to us if we could close the ranks better in the EU in this respect. In that way, conflict could be prevented. The recommendations made by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy have been adopted unanimously in the committee. It would be unfortunate, in my opinion, if Mr Evans’ report would lead to diversity. I would like to dare him to work closely with the other groups in order to reach unanimity. We would then, at least, be able to support his report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam Vice-President of the Commission, I would like to know firstly whether it is true that one country is causing difficulties, secondly, which country this is and thirdly, what type of difficulty it is causing. I would also like to know, since you have mentioned it, when the Commission communication on the report on the Alps and the Pyrenees will be made available?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner Fischler, representatives of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I would like, if I may, to start by thanking the rapporteurs for their excellent work. I would stress that, overall, we can only support the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy, given the financial constraints which we have imposed on ourselves until 2013 and considering, not least, the new challenges posed by enlargement. However, we do have a number of concerns. Firstly, we do not know the proposals for all the sectors and so we do not have an overall picture. Secondly, once the principle of decoupling has been endorsed, the Commission is free to apply it as it wishes. We must therefore endeavour, first and foremost, to reassure our farmers. I therefore call upon the Council to regulate this mechanism as rigorously as possible, safeguarding the different areas of production and, above all, farmers’ incomes. Another part of the Commission’s proposal which causes me great concern is the employment incentive. The July proposal referred to the criterion of working units: this criterion disappeared subsequently and we have attempted to reincorporate it through amendments, for we consider it to be necessary. The danger that the transferral of aid from production to income will not encourage working of the fields may be partially averted by this decision. We must therefore put all possible effort into these areas of reform, and also into quality, for in promoting quality we will be equipping our agriculture to compete on the markets.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Rothley, very much for the painstaking work that he continues to do on behalf of citizens and motorists throughout Europe in filling gaps in their insurance cover. Insurance has to be as foolproof as we can possibly make it, because that is what consumers expect. Many of us have dealt with constituency cases, because of problems or loopholes in insurance cover. I welcome this proposal from Mr Rothley on behalf of our group, and particularly thank him because he has accepted a number of suggestions that I have made to him in this area and added them to his report. I just want to mention two areas specifically this evening. The first is an important provision that not only benefits citizens, but also encourages in a practical way the development of the single market. Currently, if European citizens wish to go and buy a new car in another country, they have to get special insurance cover for the period when they pick up the car from the dealership or the factory and bring it back to their own home country. Their current home insurer is not allowed to provide that cover. In Mr Rothley's proposals, they will be able to do that simply and easily. Cover can be extended for 30 days to encourage citizens to go and exercise their rights in a single market and shop across borders. That is something which the Commission, particularly the internal market Commissioner, Mr Bolkestein, will be pleased to support. The second issue, mentioned briefly by Mrs Gebhardt, concerns cover provided for citizens who take up temporary positions in other EU-Member States, such as students moving to a university wishing to take a car with them; workers on secondment or members of families moving to another country for a temporary period. They will be able to take their car and its existing insurance cover for a period of up to 12 months, without any problems. That is important. We know from complaints received, certainly in my case, from UK citizens that it has not been easy for insurance companies to provide such cover. Again, this is of practical benefit enabling citizens to exercise their rights in the internal market. In conclusion, I would like to say to Commissioner Bolkestein that I hope he will accept this proposal from Mr Rothley on behalf of Parliament and move as quickly as possible to bring these changes into effect in the form of further revisions to the Motor Insurance Directive.

Political group: PPE-DE
I have voted against the report, which was nonetheless adopted by 345 votes, with 102 votes against and 34 abstentions. The reason for this is, firstly, that it would be preferable if the Commission were to set the amount of party financing, not Parliament, which would in that way grant party financing to its own ‘political European families’. There would be a significant temptation to do this. Secondly, the requirements for forming a European political party have been set too high, with representation demanded in every fourth Member State. Thirdly, there is a built-in risk of arbitrariness inasmuch as separate assessment criteria are applied to what are termed European parties before they are given financial support. Who is to decide how these criteria are to be applied? In practice, it is the dangerous system whereby political parties are to decide which political groups are to have the status of parties and so receive financial aid, a system unknown to the Swedish Parliament.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, today in the vote at 12 noon we will conclude a process that began in 1984 when this Parliament approved the draft Treaty on European Union, which already contained the request for a declaration of rights, a process that we continued in 1989 with the De Gucht Resolution. The Charter of Fundamental Rights has always been a priority for this Parliament, because it has wanted the principles and values that unite Europeans to be reflected in a text. This is particularly important at the present time, when we are beginning an ambitious process of enlargement. The second reason is because the Charter of Fundamental Rights is an essential factor in the move towards political union. Thirdly, Mr President, and surely this is the most important reason, because a Charter of Fundamental Rights is going to increase the feeling of belonging to the European Union. For all these reasons, my group, as its chairman, Mr Poettering, has already said, is going to vote in favour of this Charter. Moreover, this Charter reflects the opinion of Parliament, as we set it out in our Duff/Voggenhuber Resolution on 16 March. The Charter has been drawn up with the participation of a delegation from Parliament and, as chairman of this delegation, I would like to thank all its members for their work, their commitment and their support over all these months. It is true, as one of the speakers said, that we have to make an effort to inform people about the Charter, an effort that can begin in this Parliament. When listening to the speeches from some members, one realises that this information is more necessary than ever. Some people should read the Charter before they speak to prevent them from saying the things that they say. Mr President, allow me to say a few words on the effects of the Charter. I think that there is a false debate. I think that the reference to Article 6 is logical and I think that the President-in-Office of the Council should take note of what Mr Barón Crespo said. The chairman of the group to which the majority of governments in the European Union belong said quite clearly that Parliament – or in any event, his group – will not approve the reform of the Treaty of Nice if no reference is made in Article 6. The Charter is going to have effects, whether or not it is in the Treaty. In fact; it has already had effects. If you read the report of the three wise men on the situation in Austria, you will see that the Charter is mentioned on three occasions. This report was drawn up between 29 August and 6 September, when the Charter had still not been drafted. Therefore, the Charter, whether or not it is included in the Treaties, whether or not it is in Article 6(2), will bind the Commission – and I would like to highlight the important work done by Commissioner Vitorino in drawing up the Charter – will bind Parliament and will bind the Council, and it will have effects, Mr President, whether some Members of this House like it or not.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I welcome the Commission proposals and support the rapporteur and the report as it was voted on in the committee. However, I find the amendments tabled by the and others absolutely unacceptable and counterproductive. If accepted, they would bring about the rejection of the whole report, and so I hope that it will be the original report that will be supported, with the Commission proposals. I will also tell you why in a few points: You want to extend the concept of the family as far as it will go, far beyond the nuclear family and to the point of including de facto family members and friends. By doing this, you will only promote immigration. What this is about is help for refugees. You also want to introduce options for applicants for asylum, so that they will be able, as it were, to decide for themselves in which Member State the procedure is to be dealt with. By this, you are offending against the principle that the first Member State with which the application is lodged is to be responsible for examining it and the principle that burdens should be shared, something that we can achieve indirectly, and you would end up exacerbating the situation in countries which are, in any case, already struggling with the greatest integration problems. You also want to do away with the instruments provided by the Commission and the rapporteur to combat abuses in situations involving false or invalid documents, expired visas and so on. In doing that, you would not only be accepting abuses, but even promoting them and, with that, promoting non-compliance with existing legal standards. Under no circumstances could we accept that. If, in addition to that, you make all appeals have suspensive effect, you would thereby be hindering speedy and sure decisions and good solutions. In this House, as in the committee, I can definitely tell you once again that we in the Group of the support the Commission proposals and those made by the rapporteur. If, though, your amendments get a majority, or if even just one of them does, we intend to vote down the whole report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, no personal offence to the Commissioner – as male Commissioners go, he is probably one of the more progressive concerning gender equality. But the reality is that both the Commission and the Council are male-dominated. When we look at the numbers, both are basically dominated by men. If we had more equality both in the Commission and in the Council in relation to the number of women, things would be a bit different. This is not a personal attack on you, Commissioner. In relation to women's issues you are better than some of our Commissioners, including Mr Pádraig Flynn, who was here a few years ago! The reality is nevertheless that the Commission and Council are male-dominated.

Political group: Verts-ALE