GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, the agreement with Greenland is important in several respects. We have been told that it is and we can only agree. Firstly, as regards catches and financial compensation it is one of the EU’s most important fisheries agreements ever. Secondly, it is an excellent example of sustainability and balance in the waters of the North Atlantic. Improvements have definitely been made. Thirdly, it is also an expression of the special relationship between the former EC member Greenland and the Union. I am not of course telling you anything new when I say that the European fisheries policy is a genuine Community policy, with all that entails. There are Community legal bases and principles that are binding. These include, Mrs Miguélez Ramos, the principle of relative stability which was confirmed only recently as part of the large-scale common fisheries policy reform. I find it highly questionable and unhelpful to be seeking an amendment by the back door, as I see it, and to give way to sectional interests as seems to be the manifest intention of many here in this House on the Greenland question. The EU fishing nations that are party to the Greenland agreement have committed themselves to sustainable and responsible fishing. Otherwise, this agreement would never have come about. They have been given quotas which they can use themselves and which they can exchange. That cannot be changed. We cannot now withdraw those quotas with coercive measures that impinge upon the Member States’ substantive rights. Just imagine if a football team does not use its possibilities for substitution and for that reason is not allowed any substitutes in the next game but is allowed to field a team with twice the number of players. In a word, it is absurd. It cannot be justified by talking about supposedly economic and fair grounds. We do not need imposed redistribution; what we need is partnership and cooperation. Everyone involved has repeatedly assured us that they want to make the best possible use of quotas, and we believe them. As we have seen, Germany, where I come from, has been exemplary in its cooperation in the past few years – I am pleased to be able to say that – and has transferred parts of its quotas for stocks that are in good condition to other Member States. That is the way to have a sustainable fisheries policy. For the future I am in favour of closer cooperation over quotas; that is something I can concede, but the Member States’ and Commission’s powers must be preserved. I also fully support an improved procedure for consultation between Member States over the exchange of quotas from agreements with third countries. I also ask my fellow Members to support that.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Group of the requested that today's agenda include a statement by the Council and the Commission on the common fisheries policy at the beginning of today's sitting. Not only did it request this statement, it also requested a statement by the Commission and the Council on the common fisheries policy and on how the decisions behind the common fisheries policy are taken. We requested this statement because the public is under the impression – an impression which the Spanish Government and its Minister of Agriculture have helped to create – that a Member State's government exerted an influence or pressure on one or more members of the Commission when these decisions were being taken. That alone would be highly significant, given the relevance of this procedure to European law, which is why an explanation by the Council and the Commission on the matter, by which I mean on how these decisions are taken, would appear to be in order. And we are doubly convinced that an explanation is in order following the article on the Commission's decisions in today's press and the massive criticism of the Commission's decisions voiced in an open letter by the Commissioner in question, Commissioner De Palacio, who was clearly put under pressure by her government and who obviously did not attend the crucial meeting of the Commission in person. We saw the smoke at the time and now there appears to be a fire, which is why a debate in Parliament is called for, but not before the Council and the Commission have made a statement. The Council is not here but could easily make a statement on its understanding of how these decisions come about at the forthcoming plenary sitting in Strasbourg. But the Commission representative might at least add to today's statement on the common fisheries policy an explanation of how these common decisions are taken . (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Commissioner Fischler, according to my information, Denmark holds 44% of fishing quotas for Community waters, the United Kingdom 16% and Spain only 6%. This is exactly the opposite of the situation with catching capacities, in which the Spanish proportion, centred mainly on Galicia, rises to 35%. These figures prove the profound discrimination and national self-interest that underpin the principle of relative stability, which you do not wish to question. This same discrimination is now being applied to the structure of the Directorate-General for Fisheries, in a way that favours Denmark and the United Kingdom. Do you not think, Commissioner, that it is time we applied the European Union’s intrinsic principles of equality to the fisheries sector, for which you are responsible? Do you not think that the States of southern Europe, such as Spain, should be allowed to take their rightful place in the Union’s fisheries sector?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, the French text takes precedence.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the Commission has set up a Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture without hearing the other EU institutions. The Commission has mainly chosen as its partners organisations which are represented in the Community. We do not want the Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture to act as a mouthpiece to protect national interests. It does, however, at least from the point of view of Finland and the Baltic Sea. Membership of EUROPÊCHE, which is represented in the Community, is too costly for Finnish fishermen. They cannot become involved in the organisation, as they cannot afford the membership fees. Their interests are therefore not protected in those organisations the Commission has chosen to be its partners. The fishermen cannot afford to be represented in the EU, but the fish breeders can. They are the capitalists of the fishing industry. That casts a strange light on the EU fisheries policy in our country. We just listen to the voice of the fish breeders, the capitalists, but not that of the proletariat, the professionals that catch the fish freely in the open seas, in other words, the fishermen. Besides, we in the Nordic countries also fish in internal waters, which the EU does not take into account. This representation in supranational organisations is a problematic issue, as the EU does not focus sufficient attention on it. The supranational organisation, EUROPÊCHE, is ineffectual. It is unrepresentative, and its decisions are not binding on member organisations, but it is the size of Member States and money that decide issues, and what are called supranational interests are, in fact, national interests. It is the Commission’s important task to apply this regulation in such a way that the organisations that are represented in the Community acquire a better level of representation, and that the voice of those fishermen who cannot afford to join EU-level organisations that might represent their interests is heard.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, over the weekend, I sometimes got the impression that we were discussing the rendezvous clauses rather than having a rendezvous with history, and that the reason why we did not come to any conclusion was that we were perhaps not aware of our responsibilities in all the areas. My great concern is now that everything is running through our fingers. When I contemplate the vast timescale, extending into 2005, I fear it will rob the Convention text of its momentum. I believe that it is for this reason that, on two points, we have to make it clear what we do not want. I do not want a ‘core Europe’; instead, we should waste no time in resuming the attempt, with the Convention text, to get more of a constitution for a large-scale Europe with twenty-five Member States. Secondly, I do not want a compromise if it does not increase our capacity to act. Discussion of that brought the IGC down. There can be no compromise if, having got it, there is less transparency – the Legislative Council springs to mind – or less democracy, of which the Budget debate and Parliament’s budgetary rights provide us with examples. Despite these criticisms, though, I would like to thank the Italian Presidency of the Council for having kept close to the Convention’s text throughout all these weeks and months and for actually keeping the commitment it made in respect of it. This is why the Convention text still stands; it is now for us to breathe new life into it. This being so, and in view of Mr Berlusconi’s statement that a number of formerly critical points – apparently 82 of them – had been satisfactorily dealt with in Brussels, it would make sense to hold fast to it if we are to maintain momentum. For this reason, I believe, the foreign ministers should meet together as early as January in order to consolidate what has been achieved. That, I believe will enable us to maintain momentum, and you, Mr President, could perhaps prompt them to go down this road. This could provide a basis on which the Irish Presidency of the Council could put forward proposals for holding a new meeting of Heads of State or Government as soon as possible, although the timetable has to be planned in such a way as to make compromises possible. This meeting must be held, and must resolve matters, before 1 May, when enlargement is due to take place, for this project is, logically speaking, intended to enable the European Union to be enlarged. I want to give a second reason why this meeting should be held before 1 May, which is that I do not know how, if things remain as they are today, the Heads of Government and we in this House can face the voters on 13 June. It is for this reason – so that the voters can have a perspective that keeps them from losing faith in Europe – that it is from this point that the Heads of State or Government must make a new start before 1 May. I hope, Mr President, that you will, in the remaining weeks of your presidency, join with your successors in setting a project of this kind in motion. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
I wish to congratulate Mr Turco on the report he has presented, which makes a positive contribution to the debate on the importance of cohesion policy and of maintaining and strengthening this policy. I should like, however, to emphasise two points that I feel are important to this discussion: - the need to maintain our efforts to simplify and speed up implementation processes in the field of structural actions, which are crucial to their sound and efficient implementation, guaranteed by appropriate assessment and monitoring systems; - observance of the principle of additionality, the guarantee for a coherent structural policy, which reflects the added value of Community structural policy in national regional policies. - Olsson report (A5-0200/2002)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am delighted to be making my first intervention under your Presidency. (NL) Mr President, on 10 June, all Europeans suffered an electoral defeat. By not voting, many people made it clear that they no longer have any faith in Europe as it now is. That is why it is an absolute priority for our group to restore our citizens' faith in Europe so that we are able to meet the challenges of the coming five years with credibility. For the same reason, my group finds it incomprehensible that Commissioner Bangemann should choose precisely this moment to take an extremely dubious step in his career. Unfortunately, this affair confirms the view that nothing will ever change in Europe. Whereas the whistleblowing official Paul van Buitenen is still waiting for his reputation to be rehabilitated, those at the top, such as Mr Bangemann, are evidently able to go about their affairs in the usual way. We democrats seek to restore the people's faith in Europe, which is no small challenge. That is why every European slip-up must be tackled, irrespective of who is responsible for it. Consequently, my group heartily endorses the fact that the Council intends to present this case to the Court of Justice. However, it would have been more fitting if the President of the European Commission had taken this step himself. This would have signalled an ability to put its own house in order, which would have been most welcome in view of recent events.

Political group: ELDR
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. – Mr President, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, I should like to congratulate both Mr Schnellhardt and Mr Kindermann for their work. The opinion from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy on the Schnellhardt report, for which I was the draftsperson, focuses in particular on the need for consistency between food safety practices, which are deemed essential for the domestic sale or supply of foodstuffs, and those practices which cover the sale of such foodstuffs internationally. The committee has therefore sought to make it explicit that the scope of any regulation needs to apply equally to exports, as well as to domestic sale and consumption. We also wanted to broaden the membership of the proposed standing committee for foodstuffs to include experts representing public authorities and consumer groups. It is quite wrong that the Commission Decision of 18 May 2000, which defines the composition of standing committees, specifically exempts consumer groups from representation on these committees. It is clearly of great importance that such committees gain the trust of consumers and are genuinely stakeholder committees. It therefore seems quite essential that consumer groups be represented on them. With respect to the specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin, the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy wanted to build in greater flexibility, particularly with regard to slaughterhouses. We therefore proposed that measures should be introduced to allow flexibility in application of the so-called HACCP system to regional slaughterhouses which are in peripheral or remote regions. Strict rules in the past have caused unnecessary difficulties to slaughterhouses in the more remote areas of the EU, often because geographical restraints can lead to unfair competitive conditions which tend to favour larger enterprises. Yet, as we begin to learn the lessons of, say, the foot-and-mouth epidemic in the UK, it is quite clear that one of the reasons that disease spread so far and so fast was precisely because of the closure of local slaughterhouses. We must not induce, however unintentionally, any more closures in that vital area. Finally, on a personal note, an existing concern I have with this whole regulation is that it is insufficiently flexible for the small enterprise in particular. We must be mindful of the extra burden which can be placed on small enterprises and ensure that we are not adopting any sort of regulation which risks undermining their livelihoods.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the curious thing about the EU position on GATS is that it has become a very defensive position. It is not defensive to anyone outside Europe, but within an internal debate in which the Commission, and perhaps the EU generally, the position is defensive vis-à-vis campaign groups within the European Union which have decided, for some good reasons but also a lot of bad reasons, to criticise both the GATS agreement and the EU stance. My group would like to focus on that point. If, in the future, we want to prevent European Union trade policy being shaped - and sometimes arbitrarily shaped - by both the press and specific campaign groups, we must reassert parliamentary prerogatives in this field to open up the debate to proper, accountable public scrutiny. That is why we urge colleagues in other groups not only to support greater transparency in the way in which these negotiations are conducted, but also, as Mrs McNally has already said, to give strong support to filling the current vacuum in the Convention and making sure that the European Parliament more generally gains the right of assent over all future GATS and WTO agreements.

Political group: ELDR
I too voted for the report on Malta, Madam President, and I have seen that point 8 of the report, on page 7, calls upon Malta “to introduce legislation against discrimination pursuant to Article 13 of the EU Treaty”. But Madam President, we are asking Malta to do something that Italy, for example, has not done!” In Italy, there is discrimination against the disabled and sick who are over 65 years old, who are not entitled to an allowance, and the sick who are less than 65 years old, who are entitled to an allowance. I cannot see any difference between a disabled person over 65 and a disabled person under 65! - Collins report (A5-0249/2001)

Political group: PPE-DE
I voted in favour of the joint resolution because I believe that the issues of sustainable development and climate change are so important in the context of the Göteborg summit that the European Parliament must make a very clear statement. However, there are elements of the resolution that I did not agree with. With reference to paragraphs 35 and 36, I do not believe that a military alliance which is based on the possession and threatened use of nuclear weapons can be a force for 'security and stability'. Secondly, I am totally opposed to the proposals for the US missile defence system – a system which would be banned under the 1972 ABM Treaty and will increase international tension. I do not agree that it should go ahead, whether or not there has been consultation with the European partners. Despite this, there is a need for strong political leadership on sustainable development and I hope that the encouragement given to the Council to take on this role will result in progress at an international level. In addition, the decision to look at Parliament's own working methods and hold an annual debate on sustainable development are important steps forward.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I congratulate Mr Sterckx on his report on maritime safety, which I fully support. I share the concerns about maritime safety expressed by the Temporary Committee on improving safety at sea and by the rapporteur himself, reminding all parties involved that maritime safety is an issue that still requires substantial and lasting political attention. This will determine the quality and safety of vessels navigating European waters and European vessels throughout the world as well as protection of the coasts and of the European public. I firmly support the measures that have been adopted in this field, particularly those banning single-hulled tankers transporting heavy oils from European waters and those conferring further powers on the European Maritime Safety Agency. I shall conclude by reaffirming something to which I have referred on several occasions during my term of office: safety is everyone’s responsibility and requires everyone’s commitment!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as we listen to and take part in this debate, we seem to feel, after 50 years and seven wars in the Middle East, that we are taking a risk, that is to say that each of us seems to have turned into a minor master of democracy and budgeting capable of applying yardsticks and prejudices that are ours and ours alone. We may not always have appreciated the role played by Yasser Arafat, just as we have hardly ever appreciated the role played by Sharon, but we should not forget that President Arafat was democratically elected as president of a people deprived of a homeland, of its own territory and a peaceful existence. If we forget that we are guilty of conceit, evasiveness and superficiality. If we condemn terrorism against Israel firmly and with absolute sincerity – and we condemn it with all our strength and with all due vehemence – then we should condemn with equal force and vehemence the character assassination by the media of the democratically elected president of a people. We call on the Presidency not just to denounce his exile as unacceptable. We should also be denouncing the indecent incitement to homicide by a minister in the Israeli Government and by an influential newspaper like the Jerusalem Post. What can Europe do? Just blacklist Hamas? I do not think that is enough. We need to be firm on three points: we should call for an end to the blockade on the Palestinian territories; we must call for an end to all settlement activities; and we must call for the demolition of the security wall, which amounts, in practice, to an annexation of territory and is a violation of international law. Europe must invest here, and one possibility might be to send in a ground force that would make a decisive, practical contribution to monitoring respect for reciprocal obligations. The only alternative to peace is peace, but to make this possible Europe must take practical action.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a careful assessment of the follow-up to what has become known as the Lisbon Strategy clearly shows that that Summit, which sought to present itself as the defender of employment, was, in fact, a powerful boost to speeding up the process of liberalising fundamental sectors of the economy. In its report, the Commission now highlights what it considers to be ‘good results’ achieved with regard to the liberalisation of the telecommunications networks, the creation of a legislative framework for electronic commerce and the definition of the European Company Statute. At the same time, the Commission regrets what it considers to be delays in the regulation of public contracts and the liberalisation of the markets in gas, electricity, transport and postal services. In other words, the Commission is insisting on the need to move ahead even more rapidly with the total liberalisation of the most varied sectors, including public services, and on more rapid progress in the capitals market, including the regulation of financial services. The Commission’s aim is to boost pension funds and other types of funds, but this will lead to greater attacks on social security and other essential public services, specifically in the areas of health, education and communications. Meanwhile, in the social sphere, despite the statements of intent, fundamental decisions on protecting workers’ rights are being delayed, as happened here only yesterday when we discussed industrial restructuring. At the same time, statements are being made once again about the need to create a more flexible labour market, which is more mobile and able to adapt. I understand this to mean more precarious employment, with fewer workers’ rights, although it is acknowledged that unemployment is still too high and that poverty and social exclusion are unacceptable at the beginning of the new millennium. These policies therefore need to be amended, Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. What is required is not to touch them up to make them look better in one way or another but to make far-reaching change to the policy in this field.

Political group: GUE-NGL