GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party is satisfied with the Commission’s statement. The health risks associated with salmon have quite obviously been exaggerated. On the other hand it is obvious that eating farmed salmon is less healthy than eating wild salmon. This is one reason why the European Union should aspire to a policy on salmon that keeps as close to nature as possible, although salmon farms will of course still be needed for the production of both rainbow trout and salmon. The Baltic Sea has its own migratory salmon stock. The rivers flowing into the Baltic have produced young that have migrated to feed on what the sea areas have to offer: shrimp and small fish. Contamination and the use of the water systems for floating timber and hydroelectric power production have had an adverse effect on breeding. This decline has been partially offset by introducing stocks of salmon into rivers, something which companies that produce hydroelectric power in particular have been obliged to do. That, however, has not had much effect. It has been estimated that as many as 95% of young salmon introduced in this way perish. On the other hand, there has been overfishing of salmon both in the open sea and in coastal waters close to the rivers in which they spawn. There have been continual disputes over salmon fishing rights. Now that, with enlargement, the Baltic Sea is to become even more obviously an inland sea of the Union, a comprehensive plan should be drawn up to protect salmon stocks and organise fishing activity. Salmon breeding must be restored as closely as possible to its original natural state. Rivers and streams that make good spawning grounds must be made suitable to permit increases in salmon stocks. Fishways should be built on constructed waterways, and the spawning grounds in the rivers should be properly maintained. By promoting the natural regeneration of salmon stocks we can open up new opportunities for sport fishing and tourism based on it in all the countries with a Baltic coastline. Once the natural reproduction process for salmon is improved, the level of introduced fish stocks can be reduced and in the course of time perhaps abandoned altogether. The money saved can be spent on the building of fishways, the upkeep of spawning grounds, and boosting other fish stock levels. The fishing of Baltic salmon should start to see the implementation of the ‘spawn state principle’, which has been successfully applied in the North Atlantic within the framework of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation. Fishing has to be restricted so that the sustainable and natural renewal of salmon stocks is assured. After the enlargement of the Union, the protection of the Baltic Sea, maintenance of its fish stocks and organisation of fishing activity in the region will no longer be matters of multilateral cooperation but a bilateral issue between the EU and Russia. I believe that Russia for its own part is prepared to take up the challenge of cooperation; the main responsibility, however, lies with us, the EU and the Member States of the Union.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, I would first of all like to thank the rapporteur for his report, but also the Commission for the proposal, which it presented at relatively short notice. We should not forget that three-quarters of all freight transport in Europe continues to take place by road and working conditions remain a major problem, because they not only have direct economic effects, they also have an impact in terms of security policy. The market is distorted by so-called social dumping. In an environment where competition is unregulated – such as we unfortunately have on our roads – only large transportation companies still have a chance of survival in the medium term. In any case it is becoming more and more difficult for small transportation companies as the competitive struggle is tough and sometimes it is at the cost of safety, and at the cost of driving and rest times, but also at the cost of proper employment relationships. It is this that we have dealt with and resolved partially in this proposal. The introduction of driver attestation is an initial response, and although it goes some way to solving the problem, it is still only a partial solution. Let us not forget that many hauliers from adjacent third countries exploit the situation and certain authorisations – be it CEMT licences or bilateral authorisations – to operate with poor social conditions and low wages. We are therefore called upon to go further than this report and deal with this issue if we are serious about transport, working conditions and especially if we are serious about road traffic safety. The rapporteur has suggested limiting the scope of this regulation to drivers from third countries. The opinion of the Commission – and I think this is very good – was that this should be extended to all drivers. Perhaps the amendments before us are a healthy compromise, because we can include third countries in a first phase and extend it to all drivers in a second phase, as we consider this to be a general and useful measure for all drivers. This also makes it possible to divide the administrative burden between two levels. As someone who lives in a border municipality, I know personally that there is quite a lot of checking to be done in this sphere at the internal European level too. And soon, when we have the new tachograph and the card, we can also introduce an integrated system of control that could take into account both social and safety aspects. We therefore propose that we should work in these two phases and hope that the countries will recognise, as with all regulations, that any regulation is only efficient if the control mechanisms too are efficient.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur not only for the work he has put in to produce this report but also for the rather unique way he has had to handle the situation that the Development Committee and Parliament found itself in. It is perhaps a sad indictment on the European institutions that, five months after the expiry date of the legal base to this Council regulation, it has only now come before Parliament, thanks, as the rapporteur and almost every other speaker has said, to an 8-month delay by the Council in responding to Parliament's first reading. Surely we cannot continue to work in this way. It is interesting to note that half this report is taken up by the procedural points the rapporteur has had to work his way through. Now it has returned to us it is particularly pleasing that the Council has adopted the thrust of most of our amendments. Most welcome is the fact that the Council has made poverty alleviation a top priority. This should strengthen the partnership between South Africa and Europe. I have just spent a week in South Africa and there is much appreciation for all that the EU is doing to stabilise their fragile democracy. Only by rapidly improving living standards, particularly in health, education and employment, will stability remain. There was much resentment against some nation states at the hold-ups there had been over the new trade agreement with particular reference to spirit names. We are doing much for South Africa and I hope, in return, President Mbeki will work for peace in the region, with particular reference to Zimbabwe. The implication in the rapporteur's report that this regulation may have been delayed because it was being used as a bargaining chip is very worrying. The Commission might like to comment on this particular point. I would also like to hear from the Commission on how we can streamline the system. In the last session in Strasbourg we had another regulation that had also run out last December and this should not happen. I must strongly support the rapporteur and his suggestions that the Commission should be tackling the issues of major topics, such as the importance and the overall impact of the programme in relation to the agreed objectives rather than individual programmes. I would also like to see delegate offices strengthened with more and better staff to be able to cope more efficiently with monitoring and evaluations. This regulation is bound to have an impact on neighbouring states and I hope the Commission will take this into consideration. The rapporteur has broken new ground on commitology which can only bode well for the future. My group supports this regulation but asks for a speedy conclusion to the vacuum we are in. We would not like to see any disagreement on budget amounts hold up ratification.

Political group: PPE-DE
I have voted against Amendment No 9, even though I have considerable sympathy with the principle raised; but Internet access does have a cost, and if the 'at no cost to the user' principle is to be taken forward, the question of who bears the cost must be clarified. This amendment introduces a very broad issue of major importance into a report on a very specific dimension of Internet access.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner, I would like to draw Parliament’s attention, as the budgetary authority, to two lines of financial aid which are different to those mentioned recently. The first is the line for projects of common interest for the trans-European transport networks. The Treaty of Maastricht gave the Community the task of contributing to the creation and development of trans-European infrastructure networks for transport, telecommunications and energy. These networks fall within the framework of the general objective of social and economic cohesion. In this regard, on 9 October the Commission presented to the Council of Ministers its new proposal containing a statement of projects of European interest. It is a very ambitious proposal, but it does not have the necessary resources. I am therefore proposing in an amendment that priority must be given to sea and river transport, rail and cross-border connection projects, but, above all, to those projects to which the Member States are already committing significant resources. For the latter, please refer to the Van Miert report, presented on 30 June 2003, because there are many other projects which have been on the table since the Essen European Council in 1994 and today, nine years later, they have yet to be dealt with. I therefore suggest that the Commission should demand the cancellation or even return of the aid allocated to an action in the event that that action has not been completed within 10 years of its approval. Nevertheless, the Commission would have the power not to apply that time limit in the case of an extraordinarily large project or an unexpected delay. Secondly, tourism will soon be the European Union's most important service industry. The World Tourism Organisation expects the number of tourist arrivals to double, to approximately 720 million a year in 2020, and the 9 million people for whom it provides work will increase by between 2 and 3.5 million, to 12.5 million jobs. We therefore proposed that resources be allocated at European level to assist the promotion, monitoring and assessment of an ecologically and socially sustainable tourism policy, which, however, was rejected. I trust that, in the future, the Constitutional Treaty will consider this activity as a Community objective, because it affects all of us, service providers and users.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, one of the reasons that Bali was so disappointing is that people need incentives to become involved in achieving the goal of sustainable development. Every failure to reach agreement, such as this, sends out very negative signals. Action plans should focus on people because development can only be truly sustainable in its widest possible sense if it looks at people's needs but has respect for different languages and cultures as well as cultural values. There has to be partnership with developing countries and structures that respect democracy, human rights and good governance – new structures for global governance such as the World Environment Agency. As we have heard from the other speakers, there is general pessimism about the prospects of success at Johannesburg, so I would like to ask the Commission what the EU strategy in pursuit of sustainable development will be if Johannesburg does not deliver.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The rapporteur calls for the right, for the European Parliament, to have access to documents on security and defence that are classified as ‘confidential’, ‘secret’ or ‘top secret’ whilst pointing out that ‘public access may be refused’ to these documents, which are therefore kept from the people of the European Union, whereas the latter claims to ensure their defence and their security. This only serves to highlight the derisory nature of this claim and the hypocrisy of the European institutions which never fail to take an opportunity to boast about the so-called ‘transparency’ of their work. As for knowing whether the agreement between the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament (which, in any case, excludes ‘top secret’ documents) would even enable a few hand-picked Members to have access to other documents on security and defence, the rapporteur states that ‘the manner in which this Agreement is used in practice will be decisive’. Clearly, for security and defence issues, as for all other subjects considered to be of some importance by the Council and the Commission, these two institutions only provide the European Parliament with as much information as they wish. This will only come as a surprise to those who believe that the European Parliament has a role other than that of offering a ‘democratic’ smokescreen to policies which are dictated by the interests of the ruling classes and are completely unmonitored. We shall vote against this report and the accompanying proposal for a decision.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, media concentration is an important issue not only at European and national level but also at sub-Member State level. There is a significant problem in Scotland. In the central belt of Scotland there are two serious broadsheet newspapers, The Herald and The Scotsman. The Herald has recently been put up for sale by the Scottish Media Group. Rumours have it that the current owners of The Scotsman – the Barclay Brothers – are trying to buy The Herald. This would result in a monopoly of serious media coverage in the central belt of Scotland. So when we examine media concentration we should look at its impact at every level. I would hope that the UK authorities will listen to the advice of this Parliament and ensure that the Barclay Brothers are not allowed to acquire ownership of The Scotsman newspaper.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I have listened carefully to the statements of the President-in-Office of the Council, which outlined general approaches which I feel I can support, but I would prefer to focus on a number of practical issues, not least because Mr Antonione called for the European Parliament’s support. To obtain this support, which we are, moreover, quite willing to give, he must enter into dialogue with the positions of the European Parliament. On 21 October, there was a meeting of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs in which the Italian Foreign Minister took part, representing the President-in-Office. I would like to draw the attention of Mr Antonione and the House to two points once again. We are firmly in favour of keeping the reference to the Legislative Council, the concentration of the European Parliament’s legislative function in the Council, which is an important point, a major innovation of the draft Convention. Now, Mr Antonione tells us that he has taken note of the fact that the majority is opposed to this. I would express my doubts once again regarding this approach: one cannot take decisions just by counting the numbers for and against. Sometimes, I even have the impression that the views of 28 governments are part of the equation, whereas only 25 are entitled to give an opinion, for three are mere observers. In the Convention, there were analyses, exchange of opinions, a search for solutions, a debate on the points for and against each solution, and, lastly, compromise. We cannot accept that the Intergovernmental Conference should do no more than tot up the fors and againsts. Mr Antonione has made a commitment – and I appreciate the significance of this – to keep the matter open. I do not know exactly what the outcome of this will be, but we call strongly for this point not to be deleted. The second point concerns the procedure for revising the Treaties. Mr Antonione did not mention it today, but Mr Frattini undertook before our committee to look into drawing up an Italian proposal to go beyond the text, which was not agreed in the Convention and is not, therefore, binding for any party. We are in danger of creating an absurd situation where we go back to square one on issues already resolved in the Convention with a compromise but we are unable to discuss issues which were not the subject of an agreement in the Convention, such as, precisely, the revision procedure. I do not know whether the Italian Presidency intends to include this matter in the comprehensive proposal planned for the third week in November too, but we reiterate our firm commitment to fight for this to be included. Lastly, Mr Antonione did not mention the issue raised by Mr Méndez de Vigo: it is unacceptable for sectoral configurations of the Council of Ministers to produce amendments to the Convention’s text. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner Bolkestein invited us to take a positive view of the Commission's action in the 17 February joint statement. I am sure the Commission was motivated by a genuine desire to rescue European airlines from being stuck between a rock and a hard place, in that if they complied with Community law on data protection they would be grounded and refused US landing rights, whereas if they gave into US demands they would fall foul of data protection authorities. However, the Commission made the wrong call, not least in consulting neither the European Parliament nor, previously, the National Data Protection Commissioners' Article 29 Working Party. It is disingenuous to try to claim that it is not an agreement. It is called a joint statement and it is also referred to in the text as an understanding of both sides which will be implemented. That, in plain English, is surely an agreement. However, it does not deliver legal certainty and the Chairman of the Article 29 Working Party has contested the assertion by the Commission that EU data protection authorities may not find it necessary to take enforcement actions – that is for breaches of the Data Protection Directive – against airlines complying with the US requirements. This is a stunning rebuff to the Commission. He said in essence that National Data Protection Commissioners and courts were not free to suspend application of relevant laws just on the say-so of the Commission. That must be right. It is a reminder to the Commission that if it will not be the guardian of Community law, then others have to be. The political groups are in wide agreement on this matter. The only point of contention is the amendment calling for the Commission to secure suspension of the US demands until there is a decision on compatibility with the Data Protection Directive, which means an Article 25(6) decision. The Group has not signed this amendment, and I understand they believe it would leave the airlines exposed. However, the Article 29 Working Party has stated that they are exposed anyway to sanction for breach of data protection legislation. Therefore it is academic. The text of the statement makes it quite clear that the Data Protection Directive applies, because it states that US customs will access the data in the territory of the Community. The basic problem is that the US has no data protection laws. This is a problem for the Europol Agreement and the EU-US Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement. There is huge concern about the balance between security and civil liberties being tipped too far towards security in the United States. In the light of various apparent miscarriages of justice recently in the US, the lack of control on use of data by other law enforcement agencies is of great concern. We need an Article 25(6) decision after consultation of this House. The Commission may have tried its best, but it did the wrong thing.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there is no disputing the fact that, along with the rules on free movement, health and safety at work is one of the European Union's spheres of activity that does not lack an unambiguous legal basis. The enactment of minimum requirements in this area is necessary in order to prevent, in this European internal market, competitive advantages from being won as it were on the backs of the workforce. In this sense, it is also laudable that the Commission is thinking about the future and setting out its primary areas of concern. As well stated in this report, women and people with disabilities should be the main areas of concern. I am, though, rather wary of efforts to interpret the law broadly and make every conceivable aspect of working life subject to European regulation. In this area, too, there must still be room for national peculiarities and independence. We are indeed facing great changes in working life in Europe. There are fewer and fewer employees in the traditional sense of the word. What are termed atypical working patterns are on the increase, and I also cannot rid myself of the suspicion that, in the absence of solutions to the real problems, we are increasingly churning out papers and declarations of intent that do workers at their actual workplaces precious little good. It seems to me to be a fact that – be it on the grounds of the oft-cited globalisation or of general developments in society – there is less protection for workers, the value of work as a factor of production is decreasing and the worker's need for protection is falling behind, whether despite European integration or because of it. Greater attention therefore needs to be given to the maintenance of the status quo as regards safety in actual workplaces. We have to maintain the level of protection that we have achieved and made into one of Europe's common assets; it must also be introduced in the candidate countries, not only on paper, but also in reality. Paper can hang around a long time, even, and indeed especially in Europe – we all know that. But the industrial safety that we have achieved is at the heart of the social dimension of a Europe that is becoming more integrated, something that I believe workers see as a far more positive development than papers on employment and other aspects of strategy.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, the Pensioners Party has voted in favour of opening up the production and marketing of GMOs, the subject of Mr Bowe’s report. Why? Because pensioners are waiting for the wine that rejuvenates; pensioners are waiting for the wine that does not intoxicate; pensioners are waiting for the wine that does not damage the liver, the wine that makes men fascinating, and indeed the champagne that makes women, even mothers-in-law, utterly beautiful. And finally, Italians are waiting for GMOs to make bistecca alla fiorentina completely harmless so they can consume that choice Italian and European delicacy without a care in the world. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE