GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the Committee on Budgetary Control has passed all the candidates being discussed here. And we do mean passed, not just automatically rubberstamped. There have been candidates in the past that have been rejected by this House because there was some doubt as to their qualifications or impartiality. Luckily, we have avoided such a turn of events this time even though, and I am betraying no secrets here, ex ante confidence has been placed in two of the candidates passed. Allow me therefore to make a few basic comments on the Court of Auditors. The Court of Auditors too is in need of urgent reform as the result of enlargement. As Eluned Morgan has just said, the clearest way of going about this is on the basis of the number of members, as with the Commission. At present, the Court has 15 members, traditionally one per Member State, even though the Treaty does not expressly prescribe this. Fifteen members is five fewer than the Commission but, in the case of a relatively small institution such as the Court of Auditors, any further increase will make the Court much too top-heavy and unwieldy. That the Court is already unwieldy is clear from the overly prolonged procedure preceding the publication of its report. This needs to be addressed at the forthcoming intergovernmental conference. I should therefore like to argue for no further increase in the number of members of the Court of Auditors and, in this case at least, for the reverse, i.e. a reduction in the number of members, to be considered. On the other hand, I take the view that the number of auditors available to the Court needs to be increased. In other words, to coin a phrase, fewer chiefs, more Indians! In addition, and this is the second point which I should like to raise here, we must consider if the Court should not be allocated new tasks in connection with budgetary discipline. The crisis in the Commission now behind us demonstrated abundantly clearly that there is no effective mechanism for calling to account EU officials guilty of serious management errors or worse. This is mainly because the disciplinary procedure is an internal matter at the Commission, with officials sitting in judgement on other officials. So we cannot really blame those involved for taking a very, and unfortunately even excessively, lenient and forbearing an approach to cases from the outset. The only way out of this is to outsource these procedures to an external authority. What we need is a budgetary discipline division and such a division could well come under the Court of Auditors. It has the necessary competence in financial matters and it has the necessary independence. Mind you, this sort of reform would entail amending the Treaties. However, without such reform, all the announcements being bandied about to the effect that stricter action will be taken next time will just be empty words.

Political group: PSE
The recommendation for second reading on a directive on market abuse, which we are considering today, is both timely and appropriate. It is timely because confidence in the integrity of market participants has been seriously damaged over the last two years as a result of various cases of market abuse, chiefly in the United States. It is appropriate because the common position addresses the need for regulatory authorities to have sufficient enforcement flexibility to be able to detect market abuse and sanction its practitioners on a consistent and effective basis. Also covered is the right of market participants to enjoy reasonable legal certainty that their actions will be considered appropriate. The key is to be able to deal with market abuse in a consistent manner. Those who have intent and knowledge of market abuse – and knowledge includes journalists – or who act recklessly will be punished. Those whose actions are innocent but have unintended effects will not, however, be penalised. The fact that we now have a debate with so few amendments tabled nearly 18 months after the initial proposal, when the financial services industry initially questioned whether there was any need for such a proposal, owes much to the skill and patience of our rapporteur, Mr Goebbels. I would like to congratulate him. We have obtained an appropriate definition of market manipulation and of financial instruments whose use falls within the scope of the directive. Nevertheless, Member States must increase the resources available to their regulators so that they can be effective in their investigation and pursuit of market manipulators.

Political group: PSE
Several of the recommendations made by the Commission and Parliament's Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy are to be welcomed from a health policy point of view. I am thinking in particular of information campaigns and programmes to treat addiction to smoking. The amendment seeking to introduce measures against involuntary exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in indoor workplaces, enclosed public places and public transport also enhances the recommendation. I particularly welcome the call to promote economically viable alternatives for tobacco growers and to promote the gradual replacement of subsidies for raw tobacco with alternatives. Obviously we cannot simply take these producers' and their families' daily bread away without offering them an acceptable alternative. I am not especially happy, however, with all of the recommendations in this report. The recommendation to the Member States to raise the price of tobacco products artificially by increasing the tax burden will not, I think, be effective in the fight against tobacco consumption. In the United Kingdom a packet of cigarettes costs twice or three times as much as it does in Luxembourg. I have yet to hear, however, that tobacco consumption in the British Isles is much lower than in the other Member States as a result, let alone that the problem has been solved. The only ones who could welcome this would be our finance and budget ministers, in particular those who are having to contend with a larger budget deficit and are therefore facing a 'blue letter' from the Commission because they have exceeded the Stability Pact criteria. (Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137, Paragraph 1 of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: PPE-DE
Obviously the farmers in the UK and in my constituency where we have a suspected case are absolutely devastated by this in addition to BSE. The Commissioner said that no funding from the EU had been requested for this at the moment. Would there be EU funding specifically available to help with foot-and-mouth? Will he also help the British Government to determine where the foot-and-mouth originally came from, because he said that we do not import from countries that do not have a clean record. I thought it was perhaps just regions of particular countries. Could he be a little more specific on that? Would he agree with me that the closure of the smaller abattoirs in the UK has perhaps led to the spread of the disease?

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, this debate has one thing in its favour; that at least it is highlighting the differences of opinion that exist among us, especially between the Council and the Commission. I too do not accept the arrogance of certain Member States which, since they do not apply the tests, are not pushing for regulations. This is unacceptable. If France is now in the situation in which it finds itself, it is because it practises controls which do not exist elsewhere. Now, it is not just a matter of a crisis in the beef sector, it is a public health problem, and we are also faced with an economic crisis. The health of European consumers must be a top priority in all decisions that are adopted. The entire food chain is at the heart of this problem. Consumers have lost confidence and, in order to contain this phenomenon, there must be systematic BSE tests on cattle and sheep. Farmers themselves are demanding them. Adopting emergency measures and common sense measures by banning the use of MBMs for all species would indeed be a practical application of the precautionary principle! Commissioner, I have always had a great deal of confidence in you, but I do not understand why you are being so reluctant to act. How can you imagine that you are applying the precautionary principle if you are refusing to ban MBMs? Mr Byrne, you are well aware that no MBMs are completely safe. It is by adopting measures of this kind that consumers will be reassured and that farmers who support this idea, especially as voiced by their unions, will hear the message of solidarity that we want to send them. There are no scientific certainties with regard to the transmission of the disease to other species. But what we are certain of is that we must restore consumer confidence and support the farming sector. Let nobody tell me that we cannot destroy MBMs! We have wasted a lot of time. We should have put the necessary tools to incinerate these meals in place years ago. Let nobody tell me that we are unable to replace these MBMs! Commissioner, I am sorry that your colleague responsible for agriculture is not here and that he does not have the courage to face us and to explain that it is necessary to completely overhaul the common agricultural policy. I condemn the limitations and the worrying consequences of this policy. A reform of the CAP is not just necessary, it is indispensable, because it is intolerable that a European country should adopt draconian measures and jeopardise its economy. European solidarity must also play a role, because our policy has exposed its inconsistencies: set-aside, animal meal for cattle, nitrates, pesticides. The CAP must be reorganised to encourage farmers. Production must be improved, and the budget of the CAP must be used to reorganise this policy.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the growing concern of peoples regarding the implications of the worldwide liberalisation of trade, which was so clearly present in the Seattle demonstrations and the Porto Alegre world social forum, is reflected to some degree in this report, which highlights the need for transparency in the way negotiations are prepared and conducted, enhanced parliamentary control, and respect for the precautionary principle and the principle of sustainable development. The report is not, however, coherent in the positions it adopts, and it ultimately supports the continuation of liberalisation, particularly in respect of the trade in services, and we consider this to be negative. With regard to agriculture too, although it includes certain changes made by the Committee on Agriculture specifically to ensure food safety and food quality, it does not take into account other major amendments, such as the one we tabled on the review of the Blair House agreement, with particular regard to protein-rich plants, given the BSE crisis and the part played by animal meal. It also ultimately advocates the continuation of the trend to liberalise agricultural trade, which we do not support.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, we are not concerned here with the continued existence, or otherwise, of genetically modified organisms. I am among those who believe that neither humanity as a whole nor its merely European component can do without this knowledge and technology. It is, however, very important that we apply the precautionary and ‘polluter pays’ principles and that we respect people’s anxiety faced with something new. We must therefore be able to label GMOs and provide proper information about them. We have had, and still have, different views on the point at issue, but I nonetheless wish to congratulate Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf on this report. We have substantially been able to agree upon an attitude to be adopted by the European Parliament, and I hope that this will give a signal to the Commission and the Council. I think that the report is very well balanced, but I have some comments to make. I am disappointed when I hear the Commissioner so positively come out against paragraph 3 on common rules. The wind does in actual fact blow across national borders. It is not sensible to have one rule apply on one side of a national border and another rule on the other side. We are concerned here with life and with what life consists of. If we wish to achieve something by what we are doing, we must have common rules. Think about it in the Commission before you make any over-hasty decisions. I am able, however, to go some way towards agreeing with the Commission when it comes to paragraph 9. I believe it would be dangerous to continue with a moratorium if we do not get what we want. I actually agree with paragraph 9, but I consider that it perhaps goes a little too far. I am not prepared to vote in favour of that paragraph. It is the only paragraph in the report about which I take a different view. When it comes to regional renunciation, the Commissioner says that it can only become a reality if it is voluntary. In my simplicity, I had imagined that democratic decisions were always voluntary. Does that not, then, mean that there can be no cause for concern? I believe that a region or country is entitled to say ‘we do not want this’. We cannot compel people to use a technology if they do not wish to do so, even if I consider the technology to be a sound one. It is very important that we give out this signal and that we can be in relative agreement tomorrow when we take a decision. We certainly have different views on the continued existence, or otherwise, of genetically modified organisms, but we wish to be cautious. We now wish to come up with a proposal on how to arrange for coexistence, and this with a view to our being credible in the eyes of all those who have to live on the food that is produced in either one way or another.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, with regard to the Chechens, we risk being guilty of the same crime as European passivity towards the genocide of the Jews: the crime of indifference. Indifference makes us accomplices. 80 000 people have died in Chechnya since 1999. Hundreds of thousands have been made refugees. Yes, we appreciate Russian cooperation in the fight against terrorism, but that is no reason to turn a blind eye to humanitarian atrocities by both sides in Chechnya. The only way forward is negotiations for a political solution, a referendum and elections. The OSCE mission must be allowed to stay as an aid to that process, just as the Russians are in Kosovo. The Russians are trying to extradite Ahmed Zakayev, the envoy of the Chechen president. The Danish Government refused, due to lack of evidence of his participation in criminal acts. The British Government, now considering a similar request, should tell the Russians that, on the principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions in the EU, we recognise the considered Danish decision and refuse his extradition to Russia. Otherwise there is no point in having this principle of mutual recognition of national decisions within the European Union.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I should like to add my thanks to the rapporteur, a fellow Scot, for her work on this document, and likewise to my SNP colleague, Mr MacCormick, for leading the Committee on Legal Affairs' consideration of this report which I support. The size of our fishing fleet in the European Union is one of the greatest problems that we are faced with when considering CFP reform, but the real measure of activity should be effort as opposed to fleet size. In order to secure what we all want, sustainable fisheries, then surely fishing effort must be made to correspond to available resources. I agree with the need to extend MAGP4, but I have some concerns, in three areas in particular. Firstly, it is intolerable that safety has been taken out of the equation. The provisions that currently exist to increase objectives on grounds of safety should be maintained. We should be looking for tighter control and management to ensure that these provisions are not used to circumvent the rules. Safety must remain a priority and I hope the Commission will recognise this and also make up for its failure to include adequate provisions on safety in the Green Paper. Secondly, while there must be penalties for non-implementation of MAGP targets, surely they must be targeted at the guilty parties. It must be wrong to penalise one segment directly for the acts or omissions of another. It is also necessary to make sure that those Member States which claim to have met their MAGP targets are not simply transferring their vessels to other flags. Thirdly, the proposals which limit financial assistance from FIFG to segments where reduction of fishing effort is obtained through capacity reductions only seems to me unjust and would discriminate against fishermen whose Member States choose to reduce effort through schemes such as days at sea. One reason why these targets are not met is that some Member State governments have not been prepared to match funding for restructuring. The Commission must look at ways of ensuring that restructuring funds can be distributed in an equitable fashion throughout the EU fishing industry. There is a need for more standardised and more rigorous assessment procedures right across the EU. Only if we have fixed, clear and comparable criteria for the measurement of vessels, including engine power and tonnage, can there be confidence in the targets that are set by MAGPs.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Thank you for your response, Commissioner. I realise that this is primarily a bilateral issue, but we would be grateful if the Council could endeavour to make representations in the appropriate fora to the effect that, once the Croatian Constitutional Court has delivered its opinion on the constitutionality of the articles under consideration, the Istrian regional statute can, at last, be reinstated and enter into force in its original form.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, surely if the rapporteur is requesting a referral back to committee of her own report, and there is a dispute, then the House should vote on this?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the right to petition and to complain is not some recent invention. Even 2000 years ago petitioners could put their concerns before the Roman emperor. But this right was always in danger of being changed, restricted or abolished. Yesterday’s petitioners have become today’s responsible European citizens. No administration or institution is infallible. Many petitions point to a discrepancy between the legal provisions and European integration. So petitions are a gauge for the relations between the citizens and the legislator and there are many levels of petitions. A population of hamsters in an industrial area is of just as much concern to us as the ban on silicon implants or the introduction of a heavy goods tax. I turn now to the Ombudsman. My group congratulates the Ombudsman on the work he accomplished in 1999. It was, and is, to Mr Söderman’s credit that he has done so much to create greater transparency and openness within the European administrations. Since most of the complaints in the Ombudsman’s remit relate to the European Commission and concern a lack of transparency, work needs to be done to improve this situation. That includes access to documents, not only for the citizens of Europe but also for the Ombudsman. New office technologies cannot be used as grounds for the lack of transparency either. Comprehensible, substantiated replies to the citizens create trust, the opposite gives rise to distrust and a rising number of complaints that need to be dealt with, which therefore in turn creates costs. The Ombudsman’s proposal for a Code of Good Administrative Behaviour is particularly welcome. The citizens have a basic right to an open and responsible administration geared to providing services, since after all it is paid for out of their taxes. In my view it is most important for the European Ombudsman to play an independent role, which can serve as an example for the introduction of national ombudsmen in the candidate countries and in my Land of Thüringen.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, environmental noise is one of the oldest environmental problems we know. Despite this, noise was not considered a serious environmental problem for a long time. Now that environmental noise has gone through the roof, increased mobility being one of the specific causes, the number of people facing this problem has also increased greatly. I therefore welcome the Commission proposal, although I consider it to be an initial and – in my opinion – cautious step. The Commission does not have the courage to set European standards but aims in the first instance only to harmonise the noise pollution indicators. In his report, Mr De Roo proposes turning the directive into a framework directive. Our group has welcomed this suggestion with open arms. As far as legislation is concerned, I would, however, like to prioritise and, initially, to opt for regulation of noise around airports. After all, wherever we are based, it appears that noise around airports is experienced as particularly disturbing. All the more reason, therefore, for a People’s Party such as ours, the , not to let aviation escape European legislation and to scrap the distinction made between military and civil aviation. We also need European legislation because, in my opinion, we can no longer allow aviation companies to ‘shop around’. Airports such as Orly, Schiphol and Barcelona already meet strict requirements. It is no longer acceptable for a market to be disturbed by unequal legislation within aviation. Discrepancies may lead to a situation where an airport on one side of the border, for example Maastricht, is not allowed to expand, while 50 km down the road, a new airport is built in Bierset without any restrictions. We must also consider the use of the terms of day and night and even margins of the night, concepts which lead to much confusion in the Netherlands too. In my opinion, what we need is uniformity for the sake of healthy competitive relations, but also for the people we represent, which is also the purport of this directive. However, rail and car traffic noise are issues which can be solved more easily by means of technical directives. I would therefore argue in favour of moving away from the idea of noise pollution or standards around road traffic axes but instead promote quieter vehicles and quieter trains. Anything above and beyond that is subject to subsidiarity, in my opinion, and should be up to the Member States to decide. I will advise my group to vote against Amendments Nos. 36 and 49 because they contain a number of technical problems, not because the goals are pitched too high, but because the technical details cloud the issue. I would like to finish off with a word of thanks to the rapporteur.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I have tabled Amendment No 8, which adds a new paragraph 4c, in the interests of achieving the widest possible consensus of a report that deserves support because it represents a new opening in our policy towards financial markets. I wish to change a word that will give more flexibility to the report and make it acceptable to more colleagues. I will read the amendment: 'Calls upon the Commission to undertake all necessary steps, including in particular a cost-benefit analysis of the effects on European capital markets, to assess the establishment of a competent European Registration Scheme'. This word replaces 'authority'. The rest remains unchanged. This change gives the flexibility desired by certain colleagues and I look forward to their support.

Political group: PSE