GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, just now I heard you acknowledge that our Parliament was an effective institution. We demonstrated this effectiveness on the day following the loss of the Erika. I remember the occasion well: we were in Strasbourg during the December part-session when we learned of this disaster. Knowing Finistère well, I knew from the start that we were unfortunately about to experience catastrophic marine pollution which would leave its traces on the shorelines of France for a long time to come. And so, with anger welling up inside us, we demanded immediate proposals from the Commission, which were put to us in March. Since then, we have experienced other disasters – some in Greece – and then the Ievoli Sun accident. We are all sick and tired of seeing our oceans and seas turned into dumping grounds. The McKenna report, in its third reading, recalls a certain number of key principles concerning accidental and deliberate pollution, for example the infamous illegal practice of tank cleaning, which are underpinned by the ‘polluter-pays’ principle. But certain problems continue to be intractable, even if things are moving in the right direction. Have we not wasted a lot of time since last March? Where in fact was the political will? The Council must commit itself to adopting stringent measures, which we are all hoping for, concerning port inspections, classification societies, the responsibility of shipowners and charterers and, finally, the responsibility of FIPOL, which is behaving in a scandalous manner. People in Brittany are still waiting for compensation for damages. Today, a large number of texts are being put to us, and there are yet others to come. This risks compromising cohesion, especially since a number of existing directives are at stake, one of which is the framework Directive on water. All this needs to be rationalised and we must turn our mind to producing a framework text which would simplify things at international level. In the interim, Minister, let us intensify technological research into marine depollution. It is important that the exchange of knowledge and cooperation are encouraged and sustained in this highly technical area in order to preserve our natural marine heritage. Let us hope that the measures we will adopt together will enable us to prevent further marine pollution and to protect our marine heritage.

Political group: PPE-DE
I have always attached great importance to health and consumer protection. I should like to make two essential remarks on the points which I advocated in the parliamentary committee. The European Union's decisions must be consistent. In the interests of efficiency, it is therefore appropriate not to have a proliferation of regulations on the same subjects. In laying down provisions for the prevention, control and eradication of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 already subjects animal by-products from slaughterhouses handling ruminants and cutting plants handling meat from ruminants to rigorous and controlled health rules. Consequently, to ensure consistency and the correct application of the rules, there is no reason to include these facilities in the scope of a second regulation with the same objectives. The European Union's decisions must also be possible to implement. In fact we already know that, because of treatment and disposal capacity (incineration or landfill), measures which have to be implemented at too short notice cannot be applied at Community level if they cover effluent – whether category 1 or category 2 – from wastewater treatment plants at slaughterhouses, which are often shared facilities. These shortcomings mainly came to light when the ban on animal meal in animal feed was imposed, forcing the Member States to store large quantities of animal meal while waiting for it to be incinerated. Adding several million tonnes of products to be disposed of or treated before processing would impose further constraints on storage because it is not possible to treat or incinerate them as required. And we know that storage can involve health and environmental risks. It is therefore necessary to put in place an adequate timetable allowing this to be managed at Community level in a way which is well thought-out, safe and respectful of the environment.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the rapporteurs and members of the Committee on Agricultural and Rural Development have had a hard job positively revising the Commission proposals for reform of the Agricultural Policy, which are ill thought-out and unreasonable. I refer specifically to complex cereals, dried fodder, milk, and also to reductions in defence of the gradual decrease and the full decoupling of direct payments. Particularly in respect of enlargement, it is a positive thing that the majority of the committee are behind my proposal to allow, with regard to rye, a time-limited intervention for locations where there is no alternative to its cultivation. All in all, however, I am dissatisfied, in particular as the pressure of time was so great that the assembly-line voting did not produce a conclusive result. Furthermore, I consider it wrong in principle that the majority show such unwavering solidarity with the Commission on the road to decoupling and total liberalisation. I want to state clearly that, for me, the issue is not about a primitive autarky, but an agricultural policy whose priority is orientation towards the internal market offering ever greater opportunities for regularisation. Exports should be limited to finished agricultural products and imports subject to special external protection which does not hinder developing countries, and at the same time does not prevent access to the market for cheap goods from large non-multifunctional agricultural export countries, such as the USA and the Cairns Group. Without these conditions there can be no sustained universal multifunctional agriculture in the European Union. We should all be clear about this. In conclusion I would like to mention two further important reasons for rejecting the Cunha report. Firstly I am opposed to modulation funds being a sort of second Cohesion Fund. These funds should be used in the interests of rural development in each Member State. Secondly I consider it wrong that decoupling is being prematurely implemented. It is therefore obvious that a regionalised land premium is far more progressive. The proposal from Mr Cunha, however, will be almost impossible to carry through. IN THE CHAIR: MR DAVID MARTINVice-President

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, it appears that being prudent in this House is penalised. I wanted to speak after the vote on the Boogerd-Quaak report, and not before, to avoid joining the general free-for-all, for one reason: to place myself at the disposal of the Presidency. I was on the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs and saw the people looking for the documents when they disappeared. Mr Hernández Mollar is right in saying that he knew nothing and that no group got up. On this committee all the groups and the chairman worked very reasonably together until, after our work, this row blew up. Mr Barón is completely right, and he is not lying when he says that this is what happened. I am at your disposal to clarify any point concerning this issue and, of course, it is untrue to say that Mr Barón lied. I myself told him about the matter. EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE - Report: Lulling (A5-0232/2004)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it says “BUDG 1998 discharge” on the notice board, but it should say CONT. Perhaps this could be corrected because Budgets and Budgetary Control are always getting confused. It is the question of control which is at issue here.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I agree with what you say about the Rules of Procedure. I believe I have obeyed them to the letter. The President tells me that this issue does not fall within the competence of the Council, but Articles 6 and 7 of the Treaty indicate that it falls within the competence of the Council and of Parliament. That is why I put the question. Secondly, I would like it to be noted that my questions did not contain statements of any type. They are simply questions and the text is there to be read.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I should like to pay tribute to Mr Dary’s feat: he not only succeeded in having his report on bananas adopted yesterday, but has also managed today to bring the last five-day part-session in the second millennium to a close. Mr Dary, bravo, you have mastered the art of communication, and this is precisely the reason why you were appointed to draw up the report before us right now. On a more serious note, I should like to emphasise the value of this proposal for a Council regulation on information provision and promotion for agricultural products on the internal market. The rapporteur presented the main points just now. I should just like to add, at this time when BSE is highlighting a number of abuses in forms of agriculture which place the emphasis on high productivity, that it is especially appropriate to raise the profile, within the internal market, of the specific qualities of agricultural products by including, as the rapporteur suggests, indications of production methods. For, while European agriculture may reasonably expect to be a force to be reckoned with on international markets, the fact nonetheless remains that its future is still linked to a greater extent to penetration of its own internal market, which comprises 370 million consumers today and will probably number almost 500 million tomorrow. From this point of view, campaigns for information provision and promotion, cofinanced by the European Union and the Member States, are essential both to help restore the somewhat tarnished image of agriculture in the eyes of consumers and, moreover, to bring about recognition of the excellent quality of the very great majority of our agricultural products. Of course, such institutional information campaigns must rather complement the advertising activities undertaken in particular by major distributors. There must be periodic campaigns targeted at specific populations or consumers in general in order to highlight aspects relating to, for instance, food safety, traceability, nutritional quality, the specific characteristics of production methods, or indeed the efforts made to promote animal welfare. And while such campaigns may achieve the desired objectives in relation to consumers, we must not for all that underestimate the concomitant impact they will have on the producers themselves, who will see them as a reward for their efforts and an incentive to continue them. Mr Dary, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has complied with your various recommendations. We now hope that Parliament will fall in line with them across the board, and I, of course, urge my own group to give you its complete support.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, rapporteur, the had already spoken out against the WTO as early as 1994, because there were many reservations about this international colossus which embodies everything that is inappropriate to the market. In the last five years, this fact has been precisely illustrated. Most people have become increasingly poorer while a handful of profiteers, consisting mainly of big corporations, have banked ever larger profits. Those who lose out are behind in their masses by the World Trade Organisation in what is a yawning chasm of injustice. In 1994, not many Members of the European Parliament shared our reservations about the WTO’s withdrawal from the social and ecological spheres. In the end, most people at that time, however, spoke in favour of the WTO on the assumption that trade would lead to the problems solving themselves. Today, we are suddenly hearing new voices speaking of the need to regain lost ground in the social and ecological spheres. In spite of this, a majority of this Chamber will, in the end, again vote for the Agreement although nothing has been solved and although, in Geneva, it is becoming less probable day by day that there will be a Millennium Round of negotiations at all. Our first demand, therefore, is that mistakes should be discovered and learned from. And yet many of my colleagues do not want any evaluation of the WTO’s influence so far. Why, for heaven’s sake, is the idea of an assessment of this kind rejected so vehemently? Is not something being defended here that simply does not work, namely the ideology of the free market? Just to clarify the contradictions in the TRIPS Agreement, it should be noted that 90% of biological resources come from the countries of the southern hemisphere, but 97% of seed patents are held by companies in industrialised nations. It is the affluent part of the northern hemisphere which therefore has access to genetic information. Through the TRIPS Agreement, the screws are being tightened ever more on the south. Traditional medicines continue to be categorised as discoveries, while medicines based upon these but developed by the pharmaceutical industry are passed off as inventions. Finally, the TRIPS Agreement runs counter to, among other things, the Convention on Biological Diversity, promotes product piracy and is protectionist. It, too, in this way, prevents independent development in the developing countries. To conclude: while a panegyric to free trade is being delivered here, the sparks are flying in Geneva. The draft declarations that have been made so far are completely unacceptable, both to ourselves and to developing countries. Even health, culture and education are being sacrificed to the free market. The standstill clause will prevent our legislation from being developed. A report which does not give a central place to these problems effectively ignores what is essentially going on here: a process in which the profit interests of the few are secured more rapidly through the exploitation of nature and human beings.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, in recent weeks we have witnessed dangerous rifts in the United Nations and in the international institutions of the democracies. The future European Union is already split between 18 countries which have declared one view and three or four which have declared the opposite. NATO effectiveness may have been fatally undermined. Instead of joining America, Britain, Spain, Bulgaria and so many other countries in a display of solidarity and determination, the government of one particular EU Member State has gone to quite extraordinary lengths to protect Saddam Hussein's regime from the consequences of its activities and to derail the efforts of the international coalition against Saddam. What possible motive could there be for this? Much nonsense is talked about who armed Saddam. We should be clear that it is Russia and France that armed him. I am not talking about the Osirak nuclear reactors supplied 30 years ago, which provided the basis for Saddam's original nuclear weapons programme I am merely making the observation that there are no American F-16s or British Tornadoes in the Iraqi air force, but there is a solid inventory of MiGs, Sukhois and Mirage F1s, as well as the Roland Air Defence System, Pannard armoured personnel carriers, Milan Anti-Tank Guided Weapons Systems and Exocet missiles. Much nonsense has also been talked about control of Iraqi oil. We should be aware that Iraq's policy is to award gas and oil concessions to countries supporting the easing or lifting of UN sanctions. For example, last October the Deutsche Bank estimated that contracts concerning new oil fields in Iraq, worth USD 38 billion, were signed with oil companies mainly from China, France and Russia. It is right also not to allow the idea to persist that two or three countries speak for Europe, define its policies and drive them forward, while the views of the rest, many of which attach great importance to the transatlantic alliance, are portrayed as some sort of aberration.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the British Labour Members welcome the passage of the Dary report on the organisation of the banana market. We hope there will now be speedy negotiations to agree arrangements compatible with our WTO commitments and safeguard our traditional suppliers. We have, however, reservations on Amendments Nos 6, 7, 11, 15, 16, 25 and 26, as we do not exclude the possibility of a tariff-only system in the future. We also have reservations on Amendments Nos 17, 18, 27, 30 and 31, being not convinced that they are WTO compatible. We hope the passage of the report will also lead to early suspension of the trade sanctions imposed by the USA, which operate in quite arbitrary and unrelated sectors.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, in the past, the sea was regarded as an infinite source of food for man. Meanwhile, even those with an economic interest recognise the danger of the oceans being emptied of their fish stocks, not overnight, but gradually, because the young fish are increasingly given less of a chance of reaching adulthood and of procreating. The rapporteur shares with many politicians the hope that it will be possible to combine sustained catch levels with a better protection of the natural balance. She is right to call for more consistent compliance with agreements, but that is only a short-term solution. Despite the fact that demand for fish continues to rise, a reduction in catch levels at sea will become inevitable. This is why replacement employment in coastal areas must be sought, as well as the protection of the Third World. This is in preference to highlighting the differences between countries with small, traditional ships that sail out all year round and countries with large, state-of-the-art ships which need to remain docked for part of the time. The fact that these two groups continue to blame each other for the depletion of stocks will – more than anything – serve as a good excuse for our not taking adequate action, and we shall not therefore solve the problem.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, if the principle of subsidiarity is one of the basic pillars of Europe, if we want to bring the European institutions closer to the citizens and improve the democracy and transparency of Community policies, it largely falls to sub-State regions to apply Community decisions and if, furthermore, there are regions with legislative powers whose competences are directly affected by the policies of the Union, we cannot continue to deny those regions the opportunity to participate in the process of European construction. I do not agree with those people who have said that this is a responsibility of each Member State, which is contrary to the principle of subsidiarity. Because the possibility of participation by the regions in the taking of decisions which affect them is the result, and not the cause, of the internal organisation which each State has laid down. The Napolitano report attempts to define the role of local and regional powers in the Union’s decision-making process. But it is too timid an approach, which does not respond to the needs of the regions with legislative powers, which – on the basis of their democratic legitimacy – have the right to be active members in the process of European construction. The regions with legislative powers, Mr Napolitano, Commissioner Barnier, wish to participate in the Council of Ministers when it is dealing with issues which fall within their competence and, contrary to what has been said here, they want to be able to bring cases before the Court of Justice in the event of violations of the principle of subsidiarity. This participation and will, if recognised by the future Constitution, would not represent a free concession, but a right of the regions, such as Catalonia, which the European Union, and this Parliament in particular, as the representative of the European people, must respect if it really wants to listen to the citizens.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to express my solidarity with the pain of the Nepalese people, who are currently experiencing one of the most difficult moments in their history. As Vice-Chairman of the South Asia delegation, I had the opportunity to meet King Birendra, a man of stature who was able to shake up his country’s secular political traditions by establishing a constitutional monarchy. A veritable force for stability, he represented the hope that the Nepalese people would emerge from absolute poverty and that the rule of law and democracy would become established for the long term. The tragic death of the person whom the people of Nepal regarded as the symbol of the nation’s unity and the force binding it together is the source of numerous concerns and raises countless questions. Indeed, behind the drama a political process has been brutally called into question. A link of confidence between the political class and its people has been broken. It is a significant change in the balance of power in a region where instability reigns. The European Union attaches great importance to respect for human rights and to democratic principles. We must therefore roundly condemn the repression and arrests which followed the death of the king. Nor can we remain silent over the distressing problem of the refugee camps in Bhutan, to which I am particularly sensitive, having visited them last year as a member of the delegation, and hope that the positive actions which were embarked upon to solve this problem are pursued with the same vigour. Lastly, I too would like to appeal to the Commission for a full delegation to be established in Kathmandu, in order to try to help these traumatised people to heal their wounds.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr President of the European Central Bank, good work! I believe that you have achieved the main objective of the European Central Bank: to maintain price stability. I will go further. If necessary, if you believe it appropriate to raise interest rates, if the objective is price stability, if the inflation objective is in jeopardy, do not be nervous, raise interest rates. However, I would like to add something. It is not in this area that the European Central Bank deserves most credit, but rather it is in the debate on the external value of the euro that the European Central Bank has remained steadfast, has endured and resisted attacks and pressure from different fronts. The real reason for the external value of our currency is not, from any point of view, the policy of the European Central Bank. It is the attitude and resistance of certain governments – such as, for example, the one which has been mentioned here several times over the last 35 hours –, which are ideologically allergic to the economic reforms needed for the European Union to follow the path marked out at the Lisbon Summit. I would also like to congratulate you on the change of method of adjudication, since the new variable rate system allows more direct control of the monetary aggregate as a result of greater knowledge of the market’s demand curve and, furthermore, allows for certain signals to be sent to the markets on monetary policy. For all of these reasons, Mr President of the European Central Bank, I would like to congratulate you and show you my support.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, is it in order for me to put a supplementary question to the President-in-Office following the questions raised by Ms Ahern and Mrs Morgantini?

Political group: PPE-DE