GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, towards sustainability, that is the future of the fishing industry. It is important not only to draft these reports, but also to consider aquaculture and safe conditions within the fishing industry. It is unfortunate that the report was late, although this was followed by very fast work. Truly impressive. Further to the votes in the committee meetings, there are now sound reports before us. Despite this, we should, in addition to the precautionary measures that need to be observed, also consider the situations we are facing. ICES, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, is keen to reduce the catch quota of flatfish even further, while the safe margin is in sight. This cannot be completely justified. We should, however, ensure that we do justice to historical catch rights in the new common fisheries policy; these should not be jeopardised. Moreover, we should think very carefully about access to the seas. I am, of course, thinking of the North Sea, but the point I am trying to make is that fishing unquoted species is dangerous, because quoted species are caught along with these. It is at present extremely difficult to check whether the quoted species are left alone. Should they be thrown overboard or taken somewhere? It has in any event a huge impact on those keeping track of the quotas and is important for the valuable species. In my view, this additional burden on the stocks is unacceptable, certainly if quotas were to dwindle even further. People have already taken the pressure off on their own initiatives. It will therefore be very difficult to sell this. Policy and management are dependent on the support base within the sector. In my view, we should prevent the sector from straying too far, and we will also need to involve it in creating and thinking of new solutions. This is why it is also extremely important for control and sanctions to be harmonised at international level. As for international fishing, I condemn unilateral measures, for they do not have a positive bearing on sustainable fish stocks. My final comment is: thank you, rapporteurs who have written the reports. I think that we have a sound basis to vote on this report in Parliament.

Political group: ELDR
I also want to thank the Council for their answers. I have two additional questions. First of all, I am curious to know how large Sweden’s share will be as a percentage if we join the single currency. We have received some information here about Denmark’s share. Secondly, I just want you to confirm that the Council can, against a Member State’s will, increase this share so that the country concerned has to pay more. That is to say, it can be forced to deposit a larger proportion of its currency reserve with the Central Bank, and there is no real upper limit.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, as President of the Committee on Fisheries and on behalf of all my colleagues in that committee, I would like to express my support for the request which our Scottish colleague, Mr Stevenson, has just made and also tell you that there has recently been a tragic accident involving a Galician fishing boat, the Ros Alcedo, with its Galician and Portuguese crew, which caught fire in the waters of Gran Sol. Unfortunately, these accidents are more frequent than we would all like and I would therefore like to point out that our committee has requested an own-initiative report on the causes of the risks and dangers associated with the fishing profession. I hope this report will be approved, because this long-suffering profession really needs the support of this House and of all of us.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, life is one constant risk-benefit analysis – what we do, where we go and what we eat. While the European food chain remains one of the safest in the world, recent scandals have damaged our consumers' confidence in the food we eat and the methods we use to produce it. The public has lost confidence in the national and European food safety systems after the scandals and scares with beef, E.coli, lysteria, salmonella, dioxins, eggs, poultry, milk and hormones. The list goes on. The public wants to be reassured that the road from farm to market, to the supermarket, to the oven, fridge and table is as safe as can be reasonably expected. They want safety assessment that is neither secretive, behind the closed front door of the Commission, nor tainted by producer or pressure-group interest. Since the beginning of your tenure, Commissioner Byrne, you have responded to the needs of the consumers of Europe by making every effort to improve the safety of the food chain. This proposal is one of key importance for consumer protection in the European Union. The institutions of the Union have come together to set out the principles of food law with a new authority which can safeguard the food we eat and the way it is produced. I commend the rapporteur, Mr Whitehead, and the shadow rapporteur, Mr Bowis, for a job well done throughout the discussion in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. The result of their consensual approach has been to strengthen and unify the voice of the European Parliament on the key issue at stake. I would ask the Commission and the Council to listen to this united voice and to adopt 'European Food Safety Authority' as the title of the institution. Keeping the word 'safety' in the title of the authority will give a clear signal to consumers as to its purpose and goals. I also firmly believe that if the authority is to have the confidence and backing of the people of Europe, it is imperative that it operates and communicates in a wholly transparent and independent manner, dedicated to the assessment of food-safety risk. Risk communication will also be a key element. One has only to look at the BSE inquiry in the UK and the Philips report which stated that breakdown in risk communication was a major factor in exacerbating the crisis there. In conclusion, in relation to risk management, the measured and proportionate use of the proportionary principle or the political management ... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the World Trade Organisation is a tremendous economic success story. It has been such a success that our citizens are often rather alarmed by it, and suspect that it is rather sinister. So it is the task of the European Parliament, in particular, to instil confidence in the positive and sustainable nature of the WTO process. On behalf of the Group, therefore, I greatly welcome the fact that Mr Schwaiger's report has again included safeguarding cultural diversity in the catalogue of demands. Our objective must be to explain to people, in credible, informed and comprehensible terms, that this process to which we are committed has the vision to achieve four goals on the basis of sustainable development: lasting economic growth for all, the protection of our environment, compliance with appropriate social standards and the preservation of cultural diversity. As the European Union is not only an economic community but also a community of values, we should continue to promote this approach beyond the Union's borders as well. Mr Schwaiger's report provides a fresh and very sound basis on which to proceed.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I wanted to bring up the issue of a very important meeting which took place yesterday with Justice and Home Affairs ministers, where agreement was made in relation to people’s privacy and their right to privacy, their fundamental rights in access to telecommunications. This is what is called ENFOPOL 29. It has never been discussed in this Parliament. There was a discussion on ENFOPOL 98 about re-writing international user requirements, but this is very different. It is interpreting the existing requirements and how they will be used within the EU. It is completely unacceptable that far-reaching decisions have been taken by the Council of Justice and Home Affairs ministers when there has been no debate in this Parliament on the subject. These decisions will affect us all and will affect everybody outside this Parliament: people will not have the right to privacy, and this is an issue that should be raised right across the board. It is a fundamental rights issue. (Applause from the Group)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, this oral question has at least one thing to be said for it, inasmuch as what was a phantom dossier has now become clearly visible, since the Council has just confirmed that what we have been reading in the press, what we have heard whispers about from the Council, and what, in some cases, certain Commissioners have been saying, does in fact exist. There really is a Quick Start programme, even though Mrs de Palacio had explained to us that it did not exist. Thank you, then, President-in-Office of the Council, for confirming this so clearly here today, and I should also like to thank all those Members who put their names to this oral question. After all, it is a good method to try to begin with those projects which have been around the longest, thereby avoiding a situation in which, as a result of trying to take on too much, we end up by not achieving very much at all. I therefore welcome the fact that there is, after all, a method for implementing the TEN projects. What is clear, however, is that the real priority list is this one, the Quick Start list, because that is where our meagre funds will be going, and our funds are very meagre compared with the immensity of the task. I therefore share Mr Jarzembowski’s point of view. I believe that it would be inappropriate for the European Parliament not to be informed about and associated with the implementation of this list. I am not sure whether we should go as far as codecision when it comes to the method for funding and implementing the TEN projects. What I am sure about, however, since it was I, together with a number of other Members, who called for it is that we must have regular information about the implementation of the thirty TEN projects which we shall be voting in favour of. I hope, therefore, that this sitting will at least have been useful in two ways. On the one hand, it has sought to clarify the procedure so that we can see whether or not we are within the codecision framework – and we shall have to have a very clear answer on that subject – and on the other hand, if we are not involved in a codecision procedure, it has at least made provision for an annual report on the implementation of the TEN projects which we have voted in favour of.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to thank the rapporteur. I welcome this proposed strategy looking at the connection and links between environment and health and I welcome the Commission's proposal. I would like to focus on the issue of indoor pollution and in particular passive smoking – I know Mr Rod has just touched upon that. It is apt that we discuss this report in the week that the Irish Government introduced a ban on smoking in public places, especially since the Irish Government currently holds the presidency of the EU. The Irish Government should be congratulated on its initiative to protect the health of all its citizens, including those who work in smoky pubs, clubs or restaurants. Breathing other people's smoke is dangerous for your health. Tobacco smoke contains over 4000 different chemicals. In the USA the Environmental Protection Agency has classified environmental tobacco smoke as a class A carcinogen along with asbestos, arsenic, benzene and radon gas. Passive smoking is a risk factor in childbirth and infancy, connected to low birth weight and cot death; in children it is a risk factor in asthma, bronchitis and pneumonia; in adults it is a risk factor in heart disease, stroke, lung cancer and nasal cancer. Estimates suggest that in the UK alone 8000 deaths through heart disease are caused by passive smoking each year. This is a serious issue and there is no way to escape the fact that passive smoking is bad for your health. I hope more Member States will copy Ireland's excellent example. I thank the rapporteur and the Commissioner for their hard work.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as I understand it, adopting the Committee’s amendment on the same issue invalidates the other two amendments. (Applause) It refers to the same paragraph.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, there are many important rooms in our collective European home. There are political, economic, cultural, spiritual rooms and also social rooms. I am convinced that both the European social and economic model are extremely important, if not crucial, for the cohesion of the European Union. The essence of this model could be boiled down to the simple statement that you have brought together both competition and solidarity. According to data from research carried out by Pew Global Survey, the views held by both Eastern and Western Europeans, with regard to the market and the social system that should be guaranteed by the state, have a large number of points in common. This is why today the citizens of ten new countries, including my country, Slovenia, tend to ask two main questions. Are the days of the previous European social and economic model numbered, and will the European social market model survive in the EU of 25 States? My reply is that it will. It must survive. Of course it will have to respond to numerous changes, for example negative demographic trends, rising healthcare and pension costs and also a more balanced representation of both sexes in the labour market. I would like to mention the contents of a report prepared for the European Commission by a group of experts led by Jacques Sapir, which clearly calls for European Cohesion Funds to be redirected to the accession States. In this way they will be available to the people that need them most. I am convinced that the EU must offer the accession States the same conditions that were offered to the new members in each previous round of enlargement. Up to now, to be frank, the founder members of the European Union have had priority in the distribution of funds.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the matter now before us has been an awkward one for the Council. Nevertheless, the long period of time during which the Council has considered the matter – one lasting more than five years – has been a disappointment. Now is the time to put the disappointment to one side; making headway in the debate on the directive is the next step in an inevitable direction. I am happy to note that it is just this sort of practical approach that we also see in the report drawn up by Parliament’s rapporteur. The Council has declared a commitment to adopt instruments to be able to decouple economic growth from energy consumption. The Commission has also committed itself to such aims, and so has Parliament. In principle it is therefore not an obstacle to significant change. In practice it is sorely needed. The directive now up for discussion offers an opportunity for this and it is our responsibility to implement it soon. In the integrated European economy the solution must be more coherent than ever. While energy taxation satisfies the parliamentary needs of Member States, at the same time it provides the means to lighten taxation on labour and employment and is an effective and precise tool for guidance in what is, ecologically speaking, the right direction. Taxation on energy products is the link that has long been missing which ties all the small parts of sustainable development together. I would furthermore like to raise the matter of the connection between energy taxation and the Directive on emissions trading that was recently completed. Independent studies show that responding to the challenge of climate change will be most favourable in overall financial terms if the reduction for sectors outside the emissions trading scheme is set at the right level. Cuts across the board will not bring that about: we need a comprehensive energy taxation system. We have to ensure that each branch of industry falls within the ambit of either energy taxation or emissions trading. That way, every company, through taxation, will be looking at a maximum price that is the equivalent of the marginal cost to society. Europe needs an ambitious energy taxation system very quickly. It would seem that the Commission and Parliament are to shoulder the responsibility for establishing one.

Political group: PPE-DE
Key elements of subsidiarity and effective choice of a proper regulatory body as the final arbiter give cause for concern in this report. Similarly, the call for statistical information to be made public as a solution to public awareness of what affects markets is impracticable and impossible to achieve. The subsequent costs to industry also amount to a disproportionate effect.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, those of you who know me will be aware that I do not usually speak in favour of public aid which distorts competition. That does not mean that I do not recognise that some of this public aid makes sense and must continue if it contributes to the objectives laid down in the Treaty. Despite this, and precisely because this is one of those cases, I would like to express my total support for the Commission’s proposal and the amendments presented by the competent committees, which propose a defensive and temporary mechanism in the ship-building sector in order to confront the unfair practices of South Korea. In this section, there is no room for solutions such as that proposed by the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, which, by taking an extremely orthodox position in opposition to public aid, would have disastrous consequences for the European shipbuilding sector. There is absolutely no doubt that the Republic of Korea is practising dumping in the sector, and for this reason the European industry cannot compete. It is true that the Commission has begun proceedings before the World Trade Organisation to combat this unfair competition, but it is also the case that, while this procedure is under way, the European ship-building industry could disappear, with significant repercussions for employment. We must bear in mind that there are two elements to this aid which make it worthy of support: firstly, it is transitional, it will only be granted until the WTO resolves the dispute in question, and secondly, it is defensive, it is a response to aggressive unfair competition by the Republic of Korea, and for these reasons it is perfectly acceptable. Furthermore, the amendments approved by the competent committee are acceptable, since they include certain types of ship which are also affected by these unfair practices on the part of Korea. The rapporteur has been informed of the existence of a possible legal report by the services of the Council which opposes these measures proposed by the Commission. While we do not know what these legal arguments are, we must be content with the legal reports of both the European Parliament and the Commission, which speak of the suitability of the aid as proposed by the Commission, which is neither substantially distorted nor modified by the proposals which have been approved in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, there are powerful criminals who think that there are no laws which apply to them and who take advantage of everyone. Ever since border controls within the European Union disappeared, they also no longer take any notice of state boundaries. Cross-border crime requires a cross-border approach. Because everyone agrees about that, closer cooperation between the police from the different Member States and their regions has already been worked on for years. Three days ago, following publication of the Marinho, Karamanou and Roure reports, I pointed to the dangers attached to this. An enlarged and centralised police force, disconnected from its surroundings, will look for its own priorities. The idea of a European Police College is based on the assumption that there is agreement on the tasks and modus operandi of the police. We see that the police in one country react totally differently to the same situation than the police in another country. In the Netherlands, the police are trained in the de-escalation of conflicts and in repressive tolerance whereby the existence of subcultures and ethnic minorities, the organisation of political protest and the use of churches as ports of refuge for illegal immigrants are seen as normal social phenomena. I am under the impression that, in some other countries, violence is still used as a method of winning prestige, on behalf of the government, in combating everything that can cause unrest. This week, the contribution made by President De Gaulle to establishing peace in Algeria was held up by Mr Posselt as a model for the role which Mr Kostunica will have to play in order to solve the Kosovo problem. He also cited the situation in which Hitler could claim that he could exterminate the Jews without being punished because, after all, nobody remembered the mass murder of the Armenians any more. At such moments, I can agree with Mr Posselt to a very large extent. On the other hand, we shall probably remain permanently in disagreement about the vision for the police. I would prefer a small-scale, trained and organised police force, constantly driven by signals from the society within which it must function.

Political group: GUE-NGL