GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I shall start by also congratulating Mrs Stihler on her excellent report and on the excellent speech she made this evening in this House. Everyone in this House is aware that fish stocks are in sharp decline across the EU. That is why the Commission has come to us with a radical new package of proposals for reform of the common fisheries policy. That is why we are facing an 18% cut in overall gross tonnage in the EU fleet, with the attendant massive impact that this will have on jobs in many economically challenged and remote peripheral areas of the Community. However, we also understand that the two species at most serious risk of collapse are cod and northern hake. There is at least no doubt about the state of cod stocks. I would admit that there are, however, some doubts about the state of hake stocks. The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) claims that hake stocks are on the verge of collapse. Other independent scientists claim the stocks are still at sustainable levels and they challenge the ICES findings. As Mrs McKenna has pointed out in her speech this evening, we are pledged in this House to apply the precautionary principle whenever such doubts exist. In these circumstances, I would appeal to this House to reinstate hake in the Commission's recovery plan until such time as the scientific evidence can be analysed and verified in exactly the way Mr Varela Suanzes-Carpegna has called for this evening. Yesterday, as we all know, a substantial number of Member States voiced their opposition to certain aspects of the Commission's proposals for reforming the CFP during the Fisheries Council. They want public aid to be used for building new vessels, they want open access to Community waters, they support short-term profits over long-term sustainability, they oppose change, they support the status quo. Theirs is surely a policy of despair. We cannot continue as we have done in the past. If we do so, it will not be only cod and hake that disappear, our fishing industry will disappear as well.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I too would first of all like to congratulate Mr Bösch on his sound report and, unlike Mr Dell'Alba, I think that Mr Bösch has indeed drawn the right lessons from OLAF’s annual report which was published late last year. We might as well admit it, there are a great many money-grubbers active within the European Union, and organised crime no longer concentrates solely on drug smuggling, the arms trade, trafficking in humans, meat fraud, alcohol and cigarette smuggling, VAT merry-go-round fraud and oil fraud, and has not done so for a long time. They are all forms of crime which cause serious harm to the EU’s budget, both on the revenue side and the expenditure side. We may have had a single market since 1993 which accommodates the free movement of goods, services, people, capital, as well as organised criminals, but this single market does not exist – and this is so unfortunate – for police services and magistrates alike. On my own behalf, I will therefore stick my neck out and endorse all paragraphs of the Bösch report which call for the setting up of a European Public Prosecutor’s office. I know it is a controversial issue, even within my own group. Despite this, I believe that such a European Public Prosecutor’s office should be set up. I would therefore ask the European Commission, as a matter of extreme urgency, to meet the request of the Bösch report to add an extra clause to the present OLAF regulation before 30 June, providing for a kind of trial project in which a European Public Prosecutor is appointed from within OLAF who can only act on behalf of members and staff of the European institutions. I entreat Commissioner Schreyer to give very specific answers to this request and would ask her whether she would be prepared to take any initiative in this matter before 30 June.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the recent tragic accidents have again made us all aware that we have a lot of catching up to do in road transport in particular, especially when it comes to developing infrastructures for intermodal transport systems. I do not want to prolong the debate unnecessarily, but I would like to ask a very open question. Which way will the traffic go if the Mont Blanc Tunnel, the St Gotthard Tunnel and the St Bernard Tunnel are closed? I am very much afraid – and that fear is shared by the population of Austria and the population all along the Alps – that the traffic will then go over the Brenner Pass and that we will have major problems in that highly sensitive region of the Alps, problems that will affect not only North and South Tyrol but also Trentino. I therefore implore you to be really forward looking in tackling this issue because it is not only a matter of road safety but of the environment in which many people live.

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, I join Mr MacCormick in thanking you for your direct answer. He and I have been passing information week after week to you and your colleagues but have found there to be a rather roundabout relationship between you for aquaculture, Mr Monti for competition policy and Mr Lamy for trade, which makes life very difficult. Can I ask the three of you to join forces and work in a joined-up way, in order to prosecute this particular problem with the utmost urgency? The life is being squeezed out of our constituents in Scotland. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, coastal management which is not only integrated but planned, both in Europe and in every continent, is one of the paramount necessities for the future of humanity. It is impossible to deal with this issue within the narrow context of the existing Member States. This is an area in which decisions could be necessary and legitimate at the level of a whole continent, or even of the entire planet. However, this is also an area in which the European institutions have least power, although they are very fond of finicky regulations in other areas where centralisation is not required. In this way they demonstrate that they do not represent an authority which imposes its will on national States, each with its particularisms and selfish interests, but rather that they are the result of those interests. The European institutions, like the national States, are in the service of the private interests of the major industrial and financial groups. They are incapable of imposing on those groups the policies which are of utmost importance to society as a whole, and there is a real risk that future generations will die as a result. The solving of major ecological problems is totally incompatible with the private ownership of the major means of production and the use of those means with the exclusive aim of making a profit. The cases involving the Erika and the Ievoli Sun were a good illustration of the extent to which private interests are opposed to collective interests. In these circumstances, to vote in favour of a strategy for integrated coastal zone management would be pure hypocrisy. We shall be abstaining from the vote.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I too would like to congratulate the Greek Presidency of the Council on what it has achieved in its six months, in a difficult situation: on Iraq – as we have heard – and also on specific dossiers like the European Statute for Political Parties, where a lot of hard work was put in. The ministers will know that I do not say this just out of politeness because I have also voiced friendly criticism of some aspects of the Greek legal system. I did so, for instance, when a constituent of mine – Mr David Wilson – who is now facing an appeal in the Greek courts, was arrested and sentenced within 24 hours of his arrest to 12 years in jail, after some stowaway asylum-seekers were found hidden at the back of his lorry without his knowledge. So you know that my praise is genuine because sometimes I do not hesitate to criticise. The key issue of the period of the Greek Presidency is the constitution. In the long run that will be the most significant thing. I congratulate the presidency on getting the form of words agreed in Thessaloniki – that the constitution will be the basis for the negotiation of a new treaty in the IGC. The Convention has not quite finished its work. Part III, at least, is going to be subject to a technical revision: such technicalities as how to vote in the Council, the technique of voting by QMV or unanimity. That shows that technicalities can sometimes also be of the highest political significance. It is important that progress be made on that. But once we have a completed result from the Convention the battle then moves on to getting it intact through the IGC. The IGC must not unravel the Convention, must not pick it apart. As soon as we start moving one little bit of the constitution, there will somebody else who wants to remove another bit of it, and the whole thing could fall apart. On the contrary, we must all unite to say that this must be the basis on which we move forward. If there are going to be changes they should only be small, detailed and technical changes to the constitution. I welcome the reference in the conclusions of Thessaloniki to the participation of Parliament in the IGC. The details still need to be spelt out but we now have an acquis from the Amsterdam and Nice negotiations that the European Parliament participates via its President in the meetings at the level of ministers and via two representatives at the level of the working group that does the negotiating. That at the very least should be the basis on which Parliament participates in this IGC. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr Pirker’s report has a long title, suggesting a multiplicity of subjects. To an extent, the mix of subjects renders the report impractical and difficult to place in relation to the real world, but that is in no way Mr Pirker’s fault. In general, I am able to support the report’s overall objective of strengthening cooperation and coordination within the EU in these essential and cross-border areas of policy. The report nonetheless contains a proposal that I find too far-reaching: that of establishing a federal European corps of border guards which – in contrast to, for example, Europol – would have extensive operational authority to use its powers. I am opposed to the creation of a federal corps of border guards. With regard to the principle of subsidiarity, I do not think that the Commission is able to document either the effect of, or the operational need for, a federal corps of border guards. Secondly, I think it is too early to establish such a corps. We still do not know what would be the effects of the many sensible proposals, such as those for increased cooperation and coordination between the Member States’ customs and border authorities. In particular, no account has been taken of the encouraging fact that we are now working towards a better distribution of the financial burden. Thirdly, there is simply no legal basis in the existing Treaties for a federal corps of border guards and, even if the Convention’s proposals for new Treaty wordings were adopted, it is doubtful if there would be a legal basis for such a corps. I recognise that, in its present form, the proposal to introduce an EU corps of border guards simply proposes a model according to which the Member States might voluntarily make use of this force. At the same time, it is clear, however, that, if the introduction of a corps of border guards were to have any meaning at all, the Commission would, in the long term, plan to delegate a number of EU tasks to that body. In other words, the common corps of border guards would, to an increasing degree, come under general EU legislation, and the voluntary element would thus quickly become illusory. With regard to the proposals concerning the biometric data, I do not wish to comment in more detail upon these at the present time. I am myself rapporteur for the report on which Parliament is to adopt a position, and it will not be long before we have a debate on it. To sum up, I recommend, on behalf of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, that we vote in favour of the motion for a resolution in the report. At the same time, it is, however, crucial for me to emphasise that what I want is a common policy in this area and not a common police force.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the developing situation in East Timor must continue to enjoy the complete attention of the European Union’s institutions. In spite of the positive measures that were taken following Parliament’s resolution on September 16 last, specifically the entry of the international peace and security force under the auspices of the UN and INTERFET, the humanitarian safety situation remains serious both in East Timor itself, which it is essential to provide with resources to support reconstruction, and for approximately 250 thousand people forcibly displaced to Indonesia and, particularly, to West Timor. Therefore, it is crucial that the European Union, the Member States and the whole international community maintain firm pressure on the Indonesian authorities so that they disarm and control the so-called “militias” with the utmost urgency and they create the necessary conditions of safety for the refugees to return to East Timor, whose territorial integrity should be respected in its entirety. It is equally vital for words to be replaced with action and humanitarian and financial aid to East Timor to actually be provided. The delay in the arrival of the aid promised by the European Union, despite the promises made by the Council and the Commission, is unacceptable. And as approval of the budgetary line for the next few years has been positive, it is vital that the necessary sums be provided for economic and financial support for the reconstruction of East Timor and for its transition to independence. Finally, it is important to reiterate the fact that the decisions on the East Timor independence process are a matter for its people. This means respecting its sovereignty, so decisions on its present and its future must be taken in close collaboration with the National Council for Timorese Resistance, as it is not for international organisations to replace the people of East Timor but to give them all the necessary support. Therefore this is an appeal for all Member States, the institutions of the European Union and the whole international community to keep support for the people of East Timor on the agenda and to take the first steps towards the international recognition of the State of East Timor Lorosae and the respective establishment of diplomatic relations.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, supporting President Laurent Gbagbo is, ladies and gentlemen, natural. It is natural to support a politician for whom prison, exile and suffering have marked the thirty-year long struggle for his ideas. In two years, he has restored to Côte d’Ivoire a minimum rule of law, revitalised the education system, gained the trust of the international institutions and above all, provided conditions for national reconciliation by forming a government made up of all the opposition parties, and I would point out to Mrs Thors that the RDR (Rassemblement des Républicains) party entered the government in August 2002. Parliament invited President Gbagbo to Strasbourg in November 2001 – Nicole Fontaine invited him – and, in doing so, wanted to acknowledge the work carried out by this humanist professor and leader. We must help him because he symbolises republican legality, because he symbolises political change in an Africa that is greatly in need of it, because he is the symbol that Africa is anchored in a modern democracy. Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, a ceasefire is needed, but on the condition that the rebels surrender their weapons. No constitutionally elected president can negotiate with armed rebels that occupy 40% of his country. The European Union must help in the general reconstruction of the country, which will involve the development of the rule of law, a programme of social housing for the most deprived, and the reorganisation of the Côte d’Ivoire army. Ladies and gentlemen, if Côte d’Ivoire falters, the whole of West Africa will be permanently destabilised, it will be plunged into chaos, and there will be terrible risks of ethnic and religious clashes. We must therefore, as part of an active diplomatic effort, send a parliamentary mission, and this is what we shall begin working on, Madam President, as of tomorrow. As Commissioner Barnier wished, quite rightly and quite appropriately, this parliamentary mission must be able to arrive within three days in Abidjan and it must strive, on the basis of the resolution that we shall vote upon tomorrow, to play a role and provide Parliament with a role to play. It is no good arriving when the crisis is over. We have an essential responsibility towards this country, its president and the people of Côte d’Ivoire. They need our solidarity, Madam President, in the terrible ordeal they are going through, and the European Parliament must therefore have a presence and its presence must be firm.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, this disaster, without going into the issue in depth and in view of the information becoming available to us, currently involves at least four Community countries: Spain, France, Portugal and Denmark. It does not just involve maritime safety, but it is a transversal issue which involves at least four committees (Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, Fisheries, Development and Cooperation and Legal Affairs and the Internal Market). Therefore, not just in view of the dramatic situation in Galicia, but also thinking of the whole of the European Union, we must provide a response and also consider something which is important and which I hope has the agreement of the Group of the European Peoples’ Party, at least it did last week: the creation of a committee of enquiry. (Applause) (Parliament agreed to the request)(1)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I also want to congratulate my colleague, Mr Medina Ortega, and indeed his predecessor for the work that has been done on this directive. Mr Medina referred to action that had to be taken to implement this directive throughout the Member States and the laggardly way in which they have done so. It has all been too little, too late. There is a fringe of fraudulent activities – the timeshare sharks. There are practices that exploit the time limits of the directive itself, the growth of holiday clubs, points clubs and so on. There is avoidance of the limited protection of the very brief cooling-off period which is, I fear, not universally implemented, again by the different Member States. My colleague, Mrs McCarthy and others join me in recommending a proper cooling-off period of 28 days where the contract is signed outside the buyer's country of residence, as is the normal procedure. In my own country the victims of timeshare fraud have banded together to try and demand action. One of my constituents, Claire Griffiths, who attended the public hearings here, organised boycotts of the agents in her area. They were successful in terms of the diminished business of those people, but the group is still waiting for proper redress and their money back. The Association of Timeshare Owners is today organising a co-regulatory body to deal with the management of timeshare resorts, which has been one of the other matters at issue. Our quarrel is not with them. I appreciate anything which is done in the field of co-regulation. However, they, and we, need action from the Commission, either by a resolution or by a directive. That is the only way we can demonstrate our power here to protect the vulnerable against exploitation that is not merely callous but very often criminal as well.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner Lamy, Commissioner Fischler, ladies and gentlemen, we can see that another essential round is on the cards. What this is about is the successes that we are meant to be chalking up for Europe, and Commissioner Lamy was right to make the point that this is about opening up the market to trade, and I would like to emphasise that this is to be on a reciprocal basis. Our problem is, however, that there are still many technical barriers to trade, particularly for our European structure of small and medium-sized enterprises, in which two thirds of Europe’s workers are employed. This means that it is also important to set out positive effects of the Cancún round, showing what our chances are of growth in Europe and what kinds of new jobs might be created here. I have a second question. What is in fact the situation as regards regional quality products? We were focussing our attention on some forty of these products – one in particular from the candidate countries being Budweiser Beer.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I rise on behalf of my group but also on behalf of my colleague Lord Bethell, who takes a particular concern and interest in this matter. The fate of Alexander Nikitin is particularly relevant to a topical and urgent debate. Next Tuesday he is due to appear in court in Russia. I believe this is the sixth time that he will appear in court. He is indicted on a charge of high treason, which is a very strong and extreme charge and for what? For addressing a matter of public interest, of environmental interest to the whole of Europe. Under this charge he faces a possible death sentence. This is an extreme sanction and this House and the European institutions should send a very powerful message to Russia that it should re-think this issue, the charges should be dropped and it should respect our call for his immediate release. In the context of the earlier debate on ending the death penalty, it is very relevant that we should call upon the Russian authorities to respect our views, the views of Europe, as to whether he should be indicted and what the sanction should be. So I very much support the calls for Mr Nikitin to be immediately released and found not guilty of the charges.

Political group: PPE-DE