GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in view of the lavish amount of speaking time we permit ourselves for debates of this kind, I want to dispense with the preliminaries and address Commissioner Monti directly. Commissioner, you know that for some time now, there has been a substantial consensus in this House on competition issues. This means that the entire House supports the Commission in matters of competition policy. With the passage of time though, I have begun to wonder whether the Commission is not, in fact, gradually losing its sense of perspective where individual decisions are concerned, or whether it even wants to prejudge fundamental decisions in entirely different political fields under the mantle of competition. I will cite one of several examples, and it is one that is currently the subject of intense debate in other regions besides my own. It concerns the subsidisation decision or non-subsidisation decision in relation to the coal industry. I will take the precaution, Commissioner – in case you should want to point out that this in fact falls within Commissioner Palacio’s remit – of saying that I am addressing the Commission as a whole. I would also draw your attention to the fact that the coal issue is raised both in the competition report and in the subsidy report that we are discussing today. I expect the Commission to uphold its agreements. I do not expect it to abuse judgements from the Court of Justice in order to withdraw from these agreements. I will reiterate what I have already said repeatedly in debates of this kind: competition is not an end in itself. When a decision is to be taken in matters of competition policy, account must be taken of the social, structural and industrial implications, and if this is not done then competition policy will degenerate to the level of pure ideology. If the aspects I mentioned are taken into consideration, and one considers the net product chain of the state-of-the-art technology, then the subsidy licences that have fallen due for coal mining must be granted without delay. This does not just apply to the sphere of energy policy; it applies right across the board. Competition is important but it is not the be-all and end-all. To sum up, what we need is to strike a balance between competition rules and acting for the public good. This must be the guiding principle in all areas. Commissioner, I want to take up what I said at the beginning. The support is still there. But if you carry on in this vein, you risk losing the support of not insignificant sections of the House. I dare say that is unlikely to help matters overall. IN THE CHAIR: MR POSTÀVice-President

Political group: PSE
Regardless of its formulation, I shall be voting for this resolution which demands the abolition of that barbarous punishment, the death penalty. I would ask the House to take an urgent stand against the execution of the black American journalist, Moumia Abou Jamal. Moumia Abou Jamal fought against racism and for the dignity of Blacks by denouncing in his articles the violence and corruption of the Philadelphia police and institutional racism in general. After being arrested by that same police force, which accused him, without proof, of the murder of one of his own people, he was sentenced to death following a rigged trial, as a result of falsified evidence and bribed witnesses. He has now spent seventeen years languishing on death row, seventeen years claiming innocence and fighting for a review of his case. Moumia Abou Jamal may be executed at any moment, since his appeal in the United States Supreme Court has just been rejected. The United States is a signatory to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention against Racial Discrimination, as well as the Convention against Torture, which is applicable in Moumia’s case since the racial factor weighed heavily in his trial and he has spent seventeen years on death row which constitutes, according to those Treaties, an unjust form of punishment which is equivalent to torture. This is why I call on the House to vote not only for the resolution against the death penalty, but also for the amendment which adds that the European Parliament is appealing to the Governor of Pennsylvania to refrain from signing any new execution order against Moumia Abou Jamal and is renewing its demand for a review of his case. Moluccan Islands

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Egypt is crucial to stability in the Middle East. The country maintains important relations with the United States and Europe. Unfortunately there is still no internal stability. As long ago as 1967 a state of emergency was declared and has never been revoked. Egypt is still far from being a democracy. It lacks essential political freedoms and human rights are violated. The government restricts the activities of political parties, human rights organisations, professional associations and the press. People are imprisoned without trial and tortured. Show trials are still held. The recent sentencing of the American sociologist Ibrahim fits very well into this poor picture. It proves that jurisprudence is controlled by political motives and is unjust. As an important partner of Egypt’s, we should protest emphatically against these abuses. The Barcelona process will never get off the ground if democratisation is bogged down in autocratic reluctance. Stability means something else besides stripping people of rights.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I believe we can only be pleased that the European Union is abstaining for once and being cautious in the kind of diplomatic jihad against Israel, positions having been so biased and often unjust in the past. Mr President, I too would like to see the security barrier come down and, once some of these elements have been repainted, see it end up as souvenirs and trinkets, just like other barriers. Let it disappear then, yes, but when it has no more reason to be there – for it is not there on a whim. This barrier is a response, a response to kamikaze terrorism. Having said that, once again, even if it is justified from the point of view of defence, there are things about it that can be challenged, that is true. But nothing is final, it is not a border, it does not signify an annexation. Mr Cohn-Bendit, you like talking about the 1967 borders, but may I remind you that they were only ever cease-fire lines and they only began to be recognised when they were no longer effective. Everything out there is really provisional. Do not forget that. Of course I want the barrier to disappear, but unlike some barriers which kill, it is a barrier that saves. You have to remember the attacks that have not taken place, if I can put it that way. Think of the innocent people who would have been killed by the kamikaze attacks that these controls have thwarted. The real question about this barrier, Mr President, is this: should we stop it preventing deaths? I think not.

Political group: ELDR
We are voting against this own-initiative report, since we are in favour neither of liberalisation nor of increased repression in the drugs area. The conventions adopted by the UN ought not to be amended by the institutions of the European Union. Each country should cooperate in reviewing the options for minimising drug misuse and ensure that there is fast and effective treatment to help individuals in their need to put drug misuse behind them.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, the meeting in Bali was a failure. I believe that is a generally-held view. We must learn from this failure at once. We have very little time left before Johannesburg. There is a risk of a concept we do not want, the concept of the privatisation of sustainable development, being imposed at Johannesburg. Commissioner Wallström has just referred to the voluntary partnership agreements with private companies. I believe we must avoid lapsing into ideology: we must see the partnership agreements as a potentially useful tool to complement the policies, but they must have a political framework and each party must be fully aware of the context in which they are operating. This, however, must not replace voluntary government policies, although that is clearly what certain parties involved would like, and I am thinking in particular of the United States. I believe that the European Union, as Commissioner Wallström said, must be ambitious in its goals for Johannesburg. In order to achieve our goals, however, we need allies. Perhaps we should prioritise dialogue with the countries that expect a lot from us, that is to say the poor countries; I think, for example, that the G 77 group is one group we must certainly prioritise. In this respect, I think that two proposals would give very positive political signals to these countries. The first, as explained by the President-in-Office of the Council, would be to propose that we change the European policies which prevent developing countries and the poorest countries from making progress towards sustainable development or meeting their basic needs. I am thinking in particular of aid for agricultural exports. It is unacceptable for us to continue to maintain an aid system for exports which penalises these countries. We must therefore make a significant gesture in this area. The second proposal would consist of promoting a legal framework imposing constraints on transnational companies to encourage them to fulfil their environmental, social and economic responsibilities. It is not acceptable that, while States are constrained by international rules, transnational companies, which are sometimes far wealthier than States, are completely free and unrestricted.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the rapporteur, Mr Bowe, was right when he said this afternoon that not only his work but also the work of Parliament has moved this directive forward a great deal in terms of standards and restrictive use. However, I would like to point out the concerns that the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy and Parliament had at first and second reading. I do not think that we can talk about all of them now, in the time that we have, but I will mention the use of antibiotic-resistant marker genes, the need to respect the Cartagena commitment (the international agreement), the civil responsibility clause, preventing this cultivation from being extended to other plants, the public register of plantations and the localisation of genetically modified organisms and the very serious subject of exports with initial consent and agreement. Some of these concerns were taken up during the conciliation procedure, but there are others that are still a commitment and some others that may require long periods of time, for example the disappearance of the use of antibiotic-resistant marker genes. In our opinion there are currently public health problems related to resistance to antibiotics, and there are infections that used to be cured with common antibiotics which cannot now be cured, not only naturally, but due to genetically modified products, due to the presence of other antibiotics, for example in livestock. However, the time-scales are long and the problem is already there. We think that there are other promises, which are only promises, that can be fulfilled, that perhaps the Commission is fulfilling, but we think that the moratorium should continue until all of this legislation is in force, Mr President. I will finish by saying that this afternoon there was a speech from Mr Fischler in which he spoke about the economic catastrophe that BSE represents for Europe. Let us not fall into this error again, that is, let us not take measures in a hurry, taking into account economic interests, if this carries risks for food safety and could later be an economic catastrophe as well as a food catastrophe.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we should recognise that this report is a celebration of the fact that the war against rabies is being won across Europe. This is a disease which has filled people with fear and horror for many years and it is a delight to see the reality of the decline in statistics which shows that the disease is now being eradicated. I am also pleased, as Mr Whitehead has indicated, that the suffering and grief felt both by pets and by pet owners when animals have had to be put into quarantine for lengthy periods of time is now being replaced by passports and tattoos, so this is good news. On a technical point, I look forward to hearing the Commission's response on the amendments which have been moved about the legal basis for this directive. I am also delighted that the basis for the European proposals are those which have already been applied in Britain. As Mr Whitehead has said, I have learnt, like he, a great deal more about ferrets than I knew a month ago. I am sure the Commission has too. I am sure in fact that the Commissioner is a great ferret fancier: if he has not got a house already full of ferrets then I am sure that the many newspaper articles about the virtues of ferrets have encouraged him to fill his house with ferrets I have no doubt they will make charming and affectionate pets and I look forward to them taking their place alongside cats and dogs at the earliest opportunity. The decision we made in committee, just a couple weeks ago, about whether ferrets should be included on the list and have passports or not, was one of the most difficult that I have ever made. The reality is that ferrets seem to have caused no particular problems. One French ferret apparently seems to have been the cause of all the concern about whether ferrets can cause rabies. I am sorry about this, but I look forward to a situation where the blood test for rabies antibodies can be verified and approved by the Standing Veterinary Committee and the scope of the regulation can be extended to encompass ferrets at the earliest opportunity. In the meantime, we have to accept that if we are to put the fight against rabies as our first priority, then ferrets should not be included on the list at the present time. But I look forward to ferrets having the right to roam across Europe, but not just yet.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I support the first part of the amendment, but not the second part. However, I would suggest that if the House supports the first part then it should it be voted as an addition. (Parliament adopted the resolution) ***

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I, too, am sincerely grateful to the rapporteur, Mrs Redondo. The way that this new proposal Forest Focus combines two old demands, that woodland be protected against environmental pollution and against fires, meets with my fundamental approval. Just so that you realise that I know what I am talking about, Commissioner, I will say that I have a background in forestry, but in a northern country. I want to strongly emphasise the point of principle that forestry policy must remain in the hands of the Member States, and to keep on reminding the Commission of the principle of subsidiarity. Will Forest Focus have a beneficial effect on woodland and on those who own it, or is this just another exercise in keeping new hordes of bureaucrats employed and fed? I have to tell you that, representing as I do the German province of North Rhine-Westphalia, I get the impression that Brussels takes absolutely no notice of what is really going on in European forestry. Within the European Union, 65% of the woodland is owned and managed by 12 million forest owners, and this branch of agriculture causes them serious problems as far as profitability is concerned. Two years ago, we ran a conference on this subject in Brussels. In my homeland, Commissioner, young farmers no longer have any interest in woodlands or in forestry. The property rights of woodland farmers are constantly being eroded. Why should a forester give his all without getting financial compensation, often without his efforts even being recognised by society? If we say yes to it, Forest Focus will have to cover the social, economic and ecological fields in Europe. Bio-diversity and monitoring have a nice sound to them, but they do not give woodland farmers any financial entitlements in respect of the work they do. Let me say in conclusion that it is not those who are constantly discussing woodlands who are engaged in caring for nature and protecting it. I can tell you that if we do not succeed in making forestry a more profitable proposition overall for agriculture, young people in my homeland will simply throw in the towel. Even now, they are no longer prepared to clear up storm damage, for they take the line that this is a luxury they cannot afford. Let us not start imposing more and more new demands on them. Let us help to clean up the air. Let us help provide compensatory measures as well, so that they can do such things as fertilising the soil with manure and lime. Things really have to be said on the basis of practical experience, instead of just the empty forms of words that really do try my patience this late in the evening. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner Patten has referred to the dossier that was produced by the United Kingdom Government prior to the debate in the House of Commons. That dossier makes for some interesting reading. The most significant thing I found in it was a picture of the footprint of one of Saddam Hussein's palaces. Superimposed on this was a footprint of Buckingham Palace. Buckingham Palace was a minute corner of whole footprint of Saddam Hussein's palaces. This is quite important because it is said that Saddam Hussein does not want anyone to go into his palaces. Well, none of us want people coming into our houses. We do not realise that these palaces are basically cities in their own right and that is why all aspects of the UN inspectors' mandate must be adhered to. They must be able to go anywhere because palaces the size that he has, and he has quite a few, have the capacity to conceal major weapon sites. We must be clear that there should be no interference with the ability of the inspectors to go in. We know Saddam Hussein is a threat to the region and to his own people, but we know that for the interests of world peace we must act through the United Nations. This must not be unilateral action. UN resolutions, however, must clearly hold Iraq to account and there must be a willingness to follow through with action. It is not enough to threaten. We must be prepared to follow through with that threat if everything else fails. We must keep the pressure on Saddam Hussein. We must continue to enforce a no-fly zone, including giving the pilots the right to self-defence. If the UN sees this through, we will change international politics. There will be a whole new environment pushing towards multilateral action. If the UN is not capable of seeing this through, the whole multilateral element of international politics would be discredited and the world would become a much more dangerous place.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, the proposal presented by the Commission, in accordance with its mandate, is a reasonable starting point for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. I would like to point out, however, that this starting point indicates to us the challenges which face us: maintaining a population in rural areas, given the changes taking place in all types of economic activity owing to agriculture’s increasing lack of importance amongst the various sources of income for rural society. This, as well as the deficiencies in the networks of infrastructures and services and a generally very low level of employment, which furthermore is seasonal and lacks diversity, exacerbates the exodus from rural areas. The consequences do not inspire hope. It is the young people who are disappearing, who are getting an education and finding work outside of the rural areas, all of which has an unfavourable effect on those areas. This lack of infrastructure is also an obstacle to the establishment of companies and the creation of jobs. We have to remember that rural areas represent almost four fifths of the territory of the European Union. Agriculture only provides 5.5% of employment in the Union. Furthermore, three quarters of our farm workers are part-time and require supplements to their incomes. For this reason, one of the most important and essential objectives which we should set in the European Union is to make efforts to create new jobs in rural areas, outside of the agricultural sector, in sectors such as rural tourism, sport, culture, heritage conservation, the conversion of businesses, new technologies, services, etc. However, even though the role of agriculture is not exclusive, it is still essential, not only to prevent economic and social disintegration and the creation of ghost towns, but also because farmers play a fundamental role in managing the land, in preserving biodiversity and in protecting the environment. Therefore, we support the establishment of an agricultural and rural development policy which is consistent with the objectives we have set. We want rural areas, at the dawn of the 21st century, to be competitive and multi-functional, both with regard to agriculture and with regard to opening up to the diversity of non-agricultural activities. It is important to prioritise general criteria for land planning and demographic equilibrium, and to bear in mind the conclusions of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on the five fundamental issues, which have been only partly taken up by the Committee on Transport, Regional Policy and Tourism in its points 16 and 17. In conclusion, I would ask the Commission to take these five points into account when establishing the conclusions on the four pillars because I believe that, for the European Union, maintaining the population in rural areas must be one of the priority objectives.

Political group: PPE-DE