GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there are two amendments to Paragraph 22. The first is one which I tabled on behalf of my group to take account of a proposal made in the committee by the rapporteur for the EPP, Mr Wijkman. The intention was to add a reference to a worldwide tax on CO2 emissions. The EPP amendment seeking to delete the paragraph is acceptable if it is an addition, but if it deletes the paragraph I cannot accept it. In my opinion it completely distorts the meaning of the original text. I would request, if the EEP agrees to accept it as an addition, that we vote first on my amendment, which was in fact tabled at the EPP's request, and then on the EPP's amendment as an addition, provided that the EPP agrees. (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Joint motion for a resolution(1) on the World Food Summit (Parliament adopted the resolution) EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE - Rothley report (A5-0039/2002)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, like Mr Wiebenga, I am amazed that the Christian Democrat/Conservative Group thinks that euthanasia laws in Member States are an appropriate matter to raise at European level. In the United Kingdom, Conservatives have been very quick to condemn European human rights guarantees as an outrageous interference in national affairs and as a breach of subsidiarity. We will no doubt hear a great deal from them on that theme in the next few weeks and months in the run-up to a British general election. It is quite extraordinary that they have supported raising the matter of euthanasia in a Member State at European level, and I note this for the forthcoming election campaign.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, President-in-Office of the Council, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteurs for their excellent reports. It is vital that this issue of sustainable development is placed high on the political agenda. It is a question partly of solidarity, that is, solidarity with coming generations and EU solidarity with poor regions and poor people, and partly of a global responsibility, of how the EU interacts with the rest of the world with regard to trade and development policy. Sustainable development concerns all policy areas. It is well known that it concerns transport policy, agricultural policy and energy policy, but it also concerns social policy. In this regard I do not share the views of the previous speaker. Social policy is also naturally part of sustainable development. Good social policy and fair economic policy are vital. Sustainable development is also about a whole range of methods. It is not the case that the current methods of legislation are poor. The legislation must continue. The legislation we have in the EU must be implemented better. We must use tax instruments, which have often been emphasised by Parliament. The new approach is that we must integrate the ecological aspects of the Lisbon Process. The next time the Council gathers in the spring in Barcelona it is not only economic issues, social issues, issues of lifelong learning, issues of investment policy and industrial policy which must be addressed. The Council must also be a ‘Sustainability Council’ by ensuring that the ecological aspects are integrated into policy. The new strategy which is being developed, and which we in Parliament warmly support, is crucial.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I hope that all my fellow MEPs are paying attention and listening to what is being said, for it is actually very important. Generally, it is a good idea to do what is stated in the rapporteur’s report and simplify the procedures for recognising certificates of competency from third countries. I nonetheless believe there are a number of things it is important to bear in mind. Firstly, we must be 100% certain that the certificates to be approved in the EU come from recognised training institutions. The certificate must be a guarantor of the fact that the seafarer really has in actual fact undergone practical training. It must not just be a piece of paper printed in any old vending machine in some banana state. Next, we must take a thorough look at the employment situation within the EU shipping industry. We must ascertain that satisfactory capacity has been built up in the training area so that we have the opportunity to offer basic and ongoing training to our seafarers. We must also be able to guarantee that there is no social dumping from outside whereby European seafarers lose their jobs because of wage pressure. In that connection, it is important for seafarers in the candidate countries quickly to be put on a level with their peers in the present Member States so that they can receive proper wages for their work and so that we can avoid unfair competition. I shall give an example of the way in which the subject we are discussing might have been significant in my own country. In the area I come from, a very serious accident occurred in which a ship leaked following a collision with another ship. It emerged that the crew members could not understand each other’s languages and could not therefore communicate. All in all, a disaster for the whole area. That is something we could have avoided by means of sensible rules, so I hope my fellow MEPs are paying attention. They are busier, however, having their cosy chats and what not. That being said, they may well be able to read what is subsequently put down in the Minutes. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, as rapporteur I would very briefly like to make two or three comments. First, a general observation. I think it would be sensible if in future when we discuss discharge procedures in this Parliament, people do not just start showing such sensitivity about the wording of certain passages when their own interests are at stake. Secondly, I myself proposed in my original report, which was adopted in committee in March and voted on here in April, to include a problem relating to my group in that report. At that time, my group and the voted in committee to resolve that problem. It is to do with the payment of party workers out of group resources. At the time, the Group and the Liberals voted by a majority to take this proposal out of the report. Perhaps Mr Poettering does not even know that yet; I am informing him of it now. Let me now make a very fundamental comment as rapporteur for a discharge procedure. It was an PPE proposal in April, in the name of Mr Elles, that linked the discharge of Parliament’s budget to the question of group finances. That was your proposal, which was carried! That is why this point is incorporated. At the time there was an explicit reference to the Court of Auditor’s report. No rapporteur for a discharge procedure, in which the groups are involved, can have this discharge taken from him by an agreement between group chairmen, whether or not such an agreement exists. To call on the fact that group chairmen discharge themselves is in itself a matter that requires further discussion. (Applause) I have a final comment on compromises. On a number of occasions we have had people declaring that their own amendments are compromises. No-one has at any time discussed with me whether or not this was a compromise amendment. All I was asked was whether I could live with this amendment, to which I said no. That is because this amendment in no way enhances transparency, which is the issue, and that is why I remain, as before, opposed to it. (Applause) (Parliament adopted the draft decision) *** Recommendation for second reading (A5-0193/2000), on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer policy, on the common position established by the Council with a view to the adoption of a European Parliament and Council regulation establishing an identification and registration system for cattle and on the labelling of beef and beef products and repealing regulation (CE) No 820/97 [8251/1/2000 – C5-0270/2000 – 1999/0204(COD)] (Rapporteur: Mr Papayannakis)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, on behalf of the Industry Committee, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs on their report, but I would also like to voice some criticism. The Industry Committee deems it extremely important that at the next review of the Treaties, improvements will be made in two areas, namely trade policy and energy. Regarding trade policy, the Commission’s authority to deal with the WTO or in other forums on behalf of the Community should be extended to all services and rights regarding intellectual property. In addition, Parliament must be able to monitor the Commission more closely, both before and during the negotiations on trade agreements. It may be true that the contribution of the NGOs to the negotiation process is steadily increasing, but this could never replace parliamentary control. Democracy cannot, and should not, be left to NGOs to deal with. Including sustainable development as an objective in the Treaty of Amsterdam requires an integrated approach to energy and environmental policy. This is why the Industry Committee is pressing for the inclusion of an energy chapter in the Treaty. Alongside this, the European Parliament should acquire more influence regarding the Euratom Treaty. Unfortunately, both rapporteurs and the Committee on Constitutional Affairs refuse to adopt the amendments tabled by the Industry Committee on energy policy and Euratom. You will understand that I very much regret this as draftsperson of the opinion, all the more so in view of the fact that EUR 1.3 billion of research funding is tied up in the Euratom framework programme. This is why the liberal group has now resubmitted my amendments. My group supports the ambitions of the Industry Committee in terms of energy. Indeed, now is the time for Parliament to give the appropriate signals to the Council and the Commission for an integrated energy and environment policy. I do hope that the rapporteurs will still adopt these amendments.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, in my opinion, the rapporteur has done sterling work. I have been active in an advisory role vis-à-vis works councils, trade unions and industry concerning conditions at work, among other things. I have observed that, for some fifteen years, we in the Netherlands – but that also applies to other Member States in terms of best practices – have been working with the ISO Standard 2631, as recommended and followed by Mrs Thorning-Schmidt. Only at the end did we decide to adopt the amendment by Mrs Hermange. I actually agree that we should not simply consider the views of industry. There are also other angles to be considered. For example, the trade unions have stated that this is not simply a matter of exposure from a health perspective, but also a matter of symptoms of fatigue, for example. Consequently, the standard should, from the point of view of safety – or, rather, the lack of this – actually be stricter than is now the case. I have not yet heard this aspect mentioned here, and it should actually help us find a happy medium.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this is not the first time that we have debated the media in Serbia; we have been discussing this matter for years. We should remember that, in October 1998, once NATO considered that the first planned attack on Serbia in order to help the Kosovars was over, because Milosevic had allegedly given way and allowed unarmed OSCE observers into the country, that it was precisely at this point that this Information Act was issued and began causing so many problems for the independent media: and now we are looking at the result. It has become clear over the last two years that the media are being increasingly sidelined. But we have already said that. How weak must the Milosevic regime really feel, given how it treats the media? Apparently he is terrified that the awful truth of his inhumane treatment of all Serbian citizens over the years, even against the Serbs in Serbia, might finally be revealed to the majority of these citizens, terrified that the people might soon deal with Milosevic and his henchmen the way the Romanians dealt with Ceaucescu. I think he is terrified of this and we should help the media so that they can spread the truth about Milosevic and his regime.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I wish first of all to thank the Commissioner for her words, which of course express the Commission’s position on the disastrous effect of the storms that we experienced in the Azores on 11 and 12 April. I should like to say first that it is extremely hard to put into words the things that I witnessed over those few days, because this was a storm made up of incredibly strong cyclonic winds, which caused extremely widespread damage, both to buildings and to fruit trees and forestry in general. Above all, however, because this storm led to an invasion of salt, which covered the entire lower part of all the islands in the Azores. This salt completely covered Graciosa, for example, resulting in the chemical destruction of practically everything that lived there. The losses to farming as a whole are enormous, with vines and vegetable crops being totally destroyed. I know, as the Commissioner said, that the regional authorities have not yet sent the Commission a report on this disaster and I know that this report will reach the Commission very soon, but I wanted to note now what has been said about the programming reserve and I also wanted to note the willingness demonstrated by the Commission to adopt measures for the agricultural sector.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, the pictures we have seen in recent days from Afghanistan are of course clear evidence that the problem does not go away but that the flow of refugees unfortunately continues as a direct result of the policy we are pursuing here in our part of the world. I hear quite a few people talking about a common European asylum policy. Indeed, that might well be a very sensible idea, but I want, for my part, to say that the prerequisite for my being able to support it is that it should be a sound policy. The rapporteur originally tried to word this report in such a way that it restricted asylum seekers’ rights and opportunities in our countries. What the committee finally agreed upon was to require that we should end up with a policy which, if anything, amounted to the status quo. I think it would be a good thing if the European Parliament could send out a clear signal now that, if there is to be a common asylum policy in the EU, it must in no circumstances be a policy that provides asylum seekers with poorer conditions than those under which they are at present living in the Member States. I very much hope that the result of the vote we are to hold this afternoon will be to send out such a signal.

Political group: GUE-NGL
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. – Mr President, there are no substantive points that the committee wanted to make on the substance of this debate. However, I would like to make a more general point, particularly with relation to the censure motion that will be debated tomorrow evening and the general discharge point, criticising the Commission on the disgraceful way that European funds are being managed under its control. We have all been amazed to see a whole succession of whistleblowers come forward to Members of this Parliament complaining about the way they have been disciplined and how large amounts of public funds have been disbursed by the Commission. My colleagues will certainly be voting against the discharge of the Commission's budget, as we have consistently throughout this Parliament, and this would certainly be my recommendation. It seems to me that electors across the EU will have no faith in any of the EU institutions – whether Parliament or Commission – until the terrible cases of fraud and mismanagement are firmly and severely dealt with and the people responsible in the Commission – Commissioners and Commission staff – take responsibility for the gross mismanagement that has occurred, and resign from their positions in the Commission.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I believe that the Criminal Court has the support of almost all the Parliamentary groups. However, none of the governments – whether right or left-wing – really support the Criminal Court, and it is my view that we need to hold a debate during this part-session which will allow us to make it clear that we reject any proposal to grant immunity to anybody outside this Court. Such a debate would give us the opportunity to adopt a resolution during the second September part-session. In view of the fact that a meeting of Foreign Affairs Ministers is due to take place on 30 September to decide whether or not to allow exceptions, I feel that two debates will be more effective than one if we want to make it quite clear to all the governments that the European Parliament does not wish there to be any exceptions whatsoever. That is why neither I nor my group feel that a single closed debate on a motion – on 24 September next – will be sufficient. We recommend that a debate be opened so that the European public is informed of the firm position of all the Parliamentary groups. We therefore call for another debate to be included in the programme for this part-session. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, it is always a pleasure following Mr Dell'Alba, because he makes a British Euro-sceptic sound very sensible in this place. I would very much like to congratulate the rapporteur – someone I like and admire as a person and politician – on this report, but unfortunately I cannot. Had it not been for the amendments concerning OLAF being adopted at the committee stage, I would have struggled to find any part of this report to support. Fortunately this idea found very little support at Nice last weekend. The Council – as pointed out so eloquently by Mrs Rühle earlier – does not like this idea either. My personal view is that the European Public Prosecutor is just the first step along the road to corpus juris, a body of common law across the continent. Indeed I believe that is what the Commissioner feels too. Perhaps, Commissioner, you would be so kind as to let me know whether that is the case – whether this is the first step to something that would be a common body of law across the continent. I thought I heard you say something similar to that in committee. I should also like to know why the Commission's paper on this subject had its release delayed until the day after the Danish referendum on the euro. Perhaps the Commission knows that whilst this proposal has some support in the political classes of Europe, its support stretches no further than that. Often in argument for a European Public Prosecutor, you hear that these proposals are only to protect the Community's financial interests – something that everybody should agree with. Interestingly though, they are often sold as being a small step – there is not much behind them. So why all the concern? Well, for those of us who are still wading through the Court of Auditors' report, we will find that one definition of fraud against the Community is the black market – paying for goods à la belge, as they say in Brussels. This is fraud against the Community because the EU takes a small percentage of all VAT transactions. So another question springs to mind: if the European Public Prosecutor is allowed to investigate every VAT transaction across Europe, how big will that office be? There are so many other questions – the relationship with OLAF, who appoints the European public prosecutor, who they report to and how it affects the Member States – that I am afraid I am urging the British Conservatives and others to vote against this report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mr Caudron for his report. The Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport welcomes it for a number of reasons. It particularly welcomes the fact that the report deals with a number of matters which concern our committee. These include the technology and methods used to convert products and works into a digital format, the protection and development of our historic and cultural heritage. We are also pleased that it deals with drug taking, as our committee is also responsible for youth and sports. Other areas of concern contained in the report include the history of Europe, distance learning and mobility for researchers. I regret that digital cinema, the cinema of tomorrow, has disappeared from this list. It might have required specific research. I hope that specific programmes will be able to make good this omission. I would also like to say that I am delighted the life sciences have been recognised as a scientific subject and are not regarded simply as an instrument for other sciences. The life sciences constitute a distinct discipline and the fact that the Sixth Framework Programme has recognised this is a great step forward. Perhaps the first title of the seventh thematic area: ‘Cultural and social research’ was the most appropriate. I am sorry it has been changed to ‘Citizens, democracy, social and political institutions’. I think the first title was better. If we had used the title ‘Cultural and social research’, it might have been easier to include research on women, and not just research carried out by women, as in the paragraph ‘Science and society’. Mr Caudron, I regret the fact that research ‘on women’ and the thinking included in your intermediary reports were not retained in its final version. I would like to finish on this point. I have been involved in drawing up reports which have gradually transformed the notion of centres of excellence. The latter became the stairway of excellence. We, the members of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, were very concerned that research should not be confined to an elite. Rather, when it comes to building the European Research Area, research should be shared amongst younger researchers, a range of relevant institutions, and universities. I note that there have been adjustments here too. I am glad that the paragraph ‘Science and society’ has doubled. The matter of research ‘by women’ is at the heart of this paragraph. The Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities has an interest in this subject, but so does the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Dear Mr Fernandez. You sit next to me when we vote. I was very happy to vote for this report, which I am sure that you will have supported, as you always support all the measures concerning the Canary Islands. The Pensioners' Party and the pensioners who support it are very familiar with these islands for they are a key tourist destination. It is my opinion that the European Union should be more attentive and more active than it has been up till now with regard to the Azores, the Canary Islands, Guyana, Martinique, Madeira and Reunion. These islands must be able to feel that they are an active part of the European Union, and I hope that the Union will turn them into a paradise both for tourists and for their inhabitants.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I believe that the proposal we have before us for a Council regulation in which animal-health rules are to be made more transparent and the existing directives brought together in a single text represents a further step towards simplifying agriculture policy in this area and above all towards creating a legal basis for controls on various activities. I certainly hope it will work out that way. However, I would also like to make a special plea for scientific research into products of animal origin to be continued on living animals in the case of BSE and foot-and-mouth disease for example, and that this should then be applied in an affordable way. High new technical and organisational standards need to be practical, and by that I also mean affordable. I also particularly have in mind food imports from third countries. At the same time – and I am just finishing now – we need to provide sufficiently serious support for the many consumer protection organisations.

Political group: GUE-NGL