GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I congratulate the rapporteurs Miguel Angel Martínez Martínez and Bernard Poignant on the excellent work they have done. Approval of this package of regulations adapting the rates of Community co-funding in the Structural Funds together with the revision of the POSEI programmes closes a cycle in the field of agricultural and structural legislation for the outermost regions. From the viewpoint of the Azores, I see this body of regulations as positive and it will allow this region to continue approaching European standards of development. I also congratulate the rapporteur Carmen Fraga Estévez on her report. It is necessary to extend and develop support for the fishermen and fisheries affected by the non-renewal of the agreement with Morocco. In this connection I want to raise again the most serious problem in the debate on the economy of the Azores, which also affects the economy of Madeira: the massive collapse in the numbers of tuna migrating from equatorial Atlantic waters to these Macaronesian archipelagos. This is a direct consequence of the increase in fishing effort particularly by dozens of purse seine vessels whose activities are encouraged by the European Commission in West African waters, where the tuna begin their migration to Macaronesian waters. The European Commission must immediately asses the effects of its policy, both in the West African waters where it is directly applied, and in the fishing communities of the Azores and Madeira and the tuna processing industry in the Azores where its consequences are felt. It must reverse its policy of supporting overfishing and industrial and predatory fishing methods to uphold sustainable fishing and support the fishing communities.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Pack, and the Members of the Conciliation Committee on their success in the conciliation with the Council. We have managed to secure an additional EUR 300 million for Socrates. A further achievement is a review clause which means that in 2004 at the latest, the financial implications of the future accession of applicant countries will be reassessed, and that the Commission will have to submit a report. Thirdly, we have ensured that the procedure for selecting projects is simplified and shortened. It has already been said that we wanted more money because we believe that education and continuing education are particularly important for reducing unemployment, creating new jobs and making Europe more attractive to business in terms of its economy, labour market and social conditions, as well as for an effective internal market, a prerequisite for which is a European educational area. For us, the European Parliament, the creation of a European consciousness – a European identity – and respect for the diversity of cultures, languages, ideas and religions in a unified area are inextricably linked to a proactive educational policy in Europe. For us, the Socrates programme is a means to add a European dimension to the education on offer in the many different kinds of schools, universities and adult education institutions. We believe that the mobility measures contained in the Socrates programme foster social skills, language skills and understanding for other cultures. This programme, though improved in the negotiations, also has weaknesses of course. One weakness is the low level of funding provided by the European Union, which means that the Member States have to make a significant contribution from national funds if they are to take part. Applicant countries may take part but often they lack the resources to do so. Other sources of criticism are the high administrative costs and the lengthy application and selection procedures. We will make every effort to ensure that more and more young people are able to participate in the Socrates programme, because this programme is an investment in the future.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I have a similar problem. I would like it to be recorded in the minutes that there is an error in the Finnish translation of the common position regarding Mrs Rothe’s report. Article 2(b) regarding definitions should read as follows: “‘Biomass’ shall mean the biodegradable fraction of products, waste and residues from agriculture (including vegetal and animal substances), forestry and related industries, as well as the biodegradable fraction of industrial and municipal waste.” The word ‘products’ has been left out of the Finnish version. I have not noticed any such omission in the other language versions.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to draw the attention of our Assembly to certain provisions of our regulations that we are going to flout in the next few minutes. We are concerned here with Rules 1, 2 and 3 of Chapter 2 of the provisions in force since 1 July 1998 and governing the holding of meetings in parallel with our Parliament’s plenary sittings. The basic principle is that our Parliament should not organise any meeting of its Members when the plenaries are being held, the rare exceptions being mentioned in Rule 3 and no exception being tolerated in the case of the crucial sittings at which votes are taken. I would point out to you that quite a few of our fellow MEPs that are members of the Convention – in theory, 32, consisting of 16 representatives and 16 deputy representatives – have for the most part had to leave this Chamber in order to be present at the important work of the Convention which will begin this afternoon on the premises of our Parliament, but in Brussels. So that our fellow MEPs might have done their work both as members of the Convention and as legislators, it would have been enough for the work of the Convention – which our Parliament happily has the privilege of hosting – to take place for once in our Strasbourg buildings. Due to our absurd petty squabbling, this morning’s votes are going to be tainted with irregularity, because any votes that are passed by a majority lower than or equal to 32 may be suspected of having been distorted. I leave it to you to be the judges of the possible legal and political consequences of this. In conclusion, I would also point out to you that, if we do not take steps, this same regrettable situation is going to occur again at our plenary on Thursday 5 June. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, this report cannot be detached from the European context. What do the people of Europe remember about the EU in these past few months? They remember the division over foreign policy, they remember the split over budgetary policy, they remember the deadlock on the draft constitution, and they remember the feeling of impotence as they watched the dollar soar in value. If the social model were to be taken away from them, what would be left in the coming months? The social model is their one source of pride in Europe at the present time, and services of general interest are part of that social model. The market is a fine thing, but we are not about to replace the dictatorship of the proletariat with the dictatorship of the shareholders. We are not about to enshrine the principle of an all-powerful market which is familiar to those who live in the land of the Rockies, nor are we about to return to an all-powerful state, which used to be a familiar concept to those in the land of the Urals. Mr Herzog’s report and proposals strike the right balance. We need to rediscover that harmony, that judicious compromise, especially for the sake of our fellow European citizens. There are strong points that must be built upon: the provisions of the draft constitutional treaty, the progress promised by the framework directive and the implications of appropriate guaranteed funding of services of general interest. There is a need to recapture the spirit that inspired Mr Herzog’s initial report before the committee began to chip away some of its substance. That spirit needs to be recaptured, particularly for the sake of our fellow citizens.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Madam Vice-President, I believe that it is vital for the Council to take a rapid decision on what we will be approving at second reading tomorrow. The rapporteur has been very cautious. He has not gone too far at second reading, because we want rapid results, as, let us be honest, it is a long time since the Erika II sank. So we need to take measures without delay and I would like to point out that transponders are not only suitable for monitoring but first and foremost also for rescue purposes. So if a vessel really gets into trouble at sea and can no longer set off an adequate distress signal, it can be reached and rescued more quickly by using transponders. Our requests to the Council with regard to equipping vessels with transponders and voyage data recorders are really very modest. We can only hope that the IMO will agree an accelerated timetable in the autumn, one that we can implement without delay. Commissioner, the vital thing here is for us to react more quickly, and Mr Sterckx has been kind enough to give you three years to sort out compensation for ports that accommodate ships in distress. The Erika need not have sunk if it could have entered the port, and it is therefore a reflection of the situation here. We need ports that can accommodate ships in distress, but if those ports are to allow ships to enter, we need compensation arrangements. Commissioner, I urge you to sort out those arrangements more quickly, because ports will then be far more willing to accommodate ships in distress and a case like that of the Erika II can be avoided. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would firstly like to congratulate the Commissioner and the rapporteur because the Green Paper on the security of energy supply is a wonderful document which is accompanied by a great report. This document represents the first great step in Europe’s energy strategy; it offers a global view of the situation and raises all the relevant issues in this sector without reservations or conditions. It states that our main problem is our supply, characterised by great external dependence, which will increase over the coming decades. We must not leave aside environmental issues, however, which are inseparable from energy use. In this respect, the directive adopted on renewable energy sources and the proposal on the promotion of biofuels are going to lead to great progress in terms of the diversification of the supply of clean energy, but they are not the solution in either the short or medium terms. We must not hinder any type of energy, above all if it does not produce CO2 emissions. The solutions, as the Commission points out very well, involve the diversification of supply sources, especially clean sources – those which do not produce greenhouse gases. We must insist on technological research into energy sources, energy saving and the liberalisation of the gas sectors, in order that we may create a genuine internal energy market. Furthermore, it would be good if the Treaties could include a chapter on energy.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on a point of order. With all due respect I appreciate the decision the House has taken but this has not been a secret ballot. I know how all of my neighbouring colleagues have voted. I appreciate that if we want to have an open ballot we can do so, but then we should not pretend that we have been voting secretly. We should vote openly by a show of hands. That is my first point. Secondly, I should like to say to our colleagues in the Group that with all due respect, we could have used ballot papers in the same time as we have taken now. Perhaps we can now proceed in a way that is really secret.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am keen to do again what I did in committee, that is, to express my support for our rapporteur Mrs Malliori on this subject, which is, to say the least, a controversial subject that evokes passion. The approach deliberately chosen by the committee and by our rapporteur, that of focussing on providing, on a local scale, step-by-step programmes targeting persons addicted to hard drugs, seems to us to be the right one, the one most likely to yield tangible results at grass-roots level and to reverse the current, rather disturbing, tendency. Drug-related deaths are on the up, and that seems to be the case in most of the Member States. For all these reasons, the welcomes the amendments that add value to this recommendation in terms of public health. Our governments must indeed give priority to high-risk environments. Streets, the penal system, nightclubs, raves, are all places where hard drugs circulate freely and without regard to the minimum standards of health and safety. We must of course prioritise action programmes on the street, in prisons and also in places of nocturnal entertainment where the simultaneous consumption of more than one drug is prevalent. As regards this latter practice of using drugs and alcohol at the same time, which is cutting swathes through young people in particular – and they are getting ever younger – it is imperative that, in parallel with one another, schemes for prevention, information, analysis of chemical substances and providing a rapid response in the event of illness or withdrawal, should be operated and made widely available. The 8000 citizens who are dying every year in the European Union, from overdoses, from adulterated products, or as a result of shared needles, deserve a full-frontal approach to risk reduction on the part of the European Union. Let me say now that I regret the fact that we have not, in this report, completely succeeded in focussing our attention on this specifically health-related aspect, at the risk of watering down our message and reverting to an ethical and generalised debate, which would again be futile and would attempt to set up prevention and suppression in opposition to each other. I wish to say that I go along with Mr Bowis' arguments and that I am unable to accept those put forward by Mrs Sandberg-Fries. My conclusion, Madam President, is that we need to set ourselves realistic targets if we are to be able to say, tomorrow at least, that the EU's new action plan on drugs has been a success.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, my concern at this point is to highlight certain aspects, totally neglected in yesterday’s debate, of the LEADER+ programme which, hopefully, will soon be up and running. However, first I should like to take this opportunity to express my full support for the focal points of the Commission’s new programme. That applies in particular to the integrated, multisectoral approach which is gaining ground in the agricultural sector and which is highlighted time and again by national agricultural ministers in the Member States. And greater emphasis on environmental protection in connection with rural areas in general is extremely important for the future of all of us. Referring to farmers as the guardians of the countryside best expresses the preferred direction of future agricultural policy, and, of course, its transposition. I also take it as a good sign that, thanks to one of the most fundamental changes to the LEAR+ programme, all rural areas and hence 80% of the total area of the European Union and 25% of the people in the 15 Member States will be able to benefit from the programme. However, the total sum for the six-year period has been pitched low, too low, at EUR 2 020 million. In addition, and this is what concerns me most, still no provision has been made for initiatives geared to mountain areas. Parliament refers in the LEAR+ programme to the sparsely-populated areas of northern Europe, but not to the often equally thinly-populated and hence less favoured mountain areas. Thank you for your attention.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I should like to make a point of order and table a motion. We in the European Parliament have asked time and again for the debates held here to be held in the presence of the competent Commissioner. We understand that Commissioner Byrne has been held up by transport problems and that Commissioner Monti has read the Commission’s opinion. However, I consider it absolutely necessary that the competent Commissioner should hear what Members have to say before being given the opportunity to reply, since otherwise the debate which we wish to hold does not in fact take place. I should therefore like to move that we adjourn this debate and begin the debate on competition, as suggested, so that the Members concerned with the beef question can speak in the presence of the competent Commissioner. I therefore move that this debate be adjourned now and that we proceed to the next item on the agenda.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, allow me to welcome the initiative by Germany to improve the exchange of information on counterfeit documents. This exchange of information is of great importance for the protection and security of people in Europe. Europe needs a legal area in which its citizens feel at home and protected. An essential contribution to this is the cross-border regulations and protection systems that make life difficult for criminals. The German initiative endeavours to achieve such a system. By exchanging information on counterfeit documents the counterfeiting itself is contained. That is an essential contribution to combating smuggling and other crimes and – I think this is very important – all other kinds of crime. So it is quite sensibly in the proposal for a Council Decision. The rapporteur wants to amend paragraph 3 of the preamble and limit the crimes to the offence of illegal immigration. He implies that illegal immigration is the greatest crime that we have to combat. My dear colleague, where do you actually live? Have you never heard anything about drug dealers and the couriers of the money launderers with suitcases full of bank notes? Do I really have to make you a list of travellers’ crimes? Amendment 6 is a disgrace! It mocks our citizens who expect protection and security from the European Union. We must vote by a large majority against this amendment. We cannot allow ourselves the intellectual freedom to be afraid of a few poor creatures who sneak in with forged documents and at the same time guarantee serious criminals the freedom to travel. The Legal Committee that has dealt with this matter was also unanimous and, I repeat, unanimous, in this opinion with all the other Groups after an in-depth examination and, as I said just now, I want this measure to apply to all crime. That is the reason why my Group will vote against all these amendments in the vote tomorrow morning.

Political group: PSE
As the rapporteur himself says, this proposal for a regulation is an integral part of the overall endeavour to improve food safety within the EU, product quality in third countries exporting to the EU and Community legislation in the area, in this case concerning products of animal origin. The central figure in the proposed system of official controls is the official veterinarian, who should be provided with both the legal and the technical means to carry out his duties, and this entails public funding. Foot-and-mouth disease is a good example of the lack of investment in the area of food product inspections. I should like to express my agreement with Amendment No 2, aimed at removing from the scope of the regulation the primary production of foodstuffs for private domestic use and the direct supply by the producer of small quantities of primary products to the final consumer or to local shops and restaurants, which are to be subject to national rules. I also endorse the special treatment accorded to ‘artisanal small businesses’ producing exclusively for a limited local market. I also agree with the inclusion, with respect to fishery products, of products derived from aquaculture, without which fishery product controls would be incomplete. - Recommendation for second reading: Schnellhardt (A5-0129/2004) - Recommendation for second reading: Schnellhardt (A5-0130/2004) - Recommendation for second reading: Schnellhardt (A5-0131/2004) - Recommendation for second reading: Schnellhardt (A5-0138/2004)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I want first of all to thank Mrs Oomen-Ruijten for an excellent report. Many previous attempts have, of course, been made to use frontier workers’ problems as a way in to harmonising tax legislation as a whole. However, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten knows that frontier workers do not even constitute half a per cent of the labour force, that their problems are different from one frontier region to another and that different regional solutions are therefore needed if frontier workers are to have a better time of it. I can speak from personal experience, having spent 25 years commuting between Denmark and Sweden. We have now acquired a bridge between Copenhagen and Malmö, and everyone expects a sharp increase in cross-border commuting and for the two cities to become a conurbation It was here that, in 1997 on the initiative of the Danes, the EU-supported principle was introduced of taxing people in the country in which they work. This means that people can take up residence in Malmö and have access to health care, child care, education and everything else, at the same time as paying all their tax to the Danish State. That is quite intolerable if we are to have a common Öresund region. The alternative recommended by Swedish politicians is the OECD model for frontier taxation, which advocates that tax should be levied in the country of residence. That principle too causes problems, however, because much more than families’ social welfare is financed through tax. For ourselves in the Öresund region, it would in actual fact be best if we were to pay local tax where we live and State tax where we work. I think that would put an end to tax avoidance and to cheating in frontier regions. However, a model such as that, too, would require some form of fine tuning in order to create an entirely fair situation, for these are complicated issues. It is therefore crucial for solutions to be worked out in the affected regions themselves, and on the basic principle that frontier workers must pay tax in the country in which they enjoy their benefits financed through tax. Only in that way will long-lasting solutions be obtained. It is essential to adopt a principle of this kind if Öresund is to become a common region.

Political group: GUE-NGL