GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I should like to ask the Commissioner a question. I gather from the committee meetings that it actually would be possible for the European Commission to accept all the adopted amendments. I should like to find out from the European Commission tomorrow morning why it does not in fact adopt certain elements.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the leaders of the USA and Britain, unfortunately with the connivance of many – if not all – of the governments of the members of ΝΑΤΟ and the European Union, are moving towards all-out attack on the Iraqi people, with incalculable consequences both for them and the rest of the world. To justify their attack, they have submitted unsubstantiated and obsolete evidence to the UN, provided by the CIA’s ‘evidence is us’ department or lifted from PhD theses or bugged telephone conversations in the 1990s, as the US ambassador to Greece admitted to the press the other day. This is their excuse of an argument for committing a terrible crime against the long-suffering Iraqi people who, as I had the opportunity of seeing for myself last week, have paid a heavy price over the last 12 years for the 1991 bombings, the embargo and the tyrannical dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. We speak for the overwhelming majority of our citizens taking to the streets day after day, when we say: No to war and the embargo against Iraq! Respect for the right of the Iraqi people to determine their own future! No more using the UN to legalise force! This crime can be avoided. The problem is whether the European Parliament will abandon its indulgent, Pontius Pilate approach and come out clearly against this criminal war.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President. The rapporteur quite rightly stated in his report that the changes made in past years have all been in the right direction. Our committee has clearly said, as I would also like to do, that Basel II is right to aim to make banks more stable, and that aim of Basel II is a very laudable one in view of what we know about the costs associated with bank crises. The fact is that risk sensitive loan pricing is a key requirement for a stable financial system. Basel II still needs to be discussed. The debate has already lasted more than four years and I must say that it is positive that, in particular under the first pillar, the risk weighting function has been lowered and made significantly shallower. This avoids possible problems relating to access to credit, above all for SMEs. Furthermore, it is also positive that the appeal of shorter loan periods has lessened. From a European perspective, it is also certainly important that there should be no discrimination against tangible collateral. It must be dealt with in the same way as financial collateral. We should, however, finally realise, that Basel II will have an impact, not only on small and medium-sized banks, but also on SMEs. The extremely varied funding framework in the EU, which is nonetheless indispensable for business, must be kept. An increase in capital demands for loans secured by the economy’s promotional bodies and self-help institutions that are not covered by risk considerations must be excluded. A few further questions: I believe that it should be justified why only ten banks in the USA have to use Basel II and a further ten institutions use Basel II on a voluntary basis, whilst in Europe all credit institutions must implement the models. It is quite right that small European banks are not in direct competition with US institutions excluded from the Basel obligations, but instead with these institutions’ corporate customers. This could potentially mean that, in terms of competition, European businesses would be put at a disadvantage on the world market. I think that this needs to be clarified and I also count on the opinion sought by the Commission discussing this point, and in sufficient time for it to give rise to some amendments. I would also like to emphasise that it is very important that the crucial points that have been brought up by Charles Goodhart’s research group from the London School of Economics should also be clarified, in particular those referring to the procyclicality of Basel II, to which reference has already been made. I would like to formally give my support to Mr Radwan in his reasoning that Parliament should tackle in good time the problems of SMEs and their employees, that we should continue to do so, and that above all we should also ensure that Parliament’s voice continues to carry weight and will be heard at the end.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, to those of us who have closely followed the evolution and development of the ECIP instrument throughout its short but intense history, it seems that the best way to summarise Mr Dell'Alba’s report is to highlight the message contained in the amendments of the Committee on Development and Cooperation, since they recommend the continuation of this financial instrument because it has been the best vehicle for establishing and strengthening Europe’s business fabric in the countries involved and, consequently, for creating employment. Now that the agreement on free trade, political concertation and cooperation between the European Union and Mexico has just entered into force, it is a good time to remember that we should continue with this type of financial instrument which, in some cases, such as Mexico, has been used intensively and positively, and is ideally suited to strengthening commercial ties between particular blocks, such as the European Union and the countries involved. Otherwise, the European Union would no longer be acting in accordance with its cooperation and development commitment, not only in the case of the countries of Latin America, but also in the cases of Asia, the Mediterranean and South Africa. In short, we clearly support Mr Dell’Alba’s report, and we congratulate him on the clarity of his ideas when he deals with the need to continue in the future with the implementation of the ECIP, in my opinion, as a single instrument. We also hope that these ideas will be directed, after more than ten years of positive experience, towards making the bureaucratic process involved in the project’s implementation more flexible and rapid in order to allow for more efficient action. In my opinion, this requires a strengthening of human resources in the Commission’s offices in the countries involved.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I wish to address my concerns this afternoon to the proposed taxation on aircraft fuel. Whilst there is recognition in this report that a kerosene tax cannot be imposed internationally due to the exemption in the Chicago Convention, nevertheless the introduction of such a tax, intra-EU or bilaterally, would be severely damaging to the United Kingdom and the entire European aviation industry. Not only would our air fares increase dramatically – possibly by £80 per ticket, thereby threatening the very existence of the smaller carriers – but the damage would also affect the aerospace manufacturers, tourism, businesses and, of course, the freight carriers – they now carry a third of freight world-wide by air. It is not true to say that aviation does not bear its costs. In fact, the industry pays 100% of its infrastructure costs through air traffic control and airport charges, amounting to US $4bn in 1998 – unlike other modes of transport, such as rail and road, which are still heavily subsidised. These facts must be recognised. In addition, to impose this tax would bring little benefit to the environment, as was proven by the introduction of the air passenger duty tax in the United Kingdom. Aviation is in fact responsible for 2.5% of CO2 emissions world wide. Other approaches, such as trading and offsets, could be more environmentally-friendly and cost- effective. Finally, such measures would ruin the competitiveness of the European industry vis-à-vis the rest of the world and would also cause massive job losses. So I, for one, will continue to speak up for an industry which is often singled out as the big bad wolf. This report is badly crafted on the part of the Commission and this Parliament. The public at large deserves better.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to thank the Commission for being present in this debate. As Commissioner Byrne has said, this is about the marketing of seeds and I am rather disappointed that Mrs Auroi has decided to bring in GMOs. This report is about the marketing of traditional, conventional seeds and to bring in GMOs is really not part of the topic that we are debating today. I say that to Mrs Auroi as a seed producer and a seed grower. We spend much time and effort making sure that the product that we produce is completely free from any contamination and this is the way that conventional and traditional seeds are grown. To bring the issue of GMOs into this piece of legislation is wrong. It is also wrong because in fact the next piece of legislation to come from the Commission will be one on GMO seeds, after the two reports that are to go through Parliament, one of which is Mr Trakatellis's report which is currently before the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, and of which Commissioner Byrne is well aware. Therefore I see little point at the moment in bringing that up and that is why I hope this Parliament will endorse my amendments while agreeing with the principle stated by Mrs Auroi that we must be aware of the situation with contamination of GMOs. I have tried to bring a little bit more of what I call a more pragmatic approach into this legislation and I hope this House will support my amendments on Mrs Auroi's report which, while supporting in principle what she said, will in practice enable the Commission to bring in the proposal that is due to be submitted after the two reports in Parliament. Therefore it is quite important that we look at these. I say to Mrs Auroi that, yes, we are all aware of the risk of GMO contamination but it has not happened yet and there is no certainty that it will happen in the future; everyone involved in seed production is concerned about it, but please wait until this legislation comes from the Commission, when we will be able to take a decision on it.

Political group: PPE-DE
The arguments underpinning the proposal to reject this regulation, as expressed in the report, are extremely important, because they could apply in other cases, such as Portugal, which has the largest EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) of any country in the Community. The first argument concerns respect for the specific characteristics of the Mediterranean in all its aspects: the characteristics of its fleet, of its socio-economic fabric and of the types of fishing. The second argument hinges on the need to involve fishermen in the decision-making process, making use of their experience and heeding their concerns. Lastly, dialogue and cooperation must be enhanced with neighbouring third countries in order to involve them in the commitment to ensure sustainable fishing. The proposal for a regulation does not guarantee these conditions which, bearing in mind the international dimension of the Mediterranean, are sound guiding principles for the common fisheries policy. Lastly, there is the link between these conditions and the need for a serious evaluation of the current state of fisheries resources and of the appropriate measures to ensure the conservation of these resources, an area in which issues of liberalising access and the underlying contradictions are to a large extent echoed in the situation in Portugal.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, a purely linguistic error has occurred in introducing one of the amendments in the joint resolution. To rectify this, I propose replacing the words ‘... increase in its powers’ in the last sentence of paragraph 6 with the following words: ‘and supports an increase in its powers as a means of deepening democracy’.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the report on the common strategy of the European Union on Ukraine comes before plenary at a time when it is no longer possible to keep track of the symptoms of crisis in this huge, important country at the crossroads between east and west. The murder of the journalist Georgiy Gongadze and the subsequent demonstrations, some of which were countered with violence, highlight the inner weaknesses and democratic deficits in this country eleven years after its secession from the Soviet Union. The rapporteur, whom I should like to thank, is equally conscious of these facts and of Ukraine’s economic plight, with its high foreign debt and even higher exodus of capital, where large sections of the population live in poverty and wealth is concentrated in a few hands. That this is a breeding ground for corruption and international organised crime cannot be a matter of indifference to us. Human trafficking in general and the trade in women in particular and illegal immigration have a spill-over effect on the European Union and need to be effectively combated, with the help of the European Union, especially as, once Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and Romania accede, Ukraine will form the external border of the EU. The common strategy on Ukraine and the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with it rightly seek to consolidate democracy, the economy and society and bring Ukraine closer to the EU's system of values. What has been done so far still falls short of the mark, despite the funds which the European Union has given Ukraine. Ukraine itself has set itself the ambitious target of being ready for accession by 2007. Even if this sounds more like pie in the sky under the present circumstances, the Väyrynen report points in the right direction by finally giving Ukraine the prospect of accession and by mooting the possibility of a free trade agreement without precluding accession at a later date. With the enlargement of the EU imminent, everything should also be done in the form of cross-border programmes and assistance with border management in order to avoid erecting new dividing lines in Europe. This is all the more important in that Ukraine plays a fundamental role in European security, both as a result of its commitment in ex-Yugoslavia and its involvement in the Partnership for Peace, as the Charter on a Distinctive Partnership with NATO proves. The Ukraine also plays an important role in the network of relations between the EU and Russia and as a regional force for order. The Väyrynen report shows how we can help Ukraine to help itself and extend our mutual relations.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I have already asked for the floor four times this morning in order to point out to those Members who expressed irritation at this morning’s events that, ever since the first day of the new parliamentary term, we have requested more clarity regarding Fridays, i.e. to have either a proper meeting or no meeting at all. I think that the problem could be solved very quickly if we could schedule the votes for the end of the session, like all the other days, and ask for everyone to sign the attendance register at the end of the day. It would then become clear if we would be prepared to consider this a proper meeting or not. I therefore recommend that this problem be raised in later proceedings so as solve this Friday problem once and for all.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, I am glad that sport has been put on the agenda for today without, as is so often the case, having to be deferred until the evening. I see it as a good start that we are able, today, to discuss it during the day. I am glad that 2004 will be so fully devoted to sport. The Olympic Games, the Paralympics, the European Cup in football, to name but a few, will draw the attention of millions of people, filling many of them with enthusiasm, disappointing others, but also prompting people to themselves get involved or step up their involvement. The European Year of Education through Sport can make use of this public interest in order to highlight the social value of sport. There is already evidence, provided by numerous studies, of sport's educational value, of its capacity for preventing ill-health and rehabilitating after illness, of the social skills that it imparts to young people and the elderly, and of much else that has already been mentioned. So I welcome the fact that we will be producing no more new studies, but will be gathering new insights from practical experience of the Year of Sport's extension of activities such as the encouragement of cooperation between schools and sporting organisations. That is of great importance in bringing the two together and maximising the advantages to both in terms of the mobility of pupils, clubs and officials, and also supporting sport in performing its social functions and discharging its social obligations. For me, however, it all keeps coming back to the importance of asking what we mean by fair play, which is inseparable from sport. I believe that racism, doping, and the treatment of sportswomen and sportsmen as commodities have left deep scars on the image of fair play. In the same way, we should be treating women in sport with a new respect, and doing something about their status in this area too. That is also underlined by our call for clubs to be involved in the Year of Education through Sport – something not called for in the first proposals. There are 600 000 sports clubs, with thousands of officials, and they make a very important and essential educational contribution that we can never dispense with. Ladies and gentlemen, 2003, the Year of People with Disabilities, is almost upon us. I believe that here too we have to make use of this issue as an early preparation for 2004, asking even now how many opportunities disabled sportswomen and sportsmen have to integrate? What activities can the sports clubs – all 600 000 and more of them – offer these people? This is where there is a need for public awareness and also for financial support. All this underscores our demand for this to be incorporated into the Treaty.

Political group: PSE
In this proposal for a regulation, the Commission proposes to prolong a reformed dairy quota system until the 2014/15 marketing year, and says nothing about the future. Pursuing the quota system is crucial to guaranteeing milk production throughout the Union’s territory and to ensuring the continuity of producers’ income. The end of the quota system, which is what the large countries producing a surplus would like to see, would mean the liberalisation of the sector, greater concentration of production and a considerable reduction in prices, which would harm in particular small and medium-sized producers from the least productive and less-favoured regions. Across-the-board quota increases must, therefore, be considered for all countries and practical measures must be adopted to combat the concentration of production, both at regional level and in the hands of a few producers. Account must be taken, however, of specific situations such the current state of affairs in Portugal, particularly in the outermost region of the Azores, where a quota increase must be guaranteed in order not to penalise a sector that has significant socio-economic ramifications, in a region that faces major structural disadvantages.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, with reference to Mr Frassoni’s intervention, we sent a letter to President Fontaine this morning. We, too, would like to know how Mr Berlusconi, who is tied up in an electoral campaign in Italy, came to be included on the attendance list; we would like to know the identity of the joker who played this trick, which is in appallingly bad taste, or whether there is something going on which has nothing to do with politics. We therefore asked the President of the Parliament, Mrs Fontaine, to carry out an internal enquiry, which we hope will take place during the mini part-session at the beginning of May.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this is a good time to reply immediately to Mr van den Berg. The debate is the result of an initiative for a resolution taken by the group of the . When the world day of the freedom of the press was held on 3 May, we were anxious to show our solidarity with the journalists who fell victim to their own dedication during 2000, 36 of whom died and a further 77 of whom were imprisoned while on the job. As we are all aware here, to scorn the freedom of the press is to attack human dignity, violate man's quest for truth and thwart his full potential and we wanted to express this in the simplest terms possible. Unfortunately, this very simple idea was hijacked by other political groups, as Mr van den Berg has just told us, who used the occasion to restart a udo-political argument with one of our colleagues and a future leader of one of the fifteen Member States of the European Union. Regrettably, although I instigated the initial project, because the calendar of plenary sessions has been cut and we are all forced to run around like headless chickens here in Strasbourg, I was unable to attend the conciliation meeting which resulted in the joint resolution which is about to be put to the vote. At the time I was in the House taking part in the very important debate on the future of the Middle East. A small majority of honourable Members has dictated that we cannot be in two places at once, a fact which I cannot but deplore. That is why – because I would have opposed the paragraph which has now been included in the joint resolution – I asked our fellow members in the group not to sign this joint resolution and to put the initial text of our resolution to the vote in all its simplicity.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for the work that he has done on this report. The basis of the discussion that we have had so far is the importance of these bilateral agreements within the aviation sector. Quite rightly the issue of the United States is being singled out as probably the more important one. But I would not like us to become obsessed with an agreement with the United States to the detriment of an agreement with the other third countries. Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and Japan are all waiting for agreements. So whilst it is important that we stress the importance of the United States agreement, we should remember that this is a report about relations with other countries, not just the United States. My concern is that the United States will see this as a golden opportunity to cherry-pick, as they have always done, the best routes into Europe. It is what the Americans call 'an early harvest', where they get all the goodies and we in the European Union are left with the crumbs off the master's table. That is why it is important that we have a report that prevents this happening. We have some concerns with a number of the amendments that have been passed, in particular Amendment No 16, which deletes Article 4. We also have problems with Amendment Nos 6, 7 and 14. We agree with Mr Schmitt with regard to Amendment No 17, but this is what happens when you allow the Green Group to hijack transport reports as they have a habit of trying to do. The 'polluter pays' principle is an important one, but it is not the right approach to a technical decision that comes out of a European Court judgement. Finally, I would like to say on a personal note, that whilst my group will be supporting Amendment No 4, both the British delegation and I have difficulty in supporting it. With those provisions that I have outlined, we will support Mr Schmitt's report, but we have reservations on those six amendments and in particular Amendment No 16.

Political group: PSE