GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to begin as Baroness Ludford began, by saying that in the field, of asylum and immigration, there has been a lack of speed and a lack of balance. I also agree with the words of Mrs Terrón i Cusi, who said that a global approach to these issues is needed. A global approach means that we need to focus on the two aspects of the set of problems posed by asylum and immigration; the causes underlying them and how we can combat their abuse. And on this point I wish to say that I do not agree with those who oppose repressive measures on the grounds that they are not necessary. Unfortunately, they are. Combating illegal immigration must be a priority for the Union, because this phenomenon represents the greatest threat to human dignity, it allows criminal networks and trafficking in human beings to flourish. Illegal immigration and our inability to control migratory flows allow people to react in exaggeratedly xenophobic, racist and intolerant ways. It would probably be easier to make everything that is illegal legal, but we cannot do this. Not everyone who wishes to enter EU territory can do so. And therefore, as Mr Watson said, we must have a policy of repatriation that ensures the credibility of our immigration policy. And this is crucial and must be done without any complexes of an ideological or any other nature. What we have, therefore, is a lack of speed and a lack of balance. As to the lack of speed, I have confidence in the energy of Commissioner Vitorino; with regard to the lack of balance, I think that this Parliament will have to shift the balance of some of its positions. Concerning the wisdom of Commissioner Vitorino, I wish to emphasise something that he said and which I believe to be extremely important: on this matter we must have a policy made up of small steps; small steps, but steady ones.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, could I just remind Mr Poettering and his friends in the group that, when the Court of Auditors drew up its report on the financing of political parties, it was his group which was criticised and it was the Socialist and s which received a clean bill of health. Maybe this is due to the fact that the group is not one group, that the British Conservatives are allowed to run their own shop and that they keep their own accounts. It is they who must improve their books. Mrs Stauner had to be stopped for speaking too fast at the beginning of this debate. It is a telling metaphor for the work she did in committee. She ran ahead of the committee without the rest of us realising what was going on. She tried and condemned the Commission for not sharing the outlandish views she has of financial management and control. Even the Court of Auditors does not agree with her. The job of the Committee on Budgetary Control is not to hang the Commission out to dry for the duration of a parliament, but to ensure that Europe's citizens are served by an executive that implements its political priorities efficiently and effectively. Fortunately that view was shared by the majority of the committee. One of the disastrous consequences of this whole standoff has been the proposal that is before us tomorrow for a framework agreement on relations between Parliament and the Commission. This agreement will restrict the rights of individual MEPs, of rapporteurs, to ask for information from the Commission. It is a short-sighted proposal and if we do not postpone the debate until September then we should vote against it. Finally I should just like to say, as we are about to listen to Mr Chirac and what he has to say about the French presidency, that I hope that he will also listen to what this Parliament has to say, and in particular to Parliament's view that it should be able to decide for itself where it meets, when it wants to meet, and that this should not be imposed by the governments of the Member States.

Political group: PSE
The Theato report on combating fraud reveals that the Central European Bank, no doubt the better to prove its celebrated independence, thought it inappropriate to subscribe to the Interinstitutional Agreement relating to OLAF. The report takes up a number of ideas contained in the European judges’ Geneva Appeal, such as the setting up of a European Public Prosecutor. Unfortunately, it does not adopt the most important proposal, to make any financial transaction involving a tax haven illegal. Finally, as if all the better to emphasise the ridiculous dispossession of the representatives of universal suffrage, the report charges the President of the European Parliament with forwarding its proposals to an Intergovernmental Conference which will already be at an end when this vote is taken. Since nothing was decided in this area in Nice, we are doing what the report has already invited us to do and interpreting this lack of decision “as laxity and indifference in relation to fraud in Europe”. In spite of its limitations, we shall vote in favour of this report as one way, admittedly too timid a way, of rebelling against the neo-liberal rationale according to which the taxation of profit is by definition an unwarranted deduction, in connection with which it is legitimate to commit fraud.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I am simply asking the Commission to come and inform the Committee on Budgets before implementing the second tranche.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, last year with the European Parliament’s Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, I had the opportunity to visit Cracow in Poland. We learned a great deal from that visit, not least that the applicant countries will make a tremendous contribution to the cultural life and vitality of Europe. We asked a question of one of the professors at the Cultural Institute in Cracow: Is there a distinctive European culture The reply summed it up neatly: He said he often visited America, and clearly we share a western culture with the United States, but nonetheless when he went there was something missing and that was the historic environment. He said that in city like Cracow you can see, touch, feel history and culture all around. I can certainly see why as a citizen of that city he made that point. So I endorse Mr Graça Moura's comment that it was regrettable that the historic environment was not included in the forum on cultural cooperation last year. We must never neglect the historic environment in all our countries. I simply endorse the rapporteurs call to include our Mediterranean neighbours, our Islamic neighbours; we must cooperate with the Islamic countries. In particular we must remember that Europe today is a multicultural society. We must rejoice in that and we must make sure that our programme contains significant elements to deal with that. There has been comment today, some of them fair criticisms, about difficulties in administration, but I want to cite a success story. I was delighted in my own constituency of Portsmouth that a grant of EUR 150 000 was given to a consortium of museums, including Portsmouth's D-Day Museum, dedicated to peace across Europe. That is a project that certainly has been very successful and they are delighted to have received European support. We must monitor projects very carefully. That is one I am sure that will pass with flying colours. If we want more money for culture in Europe, let us think seriously about a European lottery to get the money for it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I have to say that I am surprised at how little has been said in this debate about the fact that a people has been liberated, that freedom reigns where terror once did and that Shia clerics are now able to return to Iraq in an atmosphere of religious toleration where once they were murdered. In the last few days we have seen a reminder of the nature of Saddam's regime with the discovery of yet another mass grave. Too much of the debate has been about apportioning blame for what has happened in the past and too little of it has been about looking forward. Ensuring that Iraq is run by Iraqis for Iraqis should be an absolute priority. The wishes and needs of the Iraqi people should be paramount. It is for that reason that I welcome the draft UN Resolution, which addresses the immediate needs of the Iraqi people. It lifts sanctions: how many people in this Chamber have been calling for that over the last few years? It envisages a political process to put the country back into the hands of the Iraqis with the involvement of a UN special coordinator. It sets up a process to wind up the 'Oil for Food' programme while ensuring that oil can only be sold for the benefit of the Iraqi people and it creates a new fund for the reconstruction and humanitarian needs of Iraq which involves the IMF and the World Bank. There are of course many problems to be dealt with. We cannot run reconstruction from the top down as if it were a military campaign. We cannot impose systems and procedures dreamed up in Washington and expect them to work. We have to have a bottom-up approach which involves the Iraqi people first and foremost. In order for that to happen, the establishment of security, effective policing and the rule of law should be given absolute priority. My concern is that American troops, unlike British troops, are not equipped for policing action and our priority therefore should be to get police into northern Iraq. We have already seen security established largely in southern Iraq. My final concern is that there has been no proper discussion on debt reconstruction in Iraq, nor even on who the debt belongs to. Until we resolve these issues there will be no long-term solution for Iraq.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I wondered why Mr Fatuzzo has nothing to say on this. I would have thought that he would have had a minute to share with us. We are being deprived because we have no explanation of how he voted on the Plan Colombia. I wonder through you, President, if it is possible to ask him if he could explain to assembled masses here how he voted, because it is important that we know.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, the draft regulation before us today is an indispensable and highly important element in, as well as a logical consequence of, the endeavours to improve food safety undertaken in the wake of the various crises which have, I regret to say, affected us in the European food sector Although, as I am keen to remind you, the European food chain is one of the world’s safest, we deemed it necessary to take steps to improve traceability and labelling. Admittedly, all the decisions taken testify to the European Parliament’s political will, but they will bring no benefits if they are not correctly applied. What is often lacking in terms of food safety, as in many other areas, is effective control over how existing legislation or regulations are applied. I congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Schnellhardt, on the quality of his work in this area, which seeks to set up a rigorous monitoring system for both European and imported products. We will not reap the full benefits of the new concept developed by the European Commission and often discussed in this field, ‘from farm to table’, without continuous, adequate monitoring of the food on the market, from when it is produced to when it is consumed. If we are to restore consumer confidence, consumers must be able to say to themselves, when they buy meat or any other food, that they need have no qualms about believing the information provided on the product label. Consumers must be able to feel sure that the products they are about to consume are healthy. To achieve this, as the rapporteur has explained, it is essential to develop independent official inspections and also to increase the responsibility of operators in the sector. I would highlight here the role of vets and the vital importance of independent inspections. It is also helpful to show common sense by adopting rules which take into account the size of businesses and do not penalise smallholdings, since this problem occurs with SMEs. I am pleased, therefore, that some such amendments have been adopted, just as I am pleased that the Commissioner has mentioned the flexibility required. Obviously, these changes should not be to the detriment of consumer safety. Effective communication of information and regular updating of lists of accredited establishments will make inspection and coordination between Member States much easier. I believe that the aim of all this is to restore consumer confidence, and the system should ensure that safer products are placed on the market for each and everyone one of us consumers.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner Fischler, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by expressing my best wishes to Mr Cunha; may they go home with him on his new political journey. Let me follow that up with an old adage – not to say an old truth – to the effect that Europe has too few fish; the waters around the Member States cannot meet our demand for them. That is a fact, and it is one with which we have to deal. Let me take this opportunity to emphasise the fundamental point that we have not started by emptying European waters of fish, only to seek out new fishing grounds in which to do the same thing. It is far more a case of traditional European fishing grounds having been lost as a result of the extension of the exclusive economic zones to 200 nautical miles, which happened as long ago as the 1970s. It is in order to compensate for this loss that the EU has concluded fisheries agreements with third states. Today, we have twenty-one of these agreements with countries in both the North and the South. The contribution they make to Europe’s economy is an important one; it might even be described as irreplaceable. We, for our part, get the fresh fish that we urgently need, whilst important jobs are safeguarded at home and abroad in the fishing and fish-processing industries. With such a resource as fish, though, a resource that is finite and sensitive to adverse environmental factors, economic considerations must not obscure environmental ones or blind us to conditions in the third countries. That is why I very much welcome the Commission’s new joint approach. I also believe that it needs to be brought to life, and it is more compatible with our objective of sustainable fisheries. The agreement is nonetheless concerned with a commercial activity, that is to say, simply with fishing in foreign waters and with the economic yield derived from it. I take the view that the amount of funding should reflect the real value of the fishing rights. Fisheries policy should not be used to cloak the objectives of development policy. That is what we have specific budget lines for, and that is why I am not the only one to take this line. I would like to see fisheries agreements in the future too – modern and sustainable ones, founded on partnership – but the benefits and burdens must be shared out fairly among all parties. Furthermore, we cannot look at these things from the perspective of using European money to provide permanent subsidies, if only a few Member States end up reaping the rewards. Nor should we forget the decisive point that Parliament must be better informed in view of the large amounts expended from the European Budget. Indeed, I take the view – and I am certainly not the only one to do so – that Parliament must have a part to play in negotiations, not tomorrow, but today. This is where something, at last, needs to be done! (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, with reference to a point I made in the debate on Tampere on Tuesday, it has been brought to my attention by my colleague, Mr Camre, that remarks that I attributed to him were not what he intended and the translation into English, and I believe French, was the exact opposite of what he intended to say. My criticism of him was perhaps unfair. I would just like to put that straight and I have now done so.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I wish to begin by congratulating Mr Santini, who I have been shadowing on behalf of the Group of the . It is a very good report. However, we have done ourselves some damage. As has been referred to, this will not be viewed easily or lightly accepted by the Council because we have wrongly broadened the scope. I agree absolutely with the principles within Mr Santini's report, but we have to be realistic on a consultation process on how to achieve those principles. This is particularly about cross-border disputes. If we make it include internal disputes, we create a great deal of problems not only for the Community but also for those Member States that will have to face the potentially huge legal bills that will follow. That is why I will recommend to the Socialist Group that we support the amendment by Baroness Ludford which reintroduces the notion that this refers specifically to cross-border disputes. I welcome the fact that the Brussels 1 Regulation will apply to these disputes on the mutual enforcement of civil law decisions. Equally, I accept that it should not cover proceedings relating to tax, customs or administrative matters. However, I should introduce one correction. It may have been a linguistic matter, but Mr Santini said that citizens will be judged irrespective of their financial positions. This is not true because there is an upper limit set within the directive. I welcome that the victims of crime will be guaranteed legal aid in order to get compensation. We agree that legal aid should cover both pre-litigation advice and representation in court. We also back the proposal to include within the scheme mechanisms for resolving disputes outside the courts. I will finish as I began by congratulating Mr Santini but by expressing regret that, by broadening the scope and going far beyond that which we can achieve in the House, we are actually urging the Council not to accept our recommendations.

Political group: PSE
Mr President-in-Office, most of us can admire the tactics and future tasks to be conducted by Europol as an organisation. We all know that it is a very necessary organisation. You identified a new structure for Europol in the future. Are there any plans to bring Europol under democratic control?

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I suppose that those of us who have remained can be thankful to Commissioner Bolkestein for being late. At least that has allowed us not to have to come back after 9 p.m. I am sure Commissioner Fischler is also pleased about that. However, this sort of thing should not happen in this House and we should organise our debates more efficiently. I welcome this very good report and congratulate the rapporteur on producing it. As others have said, tuna is as important to the southern regions of Europe as cod and hake is to the northern ones, and those of us from the northern region can therefore understand the concerns. A very significant percentage of the catch goes to the processing industry, meaning that there are very many dependent jobs both at sea and on shore. Up to 60% of the fish caught are canned, as Mrs Stihler has said, and much of that is eaten by us in the northern hemisphere. I, like many people, am very fond of it. However, there are major issues at stake here and they are of concern to me. We can only support sustainable and responsible fishing. I agree with Mr Parish and others who expressed concerns about dolphins. That is something of concern to many people in my constituency. Ultimately, however, our fleets must remain competitive in the long term. We must have quality control and the size of fish caught must be closely monitored. The Commissioner mentioned three important points, one of which is access to third countries. If we are going to have access to third countries – which is probably needed – it must be closely monitored and there must be tighter controls. Above all we must rule out illegal fishing and protect those species under threat. We need a mechanism for both long- and short-term strategies for the industry, but these must take into account the requirements of the industry and be sensitive to the issue of biomass and tuna stocks. We must work for a more sustainable industry in the future.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, our debate today is somewhat absurd. After we had prepared the report, two important documents came from the Commission. I am thinking firstly of the White Paper on governance and secondly of the communication on the Information and Communication Policy. Having studied these documents, I am quite confused about the way in which the Commission intends to help us supervise the application of Community law and about how it intends to prioritise the issues concerned. Where, firstly, the Information and Communication Policy is concerned, the communication says that the future of what is known as the European justice system is in the process of being looked into. In sharp contrast to what is stated in the communication, we in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market had been given to understand that this network of specialised lawyers, which can provide people with advice and which operates at the Commission’s delegations in the Member States, was viewed as valuable by the Commission. The June communication now tells us that the Commission is considering how the system is to look in the future and that the tasks of the lawyers concerned are perhaps to be transferred to national administrations. Who, I should like to ask the Commission, believes that a national administration will help people obtain justice from the self-same administration? Secondly, I am confused about the fact that, according to the White Paper on governance, there is a desire for ‘networks of similar existing bodies in the Member States capable of dealing with disputes involving citizens and EU issues’, at the same time as an intention to improve people’s knowledge of their rights under Community law. How does the Commission intend that we should monitor the application of Community law? I believe that we need to do some serious thinking, and I think that the Commission could have been more practical when it came to how this very issue was dealt with in the White Paper.

Political group: ELDR