GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as Mr Marques and Mr Nogueira Román pointed out in their respective reports, the Cohesion Fund and the Structural Funds are of fundamental importance to the development of most EU regions, both in terms of infrastructures and from the point of view of social integration. The fact remains that, despite the budgetary aid granted, European regions are far from being on an equal footing in terms of development. My colleague Mr Fruteau is especially concerned about the outermost regions. You will therefore understand that this current context of enlargement makes me fear that the European Union has its attention exclusively focused towards the East, which would be disastrous for a good number of European regions that are current beneficiaries. Please understand me: I am not trying to call into question the pertinence of enlargement, which, of course, means the consolidation of peace on our continent, which in these difficult times, is a noble and fragile objective. On the contrary, I am thinking about the conditions in which it can succeed. I am, in fact, one of those who think that the success of enlargement will be the result of the strengthening of cohesion. But this cohesion has a price that should not be paid by the EU’s poorest countries. In concrete terms, Commissioner, I hope that the eligibility criteria of Objectives 1 and 2 will be very carefully revised in order that the poverty of some does not lead to the end of hope and the impoverishment of others. Enlargement is a great challenge. It is one of solidarity. It will not be surmounted unless it is understood and accepted. Let us not forget this fact.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I welcome this joint resolution on behalf of Amina Lawal Kurami. This is the second time we will adopt a resolution on behalf of Amina Lawal. I have no doubt that the first, in September 2002, contributed greatly to the international appeal for mercy that has helped to ensure her safety thus far. I was asked at that time to launch an appeal on her behalf. I would like to thank the thousands of people who responded, both in 2002 and to the recent appeal within the past weeks. I also thank the European office dealing with human rights in Nigeria. To be condemned to death by stoning for having a child out of wedlock is a breach of internationally agreed human rights. I realise that this execution is not the wish of the Nigerian Government. I thank in particular the Nigerian Ambassador to Ireland, His Excellency Mr Elias Nathan, who has publicly appealed for mercy on behalf of this mother. We call on the Upper Sharia Court of Appeal of Katsina to respect and uphold the international human rights agreements that Nigeria has signed up to and to ensure that any Sharia law in breach of these rights is repealed. Regional legislation must be in keeping with the international laws in place nationally in Nigeria. I am aware that Mrs Lawal has not been restrained or held in detention since her sentencing in March 2002. I am grateful for that. But we can only imagine the trauma that she has suffered with a death sentence hanging over her head throughout the past year. Certainly she has been sick and has gone to several hospitals for treatment during this difficult time. Even though Amina Lawal would have the right to appeal her verdict before a non-religious court, she has suffered enough. I appeal for mercy and assurance that she will not be executed under any circumstance. We must also remember that she is not the only woman in these circumstances. When I was asked to launch an appeal on behalf of Safiya Husseini for a similar offence I was informed that at least four women were awaiting the same sentence – Amina Lawal was one of them – and that young boys from 12 to 16 years of age were awaiting amputation of their hands for theft. Whilst we respect national sovereignty there is a better way forward for Nigeria and its people. We call for an immediate and lasting response to our parliamentary resolution.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, eastward enlargement is the foremost issue concerning the EU’s future. The Swedish think that the European Parliament must change a number of points in the proposal that has now been approved by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. I shall concentrate on these. 1) One Commissioner per Member State. This concerns the Commission’s legitimacy, popular support and future. If, in the future, there is no Commissioner for each Member State, the Council of Ministers may assume the Commission’s current role. 2) Six Members of the European Parliament per Member State, reflecting the political breadth and diversity in each Member State. This is especially important in a situation where States such as Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, together with Slovenia, join the European Union after having previously been part of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia against their will. 3) No Europe-wide lists. The distance from the voters would be too great. 4) A more flexible approach to a maximum of seven hundred Members of the European Parliament. 5) No financing by the EU of parties which operate at European level. This would be an unwarranted use of resources and would make for a good deal of arbitrariness. Party financing may be misused. That is something of which we are well aware in today’s Europe. 6) The qualified majority in the European Council, as referred to in paragraph 8.1 of the resolution should be a two-thirds majority, not a simple majority. 7) The suspension of a Member State must be by unanimous agreement of the Member States, except for the State concerned. Suspension is a serious measure. 8) In the future too, the EU should be dependent upon the Member States for financing. 9) There is no wording concerning the principle of subsidiarity and the clear distribution of competences. There is a need for wording of this kind.

Political group: PPE-DE
I have voted against the Giannakou-Koutsikou report. It is a very lengthy document which represents all shades of opinion and contains a multitude of considerations and objectives. It gives enormous scope. It is opposed to trafficking and profiteers, rightly so. It endeavours to help people fight their addiction, again rightly so. But this means that it is spreading itself rather thinly and the thrust of the document is that with more funding and tougher prosecution, we can knock the problem on the head. Quite interestingly, Mr Schulz’s proposal to give urban and regional experiments more of a chance, has been rejected. I fear that this text will now be used incorrectly, namely to support those, in particular, who advocate more repression against drug users and think that they will solve the problem in this way. As such, the viewpoint has, in principle, dominated after all and this was a reason for me not to go along with it.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, given the formulation of the amendment and given our concerns about the on-going discussion in Slovakia on regional decentralisation, we can support this amendment, also in the context of the knowledge that negotiations and talks are going on about the competences of these provinces. We all hope that the coalition government in Slovakia will find a solution to the overall package of regional decentralisation. In that framework, as rapporteur, I support this amendment. I hope my group will follow my lead.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the WTO has certainly succeeded in significantly increasing international trade and worldwide economic production and in removing trade barriers. But what about increasing quality of life, participation in growth development and the creation of new, socially acceptable jobs? In order to reduce the gap between the worst and best developed national economies there must also be agreed social and environmental standards as well as consumer and health protection. This is not a playground for illusionists; in fact, the opposite. Here we are trying to gain the acceptance of the general public. We must succeed in making an exception of those states which, for the sake of short-term gains, permit or even induce production which is damaging to the environment and cements social grievances. The Committee on Employment and Social Affairs is agreed that states which meet basic social and environmental standards should be especially protected during integration into the world economy. We must bring about a situation where it becomes more difficult to sell products unless they have markings such as “resources obtained with care” or “produced in an environmentally-friendly manner” or “guaranteed not manufactured by children”. We want to persuade consumers to prefer such products. The WTO rules and regulations must be amended such that these voluntary declarations may no longer be hindered. Two further points belong on the agenda in Seattle: firstly, investment agreements on the basis of the ILO declaration on multinational companies and the corresponding OECD guidelines in which workers’ rights are taken into account; secondly, the setting up of a permanent forum between the WTO and the ILO to consider the acceptance of basic workers’ rights, i.e. the abolition of forced and slave labour, the outlawing of child labour and prohibition of discrimination. The excellent report by Konrad Schwaiger, which deserves consensus and a majority, makes clear that this is about more than just trade policy; it is about the participation of all countries on the basis of equal rights, social progress and the enforcement of human rights. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should first of all like to congratulate rapporteur Kindermann on his report and also on the political courage he has displayed, particularly in paragraph 6, in which he clearly states that the MAGP should not be continued in their present form when the common fisheries policy is reviewed. This is straightforward language, which indicates, in fact, the failure of this programme. The multi-annual guidance programme for the fisheries sector was aimed at reducing and renewing the European fishing fleet but, at the same time, we have to note that the programme has not improved the fish stocks in any way. After all, there is no link at all between the Member States’ correct implementation of the programme and an improvement in the situation of the stocks which they fish. I know countries, including the Netherlands, which have not fully met the MAGP objective, but whose fished stocks are nevertheless relatively healthy at the moment. In other words, the reality is that, although we may be able to lay down policy in Brussels, each programme, in fact, fails to come up to the mark if the Member States do not adequately monitor the situation. This is also confirmed in the Kindermann report. I would also like to comment on the impending Green Paper and the preparations that are being made in this connection. We had expected the Green Paper to have been presented last week or, at least, the Commission to have taken a decision this week. Independently of the Brussels circuit, the BBC, however, announced last night that the presentation of the Commission proposals has been postponed through the intervention of the Spanish Presidency. Politically speaking, it would be unacceptable if this communication by the BBC were true and if a presidency could block or delay the presentation of proposals by the Commission. This is unacceptable. I have a great deal of faith in this Commissioner, and I am also convinced that he will take the Kindermann report seriously, especially paragraph 6 which stipulates that the current MAGP no longer serves the existing fisheries policy in any way and should therefore be dropped from the new fisheries policy.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, MEPs are at present in danger of being scalded since, in the last half hour, there has only been hot water in the showers and toilets. Is there by any chance some new scare about new germs spreading here? I would ask the Quaestors to investigate the matter.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, our forests are an invaluable and irreplaceable part of the heritage of humanity and of all living things. Protecting and preserving them is essential to our survival. We all know how important forests are to the planetary balance, to biodiversity and to economic activity, not to mention the aesthetic and environmental benefits they bring. Europe is concerned about the future of its forests and must start by using the way it protects its woodland areas to set an example. This applies from the Mediterranean to Scandinavia, since the problems of our forests know no frontiers. The Forest Focus Regulation seeks to draw on the experience of two previous regulations in order to create a long-term monitoring system designed to assess the state of the European Union’s forest ecosystem. It also reveals lofty ambitions, aiming to embrace fields such as pollution, climate change, biodiversity, natural resources and soils. This is all well and good, but the regulation did have two weaknesses. The first was the cut in the total funding for achieving these lofty ambitions, a cut rendered scarcely less swingeing by the compromise obtained. The second weakness was the sacrifice of the fire prevention measures recommended for rural development programmes. The reintroduction of the fire-fighting dimension appeases us: progress has undeniably been made. The Commission promised that when it presented its communication on forestry strategy, as it is scheduled to do by the end of this year, it would include a proposal on plans for protection against fires. It goes without saying that that was not enough for us. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, our particular sensitivity to the issue of fires is understandable. The images of last summer’s towering infernos, which left a swathe of destruction in their wake, especially in Portugal, are still very vivid for us. The memory of such flames cannot easily be snuffed from the mind, or from the landscape.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, sadly, there will be many more Dovers. Not so long ago, we talked about the trafficking in human beings at the Strait of Gibraltar, and this was also referred to a moment ago. Prior to that, we held a debate regarding a ship transporting Kurds which ran aground off the Italian South coast. Each time, the authorities panicked, as is the case again now. It is high time we adopted policy. Because that is what it comes down to: each time a policy is announced, but this time, we need to do something about it, because we know that the trafficking in human beings simply continues. So what should we do? Minister Queyranne and Commissioner Vitorino already mentioned it. We need to tackle the causes. We need to set up common immigration and asylum policy, fight cross-border crime and at long last establish surveillance of the EU’s external borders. But I would like to point out something else. The heads of government themselves, under the leadership of President Chirac, who were here this morning, could chip in straight away. When they meet in Nice, they could abolish the right of veto in European justice policy. In this way, they, and later on the Council of Ministers for Justice, can at long last lay down European immigration legislation by enhanced majority, something which this Parliament has been calling for for many years. In the case of crime policy, fighting the trafficking in human beings should not be the remit of Europol alone. It is necessary to harmonise the penalisation of this crime at European level. Indeed, the trafficking in human beings is a prime example of cross-border crime, which is what makes prosecution so difficult. This is why it is necessary to set up a European Public Prosecutor’s department in this field. Mr President, there has been enough talk. It is time for action!

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, this directive underlines the seriousness of our intent to come to terms with greenhouse gases. I congratulate the rapporteur for the excellent job he has done in a very difficult area. The question of whether participation in the emissions trading scheme provided for under this directive should be mandatory in the pilot phase has been the subject of much debate in Member States, including Ireland. It is one of the key issues in this draft directive. The environmental and industrial perspectives are quite different and we need to find the right balance. We govern, after all, by consent. The desire from an environmental perspective for a wholly mandatory regime must fit well with market considerations and be industry-friendly. It must be flexible and market based. It makes sense to accept a scheme that is mandatory at the level of Member States as all states must participate in the effort to reduce emissions. Indeed, we will need sellers in the market for it to work. We need to have some latitude at the level of individual installations to temporarily opt out of the scheme for the pilot phase only. Of course, any installation opting out must be required to take equivalent action to reduce emissions. This temporary opt-out provision should only last for the pilot phase because from 2008 onwards we are obliged to achieve legally-binding targets under the Kyoto Protocol. I urge support for compromise amendment 50, and amendment 99 dealing with CO2 emitted from the decarbonation of limestone to produce lime, which makes an important, environmentally friendly contribution to the market. I hope the Commission can accept both those amendments.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I wanted to bring up an issue which should be of great concern to this Parliament, and in particular to Members of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Committee on Budgetary Control. A serious abuse of European law and the Statute of the European Investment Bank is taking place in my own country. Member States are not authorised under EC law to propose or nominate their own nationals directly to the Board of Governors for the position of Vice-President of the EIB, and to do so is a clear violation of the Statute of the European Investment Bank. The task of making the nominations and appointment is reserved exclusively to a Board of Directors of the Bank, which is a quite separate body. The situation in Ireland is quite contrary to this principle. The Irish government have, in contravention of the law, nominated a person who not only has no experience of economic or financial affairs, but is furthermore a disgraced supreme court judge who was forced to resign before he was impeached by the Irish parliament. This issue is now before the courts in Ireland. This is an extremely important matter for this Parliament, which is concerned because the European Union provides Guarantee Funds to the EIB. Parliament must take notice of this, because if we allow Member States to contravene the law in this way it has serious implications for the European Union as a whole. I would ask the President if he could instruct the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Committee on Budgetary Control to look into this issue, because it should be dealt with very quickly. It could set a very bad precedent for the future for other Member States and for nominations to this body.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, in the opinion of the Group of the European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party, the most important task of the Commission and the whole Union in the coming years is the successful realisation of enlargement. The Commission must carry on negotiations that are a decisive attempt to have each applicant country join the Union as soon as possible. On the other hand, we have to see to it that none of the achievements or aims of integration that have been stated thus far are watered down. To avoid this the European Liberal Democrats have expressed the hope that the Intergovernmental Conference will consider the various models of differentiated integration and create a concentric Union, in which there is a federal core and a less integrated outer ring. It is clear that the subject of the internal differentiation of the Union will be raised at the IGC. The subject needs to be discussed without prejudice. A technical improvement in the flexibility system will not be enough: we also have to raise the issue of developing our institutions for the countries in the vanguard as proposed by Jacques Delors, for example. In this way, a decision-making system can be created that is more effective, clearer, more open and more democratic. I hope that the Commission will make its own proposal concerning how the expanding Union might implement its institutional and other differentiation.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would like to thank the President-in-Office of the Council, not only for the accuracy of his answer, but also for what he has been doing, both during the Belgian Presidency and during the Spanish Presidency, with a view to resolving ‘within a reasonable time period’ – to use his own words – these two problems: that of resolving the Romanian adoption system, in order to make it compatible with international agreements and, secondly, that of resolving the problems of those families who, since the procedures were begun under the former Romanian legislation, have seen no progress. I am going to ask a supplementary question: is the Council prepared to continue exerting its influence – I do not want to use stronger words – on the Romanian authorities so that they may make progress more quickly than we have seen up until now, despite all the promises in these two fields of applying the new legislation and of resolving these cases?

Political group: PPE-DE