GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I have asked this question now that the six months of the Swedish Presidency are coming to an end, aware that the Presidency of your country has not done enough to respond to the resolution on the Treaty of Nice, which you have mentioned, and to the anxieties of European society. I believe that European society sees Nice as a total failure and I also believe that this failure, amongst other things, has led to the fact that Ireland has voted no in the referendum on the Treaty of Nice, in the face of the idleness of the Irish Government, and also, although this time in positive terms, the fact that Mr Jospin, Prime Minister of France, and Mr Schröder, Chancellor of Germany, proposed something which seven or eight months ago they would not have dared to propose, that is, the future existence of a European Constitution. I believe that the Swedish Presidency has not been up to the task in this fundamental debate, and it should have been the Prime Minister of Sweden who took the initiative and not the Presidents of France or Germany. Furthermore, the Swedish Presidency has not been up to the task in relation to the essential issue of the Structural Funds, an issue which is so important for my country.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is entirely fitting that at this time of the night we should be talking about species of fish that live in deep waters and which therefore also function to some extent in the night, in the darkness, as a result of the aquatic atmosphere in which they are immersed. Leaving irony aside, however, I shall say that these species of fish living away from the continental shelves are precious and are part of the rich diversity of marine life. We all agree, furthermore, that it is crucial to protect these species, these population units, from the heightened exploitation to which they have been subject in the last few years. In fact, the scarcity of fish on the continental shelf and in the major fishing grounds has caused many vessels and many fishermen to turn to these species that have survived or that have been largely ignored until now, and which are, consequently, on the way to suffering total despoliation. It is, therefore, absolutely crucial to protect these fish species and we also all agree that scientific research is essential since there is still a great deal we do not know about these species because they are, shall we say, rather mysterious, like everything from the deep, like everything from afar. Much more research must be carried out on observing these population units, their ecosystems, their living and reproductive habits and their fertility rates, because there are major fears that since these species’ growth rates are slow, they are much more vulnerable to the exploitation to which they are subject. Although there is agreement on the diagnosis and on the shortcomings of the research carried out to date, there seems to be some disagreement about the methodology with which to protect these species, as far as I could understand from Commissioner Fischler’s intervention. Nevertheless, I do not see how we can avoid the need for total allowable catches (TACs) and quotas – the old methodology, which produced some results, although it has its limitations; nor do I see how we can avoid limiting fishing efforts. I know that this is a very sensitive matter, because nowadays, the activity of fishermen, fishing communities and investments clearly always take priority. In this case, however, the precautionary principle must be applied. Where we cannot be certain, we must be cautious and prudent. Consequently, we must do everything that can be done, even though we cannot be certain about the result and the efficiency of this action, to protect these fish species, these dozens and dozens of species, the habits of some of which may even be unknown or almost unknown. I therefore congratulate the Commission and Mr Holmes on their work, because this work is crucial to the protection of nature.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we shall shortly be debating Mrs Lalumière’s motion for a resolution on European security and defence. It is an important proposal and we each have an opinion on it; however, I think that, if we are to hold a proper debate on this important issue, we should have received the amendments in time. We requested the amendments this morning between 8 and 8.30 and they were not available. This means that, when the time comes to vote on these amendments, we shall be unable to debate them first. Because this also happens with other debates, I should like to ask for measures to be taken so that we receive amendments in time, before reports are debated in plenary.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, on a point of order, I should just like to say that the procedure whereby the rapporteur comes back again and replies at the end of the debate is an excellent innovation. I congratulate you and Mrs Frassoni for organising the previous debate in this way.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am, of course, in favour of food aid for starving people, despite the commercial operations that are hidden behind this aid and despite the conflicts of interest which divide rich countries on this issue. First of all, I wish to condemn the derisory extent of this aid compared to what is actually needed. The European Union prides itself on having given a commitment to supply 1.322 million tonnes of wheat equivalent, but, at the same time, the report states that there are 791 million people suffering from malnutrition in poor countries, 124 million of whom live in sub-Saharan Africa alone, where Europe is supposed to be particularly closely involved. Work it out for yourself: European aid comes to around 7 kilos of wheat equivalent per person per year, which is less than twenty grammes per day, and the report is cynical enough to stress the fact that food aid must not discourage local production. It is not food aid that has ruined agricultural production in many African countries, however. It is the iron grip of huge European and American industrial or agricultural concerns, which have imposed the cultivation of hevea, coffee, groundnut, cotton and even out-of-season fruit and vegetables for the European market, at the expense of their own food crops. Even in terms of food production, habits have been foisted on the populations of these countries by forcing them to consume rice or wheat-based products, which they can only obtain on the world market, generating profit along the way for a handful of huge Western companies. In places, the report smacks of “Lady Bountiful” and presents this aid as an act of charity on the part of Europe, but Europe, or rather its privileged class, is responsible for the ruin of Africa, and that includes the ruin of its self-sufficiency in food. It is not charity, then, that Africa needs. What it needs is the European and American multinationals to stop bleeding it dry. It needs Europe to provide the African people with simple machinery, such as water pumps and industrial products to compensate for what it plundered throughout colonial times and afterwards. Africa will then be in a position to develop its agriculture to a level where it can produce the food to feed its people properly. Of course, I am not naïve enough to think that one decent resolution passed in the European Parliament will be enough to guarantee this. It would require an end to capital’s dictatorship of Europe as well as of Africa, and the only reason why I have voted in favour of this report is in order not to stand in the way of this aid.

Political group: GUE-NGL
This resolution is neither fair nor useful, yet Europe could make an important contribution – it does have the means to be credible. To do so, it would have to continue to support the genuine development of the Palestinian territories, and of the Palestinian State in the future, laying down respect for fundamental rights as an absolute condition for its assistance. There is no reason not to be fair. We need a lot of pride to sanction Israel, its people, its civilian army and its democratic vitality, and although collective responsibility makes sense, I am not sure that our history or our recent past really qualify us to make such judgments. When we ourselves were faced with similar difficulties, we did not react any better. Can Italy, following police violence in Genoa, or Sweden, after police violence in Gothenburg, give Israel appropriate lessons in maintaining public order? Can France, whose troops camped outside Srebrenitza during the massacres? Can Spain, which as we know suppressed Basque terrorists, or England, which censored information during the Falklands war, teach Israel lessons in transparency? Rather than rushing to condemn Israel again... (Explanation of vote cut short pursuant to Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure) - Chechnya

Political group: PSE
We wish to expand on our reasons for supporting the key principles of the Roth-Berendt report today. We believe it does a singular service by demonstrating to the Commission and the Member States the scale of public exasperation at the delays in phasing out live animal testing for cosmetic products. We are sure the Member States will note the emphatic majority expressed here. It is a vote to ban animal-tested products where alternative tests exist, to phase out animal tests over a 4-year period and to phase in a marketing ban in an agreed period thereafter. We hope the industry in general will heed these proposals. Some of its leading practitioners already have. We understand that, of the principal tests, roughly one-third can now be done by alternative methods, one-third are modified and one-third await effective resolution. We believe our proposal will speed up the necessary research, if it is taken seriously. The industry has everything to gain from using its considerable resources to advance alternative testing, and not for expensive campaigns of procrastination. Similarly, its products will gain and not lose by being accurately labelled, so that the public is warned of possible allergens. We are convinced that today's vote is, in the long run, good for the health and profitability of the European cosmetics industry, as well as the public it serves.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this directive forms part of the EU’s overall strategy for reducing CO2 emissions from transport, which is based on four pillars: consumer information, covered by this directive, tax incentives at Member State level, monitoring CO2 emissions from cars and the agreement between the Commission and the car industry. The directive does not entirely match Parliament’s expectations in all areas. Nevertheless, I can go along with the rapporteur, and would like to thank him for his work. We want to see this directive implemented as soon as possible. That is why we do not want a narrow-minded debate here today. For example, we could talk about whether we need realistic values, as everyone knows that air-conditioning or independent vehicle heating has a huge impact on a car’s CO2 emissions. Another obvious question is why, when someone from Denmark buys a car in Germany, or someone from France buys one in Italy, they do not get the same information about its design. But we can put that to one side for now. We want to have the directive as soon as possible. I would, however, like to say something about the centrepiece of the strategy – the voluntary agreements between the Commission and the car industry. If we really end up with 140 g in 2008 as intended, that would be excellent. However, and Parliament has already expressed its opinion on this at various critical junctures, there are certain risks. Parliament, and in particular of course the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection, which was responsible for this, was not exactly pleased that it was not involved in the work on the negotiations and the agreement between the European Union and Japanese and Korean manufacturers. I think, Commissioner, that once again you clearly need to find a modus vivendi to make sure that the legislature – Parliament – is in future properly involved in the voluntary commitments. The directive before us allows consumers to buy a car not only according to its horsepower, but also its CO2 emissions, by referring to a “top ten” list. While in Bonn people are trying to shirk their responsibility and avoid reducing CO2 emissions, we here are doing things properly, establishing law and giving consumers the option of cutting CO2 emissions themselves!

Political group: PSE
Because Portugal, and more precisely the coasts of the Algarve, have already suffered unprecedented maritime pollution, I can only agree with the recommendation by the rapporteur, Mr Bakopoulos, with all the European Commission initiatives that aim to improve legislative standards applicable to maritime safety and to the prevention of pollution by ships, and with making the implementation of European policy in this field more effective. This is why I agree entirely with the proposal to create a single maritime safety Committee, thereby replacing national committees. This new structure will constitute a qualitative leap in the safety of European coasts and in the fight to prevent pollution caused by ships. - Report Hatzidakis (A5-0281/2002)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, the fact that the European institutions are democratic does not just strengthen our Europe of principles; with the prospect of enlargement, it is the sine qua non for its very existence. If the gap between the institutions and our citizens gets any wider, the time will come, sooner rather than later, when they turn their backs on us. The role of the national parliaments is predicated on the philosophy that the European Union is a union of states and a union of nations. As a union of nations, it expresses itself through the European Parliament and, as a union of states, it expresses itself through the national executives, which in turn rely on the trust placed in them by their national parliaments. A strong European Parliament and strong national parliaments. The involvement of the national parliaments in the decisions taken by the Council of Ministers must be visible, subject to control and sanctioned by the national parliaments. It is the national parliaments which will keep their citizens in touch with developments in the European Union and make them feel that they are European citizens. What all this means is that we urgently need national constitutional reforms, as Giorgio Napolitano explains in his exceptional report, so that the Member States' European policy can be constantly baptised in the waters of the national parliaments. This in turn means that we need new mechanisms for information to flow from the Union to the national parliaments and to ensure that, institutionally, they are up to scratch. The high profile of the national parliaments at the Convention convened to prepare the next round of Treaty reforms is, I think, of historic importance. And even if the proposals made by the Convention will not be legally binding on the next Intergovernmental Conference, its democratic credentials will be such that they will be hard to ignore. However, what we do not need is for the national parliaments to be represented in a new European institution which gets bogged down in what is, whichever way you look at it, a lot of European red tape. Upgrading the role of the national parliaments in giving credence to European decisions will strengthen the procedure in question; at the same time, however, it honours the role of the nation states as the legal and cultural expression of their people in this exciting unifying structure. Once again, my warmest thanks to Giorgio Napolitano for his excellent report.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to remind you that for eight years I have been a member of the Delegation for Relations with the Countries of Central America and Mexico, firstly under the chairmanship of Mr Salafranca and now under the chairmanship of Mr Seguro. I remember very well that throughout these years this delegation has maintained extraordinary relations with Parlacen and with the other Latin American parliaments. This is perhaps because Parlacen and the European Parliament represent their citizens in a similar way. In both cases we are directly elected. I remember very well that Mr Salafranca signed a document with the President of Parlacen on political dialogue between the two parliaments. At that time I believe that our political will was to enable Parlacen to have ever more competences and more economic resources and to play an effective role in the integration of the region it represents. I believe that four years ago – Mr Salafranca perhaps remembers this better – we held a meeting, called by IRELA, in Antigua, a beautiful city in Guatemala, where we debated along with our colleagues from Parlacen what the future should be, not only of Parlacen, but also of the European Parliament. We saw that Parlacen was going through the same changes that this Parliament went through at the beginning, since it had to fight and continues to fight to have more competences, more resources and more presence and to be recognised as representative. I believe that this is one of the central themes of the debates at every interparliamentary conference, along with the economic and social difficulties experienced by some of the countries of Central America and South America. Two fundamental objectives are to try to ensure that social differences are not made worse by the economic policies that currently prevail in that region and to try to ensure that the parliaments help with the integration of the area, which would be beneficial to all. That is the purpose of this resolution. We believe that, not only now but since Parlacen was born, there are people who wish it to have fewer competences and less of a presence, because a parliament always creates discomfort, but I believe that the vocation of Parlacen, and of this and other parliaments, is to be of benefit to the people it represents, even if this may make the established powers feel uncomfortable. I therefore hope, Mr President, that this resolution will be approved by a large majority.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, we are all agreed that the single currency is a prerequisite for a functioning internal market, that the stable currency also contributes to social and economic security within Europe and that the euro is a success story, due not least to the fact that it has led to a reduction of deficits in our Member States and to low inflation. A new chapter in this story is now opening and must be characterised by the following elements: public confidence in, and acceptance of, the euro must be further strengthened. The measures taken must result in legal security and must be transparent, the citizens must be given comprehensive information, and a smooth-running changeover is an essential prerequisite for this. The changeover will only run smoothly if there is adequate frontloading for banks, commerce, citizens and the requisite machines from where citizens obtain their cash. I would like to pick out one aspect alone. It seems to me that the concept of commerce has not yet been clearly defined. For example, will the tourist industry come under the heading of commerce, i.e. will frontloading apply, bearing in mind that a great many citizens of our Member States visit tourist areas and ski resorts during the Christmas and New Year periods in particular. I would therefore ask that we organise these elements – acceptance and confidence, a smooth-running changeover and frontloading – so as to increase citizens’ confidence in the euro in this phase, and this will entail frontloading and ensuring that adequate information is provided in the euro campaign. If this comes off, then the changeover will be another chapter in the euro success story.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, the argument that the anti-terrorism measures and the European arrest warrant do not skimp on fundamental rights, is only sustainable if the protection system of the European Convention on Human Rights for defendants is adhered to in practice. But that is dependant on the ability of every single judge in the European Union to understand and apply ECHR provisions. We have no coherent EU programme to ensure they do. Lest I be thought chauvinist in raising the problem of Britons in Greece, let me criticise my own government in the UK. They are trying to put through an anti-terrorism bill with a derogation from the ECHR in order to detain suspects without a proper trial, with no legal representation, no judicial review and without being able to hear the evidence given by the intelligence services. This certainly leaves the UK lacking credibility in a campaign for mutual raising of standards in the EU. Another worrying development in the UK is the intention to let police and security cooperation measures slip through the Westminster Parliament without proper democratic scrutiny. Here we debate, but we have no equality with Ministers in deciding the legislation. Coupled with Council secrecy, this means a very unsatisfactory position in terms of democracy, justice and human rights. Finally, may I make a direct appeal to Commissioner Vitorino to ensure that organisations acting in the field of raising justice standards, such as the admirable Fair Trials Abroad, can be assisted under the Community budget.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, with globalisation we have discovered with pleasure that, above all, aeroplanes can take us from our own city to any corner of the world, and we have enjoyed this so much that we can no longer live without flying. However, just as we discovered the congestion of our cities by motor vehicle, it is now airspace which is becoming clogged too frequently. We regularly suffer delays, we lose our luggage and we have suffered all kinds of work-to-rule or trade union strikes. We passengers believe that we must establish and defend our rights and manage our airlines, airports, flight timetables and air traffic control better. However, we often also think that we have to share the sovereignty of the air more amongst all the Europeans and that there is a large section of the airspace with is reserved which we do not take social advantage of in the way that our times demand. Therefore, as well as reforming Eurocontrol, increasing the number of radio communication frequencies and implementing new and better technologies for tracking so that more air corridors and more planes can be fitted in, in these days of normality it is necessary for civil commercial aviation to be able to use the reserved spaces, especially in the highest quotas and highest altitudes, which do not usually have too much military use. The citizens demand it and I believe that it is possible to find a solution which is perfectly valid for all, sharing – I insist – sovereignty and the reserved space used by military aircraft.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I am grateful for what the Commissioner says in terms of compliance by the British Government. I have myself been approached on similar cases, particularly in relation to the exclusion of pension rights from being fully protected under the Acquired Rights Directive, as in the case of a company in Boreham Wood in my constituency. I wonder if the Commissioner, looking forward, might learn some lessons from the case raised by my colleague and myself in terms of future reviews of the directive even if further action under the current rules appears not to be possible.

Political group: PSE