GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I am sure this is an oversight, Commissioner, but you did not refer to Article 15 of this Regulation, which is very specific as regards revoking the system that currently preserves Azorean waters. The date referred to is 1 August or, alternatively, the date of the entry into force of the set of implementing regulations on the fishing effort, which has not yet entered into force. This article cannot be revoked on anyone’s whim. The Council, the only legal authority to have delivered an opinion on the matter to date, as stated in the Minutes of the Council meeting of 19 February, has stated unequivocally that this date must be respected. I wish to ask you, Commissioner, by what right do you think you can revoke an article for which no other interpretation is possible and which protects the territorial waters of the Azores until 31 July?

Political group: PSE
Mr Pietrasanta explained why we support some aspects of the Commission’s proposal, in particular support for development of a vaccine and compensation for farmers who are forced to slaughter their fish, but were not at all happy with the idea of changes to the slaughter policy. Now people have said here that Norway has done a better job of controlling the epidemic of ISA and that the proposed change will bring us more in line with the Norwegian approach, but it must be said that there is more than just one difference between the Norwegian policy and that of the Community. This is a Community policy which will effect Ireland as well – where I am from – should similar unfortunate events occur. There are other differences that exist in the policy for inspections of disease, fallowing periods, restriction on movement of contaminated fish and materials and others. Before we jump to copy the slaughter policy of the Norwegians, we should try these other things first to see if we can mitigate the disaster. And people have spoken in the past about BSE. For many years the were calling for the BSE issue to be addressed. Had it been at that time, you could have actually saved an awful lot of farmers and the EU a huge amount of money. So it also has to do with environmental protection. The protection of the farmers themselves and the protection of public health.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, apart from the fact that yes, if Bosnia-Herzegovina is admitted, the country as a whole will be admitted, I would like to address the following question to you. Like Mr Posselt and various other honourable Members, I voted for the Friday in Strasbourg. This was rejected yet again, so we only have the Thursday. Could you tell us why we will be voting at 6.30 p.m. when the debate is likely to finish at around 5.10 or 5.15 p.m.? I assume that it is too late for you to change these arrangements for today. However, I would ask you, Mr President, to ensure that when we discuss topical and urgent subjects on Thursday, we vote at the end of each debate, as used to be the practice. It will make no difference to our views for or against the Friday if we could vote immediately after the individual debates about topical and urgent subjects. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I congratulate my colleague, Mr Linkohr, on this report. It is a welcome contribution to the wider debate on security of supply of energy in Europe, on which I am working at present. I should like to pick up on four points. Regarding paragraph 1, calling for effective dialogues with supplier countries, earlier this afternoon I attended a meeting where we heard about the work of the Energy Charter and the importance of putting that framework in place, in particular for our trading and investment relations with Russia as a primary source of oil and gas. I would like to emphasise the importance of that initiative. Next, paragraph 7 calls on the EU to make greater efforts to replace oil as far as possible. I support that paragraph. There is great potential and we are looking forward to hearing from the Commission later this year with proposals to encourage bio-fuels and other alternatives as a supplement – and perhaps a complement – to oil at present. Thirdly, paragraph 27, on a different tack, urges the Commission to encourage enhancing production of oil in Europe through improved techniques of extraction. This also must surely be a sensible policy to make the best use of our own resources. Fourthly, paragraph 30 calls on Member States to work on the housing and transport sectors as areas where we can dramatically improve our energy efficiency and our conservation of energy. These both have to be a sensible approach. Finally, it seems to me that perhaps the most important thing we have to do – which is a challenge ahead of us – is to influence and change public opinion on the need for conservation and efficiency.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, on the list of urgent topics relating to human rights, there is one on Irian Jaya and another on Sulawesi. Both islands are part of one country, Indonesia. I propose that they be combined under one title, ‘Indonesia’, and that the situation of both islands be dealt with under that title, and we would thereby have time to deal with the tragic situation in Ireland.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I regret the fact that some groups in this Parliament obviously prefer that party financing should remain in the twilight zone where it is at present. My view is that we should remove party financing as soon as possible from that twilight zone. That is also in the interest of European citizens. I consequently hope that the time remaining will be used to approve this proposal with as large as possible a majority and to see what amendments might contribute to its further improvement.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, to begin with, I would like to make one thing abundantly clear: Austria is not in danger of experiencing a resurgence of a one-party system or of a totalitarian system of right-wing persuasion. Austria is a stable democracy; one in which human rights and fundamental freedoms are guaranteed under the constitution and are afforded the protection of an independent judiciary. Austria is a cosmopolitan country and xenophobia and discrimination have no place there. There is nothing unusual about what is happening in Austria: there has been a changeover of power following democratic elections, in consequence of which an old system was voted out and a stable parliamentary majority prepared to carry out the necessary economic and social reforms was sought and found. There will be a functioning majority and likewise a functioning opposition. The Austrian People’s Party, which I represent here in this Parliament, used to be and still is a party that has consistently spoken up for the integration of my country into the EU and feels deeply attached to the community of values that is the European Union, and likewise its basic political principles of deepening and enlargement. We respect and accept the discussion that is taking place and also appreciate the concerns that are being voiced in many of our Member States as to the way ahead for Austria. Our understanding springs from the knowledge that our history of the recent past has bequeathed to us a political responsibility of special importance in the present. Our country was not just the first victim of the Hitler dictatorship, many people were perpetrators too, although I refute any suggestion of collective guilt. The ÖVP played no small part in helping Austria find its way into the European Union. My country’s place is not outside the European Union but in it ... (Applause) ..., with all the rights and commitments that this entails! Any future government must therefore be judged according to the values and principles it professes to in its manifesto, and not according to the prejudgements put about both by political adversaries and the international media. A declared belief in human rights, democracy and the rule of law, in an honest reappraisal of Austria’s role in the past, in passing on information on the gravest crime against humanity in the 20th century, the holocaust, will also be reflected in the fundamental accord underlying a future coalition government between the ÖVP and FPÖ. My party can be relied upon to see to it that my country holds firm to the course of European politics and continues to be rooted in the European community of values! (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I had expected to recommend the House to adopt this draft regulation unamended at second reading. That depended, however, on a statement from the Commissioner last night. Unfortunately, the statement by Mrs de Palacio was insufficient. However, I would now like to ask the Commission again whether it will undertake to bring in measures complementary to this agreement in the first three months of next year. This is the only commitment which we will accept as reasonable, otherwise I will ask the House to vote for the amendment and to invoke the conciliation procedure. I therefore ask the Commission to clarify its position on supplementary measures. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the rapporteur, Mrs Sudre, has done a good job on her report on the outermost regions. On behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, I would like to thank her for the way that she took on board our amendments and points of view, both in the spirit and in the actual text of the report. From the point of view of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, what I would like to point out is that, in actual fact, we can only treat equally what is equal. It is an attempt to establish an entirely uniform legal order for these outermost regions, which are separated from the rest of Community territory, from mainland Europe, by thousands of kilometres, and which are divided into small island regions with very difficult conditions for raising capital and for transport, which prevent the general rules for competition in the regions from being applied. I would therefore like to draw attention to paragraph 21 of Mrs Sudre’s report, which indicates that, with regard to state aid, the application of the third paragraph of section a) of Article 87 should be automatic, because the reason behind the differences in that section stems from the aim of achieving equality in the competition system. Only through a general derogation in favour of the outermost regions will companies located in those regions be on an equal footing with companies located on mainland Europe. I must also point out how Mrs Sudre’s report refers to the need for specific tax and customs provisions for the same reasons. When regions are so distanced from the continental nucleus, trying to automatically apply the tax and customs rules that are applied in the continental nucleus would mean putting those outermost regions at a disadvantage. For example, on the subject of transport, in paragraph 26, the application of the rules on state aid to the ports and airports in a system of free competition would mean depriving those regions of the essential public service of ports and airports, which in outermost regions would never be a normal private activity, but an essential public service activity. The Commission has sent a communication, which is a programme, a sort of timetable for what is going to be done. We hope that the Commission will carry out this timetable or programme and, above all, we hope that the great institution that the Commission currently has, the interdepartmental group, will remain in contact with the outermost regions, informing the central authorities of our needs and our specific problems. I therefore congratulate Mrs Sudre, and we wait with great interest for the Commission’s proposals to be developed into rules, so that the specific characteristics can soon be taken into account, as established in paragraph 2 of Article 299 of the Treaty of Amsterdam.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on behalf of the Group, I wish to say that we recognise the importance of Ukraine as a country with historical, cultural and economic ties to the EU and with long-term aspirations of membership of the European Union. We also welcome the preparation by the Commission of the action plan – due to be ready in spring this year – that will enable Ukraine to integrate progressively into EU policies and programmes. However, a genuine partnership can only develop on the basis of shared common values, in particular democracy, the rule of law and respect for human and civil rights. At the moment, those conditions are not being met in Ukraine and the situation is deteriorating. Prison conditions, arbitrary detention and excessively long periods of pre-trial detention in Ukraine remain serious problems. Freedom of expression – as some of my colleagues have mentioned in more detail – is coming under increasing threat and there have been a number of serious violations of the rights of the independent media and journalists. We therefore call on the Ukrainian authorities to improve prison conditions and end arbitrary detention and excessively long periods of pre-trial detention. We call on the government of Ukraine to respect freedom of expression and to undertake sustained and effective measures to prevent and punish interventions against free and independent media. We ask the government to clarify allegations that its secret services were instructed to spy on journalists and Ukrainian and foreign politicians in their respective home countries in order to discourage them if necessary from continuing to take up human rights issues. We ask the Ukrainian authorities to make a formal commitment to hold October's forthcoming presidential elections in conditions of the greatest possible transparency, and hope that the European Commission will consider, along with Parliament and other bodies, whether we should send an election observation mission.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, dialogue with citizens is one of the main issues for us on a daily basis and I would therefore like to know what the Council intends to do to bring the post-Nice process closer to our citizens. What we could do is set up our own chat rooms, for example on the Internet, where citizens could use a search engine to locate specific subjects and browse through subjects of personal interest. I also think it would be a good idea if we provided video streams of debates in Parliament, the Council and the Commission in each language, in order to give citizens an opportunity to become more involved in this dialogue. Do you think this might be something for the Swedish Presidency to focus on after the Lisbon Summit?

Political group: PPE-DE
Thank you very much. I do not think you read the question – it said what action will be taken? We know what has to be done, but it is no use standing there saying that until the Commission acts or until Parliament acts, you will do nothing. Such inaction actually endorses these attacks upon minorities. Therefore, I offer you another chance to answer: will the Council undertake an audit of Member States to establish those states which have discriminatory legislation against lesbians and gay men, which fail to offer equal rights, equal civil rights to lesbians and gay men and which fail to offer equal protection under the law to lesbians and gay men? Only when we have determined this can we begin the process of implementing Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. The talking has to stop. The excuses have to end. We must act and act swiftly or else this House and all its institutions will always be held in low regard.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to join in the congratulations being expressed: our colleague, Mr Fiori, has done a tremendous job which has led to a mature and sound outcome. We have taken a reserved attitude to the creation of human embryos for cloning, for therapeutic as well as reproductive purposes. On the other hand, we do not oppose the development of genetic technology; rather, we say ‘yes’ to research. But we are anxious for this to take place in a way which respects human dignity. A human life is of value in itself, right from its commencement, and therefore its dignity must be consciously protected. During this past year, I have often heard it said that we cannot shackle science or call a halt to development. This is an irritatingly inaccurate and careless statement. We are all unanimous in agreeing that a certain type of development must be halted; after all, nobody in this room wishes to permit reproductive cloning. Here, at least, we remember the appalling lessons of history. But it would seem that some have forgotten that the racial hygienists at the beginning of the century were, in their day, leading scientists, not demons. They wished to help humanity within the framework of their own world of values, just like many people do today. For this reason it is essential that politicians now take the ethical responsibility which properly belongs to them. We must focus our attention on what kind of values are to form the direction in which we shall advance. When discussing the ethics of genetic technology, people often raise the ogre of the threat of the superhuman; however the true danger lies not in the idea of creating the superhuman, but in the control of the ‘subhuman’. This takes concrete form in the shape of social hygiene, in which the aim is to isolate ‘wrong’ forms of life from the more favoured, and to destroy the unfit. A reminder of this has also been provided by the representatives of the disabled groups which have visited our committee: we must not create the type of society in which only the healthy are welcome. In two senses at least, therapeutic and reproductive cloning are no different from one another. In the technical sense, these involve the same procedure; and if we look at the case from the point of view of the embryo, in both cases this becomes a utility for someone or something other than its own, unique purpose. How can we ensure that a subsequent step will not be towards human cloning, simply on the grounds that, technically speaking, we have already done this? There needs to be serious discussion of this now, so that we are aware of what we are really deciding.

Political group: PPE-DE
The rapporteur, Mr Brok, levels the accusation that the Council’s report on foreign policy in 2002 is just a book-keeping exercise listing action, without opinions on objectives, priorities or the meeting of costs. In his report, he takes the opportunity to himself express what the Council omits to say. When talking about influence over neighbouring regions, he makes no distinction between possible future EU Member States in the former Yugoslavia and the former Soviet Union on the one hand, and desired spheres of influence in West Africa and the Middle East on the other. The EU’s capacity for action would be benefited by the abolition of the principle of unanimity of the Member States and by increased power for the future European Foreign Minister. A powerful, united European superstate is a major contributor to the United Nations, which must be radically reformed, partly for the sake of European interests. From 2004, a European intervention force should have a 5000-man force permanently available for rescue and humanitarian operations, which, by 2009, should be ready to fight in wars elsewhere in Europe according to the Kosovo model. A united front with the USA is desirable. I thank Mr Brok for his clarity. Since his model differs substantially from my beliefs, I shall be voting against this report, although I do agree with him on one point. Omission to combat the human rights violations in Chechnya on the part of the EU will result in the formation of a new seed-bed for widespread terrorism.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I wish to reject these indiscriminate attacks against the majority of this House. We are trying hard to carry out modernisation and gradual liberalisation, and we do not deserve to be lectured here by you, Commissioner. You should at least thank us for taking our decision today, because this will enable you to find out in December whether the Council adheres to the line taken by the Lisbon European Council and decides in favour of your version of liberalisation, or ours. But to lecture us and then achieve nothing in the Council is a slightly hypocritical course of action, Commissioner. You really ought to listen to the majority of this House. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, by adopting the Jarzembowski report, Parliament, in collusion with the Council, would be pursuing its policy of demolishing the public service status of the vital sector that is rail transport. In the majority of European countries, the rail infrastructure has in large part been put in place with state money, that is to say with taxpayers’ money. Now that this infrastructure exists, a horde of private businesses is hurling itself upon this sector so as to be able to derive profit from it. Apart from the fact that it is a case of fraud and of collective funds being misappropriated and directed towards private groups, it also constitutes a danger for the future. The British experience has shown that, in order to increase their profits, private companies cut back on staff and make savings on infrastructure and maintenance, so putting passenger safety seriously at risk. This also leads to stations being closed and unprofitable lines being done away with, even if they are essential to the population to which they provide a service and which then has no choice but to use the roads. We reiterate our total opposition to the privatisations and to competition in rail transport. Public transport must remain a public service, the objective of which is to provide the best possible service to our populations.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development also welcomes in principle the Commission proposal, which is in line with the promise made by the Commission to Parliament. I should also like expressly to praise the excellent collaboration between the committees and the rapporteurs. We pointed out on a previous occasion that it is strange that there are still no common provisions for fighting scrapie, despite the fact that scrapie and BSE have somehow been linked since the beginning. We think it is important to seek a differentiated approach to preventive consumer protection by achieving an understanding of the facts and without panicking. In addition to what the rapporteur has said, we felt it was important that the Commission had incorporated the principle of regionalising the fight against TSE in order to reconcile strict measures and a sense of proportion. I should also like to point out that we feel it is important, in the case of the livestock affected, to have a proper discussion on how data on age can be adapted for the purpose of measures to fight TSE. I would also add that, when we talk of the possibility of introducing tests, for example in the event of dispute between the Commission and Member States or in the event of dispute between the Commission and third countries, carrying out tests can also help to decide if a country belongs in risk category I, II or III if, for example, certain statistics cannot be organised differently. However, I will not conceal the fact, Commissioner, that the problem of third countries in general will continue to remain an issue for us, as will the question of including pharmaceuticals and cosmetics. We also expect the Commission to quickly submit legal provisions on animal waste, on meat meal, so that we can define safety keys, thereby ensuring that there is a future for a responsible recycling system and guaranteeing preventive consumer protection. One issue will continue to remain on the agenda and that is the difference between some Member States and the majority of Member States in their approach to the question of what is more important: to define risk materials or to remove entire stocks from the food chain in the event of one case of BSE. Even scientists have so far avoided committing themselves on this point.

Political group: PPE-DE