GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, when we compare the frequency with which storms occur in other parts of the world with our own situation, we see that Europe gets off relatively lightly. Nevertheless, the storms that took place in the last week of December showed us what the consequences can be and that there are major problems in store for us. Anyone travelling to Strasbourg by car or by rail would have been able to see for themselves that storms raged in Alsace as well. I would therefore like to extend my sympathy to all those citizens in the regions where the storms raged so furiously, and at the same time, from my position here in this Chamber, point to how important it is to support these regions and people. Each and every one of us knows that any other region of Europe could meet with just such a fate tomorrow. What we need to do now is to deal with the fallen timber as swiftly as possible. For it is common knowledge that we could have an even greater disaster on our hands if the fallen timber were to be left in the forests too long. For instance, it should be pointed out that fallen timber provides the best breeding ground for the bark beetle’s larvae, and we are not yet in a position to assess the repercussions this will have. That is why it is absolutely essential to deal with the fallen timber before the warmer weather arrives. Decades will have gone by before we are able to determine the true extent of the damage sustained by the forestry industry. For we all know how long it takes a tree to grow. The calculations are in decades rather than years. In addition, I would like to point out that the forestry industry is certainly not just about timber production, for barrier woodland and woodland that acts as a shield against avalanches also constitute an important factor in certain regions. I am therefore very proud to say that the skilled Austrian forestry workers are also prepared..... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the single market is undoubtedly the most important achievement of the European integration process at the economic level. Europe has given us a single large trading area without barriers, with 375 million consumers now, soon rising to 450 million. Over the last ten years, the market has been increasingly extended into other sectors, such as telecommunications, postal services, transport and energy. The European market is a socially corrected free market, which means that the markets in these sectors have been opened up in a gradual, controlled – and successful – manner. This has resulted in greater competition and modern service provision that is of better quality and lower-priced. This liberalisation has by no means had any harmful effects, therefore, and the example must be an inspiration to other sectors. The Commission Green Paper is certainly not before time, and deserves particular credit. It is indeed necessary to examine whether we can apply the operation of the internal market and the opening-up of the borders to other services of general, and particularly economic, interest. What other possibilities are there for breaking state monopolies whilst continuing to guarantee that all citizens obtain the best service at an affordable price? I share the feelings of many others in thinking here of the water supply, waste management and even information sectors, for example. The debate on this subject must be held not only here, however, but also with national or even regional authorities, which are now often responsible for managing these sectors. We must use the results of this wide-ranging, interesting and indeed already productive debate to examine whether, and if so how, European legislation can be of benefit, especially to citizens.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I should like to start by congratulating Mrs Theato on her sterling work. In its opinion, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs said YES to the establishment of a European Prosecutor. It said yes because it feels that the problems which the European Union currently faces need a more systematic approach and solution. At the same time, however, it underlines certain issues which it considers important. The first issue has to do with the jurisdiction of the European Prosecutor. Of course, we all agree that the starting point was to combat fraud, which something needs to be done about immediately. It is a sad fact, unfortunately, but it is a fact nonetheless. However, the committee pointed out that transnational relations and the collective structures to which Member States take recourse mean that an evolutionary approach must be taken to the jurisdiction of the European Prosecutor, so that, if necessary, powers to combat other crimes can be added at a later date; unfortunately, as we all know, the current international system is always thinking up new crimes. The second point made by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs concerns the role of the European Parliament in relation to the European Prosecutor. We feel that the European Parliament, which was the first to underline the issues and the problems of pan-European crime, should be the institution to which the European Prosecutor is accountable. Thirdly, the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor goes hand in hand with the development of European criminal law, which is an inevitable development, and finally, it is, I think, important to point out, within the structure of relations between the European Union and its Member States, how the European Prosecutor will stand in relation to national public prosecutors.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I very much wish to state publicly that I have advised my Group to vote for the version of the Zimmerling report on resale rights which has been presented to us. This is despite the fact that there are certain reservations in my own country, Austria, and although there are also reservations on the part of other countries which are entirely understandable. However, I am convinced that we can work towards a still better document on resale rights in Europe, and I am convinced that this is needed for visual artists in Europe and that it is also an indication of the culture and of the cultural values for which we in this united Europe stand, and that we are also sending a signal to the art market, especially in Switzerland and the USA. We have a few years to make the improvements that need to be made, and I believe that by joining forces we will succeed in toning down some of the arguments or perhaps eliminate them entirely, and work together to ensure legal certainty for visual artists. I firmly believe that, and I will continue to work towards that, and not just during this parliamentary term. I am already curious about what the doyen of our explanations of vote, Mr Fatuzzo, will have to say on this.

Political group: Verts-ALE
My main consideration in passing judgement on the Prodi Commission is whether this team of 20 has convinced me of its ability to significantly restore public confidence in the European Union and its institutions. Regrettably, following the individual hearings and the various statements of Mr Prodi, I remain unconvinced. The strong pressure on MEPs to approve the new Commission, thus allowing a return to ‘normal’ business, must be balanced against the many doubts and reservations which surround aspects of the Prodi team. Mr Prodi views the Commission as a Government for Europe. That concept is not one which I would be inclined to vote in favour of, but even if I did feel so inclined, I could not give a positive vote for this Commission-Designate to fulfil such a role. I want to see real and radical improvement in management and financial control within the Commission. I want to see genuine change in the Commission’s attitude towards the European Parliament. I want a Commission which is seen to be relevant to the lives and aspirations of our citizens. The only verdict which I can apply to Mr Prodi’s team is ‘Not Proven’ and accordingly register my abstention.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I should, of course, also like to congratulate my colleague, Mr Lamassoure, on his success in drafting a good report. I am saying this, above all, because in Turkey, I often come across people making a certain assertion: those in Turkey who repeatedly accuse the European Parliament of being hostile to Turkey will now have to admit yet again that this assertion is not true. Like the report of my colleague, Mr Swoboda, this report, too, is an objective opinion on the situation in Turkey. As the rapporteur states, the flurry of legislative activity in the Turkish Parliament to reform the constitution really is laudable. Given the current constraints in Turkey, our Turkish colleagues, some of whom are also here today amongst us, have really been very successful. Now, however, they are asked to continue the work which they have begun. The Ministries for Home Affairs and Justice in the Turkish Republic play an important role in this area. The long-awaited implementation of the reform is urgently necessary, particularly now after 11 September, but also in spite of 11 September. It is easy to ascertain through the Turkish media that people are still being tortured in some police stations. There are still strange cases of people committing suicide while in police custody. For as long as this kind of thing continues to happen in Turkey, and, for as long as Turkey is not prepared to meet the Copenhagen Criteria, there will obviously be no date for the start of accession negotiations and Turkey will remain the only country, out of 13 countries with candidate status, not to have started negotiating. I hope that this last report will motivate those responsible in Turkey to move forward and, not only to talk about reforms, but also to really implement them.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I thank the minister for his reply to the first part of my question, but his answer to the second part, which concerned compensation, was not entirely relevant. New cases have cropped up in France and, as a result, whole herds have been slaughtered. Now I would like to ask, while the French representative of the country holding the presidency is here, whether this slaughter of cows will be paid for out of the EU budget or will you be paying for them out of your national budget, and whether, in your opinion, it is indeed appropriate that they should be paid for out of the EU budget. And I should like to add another question. According to a press report today mad cow disease has been discovered here in the Vosges region. Can France give the Members of the European Parliament assurances that nobody will catch the disease from the meat they eat here?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, I think we are all convinced that we have an obligation and a duty to protect the environment and contribute to sustainable development with an environmental policy that has seen its importance increased subsequent to the Treaty of Amsterdam. I agree with the Commission on drawing up more stringent standards on noise and also on establishing transitional provisions to satisfy the needs of the regions that are confronted with noise pollution problems. We also believe that it is essential for us to participate as one in the 33rd assembly of the ICAO in autumn 2001, speaking with one voice because, without a doubt, there is strength in unity and on subjects as important as the tightening of standards against noise it is vital. It would also be important to ask the Commission to present proposals for the introduction of economic incentives aimed at achieving a reduction of the negative effects on the environment. Naturally, what we do not agree on is the unilateral establishment of tax on kerosene, as a unilateral decision without the backing of the ICAO would have a minimal impact on the environment, would create legal problems, would damage competition among European airlines and would consequently affect users, who would see their tariffs rise. It would also be essential that, before taking any measures with regard to the adoption of taxes on the aviation industry, a study should be carried out on the costs and benefits that these measures would imply. In conclusion, I would like to emphasise the importance of efficient management in the aviation industry in reducing pollutants, placing the emphasis on improving airport management and clearly supporting the creation of a single European sky, by means of which we would also undoubtedly contribute to reducing environmental pollution.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would specifically like to thank the Italian Presidency for all its efforts to ensure that the result of the Intergovernmental Conference closely reflects the draft Constitutional Treaty. It will have our support, and it will also have the support of some governments, but far too few up to now. We would like to see this group growing larger. Nevertheless I share the concern expressed here by Commissioner Verheugen and also by you yourself, Mr President-in-Office. I share your concern but I do not want to go into individual proposals. I am concerned about something more fundamental that is amiss in the Intergovernmental Conference. The majority of ministers have not so far proved equal to the task before them. That is the simple truth. There is no will to shape things in the Intergovernmental Conference, but rather a blocking mentality, and that cannot continue if we are to achieve a good result in December. Almost without exception, the proposals being made represent steps backward as compared with the Convention's draft. Every time, during every discussion, the IGC does not build on the result of the Convention, it goes back on the Convention. The ministers are in the process of making things that have been dealt with simply in the draft Constitutional Treaty complicated again and detracting from their clarity and simplicity. The rejection of the Legislative Council is just one example of this. They are refusing to give the Constitution the flexibility it needs. In fact they are going even further, by dismantling the small number of modest links that we incorporated and blocking them, so that unanimous agreement is to be required again for the medium-term financial perspective, and the European Parliament is being deprived of budgetary rights. In this way they are not just going back on the Convention's draft, they are even going back on the European Parliament's present rights. That is unacceptable. The majority of governments do not understand that a Union with over 25 Member States needs to have a new basis. They are not taking the result of the Convention seriously as a compromise that really is already a compromise and strikes a balance between North and South, large and small, and East and West in the European Union. We hope that the governments will abandon their blocking mentality and remember that they should be a force for shaping the future of Europe. (Applause) IN THE CHAIR: MR FRIEDRICHVice-President

Political group: PSE
The first essential requirement for a waste recovery and recycling policy is prevention. The prevention of packaging waste involves ensuring that producers base their decisions as to the type and quantity of material used on an analysis of the life cycle of the products, quantifying their environmental impact from the planning stages to disposal. In this way, they can factor those environmental costs into the final price of the product. I regret to say that the Commission’s proposal for a directive did not go far enough in terms of waste prevention. The second essential requirement is that legally binding targets be set. From this point of view the directive is more ambitious, since it establishes targets for the recovery and recycling of packaging waste, especially for the following materials: glass, paper, plastic, metals and wood. Targets, though, only guarantee a change in behaviour if they are realistic, by which I mean achievable. For this reason, I support the targets set in the common position and dispute those suggested by the rapporteur. In particular, I dispute the proposal that the recycling and recovery deadlines set for Portugal, Greece and Ireland be brought forward from 2012 to 2009. It should be remembered that certain characteristics of those three Member States, in particular their scattered territories (which include outermost regions) and populations, make it more difficult for them to reach the targets for recycling and recovery of packaging waste.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am glad that at least Mr Patten is here to follow this important debate, because there are urgent matters which require discussion. The Council has at last joined the flock and declared sanctions on Russia. But given the length of time the war has already been waging in the Caucasus, this decision is, of course, far too late to bring any real solution to the conflict. Given the massive expulsion of the civil population, it is far too weak a measure. We have to imagine what is happening over there. Ingushetia currently has more refugees than the indigenous population, with no humanitarian aid to compare with Kosovo. Kosovo had humanitarian aid, here there is nothing. That is the situation. Which is why the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement must be suspended immediately. Russia must be excluded from the G8 Summit and its government must not receive any more credit until a peaceful solution to the conflict has been found. Exactly what sort of a foreign policy do we have at the moment? It is true that military forces are being planned, but a decision on an early end to the crisis has been delayed for weeks. Europe must not just be the Europe of oil multinationals; it must also become the Europe of human rights, which is why we in the Group of the are calling for a conference on the Caucasus in collaboration with the OSCE so that a contribution to peace in this region can finally be made. We shall continue discussions with human rights representatives from Chechnya, including discussions of projects. I hope that the Commission will give proper support in this matter by making a contribution to peace and prevention in the region, because that is far more important than the military forces decided on in Helsinki.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, it is clear that the increasing mobility of Europeans, tourism and, let us face it, bathing habits, mean that the beaches of Europe, the beaches of my country, Spain, which 50 years ago were half empty, have now filled up. Not only with tourists, either: the local people also bathe on their beaches, something they did not do 50 years ago. All of this means that the citizens of Europe aspire to having the same quality of bathing water, regardless of the country or location they are swimming in. I therefore believe that the Commission is right to propose – and of I believe it is extremely timely – this greater control of bathing waters, better information for users and also improvements in the quality of those waters in cases where it is advisable or necessary. The relationship between risks of various infections and water quality has been demonstrated beyond all doubt. If, therefore, by means of this directive we can contribute to reducing the risk of contracting infections or other types of illness, our efforts will have been worthwhile. Having said this, however, I believe that here also we must apply a cost-benefit analysis and not try to use a sledgehammer to crack nuts. In this regard, there are certain aspects of certain amendments to this directive which I believe to be entirely out of context and unnecessary. One of them is the issue of physical and chemical parameters: they are not important in terms of water quality; only microbiological parameters are important. The rest is an aesthetic issue, but not a health issue. Introducing these parameters would enormously complicate the application of the directive and, furthermore, would make the framework directive which already deals with these issues redundant. With regard to information, I believe it is absurd and unacceptable to indicate the specific languages in which the information must be provided. I believe that each Member State will indicate the language or languages appropriate for this purpose. Finally, on another issue which has been debated, in relation to parameters, I entirely agree with the use of those parameters indicated by the WHO and I fully support my group’s position. IN THE CHAIR: MR PROVANVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, the EU did a good job in Seattle. The cooperation was good, which I am grateful for. The problem is that the WTO basically lacks popular support, and the developing countries, even if they are present there, feel left out. I therefore believe that it was very important indeed that we agreed to demand greater openness and to make room for popular influence on decision making by means of a parliamentary forum. When it comes to the failure in Seattle, I do not however believe that we should “cry over spilled milk”, as we say in Sweden. Instead, we should use the time to do some forward thinking. We have been made aware of the problems and we have also, I think, glimpsed certain possibilities. Unlike Mrs McNally, I perceive, rather, a slight opening-up on the part of the Americans, not least in the sphere of agriculture. America has trebled the amount of its agricultural subsidies since the last farm bill was adopted and, although the multifunctional reasons for our policy may not be recognised, large parts of its content nonetheless are in fact acknowledged, which I think is positive. As a relatively liberal, perhaps very liberal, European politician where agriculture is concerned, I should like to say that we ourselves within the EU ought to reflect upon how we can change the CAP, Agenda 2000 and what follows Agenda 2000 and consider how we might get rid of subsidies which drive down the level of trade. It would be good to discuss this with the developing countries because these are very dependent indeed upon exporting raw materials. It would also be good for other exporters. In fact, an enlarged EU, which we hope we are making great strides towards, will also become more and more dependent precisely upon being able to export agricultural products. It is in specifically this situation that I think that the present talks and the reflections we can engage in will be extremely useful. I believe there are good opportunities for making further progress.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, with regard to Amendment No 3, the votes were 72 for and 56 against. Since the honourable Member said she would vote against, this amendment is repealed.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I believe that Mr Corbett, instead of concerning himself with the amendments of the Group of the European People’s Party, should concern himself with clarifying the situation of the members of his Group. This would surely be a great improvement.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I would not want Members of this House to think that I do not have a sense of humour. I did refer yesterday to the man or woman dressed as a cigarette packet standing outside this Chamber. But I was making a serious point and maybe yesterday it was taken rather too lightheartedly. I have a letter from you, Madam President, dated 6 April, in which it was agreed by the College of Quaestors that the area around the Chambers in Brussels and Strasbourg should be regarded as a neutral zone in which demonstrations, exhibitions or similar activities intended to influence Members would not be tolerated. You went on to say that you would investigate ways of ensuring that there would be no recurrence. I hope that you and the College of Quaestors will take this seriously because it is an encroachment on the right of Members to come to this House and vote freely on issues that their electors have sent them here to debate. The jobs of one thousand people in my constituency are now at risk as a result of the decisions that were taken here yesterday. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE