GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I wish to thank Commissioner Patten for allowing Parliament the opportunity, already at this stage of the Northern Dimension Action Plan, to be involved in this work. The aim must be that the Commission makes a greater commitment to respond to the special questions posed by the EU’s northern regions. I believe that Greece, as the country to hold the presidency, will also address this challenge, and I also hope it will be able to convince Parliament over the coming spring that this is what it is doing, because now it is not succeeding. I myself, however, have already had the opportunity to hear this assurance personally. The EU’s forthcoming Northern Dimension Action Plan must be broad in scope, to make possible political and economic dialogue and action in all sectors of society. As Commissioner Patten has already said, very much has already been done in the area of cooperation on energy. What is more, progress has been made in projects devoted to cooperation on environmental issues. In that area, of course, cooperation has to be strengthened further. There are many challenges in the Northern Dimension region, and not least those to do with nuclear power and nuclear waste. In addition, the Gulf of Finland is vulnerable, and for this reason, progress has still to be made with the sewage treatment projects in St. Petersburg. We are, however, to have a new partnership programme for social affairs and health for part of the Northern Dimension and this must have an important place in the new Northern Dimension Action Plan. Health and social issues usually go hand in hand. Bad social conditions are responsible for poor health as well as disease, which spreads across borders, and we need vigorous cooperation in this area. In connection with the Northern Dimension Action Plan we still have to continue to develop frontier crossing points and obtain Russia’s involvement in making it easier to cross borders at current crossing points. I now wish in particular, however, to focus the Commissioner’s attention on something he has already touched on here, which is how we might be able to get border cooperation to function more efficiently. The Commission has already begun work to develop the PHARE, TACIS and Interreg programmes of cooperation. We nevertheless need administrative reforms, one common programme to implement action in this area, and less bureaucracy and more action. I believe that these matters will be taken into account in the forthcoming action plan.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all let me express my deep disagreement with the excessively liberal, if not actually ultraliberal, tendencies of the report by our fellow Member, Mr Evans. Hearing him deny the fact that state aid was reduced in the period 1994-1998, even though the Commission itself acknowledges this reduction, is already bizarre, to say the least. It is all the more serious, however, to see him, in an almost obsessive way, stressing the exceptional nature of state aid, even though the Treaty itself provides for the use of such aid in order to achieve the objectives set by the Treaties, such as in matters of the environment or social cohesion, and even though the European Commission itself recognises that some policies cannot be sustained solely by market forces. These, I feel, are adequate reasons for me not to support the report as it stands. And, even if I can relate to the demands for increased transparency on the subject of state aid, and for Parliament to be kept informed with regard to the monitoring of aid approved by the Commission, I shall nonetheless continue to argue in favour of maintaining state aid in order to develop social cohesion, research, innovation, environmental protection, in order to compensate for shortfalls in the market, in order to promote European competitiveness in the world, in order to combat the fraudulent machinations of competing countries, such as Korea in the sphere of shipbuilding. Let me add that state aid must be supervised strictly according to the terms of the treaties and not in accordance with the prevailing liberal ideology. Between the omnipresent State, which no one wants any more, and the completely absent State, which is nothing more than a modern-day law of the jungle, this concept which many term the European social model forces us to continually seek a balance between those things that can be governed by the market and those which public authorities have a duty to regulate.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, one very quick question: I have just read in a Spanish newspaper that Nestlé, a large multinational, is demanding USD 6 million from Ethiopia in the middle of a famine. I really do not know what kind of world we are living in, and I cannot get over my amazement, regardless of the economic and legal reasons this multinational may have. Whatever the case, the situation is none the less cruel.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I also support the report by Mr Souchet and am extremely sorry to see the pollution caused by the oil tanker in Galicia. With regard to the Stevenson report, although it is somewhat contradictory, it does take account of many of the proposals and positions that we called for and which are important to Portugal, specifically the installation of 12-mile coastal zones as a permanent feature of the CFP, the participation of fishermen’s organisations in the decision-making process, socio-economic measures to compensate for the effects of the reform, which must take account of past efforts, greater investment in research and ensuring that there is no legal vacuum. Two of our proposals that we felt were of the utmost importance were also accepted: the extension of the derogation concerning free access to 50 miles in the case of the most remote regions, as laid down in the Treaty, and strengthening the support mechanisms for the processing industry, specifically the canning industry. Nevertheless, we disagree with the proposals that are intended to change the report, with some that were rejected in the Committee on Fisheries and which run counter to the positions and proposals that we tabled once again being adopted. We shall, however, be voting in favour of the proposal which is comparable to an amendment of ours, which is of enormous importance to Portugal, and which has already been adopted in the other report, stating that the six-twelve mile zones should be maintained and defined as a feature of the common fisheries policy, for an unlimited period of time, in order to promote conservation and to encourage the local development of small-scale fishing.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I should like to respond to what my fellow Member has just said. I am among those who are in favour of the Friday sitting and who think it important to keep the sitting on that day, just like on the other days of the week. I should like to add that some of us who, quite rightly, requested that that quorum be checked so that the sittings could be conducted in due order, remained in attendance throughout the votes. It is inaccurate, therefore, to accuse Members of sabotage. There are Members in the Chamber who attend from Monday to Friday, and remain until the end of the sitting on Friday.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I was going to vote in favour of the motion given its positive points and the hopes to which certain points may legitimately give rise. However, two interventions by Mr Désir highlighted that the texts, at least in the French version, contained provisions totally contrary to the principles of international law and, in particular, to the European Convention on Human Rights. This is why I abstained during the vote on the legislative resolution.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I would just like to address you on behalf of the Members of Parliament who stay behind on Friday morning. We have the impression that we are being left very much to our own devices in this building. Let me give you just one example. On the Friday of the last part-session, I wanted to access my mail. I tried, but it was impossible. I attempted to contact an official. Honestly, I did everything I could, but there was no one who could help me. I discussed this with other Members who were also still here with me on Friday morning, and the general opinion was that we felt that we had been utterly deserted.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, only a few stalwarts are in the House at present. Nonetheless, history has shown that the budget is the cornerstone of representative democracies. They can only flourish if Parliament controls the sovereign’s expenditure. We are on the point of adopting the first European constitution. The Union has been in existence for 46 years and budgetary powers have remained unchanged for the last 30. I therefore believe updating is imperative. Several points are now obsolete. In addition, if the treaty were applied to the letter it would not be in line with the reality of present day budgets. Mr Garriga Polledo referred to budgetary perspectives a moment ago. There is no provision for these in the treaty, though the Council often seems to be unaware of that fact. Ladies and gentlemen, the constitution must encompass the budgetary process and own resources. The mantra of seventeenth century revolutions was ‘no taxation without representation’. Precisely the opposite applies in the European Union. There is strong democratic representation in the form of this House, but taxation is not approved democratically. Essentially, the own resources system amounts to national contributions by another name, even though these are legally the Union’s own resources. This cannot be allowed to continue. Resources should henceforth come directly from the citizen. The citizen would then understand that taxes are destined to the Union’s budget. This is a basic feature of democratic responsibility. Otherwise, Finance Ministers will go on collecting the money and the Community will go on spending it and the reasons will remain unclear. This is bad for democratic control. It is therefore necessary to move towards a system enabling this connection to be made without increasing the total tax burden on the citizens. Personal and possibly progressive taxation should be introduced. It would then no longer be possible to allege, as is often the case, that unemployed citizens in eastern Germany are subsidising large landowners in Andalusia. Please excuse this crude simplification. The result is unhealthy populism. It is essential to ensure that it will no longer be possible to distinguish between the various countries’ contributions under any future financial system. A citizen’s contribution should be based on his or her personal resources. It should not depend on his or her place of residence. In my view, this must be a key feature of the new approach, that is, of the new way of tackling the system of resources. Madam President, this is the main point the Socialist Group wishes to make. Other honourable Members will speak on further aspects of our stance.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, please allow me, on behalf of the committee, to comment on a report which we have now unanimously accepted, because this has to do with an extension to the Lamfalussy procedure. What this means is that the legislative rights of the European Parliament will not be reduced without a provision in the European Constitution, so far only in Article 35 of the draft. What is at issue is that, if we delegate legislation to expert committees and the executive, we should at all times retain the right of review, so that, in the context of institutional balance, we are treated in exactly the same way as the Council. This has led to major problems on the issue of legislation on securities, but we have seen that this House has been able to remain in control of the legislative process, retain sovereignty of definition and draw a clear line between technical and political problems, so that the European Parliament, elected by the people, and therefore sovereign, has in fact also remained a co-legislator. What is now at issue is its extension to the banking and insurance sector. Here, the institutions, the legislative participants of the European Council and the Commission with their right of proposal, have given us an assurance that they will respect the rights of the European Parliament as a participant in the legislative process, and they are now also both issuing a declaration to that effect, so that no privileged treatment of the other legislator arises. We are prepared to adopt this procedure because legislation is becoming more and more complex, as will also be apparent in the area of telecommunications, but we cannot delegate sovereignty of definition and the political determination of legislation to experts or to the executive. Having received these guarantees from the Commission and the Council we will now proceed to vote on my report, which permits the expansion, but which at the same time makes it clear that the Parliament remains the legislator in the codecision process. That was not established with this degree of clarity prior to the Convention draft, but now we have here an agreement between the institutions, and I see this as a major step forward for this European Parliament.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the message of the Lisbon Summit was clear and unambiguous: it put the spotlight back on the people as the architects of economic success. That is the key concept: a knowledge-based economy in which each and every individual is able to develop his or her talents. It is also central to the combination of innovation and social participation that we intend to use to mobilise society’s full potential and overall assets, so as to achieve full employment again. It is the task of the economic policy guidelines to convert this noble aim into concrete policy. However, the Commission’s recommendations are to be found wanting in this respect. All too often, they are fainthearted and wedded to outmoded ideas, when what they should be doing is developing an outline for a promising new form of policy mix. That is why it is necessary for these guidelines to be improved on, and what we need most of all, in future, is for a joint spring report to be drafted which is capable of properly combining sustainable growth, employment and social cohesion. This must also have a noticeable effect on practical politics. This will have certain consequences, in two areas in particular. Sustainable economic growth of 3% or more requires a dramatic increase in investment, particularly in environmentally friendly sectors. This applies both to the private and the public sectors. The Commission has a decision to make in this respect. It cannot simultaneously pursue the Lisbon objectives and put the case for a policy of overall tax reductions and expenditure cuts!

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am a firm supporter of the fight against any form of racism and xenophobia, but I abstained from the vote on Mrs Ludford’s resolution because I see it as one of those hotchpotch resolutions that tries to cover all manner of things and sometimes contradicts itself. I do not think this kind of resolution does any credit to our Parliament. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think we must welcome Mr Fernández Martín’s report and be glad that responsibility for the report was finally given to the Committee on Development and Cooperation. The majority of the countries to which the regulation applies are in reality developing countries. We have worked hard to achieve a compromise in the committee that could be accepted by the Council and the Commission, as well as by Parliament. We understand the importance of getting this report through at first reading. We therefore support the rapporteur’s request to vote against the third amendment by the Committee on Budgets, which is unacceptable to the Council. Nonetheless, we have made some demands of the Commission to ensure that Parliament is able to follow the work on the regulation more effectively. By asking the Commission to produce an annual report setting out programming for the coming year by region and by sector, we wish considerably to increase the transparency of the work on the regulation. Moreover, reporting back to Parliament will mean our better understanding where implementation is most effective. We are pleased that the Commission has accepted some of our most important changes. It is important that the decisions taken on a human rights basis reflect the EU’s commitments to support democracy, international law and, naturally, respect for human rights. The additional proposals initially tabled were aimed at ensuring that our decisions on human rights were based upon our own anxiety concerning the security of the European Union. That would have been a tragic mistake. We do need to protect ourselves, especially against terrorist threats, but the present trend espoused even by a number of senior figures in the EU, whereby aid should be tailored in such a way as to meet our security needs, is a very dangerous road to go down and a principle that should not be established. We must protect human dignity when it comes to our measures concerning human rights, cooperation and the development of aid and ensure that the primary focus of these measures is always the consolidation of democracy, international law and human rights and the eradication of poverty. Finally, this is the last time that I too am speaking in this House. I shall be leaving it after ten years, and I wish to thank you for your very constructive cooperation.

Political group: PSE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Budgets. – Mr President, I just want to thank everybody, because, as I said at the beginning, this was a unique event. We have never done anything like this before. In the main it has been successful. Granted, some Members just made standard speeches, but there has been some good debate and we have had some good responses. We have also had some confusing responses, especially on the Global Health Fund. I should like to thank all those who have taken part, especially the individual Commissioners, and Mrs Schreyer for being here all the time. I should also like to thank the President-in-Office. During this presidency, the Danes have achieved several firsts in the budget procedure and to sit here for four and a half hours is a massive first. It has never been done before. (Applause) I must also note that Mr Elles' speech in which he set out six priorities of the Group was very good. Three of them seemed to have more to do with getting British Conservatives onto the list, which is going ahead at present, than with budgetary rigour or budgetary sense. I am sure Mr Elles will take that in the manner in which it is meant. All in all it has been a good debate and I should like to thank all those who have taken part. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on 9 April the Republic of Peru will be holding presidential elections and legislative elections to elect the 90 members of Congress. As has already been mentioned, the European Union maintains relations with Peru in the context of the cooperation agreement signed with the Andean Pact, in force since 1998. That agreement has borne fruit and the European Union is Peru’s principal economic partner and also its leading investor, having invested – together with the Member States – over USD 6 500 million in the last seven years. United with the Republic of Peru in this context of friendship and cooperation, we trust that the coming presidential and legislative elections will be held in a fair and transparent manner, in accordance with universally recognised principles, and that they will serve to consolidate and deepen the rule of law and the democratic maturity of the Peruvian institutions. We hope all the political parties will be able to take part in these elections freely and on equal terms. From 1980 until barely two months ago, there were regions in Peru under the control of the armed forces, due to the insecurity generated by the terrorism of Shining Path, which cost Peru – and this is the worst thing – 25 000 lives in the last fifteen years and losses of over USD 30 000 million. In October 1998, the peace treaty was signed with Ecuador, ending a conflict which had been another reason for the presence of the armed forces in the frontier zones. Since then efforts have been made to re-adapt and re-organise the armed presence and, in our opinion, that must be continued. Mr President, I would not want to close without mentioning the fact that, regardless of Peru being a signatory to the American Human Rights Convention, we are concerned about its withdrawal from the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court for Human Rights. So we would like to take specific advantage of this debate to ask Peru to review its decision and once again join in that work and accept the jurisdiction of the Convention. (Applause) War crimes in Chechnya:

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, first of all, I would like to address my thanks to our rapporteur and congratulate her on the significance and the high quality of her work. The two proposals take up some of the commitments given in the White Paper on Food Safety. They aim to improve protection of European consumers against microbiological risks from food products. We cannot underestimate the extent to which successive food crises, including those linked to salmonella, have undermined consumer confidence regarding food safety. We can, therefore, only support the approval of the two texts which have been submitted to us today. We must strengthen the monitoring and control system of zoonotic agents of animal origin in order to reduce their prevalence, whilst stressing that the effectiveness of the texts that are currently in force has been restricted by the fact that some Member States are failing to apply these texts properly. Overall, the Commission’s proposals are balanced. It might have been better, however, to go further on certain points and consequently I, like the rapporteur, believe that it would be worthwhile providing for control programmes for all the salmonella serotypes that present a risk to public health. I also wish to stress the need for strict coordination between the work of the European Food Authority and the work of the national authorities so that the early warning system functions effectively. Regarding resistance to antibiotics, I believe, like the rapporteur, that we must treat this worrying phenomenon with due attention. Careful use of antibiotics must be encouraged and the necessary studies on resistance to antibiotics must be carried out. My group also supports the amendment seeking to allow the Member States that have achieved a high level of protection to prevent, for a limited period, the placing on the market of products imported from Member States which do not yet have an approved control programme within the stipulated timeframe. This measure will act as a considerable incentive to introduce harmonisation of security levels within the internal market. I welcome the fact that the applicable control measures are based on objectives that are set every three years. This will enable us to set ambitious but realistic constraints. We must ensure that we do not go too far and impose timetables on Member States that they will be unable to apply. The Commission has, in this area, striven to achieve a balance. Like the rapporteur I believe it is important for the monitoring of zoonoses and their agents to apply to all levels of the food chain, including animal foodstuffs. My group also supports the principle of including vegetables within the scope of the directive. Lastly, we must work to ensure that these provisions are swiftly adopted and implemented, which will, I am sure, contribute to restoring European consumer confidence in food.

Political group: PSE