GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, I would like to thank President Prodi for his clear exposition of the reform objectives. We have made it clear in the course of the debates that we have been having in the past few weeks, in particular with Commissioner Kinnock – and in saying this I am taking up what Mr Cox said – that we cannot endorse the wholesale scrapping of independent financial control. Decentralisation, yes, but we certainly require independent financial control, i.e. a unit in the individual Directorates-General which are, however, directly subordinate to the Financial Controller. To do otherwise would be to make one and the same body responsible for authorisation and financial control. We have spelt this out again and again, and also made it very clear in Mr Van Hulten’s report of 19 January, in paragraphs 10 and 11 to be precise. Now so far I have not had sight of the White Paper and I would like to ask you Mr Kinnock: does it reflect our position? I have a question concerning ex-ante control, which is still to be carried out where necessary, and on an independent basis at that. I understood Mr Prodi to say – or I believe I understood him to say – that this ex-ante control will not take place as a matter of course, but neither will it be scrapped wholesale either, and the independence of financial control will be preserved. Is this reflected in the White Paper? I will read it with a great deal of interest and very attentively, but perhaps you could give me an idea now as to how these matters have been dealt with in the White Paper. The question of transitional periods is worrying us. The expression “soft law” has been bandied about but there is no such thing. There is neither soft nor hard law. There is only law, and no transitional period should be written into this reform, since this would lead to legal uncertainty.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too would like to thank Mr Brok for preparing this report on enlargement. The decision to open an enlargement process highlights the great, long-term vision of our predecessors. However, this great vision and long-term perspective is not being matched by an adequate financial and budgetary initiative. I feel that Member States’ contributions need to be revised in order to include our new commitments and needs even before 2006. Like everything new, enlargement is causing uncertainty among the public. We must reassure them from the economic as well as political point of view, particularly where the structural and cohesion policies are concerned. Wealthy Europe must be more generous and the governments must be the vehicles of this generosity. With regard to Slovenia, I have already had the opportunity to thank Mr Volcic for his valuable contribution and his report. In my opinion, the accession of the candidate countries will be our first opportunity to tackle the issue of relations with the Balkan countries after the war. The first, absolute necessity which the European Union must establish and confirm, where it is lacking, is multiculturality based on recognition of and respect for differences, all differences whether physical, intellectual, ethnic, religious, economic or other, to prevent any more ethnic or religious wars. Europe and the European Union must demand reciprocity from all the countries with which they sustain relations or for which they are finalising solidarity programmes in the area of multiculturality, for this dimension is the basis of all the democratic structures of the States. I hope that, in the future, Slovenia’s situation will be mirrored in all the Balkan States and bring peace and prosperity to the war-torn communities. Lastly, I feel that, for the European Union, the economic element of globalisation is not about maximising profit and its social element is not about standardising societies, but globalisation is about the readiness to harmonise existing differences.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to join in congratulating the Commission on its negotiating tactics and success. I think it is as the Commissioner said: the protocol has been saved. Obviously, this in itself will not solve the problems. The problems inherent in climate change and what needs to be done to stop climate change go far beyond what was agreed in Bonn. But it is an important first step. We must counter those who criticise the Kyoto protocol in principle – a number of members from Germany, for example, have said that the whole protocol is useless – and those who, as environmental politicians, have said it is useless because it does not go far enough, by saying that, if your house is on fire and you think it will take ten fire engines to put it out, you are hardly going to turn the first fire engine away and say, please do not start fighting the fire until all ten fire engines are here; you do what you can as quickly as possible, bearing in mind that other measures are needed. These other measures are being negotiated both at international level and, of course, in the European Union. Now we have to tackle the question of implementation. You made a number of important announcements on that today, Commissioner, and you have our support. We must keep talking to the Americans at international level. A lot of people, including here in Parliament, are hugely critical of the Americans because of their policy in just about every political arena. I think we should concentrate on fundamentals. We should make it clear to our American friends that we do not agree with them on numerous counts but that we can live with our differences. However, in this area, we Europeans cannot live with the fact that the Americans keep holding back. And we need to tell them as much again and again.

Political group: PPE-DE
Thank you, Mr President, for your very detailed reply. However, I have a supplementary question, which can really be answered with a simple yes or no. I understood that abortion should not be used as a family planning method. After all, that is what the resolution adopted by this House says. My question, therefore, is this: Does the term ‘reproductive health’ include the promotion of abortion, yes or no?

Political group: PPE-DE
The vast majority of reports we have just voted upon I can support and agree with. Jeggle and Souchet often cause me little problems but Mr Cunha's report is different. The current CAP, which has been reformed on many different occasions down the years, has become top-heavy with red tape and bureaucracy, and I rather feel that what we are proposing is to heap more misery on top of what already exists. What do we have now? De-coupling, modulation, degressivity and cross-compliance in place of good farming practice and an honest return for honest endeavours. I sincerely believe that partial de-coupling will prove to be the worst of all worlds and provide no encouragement for the industry in the future, or do anything to streamline the industry or encourage young people to make a career in agriculture. This will immediately mean more controls and inspections and less time for the farmer to tend his stock. I will vote against to ensure that in the longer term the Northern Ireland agriculture industry is not destroyed in the name of efficiency.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, protectionism is always cited as a reason for hunger in the world. There is no doubt some truth in that, but trade does not fill stomachs. Trade does not make people rich, either, ladies and gentlemen, at any rate not always both sides. We must therefore ask how we trade. If we are speaking of the debts of developing world countries, then the reason for those debts is unequal trade. If we talk about people being hungry, we have to see that 80% of the hungry live in rural areas. How are the hungry to export food to Europe when they have nothing to eat themselves? We must ask who trades with Europe, in what goods and on what terms? If we are trading and importing unprocessed foodstuffs that are then processed here and shipped back with export subsidies – which again distorts the terms of trade – that cannot help to solve the problem of hunger. Europe is the biggest importer of food. If we are asking how we can change the balance of trade in favour of the countries of the developing world, the only way is to pay for those products according to European terms. Then we shall see economies developing. If, however, we say we will exploit these countries with low prices, then we will destroy rural agriculture both here and there. We must also see to it that land is made available to the people in these countries. Land – in the sense of a class struggle – is not the whole of the problem, however; we must also ask the following questions: Who can work that land? Who will take responsibility for it? Who will teach the people how to work the land? Who will allow people who are still in a subsistence economy to continue working in that subsistence economy and support them so they can pass their knowledge on to subsequent generations? We ought to be addressing these questions and stop thinking we can help these people fill their stomachs simply by opening the borders.

Political group: Verts-ALE
British Labour Euro MPs have supported this resolution because we believe it is essential to recognise the reforms achieved by the Turkish Government, and to give a positive signal of encouragement for further change on their path towards accession in to the European Union. However, we condemn the reference to one particular religious tradition within the resolution, because we believe this is inconsistent with the multi-ethnic, multi-faith society which is the reality for all of our countries. In addition, we want to put on record what we believe are misrepresentations in some of the text. First, in relation to recital D and paragraph 24, we should recognise that there are a range of electoral systems used in the different European countries, and in fact around one-quarter of current MPs in Turkey are from Kurdish origin. Second, in relation to paragraph 3, whilst reiterating our strong desire on progress in relation to Cyprus, we point out that this has never been made a direct precondition for Turkish EU accession – and it is wrong to change that in this resolution. On paragraph 19, our understanding is that the Loizidou case has now been resolved – and this should be welcomed. (Abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we are able to support the rapporteur’s opinion, but I should like to make a few comments. We agree that the investigations which have been made into animals’ health are of decisive importance to our resolution and are also of decisive importance to the fact that BST ought not to be used here in the EU. That is to say, we support Article 1. When we talk about public health, however, I must however say that we still have a number of problems with the results of the seventeen scientific investigations which were not able to distinguish the naturally produced BST hormones from the artificially manufactured ones. We ought not to push these scenarios further than can be justified by the scientific evidence. Articles 2 and 3 deal with continued licence to produce the BST hormone here in the EU. In my opinion, we are coming close here to practising a double standard. When I think about everything that was said here this evening and in recent months about BST hormones, of the trade war with the United States and about American beef produced using hormones, I feel we are near to courting a double standard, when these hormone preparations are manufactured here in Europe and subsequently sold to the United States which then uses the BST hormone. I cannot therefore support the wordings of Articles 2 and 3.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, it is as you have just said. I just wanted to be sure that Question Time to the Council would actually take place. Mr Posselt is quite right there. It is the Members’ right to hear the answers, and we should ensure – procedurally speaking – that they can be given to Members.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I have a poster in front of me here which says no to war. I am saying no to unilateral war. I am not a pacifist – although I do not suggest that there is anything wrong with being a pacifist – but I am seriously concerned about the impact that a unilateral war against Iraq will have on the future of the world order, and the kind of world we will live in, if we do not, as a Parliament, make our position clear: unless we have international law moderated through the United Nations, we will have no law. We cannot have the most powerful state on this earth, which regards itself as militarily invincible, deciding which target it chooses to attack, which to disarm and how and when it will launch such an attack. That is the road to anarchy; a road which will give no security for any state on the face of this earth – least of all the small state which I represent here in this Parliament. War is a failure of politics. The United Nations has an opportunity – as is made clear by the inspectors who have reported to it this week – to peacefully disarm Saddam Hussein if they are given enough time and providing Saddam Hussein pro-actively cooperates with them. We are talking about giving time to the inspectors; we are not talking about allowing Saddam Hussein to maintain – assuming he has them – weapons of mass destruction. I take a dim view of the attempt by Mr Watson, the leader of the , to demean the motives of myself and my colleagues in travelling to Baghdad this weekend to try to persuade whatever authorities we have the opportunity to meet there to cooperate actively with the inspectors and, indeed, to see first-hand the impact which sanctions are having, particularly on the children of Iraq. Finally, I know that time is up but I wish to make two short points. No link has been made in the inspectors' report to international terrorism. No evidence has been found which establishes that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction – the contrary in fact. We must give the inspectors more time.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it would appear that the hopes raised by the June Summit between the two Kims from North and South Korea are not going to be fulfilled. The optimism is fading. North Korea is finding it difficult to make good those few, largely symbolic commitments it made in the military field, it is delaying the reunification of families who were separated by the war and have remained so for 50 years and it is showing no sign of intending to make the return visit of Kim Jong Il to Seoul, planned for spring this year, a practical reality, and it is not yet known when or whether this will take place. President Clinton's decision not to go to North Korea, even though he wanted to in order to finish his presidency with a historic visit, could now mean a long pause in Korea's process of opening up to the outside world. In spite of this, I hear tones of optimism and I see European countries queuing up – Mr Brok touched on the issue just now – and falling over themselves in the rush to recognise the Stalinist Pyongyang regime, turning a blind eye to what goes on in the country, to the tragic violations of human rights. Therefore, I say: yes, certainly, let us encourage rapprochement between the two Koreas; of course we must provide assistance for the North Koreans to save them from starving to death – Mr Ford mentioned this just now – but, at the same time, we must lay down stringent conditions to ensure that the aid reaches the places where it is genuinely needed and does not serve to support a paranoid, unpredictable regime which is wont to resort to the threat of missiles and nuclear arms to ensure its survival.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Gebhardt, Mr De Rossa, today, this debate on a European Cooperative Society is focusing somewhat on the legal base chosen to reintroduce this report. This legal base has been challenged in all the work of the Parliamentary committees as it arises essentially from Amendment No 1, which was specifically proposed for the text of the regulation. This situation means that, once again, the Members are facing an impossible choice: whether to recognise the rights of this House in terms of codecision or to adopt a Statute which has been awaited for 30 years by the social economy sector. By refusing the European Parliament codecision in this area, the unfortunate precedent of the limited company is perpetuated and this situation could be repeated when we address the statute for friendly societies or European associations. Is the Council going to continue to ignore Parliament’s position? As regards the first point, my fellow Members have amply elaborated on the grounds for challenging the legal base and they have put forward strong arguments. At the same time, however, and despite everything, it is just as important that we achieve a text on the Statute for a Cooperative Society at last. Although the draft that has been submitted to us represents a backwards step in some respects in relation to the 1993 text, and even though there has been no real debate on the content, I am not sure we need to take the risk of delaying the implementation of a draft which has known many ups and downs. There are many arguments in favour of adopting this text without a delay. I shall cite just a few. The draft has the agreement of representatives of the cooperative sector as a whole, as we have heard. The number of cooperatives concerned in Europe is anything but negligible. Out of 200 000 companies – Commissioner, my figures are slightly higher than yours – in this European cooperative sector representing over 3 million jobs, between 10 and 12% operate outside the local area and their activities concern every sector of economic life. These cooperatives must be able to extend their activities to European level and to be able to do so within a certain legal framework, which safeguards their specific nature, both in terms of the primacy of the individual and the objects of the undertaking on capital, and in terms of participation in the general interest and social cohesion. Lastly – and I feel this is an important point – we should allow an economic sector built on the original legal base, which has proven itself in terms of local development, to be able to develop, in particular in countries currently experiencing a sometimes painful economic transition towards the market economy. This is the case of the future Members of our Union. Recognition of the diverse forms of company and the social economy constitutes one response to the liberal globalisation that is being challenged today and is an ingredient of the European social model that we wish to defend. I believe, Commissioner, that we share this concern.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs had quite a struggle over this issue of combating social exclusion. I should like to point out that it was more or less unanimous throughout the procedure, and was served by an excellent rapporteur. However, conciliation, which we had thought would be easy, since we were so much in accord with the Council’s motives when it adopted the Commission’s proposal, proved surprisingly tough and difficult. I should therefore like to remind the House, briefly, of the reasons for our insistence. The Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, and, I am sure, Parliament as a whole, approves the choice of the open-cooperation method. It has proved its worth in this area. We also agree that social exclusion is a complex and multi-facetted process, and that it is necessary to study it in greater depth, particularly as regards its links with poverty. There are people on the margins of society who are not poor, and not all poor people are excluded, but the area of overlapping is a very large one. It is not possible to separate the two problems. However, one of the major strengths of the open-cooperation method is the fact that it allows the exchange of good practice. It is here that Europe has a responsibility, or I would prefer to say a duty, to experiment and to lead by example. The information already collected enables us to launch innovative schemes and pilot projects with confidence. In addition, Commissioner, you are a politician, as we are. How could you imagine for a moment that we could sell to our voters the idea that, on a problem as serious and as evident as social exclusion, Europe is able only to finance studies, and is not able to take any practical action? This sort of thing is suicidal as far as Europe’s image is concerned, hence the innovatory approaches that you have finally conceded to us. Fortunately you have other mechanisms, we know, but given the importance of this preoccupation it was necessary to include it. The controversy over the budget arises from this. You have granted us only five million. Since we know that you had plans ready for carrying out these studies, we would like to have a guarantee that there will be money available for innovative experiments. In the same way, the NGOs must be able to work without having to look for unlikely external sponsors. Well, we have achieved this, and the text has been improved. I wish the Commission all the best in carrying out the task that lies before it.

Political group: PSE
Emissions from heavy goods vehicles are contributing more and more to carbon dioxide emissions due to the increasing number of consignments. Our aim by means of this report is to reduce emissions of this kind in order to contribute to cleaner air. In order to meet our commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, we must take decisions involving difficult commitments for industry, above all when it comes to carbon dioxide emissions. That is one of the purposes of this report. We are aware that the decision may be felt to be onerous for certain manufacturers. It is nonetheless our conviction that Swedish industry, with its considerable technical know-how, is well placed to cope with these demands within the time frame proposed in the report, which is to say by 2006. Our understanding is that the proposals in the report are not confined to one particular technology but contain a range of technological solutions to choose from. To that extent, the report is neutral from a competition point of view. We are convinced that, in the long term, Swedish companies will win out by being well ahead in adapting to environmental demands. We are proceeding on the assumption that this judgement is shared by the companies concerned. As Members of the European Parliament, we see it as our task to force the pace of such developments.

Political group: PSE