GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I would first like to join in congratulating the rapporteur, Mr Di Lello Finuoli, on his work. I am pleased with this initiative from the Danish Government, which is based on the new procedure established in the Treaty of Amsterdam, in order to deal with the matter of ensuring better and greater protection for the environment in the European Union, something which should obviously not be limited by borders within the Union. My colleague, Mrs Thors, has already expressed our favourable position with regard both to the report and to the amendments tabled by the respective committees, and I will therefore focus on three points. For some time, I have been trying to ensure that the Commission deals appropriately with European forests, and I have seen the problems that have arisen as a result of the need to deal in a variety of ways with this issue which has a clear environmental dimension. The first difficulty that I see in truly applying this proposal is in categorising environmental crimes, given the diversity within the Union. The second matter is the need to consider the international dimension of the crime. We have seen how difficult it is to find out who is ultimately responsible for many large-scale environmental crimes, but, furthermore, the set of legal responsibilities of the entities who, ultimately, appear to be responsible, really makes it very difficult to actually deal with these crimes from a criminal point of view. I think that this will be an important task for the Commission. We have to prevent criminal responsibilities from being blurred. Thirdly, Mr President, I just want to say that it is essential that the field of justice and home affairs be communitised in the European Union, and this proposal demonstrates that.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, personal reference to me having been made for a second time, I am unfortunately obliged to comment on it, and I do so referring not to Mrs Angelilli's assertions, but to what has just been said by Mr Tajani. Mr Tajani is right to say that the Rules of Procedure do not permit manifestations of approval from the galleries, but we have to recall what happened. Mr Tajani had made several interjections during my speech, whereupon I remarked that I could better understand his behaviour now that I could see him, or have a better understanding of why the citizens of Rome did not elect him mayor. Vigorous applause then broke out in the galleries. 'Vox populi, vox dei' – even if the Rules of Procedure make no provision for that. (Vigorous applause)

Political group: PSE
Thank you, Mr President-in-Office of the Council. No, I am not at all satisfied with this reply. This has nothing to do with law and order. It has to do with freedom of movement. The authorities at Amsterdam airport persist in exercising an oppressive policy against any Greeks who have not dyed their hair blond and used contact lenses to make their eyes blue. They hold them in the forged passport section or wherever and they send them home. I have here a letter from the Royal Constabulary at Schiphol airport in Amsterdam, apologising ten weeks after the event because it found two people on the same aeroplane who supposedly had forged passports. If the President-in-Office contacts the Greek prefectures, he will see that this is systematic action on the part of the Dutch authorities and I should like to ask for an intervention, given that this has to do with the free movement of persons within the European Union.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, sport is not just about performance, competitions and elite sportspeople; it is also about developing a sense of community and a common purpose; it is about humanity itself. Ladies and gentlemen, these are not my words. They are the words of the United Nations Organisation, the UN. I fully support them, however, and I also fully support the idea that this Parliament should back the Olympic truce. What does seem to me to be important is that sport should not be politicised. As far as possible, sport must be kept outside of politics and must serve as a tool for constructing, never for destroying. Sport must be a tool for promoting peace and understanding. With regard to the Olympic truce, we are not talking about anything new. There have been Olympic truces every two years, for the summer games and for the winter games, for many years, and at the end of last year the United Nations adopted a resolution urging its Member States to observe the Olympic truce. I am in favour of it, as is the Group of the European Peoples’ Party . We do, however, want it to be a contribution from the world of sport to the rest of the world. We do not want any political party to try to gain electoral advantage or to try to politicise this issue. Ladies and gentlemen, in the real world there are conflicts and wars. In the world of sport there are games and competitions. In the real world there are armed forces. In the world of sport there are teams. In the real world there are laws. In the world of sport we swap them for rules of play. In the real world there are neutral parties. In the world of sport we have referees. And in the real world, regrettably, there are many deaths, and we want to help to preserve life by means of the world of sport, and this must be the world of sport’s contribution to society.

Political group: PPE-DE
The Commissioner has just told us only what he was able to tell us. Other things have been left out, however, which have already been debated in the special committees on agriculture. For example, with regard to rice, he knows that the subsidy price has been reduced by 60%, that internal production has stabilised and that consumption has increased by 20%. However, for five years the situation has been unsustainable for rice producers, who are facing an increasingly bleak future, as a result of the Everything but Arms decisions and imports of basmati rice, which do not correspond either in terms of their characteristics or their origins. We could also consider garlic, mushrooms, honey, tomato, rice, wine, concentrated juices, etc., and we would see that the quality, the safety of products imported, as well as the production methods, both in terms of animal welfare and in terms of guaranteeing quality and the environment, are not subject to any control. I would therefore ask you what supplementary measures are subject to the supervision of the Commission, but do not tell me that control falls to the Member States.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to send my greetings to Mrs Damião in her absence and to wish her a speedy recovery. I disagree, however, with her report, which her colleague Carlos Lage, has presented to us: it should be noted that this report transcribes in their entirety the positions and interests of the huge biotechnology, agro-chemical and agro-industrial multinationals, as can be seen if we compare the report with the position of UNICE. We call for the de facto moratorium that has been in place since 1998 for the approval of new genetically modified organisms in the food chain to be maintained and we totally reject the report’s support for lifting the moratorium, which we feel would be a real environmental crime. Apart from the profound ethical and human rights questions about the commercialisation and patenting of life and natural heritage, we must understand that releasing GMOs into the environment is an irreversible and uncontrollable factor which has direct consequences on the pollution of both conventional and organic farming, and for the destruction of biodiversity. It also has incalculable effects on ecosystems. What this means is that organic farmers and consumers will not actually see this much vaunted but fictional freedom of choice. Furthermore, it reinforces the dependency of farmers and of Member States’ food policies on the multinationals. The degree of interference and pressure exerted on developing countries to introduce GMOs into their food chain is shocking. It is truly mystifying and unacceptable that, once again, the idea is being aired that food shortages and world hunger can have a technological solution when the issue – as has been stressed in many international fora and organisations – is a political one and is a matter of policy. We only need think back to the much-feted ‘green revolution’ of a few decades ago. We are committed to promoting the scientific and technological progress of mankind, but we must always respect the precautionary principle.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, it is the right of any Member of this House to raise a point of order properly under the Rules, not just some Members of this House. If you are to refuse an electronic check on the third part of Amendment 139, which was properly called for immediately after that vote was announced, I would be grateful if you could explain to the House on what basis you are refusing that check. Unless this House accepts that explanation, which I do not, I ask you to make that check.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I warmly welcome this report and congratulate the rapporteur on her excellent work, particularly in expressing so clearly Parliament's understanding that trade is only a means to an end, and that end is sustainable development. All too often, in these institutions, there is a massive incoherence between European trade policy on one hand, and European development policy on the other, with trade concerns all too often undermining development objectives. With this report Parliament sends a very clear message that development concerns must come first. There are some key points I would like to underline. First, capacity. It simply beggars belief that some of the poorest ACP countries can possibly have the financial and technical resources to pursue the WTO's Doha agenda, the GATT's agenda, the NEPAD or FTAA agenda, at the same time as the EU economic partnerships agenda; and still at the same time still somehow pursue their own regional integration processes. Yet it is these very regional integration processes that the Commission says that it wants to support. We must get away from externally imposed timetables of which countries need to adopt new arrangements, and instead allow them to adapt at their own speed, according to their own development needs, just as the industrialised countries were able to do. Finally, I cannot over-emphasise the importance of waiting until we have the results of the impact assessments of these proposed economic arrangements. These must be conducted with the full participation of local people and we must have the results of those impact assessments before negotiations start. If necessary, we should be prepared to delay negotiations until we have them. Only in that way, can we be sure that the initiative will genuinely contribute to poverty eradication and sustainable development.

Political group: Verts-ALE
As the rapporteur himself states, it has been decided to mobilise the flexibility instrument for the fourth consecutive year, which shows that the needs of heading 4 in the Community budget – External Action – are systematically greater than the initial ceilings of the financial perspective. Since 2000, new priorities have arisen out of the need for reconstruction after illegal and unjust wars in the Kosovo region, Serbia and Afghanistan. In addition, other priorities have arisen, such as the reconstruction of East Timor, the conversion of the fishing fleet that used to operate in Morocco, and the Global Health Fund. These priorities have been financed to the detriment of the cooperation and development policy for other regions of the world, which is not acceptable. History is repeating itself again this year. Following the Thessaloniki Summit, at which the Commission proposed that the Community contribution to the reconstruction of Iraq should amount to EUR 200 million (40 million in 2003 and 160 million in 2004), the conciliation agreement foresees mobilisation of the flexibility instrument in the sum of EUR 95 million. The remainder will have to be found through funding cuts in the other areas, added to which there is an extra EUR 15 million for the CFSP, which is totally unacceptable. In any case, funding generated by the invading forces in Iraq is unacceptable, so long as this illegal occupation is maintained by the Anglo-American forces.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, famine and Ethiopia: these are two words sadly etched in our memories. In the Horn of Africa, which has become the site of every conceivable scourge, 16 million victims of famine, of which 8 million are in Ethiopia, are awaiting aid. In Ogaden, the most hard-hit region in south-east Ethiopia, there has been no rain for three years, to the point that the notion of dry seasons and wet seasons is now devoid of all meaning. So of course we have to react, and do so quickly, and unfortunately we know all too well that the price of our procrastination and delays is paid in human lives. At the same time, let me thank the Council and the Commission for what they have already done and for the information they gave us a short while ago. Of course the 800 000 tonnes of emergency aid promised by the international community must be delivered as soon as possible. But at the same time, the countries in the region must do their utmost to facilitate this delivery: by opening up the ports, supply routes and infrastructures. Nonetheless, in a region torn apart by a rearguard conflict, this crisis leaves a particularly bitter taste, because every penny paid to buy a gun, to buy ammunition, aggravates an already precarious economic, social and nutritional situation. We must demand that Eritrea and Ethiopia freeze their military activities so that all the assets, all the logistical and human capabilities of these countries are put at the service of their peoples. The sound of guns has for far too long drowned out the cries of the hungry. That is why we must appeal to the reason of the Ethiopian and Eritrean leaders and call on them to put an end to the conflict, to reach rapid agreement on the technical arrangements for a ceasefire under the OAU peace plan. But at this moment, of course, we must simply listen to the appeals of the suffering people.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to table a compromise oral amendment absorbing Amendments Nos 7, 8 and 9 tabled by Mr Belder. My amendment replaces citations 2, 4 and 6 of the report with the following: ‘Having regard to the recent statements by a number of Heads of State or Government on Europe’s future,’.

Political group: PSE
One of the greatest achievements of European integration was a result of the decision, in 1975, to bring about the solidarity and cohesion needed to reduce the gap between the economic levels of all the EU States and regions. Today, we can say that the way we adapt our Community cohesion policy with a view to enlargement will determine the quality of the Union’s future development. The European Parliament has, quite rightly, for a long time supported the idea that an appropriate economic and social cohesion policy cannot be reduced to the level of taking from the rich to give to the poor. It is the analysis of genuine needs, magnified by the prospect of enlargement, that should be considered as a priority, and not fixed references to budgets set in the past for different contexts. For, as the European Commission points out, enlargement will increase the development differential between the centrally located territories, on the one hand, and the peripheral and outermost regions on the other. In this regard, I would call for the outermost regions to continue to be considered a regional and cohesion policy priority, through further advances to be made with the implementation of Article 299(2) of the Treaty. Furthermore, we need to adapt competition policy, particularly national regional aid, and tax policy in order to strengthen regional and cohesion policy, with the understanding that the Structural Funds are not sufficient to counterbalance the handicaps and the delays in development accumulated over several decades. We also need to prepare for the revision of the common agricultural policy and rural development, in order to better coordinate the urban and rural dimensions of regional development. Finally, it would appear urgent to create a European monitoring centre for territorial cohesion. (Intervention cut short pursuant to Article 137 of the Rules of Procedure) - Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou report (A5-0022/2002) . – (IT) Mr President, I voted for Mrs Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou’s report, which concerns women in Mediterranean countries, too. In this regard, I would like to call upon all the Members to undertake to ensure that the European Union unilaterally extends the scope of Regulation 1408 on pro rata payment for the period of time a person has worked in the States of the European Union to all the citizens of southern Mediterranean countries, who have worked for many years in Europe and have the right to receive a proportionate pension for the work they have done in Europe, above and beyond the provisions of the relevant conventions.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, allow me to begin by thanking the Danish Presidency for its good work. It does not surprise me at all, but of course there are, and were, Members who doubted the Danish will and ability to carry out enlargement of the EU. This really has now come to nought. To listen to Mr Bonde, one wonders if he is not dreaming that he is back in the ‘good old days’ of the GDR. Last Monday I was in Bratislava, in Slovakia. There, it emerged that people felt very unfairly identified as an unreliable candidate country in connection with what had been said during the Dutch Government crisis. Other countries have also been named. I would like to say to Mrs Maij-Weggen that there are actually many Dutch liberals who share your opinion, as Mr Cox also quite rightly said. The last word has not been said on this subject. In order to reassure people in Bratislava, Warsaw, Riga and Vilnius, I wish to say that the President of the Council and the Commissioners confirm that there is no cause for concern. There is no information in the country reports to demonstrate that, in general, any countries are in a worse position than others. As Commissioner Verheugen emphasises, there is nothing today to show that there are any problems in any of the ten countries which cannot be solved. It is true that there are difficulties, but they are not insurmountable. I believe that it is extremely important that the Council and the Commission are clear on this subject. The historical and moral reunification of Europe is irrevocable. The EU honours its agreements. We stand our ground. I quote in Latin, which I once studied: pacta sunt servanda.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would just like to inform the House that owing to circumstances outside my control, I will be unable to take part in the votes today. There is a Convention meeting this afternoon in Brussels, and as there are no flights after the votes I will have to leave the Chamber at 11 a.m.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Commission's Green Paper on future noise-abatement policy, which appeared in 1996, stated that 20% of the population of Western Europe, in other words almost 80 million people, were exposed to noise levels that the experts deemed to be intolerable. The rapporteur has now quoted far higher percentages, but the fact is that ambient noise is a serious and a major environmental problem. That is why the reduction and prevention of ambient noise will feature prominently in future European environment policies. We welcome the proposal from the Commission, but it does not go far enough for us. The harmonisation of noise-measurement procedures and the production of action plans by the Member States are good things but are not enough to satisfy us. That is why we are calling for a framework directive as a basis for Community action to assess and combat ambient noise. We call on the Commission to present proposals for daughter directives and to do so within 18 months of the entry into force of the framework directive. These daughter directives would set quality standards for all sources of noise, and I am pleased that the line taken by our group was adopted by a large majority of the committee and hope that the amendments tabled by Bernd Lange on that basis will also secure the necessary majority in tomorrow's vote. My group, however, does not support the rapporteur's intention to use the directive to introduce limit values for ambient noise in the vicinity of airports. We have discussed the relevant amendments thoroughly in committee, but we believe that our line of approach, whereby quality standards for all specific sources of noise are to be the subject of daughter directives, is the more logical and consistent strategy. Another important proposal we have made, which will be of particular significance in the context of aviation noise, is that there should be an additional noise indicator over and above those that the rapporteur has enumerated. I therefore ask for your support for the amendment on the introduction of a noise indicator which defines a maximum level in addition to those which define mean levels.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I agree with the two former speakers that this is an annual report of the first rank and of the highest political order. It is precisely because I agree that I believe this Parliament should use this occasion to signal to the Court of Auditors its intense disquiet at the fact that a document of substance of the sort prepared by the Court should, whether correct or incorrect in terms of its content, have found its way into Der Spiegel of 8 November. This is not the way to do business. In a matter as weighty as this it is not right, on whoever’s part – and I do not know who is to blame for this leak – to seek a route which chooses the sensational over the institutional management of this issue. We are the body with the political competence to take into account the substantial and professional work of the Court of Auditors. It does not make sense that we should now be negotiating with the European Commission, following all the events of the past several months, a new code of conduct which, inter alia, insists that where there are issues of importance the Commission first comes here to tell this House what they are and then to take a procedure, such as the annual Report of the Court of Auditors, and say: there was a leak, it is a bit unfortunate, but let us get on with business as if nothing happened. No. This is the moment to draw a line and say to the Court of Auditors – whom my group holds in very high esteem – that we have separate functions: they audit and we do the politics. One of the tasks between now and December, if we choose to postpone this matter – as was the view of the majority of the Conference of Presidents – would be to invite the President of the Court of Auditors to undertake an extensive investigation as to whether it was to the Court or another institution that the leak could be traced. It was the Committee on Budgetary Control of Parliament which began years ago to insist that we should give, as parliamentarians, this report the weight that it deserves. In saying “postpone it” we are saying we want to take command of what is in it – not to sweep it under the carpet. We are saying that from now on there are new rules of engagement, not just with the Commission. The creeping propensity to find ourselves, as parliamentarians, on the back foot, explaining leaks that were inspired by one source or another is not the way to do business. Let us claim our rights as the institution. Let us stop sensationalising the work of the Court of Auditors.

Political group: ELDR