GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I should like to compliment the Commission on its proposal and I hope that Parliament will not depart from it too much. The Commission is demonstrating progressive insight, that is, you can increase the control of food and certainly of meat by placing greater responsibility with the people who have to carry out the control. On this point I should like to echo the words of our group spokesperson, Mrs Grossetête. On the basis of Christian Democratic principles you could say that you want to place more individual responsibility where it belongs. This means that farms that are well organised, that have a good branding system, can do more themselves and that at the same time there must be scope for small enterprises to continue their work. It also means that the present way of working in poultry meat will have to be extended to veal and pork. It further means that responsibility as regards the from-the-land-to-the-plate guarantee must be made good and at the same time that no deviations can be tolerated in the so-called INR system. I do not entirely agree with the rapporteur’s position that a veterinarian should have the final decision as to whether or not an animal is safe for the food chain in cases where there is no question of airtight administrative processing. After all, you cannot see everything on the outside. I am against Amendment No 135 and in favour of Amendment No 127, and I anticipate the vote with confidence.

Political group: PPE-DE
We often say, Mr President, that we want to promote human rights in third countries. That is right and we are doing what we can, but I feel that we are not doing enough. We must turn our words into actions; we must move on from written documents like Mrs Díez González’ report to action. To set an example, I call upon all the pensioners who travel throughout the world not to go on holiday to countries in which the human rights of the inhabitants are violated. Let us take some practical action at last! Enough of words, words, words!

Political group: PPE-DE
When, a few weeks ago, I once again read the Commission’s progress report on Lithuania, it occurred to me that the progress reports are being produced as if it were the previous enlargement we were talking about, that is to say the enlargement which took place before the Treaty of Amsterdam came into force. The Social Chapter is the corollary and counterpart of free movement of services and labour mobility. My question is about whether the forthcoming progress reports will, to a greater degree than the previous reports, take account of employment and of the Social Chapter, which is now a part of our ‘acquis’. I believe, in fact, that we can succeed in enlarging the Union if we combine these two aspects: firstly, the free movement of services and employees and, secondly, more equal conditions when it comes to the dialogue between employers and employees. The Social Chapter is, in fact, a part of our common regulations, with which the candidate States must also comply.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, we voted in committee on the reform of the common organisation of the market in fishery and aquaculture products. It is a sensitive subject, but this report was especially necessary. The text on which we voted is a good text and we arrived at a good compromise. I believe that it is a compromise of the kind that the European Union is capable of achieving when it is able to both transcend national interests and defend the common interests. We know that the fisheries policy is one of the great European policies, even if it concerns very few Europeans, at least as producers, though many more obviously as consumers. Since it was established in 1970, the Community fisheries market has changed a great deal. Its regulation has adapted to this and this report must be defined as an additional stage in building a balanced organisation between the protection and the management of fishing resources. Today, the report submitted to us strengthens the place of the consumer and the producers’ organisations in the organisation of the market. Let us not forget, however, that this reform will have consequences for the fisheries sector. I shall refer to two of them briefly. Where will our auctions fit into all this, in view of the pre-sale contracts included under Article 12? This development should not involve a kind of ‘shift’ of our territories. Secondly, what will happen in the event of an economic crisis in the fisheries sector, if no provisions for exceptional circumstances are adopted? It would be better to make provision for all possible scenarios. This report does not deal with the questions of the future, or at least with some of them, but I believe that our committee has done a good job and your report, Mrs Fraga Estévez, deserves considerable support.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I simply wish to ask whether we could once again check that the no smoking rules in this House are being enforced. It has come to my attention that was not the case earlier this week. I would urge renewed vigour in the application of those rules in this House. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
I thank the President-in-Office of the Council for his detailed reply. However, I would like to ask him whether as from 1 January 2006, pursuant to the new banana regime, the only protection offered to Community banana producers and ACP countries which are also included will be the tariff. The Community has just given up the tariff. Consequently, no protection of this sort will be available after 1 January 2006. I anticipate that the beneficiaries of this measure will be the large multinationals. If I were in charge of a multinational company, I would relocate the plantations from Central America, Ecuador or any other country to one of those least developed countries. The reason would be that thanks to this agreement I would be assured that as from 1 January 2006 there would be no restriction on the import of bananas. My question to the President-in-Office of the Council concerns whether consideration has been given to the implications of all this both for Community producers, some of whom live in very underdeveloped areas of the Community, and for producers in other ACP countries who do not enjoy a particularly high standard of living either.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner, unlike our esteemed rapporteur – the basic approach of whose text I do, however, appreciate – I am convinced that our work is neither superfluous nor useless. It is an appeal, a valuable reminder precisely for all the Member States, which are called to harmonise their legislation or, in any case, cooperate in the field of justice, in this very sensitive area – the confiscation of crime-related proceeds, instrumentalities and property – too. It is without a doubt an important instrument because, as we know from daily experience, it is that instrument which will strike at the financial sources supporting organised crime, particularly crime organised on an international scale. At the centre of this fight is the fight against what is known as money laundering between the international organisations, which now know no bounds either in Europe or worldwide. I want to tell you something which the unforgettable Italian judge, Giovanni Falcone, said, which is relevant to this aspect of the matter. As you will remember, he was subsequently assassinated by the Mafia. At a hearing, ten years ago now, he said: the Mafia have not waited for the completion of the internal market to internationalise their activity. That is why it is important to provide an international response to this internationalisation of crime from those in charge of the legal systems in the Member States. It must be said that, in this, we have been preceded by both the United Nations and the Council of Europe, which have produced conventions which are a valuable point of reference for the subject we are debating too. It must also be said, however, that the proper legislative basis is the action plan endorsed by the Amsterdam European Council of June 1997 and drawn on by the Vienna European Council of December 1998. These action plans specify the procedures for implementing international confiscation measures, which are, clearly, intended to supplement the various national measures. The Council stresses the importance of each Member State– and I quote from the Council text – ‘having well-developed and wide ranging legislation in the field of confiscation of the proceeds from crime’ and of ‘introducing special procedures for tracing, seizure and confiscation of proceeds from crime’. As regards the debate on Mr Di Lello’s report in committee, we tabled a number of amendments which were all adopted by the committee. Our rapporteur is of the opinion that these amendments impair the original text but we, of course, feel that they enhance it. I will mention just one in particular – the amendment seeking to invert the onus of proof and transfer it from the defendant to the prosecution.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, we are usually very quick to criticise the Commission or the Council when they do not attend our debates, but this time, ironically, the finger seems to be pointing the other way. At the very least, the two rapporteurs should have been present during the debate on their reports. I am aware that these days are extremely tiring for all concerned, but duty comes before everything else. I listened to Mr Segni’s speech. Somewhat aided by the fact that he was speaking in Italian, I realised that he was not speaking on behalf of the Union for a Europe of Nations Group, whose views are completely different from those he expressed and which I share. We are on the brink of an historic occasion where the risks are great, but so are the opportunities. We must be aware that this historic occasion provides us with the opportunity to enlarge a community of values and not merely orchestrate the geographical and territorial enlargement of an advanced economy which has raised the standard of living of our communities. This is the real challenge. Enlargement is thus our opportunity to change our operating rules and ensure that they are based on greater transparency and stronger guarantees of the rights of citizenship, and also streamline our decision-making. The basic requirement we uphold is the need to confine unanimity to constitutional issues and to use qualified majority voting for all other matters. In the very short space of time remaining, I would like to refer to paragraph 51, which puts forward the idea of our coming together with the national parliaments to examine the possibility of holding an Inter-Parliamentary Conference on the future strategies of the Union. Clearly, a substantial amount of responsibility would fall to our President and to the French Presidency. I am convinced that this opportunity for representatives of the national parliaments of both the Union countries and the candidate countries to meet and discuss future strategies and the implications of the Intergovernmental Conference is extremely valuable and must not be passed up.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I wish to use this point of order to speak in my capacity as chairman of the delegation for relations with the countries of Central America and Mexico. As you will be aware, elections were held in Mexico last Sunday. Yesterday the delegation which I chair met and discussed a report drawn up by our fellow Members who had been to Mexico to act as observers at these elections on behalf of this Parliament. We finally approved a three-point statement. The first point was to recognise and welcome the dignified and civic-minded conduct of our Mexican friends during these elections. Secondly, we welcomed the election of Mr Fox and expressed our hope that relations between the European Union and Mexico would continue to make progress under the general agreement approved and ratified in March. Thirdly, we wished to congratulate President Zedillo on having enabled Mexican institutions to make this change to democracy. Mr President, I would ask you to see if the President of this Parliament could forward our resolution, the complete text of which you will receive today, to the Mexican authorities.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, might I just ask you to give the floor to our Committee's rapporteur on this area, so he can say a few words on this report? The rapporteur is Mr Mulder.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, first of all, congratulations to Mrs Isler Béguin on her report which I think is excellent and constructive. The protection of biodiversity deserves top priority. When species become extinct, they are gone for ever, and this is why now is the time for action. Action plans cannot be non-committal. They can only be successful if they take account of the socio-economic circumstances of the people in that area. They must set priorities. We must tackle hot spots worldwide; areas that are particularly rich in species deserve special protection. Action plans must be clear and, above all, concrete. Public support is important, and nobody gets excited about an abstract idea such as biodiversity. It is about the conservation of the natural resources, valuable landscapes and endangered species. We must be well-informed, independent monitoring must be put in place, and we must draw up annual balance sheets of the quality of the natural environment. This motivates and inspires. The European Union itself should be a little more consistent. The bird directive and the habitat directive epitomise biodiversity protection. These must be implemented effectively, however difficult that may be at times. The end result must always be at the forefront of our minds. However, these pearls of nature preservation are in sharp contrast with other policy. I mean in the first place agriculture, but also fisheries. Large-scale agriculture and the conservation of biodiversity are a difficult match. The common agricultural policy must for that reason alone undergo far-reaching changes. Subsidies purely based on production are asking for trouble. The fishery implications for biodiversity are less visible. Seabed disturbance in many coastal waters and deeper waters threatens biodiversity. This should be met with a forceful response. Biodiversity must form a guideline in regional planning. Member States should draft action plans for that purpose. I ask the Commission to select and support a flagship project annually, preferably in one of the candidate countries. These projects must set an example to other nature reserves. The Polish primeval forest could be a good flagship project. I should once again like to thank Mrs Isler Béguin for her sound report. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we all know that asbestos is one of the biggest threats of all to the health of workers in the EU. It is estimated, as a previous speaker has also said, that getting on for half a million deaths over the next 35 years will be directly linked to the serious illnesses caused by asbestos. The history of asbestos and the debate we have had about it show, in my view, how incredibly important it is that we take the precautionary principle seriously. For many years, asbestos was used without a thought for the harmful effects it might have and, as a precise consequence of this, the asbestos problem will dog us for many years to come. The proposal tabled by the Commission will ensure better protection of workers who are in danger of being exposed to asbestos in the course of their work, and it is on the whole a really sound proposal. The proposal reduces the limit value for the number of asbestos particles to which workers may be exposed. In view, however, of the danger presented by asbestos, it is good that the rapporteur try to have the limit value reduced further. What is crucial is that the employer be obliged to provide a relevant training programme for everyone at risk of being exposed to asbestos in the course of their work. Workers must be clear about how to protect themselves and others. In accordance with the Commission’s proposal, common guidelines concerning the content of the training programme must be set up, and these must be as precise and exhaustive as possible. I should like today to call upon the Member States to go still further and set up proper, formal training schemes for working with asbestos. I would also comment on the ban on asbestos. The 1999 directive bans chrysotile, which is the last type of asbestos it is permitted to use. The total ban on all use and marketing of asbestos is to be implemented in all the Member States from January 2005. I learn, however, that it is apparently uncertain whether the ban also applies to the export of asbestos to countries outside the EU. If the ban is indeed uncertain, the problem should be tackled. It would be ethically quite wrong if the EU were to export asbestos for use in third countries. It would be contrary to all the principles on the basis of which we normally proceed. I do not know how we are to approach the matter legally. I will adopt a political approach to the matter, and I should like to take the opportunity to ask the Commissioner to give an account today of the Commission’s interpretation of this problem. Is it uncertain whether the 1999 directive does in fact ban exports to countries outside the EU? It would be interesting to be given an answer to that question. I also wish finally to say a big thank-you to the rapporteur, who has done an incredible amount of work to get this report up and running. I am entirely in favour of the report.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I will confine myself to stressing three points tackled by Commissioner Busquin which are also referred to in the report under debate. The first concerns the close relationship between research, economic growth and employment. In order to respond to the challenge represented by the United States, the Union as a whole and certain countries in particular must allocate a higher proportion of their resources to research and facilitate investment by private companies. I subscribe to the view that we need to propose tax relief, harmonised at European level, as a guideline for the Member States. Point two: research and development have generated an extremely well integrated system. In some areas, it is not easy to distinguish between basic and applied research. However, public financing and the European programmes need to target chiefly medium- and long-term economic and non-economic objectives, whereas competence for market-related research should lie chiefly with the firms. Thirdly, the tertiarisation of research policies and the consolidation of the role of the regions: The territorial aspect of research policies is important chiefly in terms of the transfer of scientific and technological knowledge towards the small- and medium-sized enterprises which characterise many industrial districts. Small- and medium-sized enterprises are one of European industry’s strong points, in certain countries in particular, but they are still poorly integrated into the research system.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I ask you to share the sorrow as well as the anger I feel in speaking as a friend of Eritrea. From 1889 to 1952 Eritrea was under the flags firstly of Italy, then of Britain. It was then given by the international community to Ethiopia in federation, and then it was annexed by that country. It then suffered 32 years of war during which its economy and its environment were ruined and its people dispersed. We then came to 1993 and its referendum for independence. I was there as a UN observer. There was a spirit of hope abroad in that country. The refugees were returning, reconstruction was beginning to take place. 90% of people voted in that referendum. 99% voted for independence. President Isaias was elected president. With a moderate lifestyle and a period of optimism stemming from it, we hoped for the best. For some years the problem was border conflict. Now sadly the problem is internal. Human rights have deteriorated, opposition is not tolerated, eleven former leaders of the government party have been arrested, the press is suppressed and journalists arrested. The Italian ambassador has been expelled. Multiparty elections which were promised for last December were cancelled and now parties themselves have been banned. Democracy has been cancelled in Eritrea. Eritrea is desperate for support in rebuilding a country ravaged by war. They need our aid, but aid must not be without guarantees of good governance. To our friends in Eritrea we say: 'come back to the world community of democratic government. Turn away from totalitarianism'. To the Commission I say: 'be firm'. Human rights are not just for our benefit. They are not to make us feel good. They are for the benefit of the people of Eritrea and Eritrea needs those human rights now.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I will not hold you up long. It is patently obvious that in such an important matter you do not need us to advise you to please read the individual points out first. Since the Group of the European People’s Party is backing out ... (Noise) ...I do not know about the Austrians, but, since the Group of the European People’s Party is backing out, we naturally thought about whether we should have the vote today. I am however in favour of giving the Commission and Council an orientation decision today by means of our vote, as to the direction they should move in. I would only ask, Madam President, that we may have a separate vote on paragraph 7, because I have an oral amendment on it. I shall come back to this later.

Political group: PSE
I wish to thank the President-in-Office of the Council for his comprehensive and welcome reply. He has indicated a willingness to progress this dossier, which an important one in the context of the Lisbon Agenda. I know that the presidency sees the Lisbon Agenda as a comprehensive vehicle for achieving both social and economic progress, and this directive, which would instil some order into the issue of temporary agency workers, would improve the quality of work and also relieve many anxieties of both permanent workers and temporary agency workers. We know that this particular form of employment is, in certain circumstances, being abused. I would appreciate it, therefore, if the President-in-Office of the Council would actively pursue this matter. I have no wish to make party political points here, but given that the Irish Government has serious concerns about this issue, you are in an ideal position to find solutions to it.

Political group: PSE
The proposals included in this report arise from and develop the process begun at Maastricht, which defined federalism as the direction for today’s ‘European integration’. The report contains proposals that undermine the national sovereignty of the European Union Member States, and we reject them, notably the proposal that foreign policy and the definition of the legal basis of a ‘common area of freedom and security’ should become the exclusive competence of the EU. These proposals are extreme compared with others that have upheld shared competences. Another proposal that stands out is that the funding of the Community budget should be exclusively an EU responsibility, with the consequence that instruments like a ‘Europe tax’ would be created, something we also reject. In general terms, the report aims at the constitutionalisation of the Treaties, placing them above the national constitutions in fundamental competences. Even in the case of competences shared between the EU and the Member States, the definition places the EU as the one that ‘lays down the rules’, ‘coordinates’ or ‘intervenes in a complementary or a supplementary fashion’. The nation states would virtually be left with just the transposition of rules or the implementation of guidelines using the budgetary and tax resources available to them, as in the significant example of the attempt to renationalise the costs of the common agricultural policy.

Political group: GUE-NGL