GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I should like to begin by saying immediately on behalf of my Group that we accept the compromise that has been so skilfully negotiated between the rapporteur, the Greek Presidency and the Commission on this text. I would like to congratulate those involved on having worked so hard to make it possible for us to reach a first reading agreement so that this legislation can be adopted in good time before the next European elections. I would like to pay tribute to the work of the rapporteur, Jo Leinen, in this respect, and indeed to all those who came before him in preparing the way, notably Professor Tsatsos in his report a number of years ago. This is an exercise in transparency, no more, no less. It puts on a clear and transparent footing the method by which the Union will finance trans-national European political parties. Up to now it has been done indirectly via the political groups in the European Parliament, henceforth it will be done directly according to clear criteria and clear procedures set out in this legislation. That is why we welcome it. My group also accepts the various compromises that have been made as regards the detail. Frankly, we would have preferred a higher threshold in Article 3, as regards the representativity of European political parties, but we are happy to accept, in the spirit of compromise that is necessary in the European Union, that this somewhat lower threshold will apply. We are particularly pleased that the issue of donations has been settled, and that a clear, transparent and limited system where any donation to a political party is limited in level and also has to be registered on a register is laid down in the text. There are a few strange little things in the text where I think the lawyer-linguists need to look at some of the translation versions. It is not a matter of amending the text formally in the plenary, but when the toilettage of the text is done I would like them to look notably at Article 5(2), where the English version specifies that Parliament verifies that a party meets the necessary conditions by a majority of its Members. Is that a majority of Members needing to accept that a party meets the conditions, or a majority of Members needing to challenge that a party no longer meets the necessary conditions? The text in the English version is not clear and it would be useful if that were tidied up when the translations are verified. Similarly, that Article makes no mention – it may just be a typing error – of the verification of Article 3d. It mentions 3a, 3b and 3c, but 3d seems to be missing. No doubt this can easily be corrected. Finally, on Article 6, point (c), the fourth and last indent in the English version reads as if it almost contradicts the previous indent. I think it is clear what the intention was in drafting it this way, but it has not been very well rendered in the English language version and it would be useful to correct it. Those conclude my comments on behalf of the Group.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are dealing here with a very narrow area; we are discussing combating facilitation, i.e. aiding illegal border crossing. It is a very positive desire to want to do something considering that, every year, half a million people enter the European Union illegally, half of whom have been facilitated in this way. Organised crime does brisk and relatively risk-free business with these people, which is why the initiative is to be welcomed, though it has not been put in an overall context. Looking at Mr Ceyhun’s report, I have to say that the intentions, namely to help refugees, are good. But what the report proposes in terms of measures is anything but conducive to combating facilitation. Rather, in my and our estimation, what is being proposed here will lead to the expansion of facilitation. Furthermore, the business will continue to be risk-free for criminals. According to these proposals, persons or groups will a priori be immune from prosecution if they take illegal immigrants across borders for humanitarian reasons and without payment. But what will the consequence be? How quickly do you think criminal organisations will make use of such a legal construct? The whole thing would then be not only useless but counterproductive. What is more, your proposals are moving in a direction in which our understanding of the law and our legal system are being turned on their heads. They will introduce subjectivity, since legal persons or groups rather than the courts will decide whether a criminal act, namely facilitation, is a criminal act or not. That is a reversal of our legal system and will certainly not lead to the desired goal. In conclusion, Mr Ceyhun, I am convinced that you doubtless acted in good faith but the instrument you are proposing is neither legally nor effectively conducive to achieving a positive outcome. What we need is a comprehensive system and I believe we are working towards this together. I am also convinced that, during the course of this year, working jointly with the Commission, we will be successful.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioner, representatives of the Council, it is often said that Parliament is far removed from the people and that what we speak about here does not interest the people in our home countries. Ladies and gentlemen, for once we have a report to discuss that is guaranteed to interest consumers, at least in my home country of Finland. Before we joined the European Union we Finns were promised that the EU would mean a more open policy on alcohol, that it would bring down the astronomically high prices of alcoholic beverages due to heavy taxation and that it would free up the retail market as well as break up the state monopoly on alcohol. I quite agree with what Mrs Lulling said, that the alcohol problem cannot be resolved by restricting imports, nor can it be resolved by keeping prices high and the sale of alcohol in the hands of a monopoly. Consumers have had to wait for reforms as regards the policy on alcohol, on account of the fact that the long transition periods and the various restrictions on imports have blocked healthy competition. The report we now have to discuss is a giant step forward in the gradual opening up of the Finnish markets. As a counterbalance to the opening up to EU imports, Finland, however, is asking for the right to reduce quotas on beer imported from non-member countries. This restriction that is being sought is, in itself, justifiable, as long as the restriction is not a permanent one. Also in connection with non-member countries, Finland must, in a determined manner, approach a situation where the market is as open as in other Member States. The restrictions with regard to non-member countries should be lifted by the end of 2003, as the faster Finland is obligated to open up her market entirely, the more likely we will be able to see a real solution to the question of excise duty. This is what everything hinges on at the end of the day. Obviously, lifting the restrictions by the end of 2003 on imports from Estonia and Russia, for example, would, at present gross price levels, lead to an undesirable situation. Opening up the market in respect of non-member countries more rapidly than scheduled, however, will increase pressure to lower taxes, and the faster taxation reaches a European average, the healthier the situation in the internal market will be.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, changing a market organisation is always a difficult decision and the objective, when weighing the alternatives, is to achieve as accurate a market-regulating intervention in supply and demand as possible, so as to ensure that production, in this case the production of pigmeat, secures farmers' incomes. For a long time this has not been the case. The report has been resisted and rejected. Some of the demands go beyond the report because there is much which is out of kilter in the beef and pigmeat sectors. The latest cases of BSE will result in reduced production and will eclipse everything put in place hitherto. The globalisation of the economy is a red herring here and cyclical crises have absolutely nothing to do with it. Slaughter cattle are being driven right across Europe, animal stocks are being cut back in return for state subsidies and huge ecological installations are being built. Nor does this report offer any ready solutions; too much else needs to be done for that. But the report does try to bundle production by applying the principle of voluntary action and by forming producer groups. This is an honest and credible endeavour and I shall recommend that my group vote in favour.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by thanking everyone who has worked so constructively on this report. The compulsory registration system for bovine animals due to enter into force is the sine qua non for a reasonable beef labelling system. As a farmer, I am concerned that every consumer should be able to trace where his schnitzel has come from. All farmers are proud of the quality of their products and it is therefore in the farmers’ interests for everyone to know whom they have to thank for their extremely safe and healthy food. Such a system must be practicable if it is to achieve its objective. We must take account of how the procedures will be applied in practice. Because of the varying topography of Europe, its farmers must apply different working and production methods. Take the example of summer pasturing in the Alps. As you know, every spring a total of 400 000 cattle are driven on to the Alps in Italy, Austria and Germany, where they remain for the summer, i.e. for about three months. Consideration must be given to the pasturing lists which are already in use and which take account of this situation in order to avoid forcing additional unnecessary administrative costs on farmers. As we have said, traceability must be guaranteed in all cases. But the regulation must be adapted to actual and local circumstances if it is to be seen as anything other than EU harassment, which merely triggers abuse and if it is to gain acceptance among the people. I therefore hope that proposed Amendment No 19 to Article 7(1) second indent will be adopted by the entire House. It has already been adopted by the Committee on the Environment and in the Committee on Agriculture.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to state on behalf of the Communist Party of Greece that we most strongly and categorically condemn the murder of the military attaché to the British embassy in Athens, Brigadier Stephen Saunders. At the same time, we condemn the orchestrated plan being deployed against Greece and the attempt to establish a connection between this monstrous deed and the anti-imperialist sentiment of the Greek people. We must not overlook the fact that the murder was carried out a few days after the report to the United States Congress describing Greece as a country which fails to cooperate fully in the fight against terrorism. A few days after the Americans expressed their anxiety about security arrangements for the 2004 Olympic Games and just before the police cooperation agreement between Greece and the United States of America was due to be signed. We have no choice but to conclude that certain parties are taking advantage of this provocative act in order to demand even more oppressive measures against the political and democratic freedoms of the Greek people and it is among them that the physical and moral perpetrators are to be found.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, Commissioner, as Mr Moreira da Silva reminds us in his report, ten years have passed since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. I hope that in September we can celebrate the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. We will have to consider whether or not these last ten years have been wasted. Whilst on the one hand we recall how reports, financed mainly by Americans, were falsified during this period to show that climate change did not exist, in the same way that any scientist who insisted on the problems that climate change could cause, was discredited, it is also true to say that public awareness has greatly increased over these ten years. In other words, we may have wasted time in implementing measures, but the level of public awareness is higher than ever before. I think that today we are all aware of the significance of the Kyoto Protocol, the meaning of climate change and its associated effects, such as the submergence of islands, the destruction of coastline, the massive displacement of millions of people and the loss of biodiversity. Therefore, I think that we have made gains on the one hand even if we have suffered losses on the other. It is also true that, from 1990 to 1999, greenhouse gas emissions were reduced in Europe, but it must be said that this is due, to a large extent, to two countries in particular, for very specific reasons. There are many countries, such as my own, whose greenhouse gas emissions have increased – excessively, to my mind. Spain’s emissions have increased by 23%, although the possibility that at the next Council of Ministers, according to today’s papers, the Spanish government will decide to ratify the Kyoto Protocol is to be welcomed and is good news. This is an example that other countries should follow, to be able to reach, in September, the figure of 55 countries needed to ratify the Protocol, which account for over 55% of all greenhouse gas emissions. I believe, in agreement with some of my fellow Members, that the final result is not as ambitious as expected some years ago, but, as Mr Moreira da Silva also states, the alternative would be much worse. We have to work to ensure that States ratify the Protocol, but also that they implement specific measures, with the priority of those economic sectors that pollute the most, such as transport. The rapporteur very clearly states that emissions caused by transport could rise by 50% over the next decade. Priority measures should be direct action in key economic sectors. I also agree with Mr Moreira da Silva that the balance that has been achieved should be left alone, for, as many of my fellow Members have already said, Mrs Wallström and this Parliament have done some great work and, although it may be modest, the step forward is very significant.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to make it clear that the fact that Iran has been replaced by Burma in the debate on human rights does not mean that my group is not deeply concerned about the human rights situation in Iran. We will continue to concern ourselves with that situation. However, the current situation and the scandalous decisions being taken by the Burmese military Government and their appalling behaviour simply make it essential for the European Parliament to take a stand on this. We are full of respect and admiration for the non-violent action, the remarkably consistent action being taken by the Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi and also by the members and politicians of the National League for Democracy. They have earned our unreserved respect, and we wish to assure them that they have our support and that the European Union, together with the international community, will do everything it can to help to restore human rights, or to be more accurate, to introduce human rights, democracy and also the rule of law in Burma. We are certainly still pinning our hopes in San Suu Kyi. Her continuing campaigns show that her voice cannot be silenced and that we in Europe, therefore, also have a duty to do everything to ensure that her voice is heard not only here in Europe, but also in America and above all in Asia. She bears the hopes of the persecuted and the repressed, and also of the many men and women used as forced labour. She also bears the hopes of those citizens who opted for democracy, the parliamentary system and the rule of law before 1990. We must call on our partners, the ASEAN States, but also other states in Asia to do everything to bring about a change in this ‘transitional government’ as it so cynically still calls itself. That is why I think it is right that we should take stronger economic sanctions. The EU has acted correctly here. We now need an institutionalised dialogue, and a debate on Burma should be right at the top of the agenda of the Laos Summit, to make it clear that both ASEAN and the EU bear some responsibility for events in Burma. Violations of human rights in Colombia, particularly the case of Fr. Brendan Forde

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the writing on the wall states quite clearly that the Laeken Summit has bolstered a European Union in which big business takes precedence over the interests of the workers and the people in general. The delegates in Laeken Palace did not hear the stentorian voice of the hundreds of thousands of demonstrators from all over Europe: the voice of the poor, of the unemployed, of the people with no job security and of the victims of soul-destroying exploitation who actually create our wealth. They did not and could not hear their fight and their demand for a different Europe, a Europe of peace and friendship between nations, not a Europe of European armies, intervention and war, a Europe in which social rights and democratic freedoms are respected and strengthened, not a Europe of European arrest warrants, Eurojust and the law on terrorism which use 11 September as a pretext for classifying the social and political fight for a better tomorrow as terrorism. That is why I believe that the Convention is not the answer; anyway it is an advisory forum and will, I fear, just end up pulling the wool over the people's eyes. Continuing and developing the unprecedented wave of protest which surrounded Laeken is our only hope and our only way out.

Political group: GUE-NGL
We Swedish wish to stress that it is important that any establishment of a College of European Diplomacy, as is proposed in Article 9, does not lead to the intention of this replacing each Member State’s own national diplomatic training. It is important that each country’s foreign service has basic training of its own in order to be able to serve its citizens fully, especially in their own mother tongue. - Report Linkohr (A5-0163/2001)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to thank the rapporteur and the Commission for making haste and bringing this proposal about so quickly, and also, in particular, for the soundness of the proposal on the accelerated phasing out of single hull tankers in European waters. It is sad that the Prestige accident proved necessary for us to take action once more, and to finally convince the Council that we have to make policy together and that it was necessary to strengthen the Erika packages with the present measures. I myself have another two amendments, which concern the Annex to this proposal. Firstly, as a liberal, I do not like to see a discussion on State aid to the shipping sector in an important proposal such as this. I recognise that action is badly needed, preferably through the WTO, to put an end to the dumping of ships on the world market by countries in the Far East. I hope that the European Commission also appreciates the necessity of this. I firmly believe in the strength of the European shipbuilding sector, however. Short-term aid does not seem to me to be efficient. I think that my own amendment concerning recital 7a is a good supplement to the otherwise excellent report. My second amendment expresses the great responsibility that I feel regarding the consequences of the accelerated phasing out of single hull tankers by this EU policy. I firmly believe that this must be accompanied by binding rules requiring all EU shipowners and all EU flag State ships to actively scrap phased-out tankers in a responsible manner. In the case of cars we have an end-of-life vehicle directive. I think that something like that must also apply here. In short, see recital 5a. Storing surplus oil tankers on the coast of Bangladesh and India causes greater disasters and has greater consequences than the Prestige disaster, and that was terrible enough. There are already initiatives enabling the commercial scrapping, on market terms, of ships in Europe in an environmentally responsible manner. This is waste management. The practice of disposing of ships out at sea and the rotten scrapping of these in poor regions must be a thing of the past. I hope, therefore, that double hull tankers will in future really be safer, partly also as a result of port State controls.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I think it would be unfair not to praise the work carried out by the Commission to comply with the objective of the White Paper to simplify and clarify legislation, eliminating all of the disadvantages of legislation which is spread out over seventeen directives. Additionally, the proposals that have been put forward are reasonably good and very detailed, and I believe that all sectors involved have recognised this. I would also like to highlight the work carried out by the two rapporteurs, because the food chain is long and consequently the subject area is very large and complex and they had to study and come to an agreement on many amendments which – I am sure – will improve the project. These legislative requirements are based on the control of food safety from farm to table in order to provide the best possible guarantees to consumers. I support everything that the two rapporteurs have said. One of the key points of future legislation is the mandatory application of HACCP in all food companies including those in the primary sector. The analysis of risk and the control of critical points were formulated to be applied in the food industry and have, without doubt, represented a great step forward in the area of food hygiene. However, in reality, many small companies have still not been able to put this into practice. Precisely because it is not yet being applied throughout the processing sector, and because this system has been designed solely for industry, it should not be extended to the primary sector just yet. The primary sector is already obliged to respect the ‘good practice guides’, a set of rules with similar aims to the HACCP but better adapted to the characteristics of this particular economic sector. If there have been problems, these have not been due to the lack of standards, but to the lack of compliance with these standards. I am not saying that in future the primary sector should be required to meet HACCP standards, rather that these should be adapted to the real requirements of agriculture and livestock farming. The application of these standards should be considered to be an essential food safety practice, but it should never replace controls. I believe we should concentrate on these and that they should be standardised for all countries. Economic agents must take responsibility for the safety of food products, guarantee their viability and that of their ingredients and establish product withdrawal procedures in the event of an emergency. Lastly, I would like to point out that exports, and, more importantly, imports must meet hygiene standards, because, otherwise, problems could creep up on us from abroad, whilst our companies will become less competitive compared with those that do not fulfil the same requirements.

Political group: PPE-DE