GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I would like to extend a warm thank you to the rapporteur for his report. I am pleased that I can address him now in Dutch, now that Mr Van den Berg has just done so. Otherwise I probably would have felt slightly guilty about this. I would like to say that this report represents a huge improvement, also with its amendments. I am from the Social Committee and rapporteurs on our committee are always proud to receive 100 amendments because then they know that they have tabled an interesting topic. I think that this is also the case here, but I think it would be a bit over the top to spend too much time talking about these 100 amendments. I would also point out that our coordinator on the Budgetary Control Committee is Mr Pomés Ruiz, who is Spanish and has hence made a major contribution to this debate from a Spanish perspective. Mr President, one of the key aspects which have been mentioned is, to my mind, the rapporteur’s proposal for the standing committee on standards in public administration. A very important proposal indeed. I am only very surprised that the Socialist group would like to subordinate this proposal to one tabled by Mrs Morgan, because she wants to scrap it altogether. I cannot fully grasp the underlying rationale. On the one hand, we receive all kinds of words of praise for the rapporteur but, at the same time, Mrs Morgan wants to pursue a sort of scorched earth policy on this point and on other key points as well, as a result of which, in fact, the entire content of this report vanishes. I do not know whether this is to appease Mr Kinnock, but I happen to know Mr Kinnock. He is happy to hear what our demands are and is quite prepared to be flexible if he considers it necessary. In my opinion, such a far-reaching scorched earth policy is really unnecessary. Finally, the issue of officials. Actually, I do not entirely share Mr Haarder’s view. I do agree that the section on officials has, in fact, been completed totally inadequately. First of all, the importance of a public service in general is not at all emphasised. Secondly, all kinds of proposals are nevertheless being mooted, and we have to ask ourselves whether these are terribly appropriate and whether they would lead to improvement. For example, we are currently looking into TAOs. This is a key point but, at the same time, we want to abolish temporary staff at the Commission. These two considerations are diametrically opposed to each other, and I really fail to grasp how such a proposal can end up on the table.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, on behalf of our group, I should like to ask you personally a question. In connection with the Macedonian peace proposal, the Macedonian parliament must hold a debate as a matter of urgency. Would you address the president of that parliament? We are all hoping for broad parliamentary support for the peace proposals, but this will not happen without any effort. Parliament has a major role to play. Hence our request to you to ask the president of the parliament, in a letter or message, to discuss this peace proposal as a matter of urgency.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I think that what is missing is a comment on the football match between Italy and France. The reason why it all went so well was that Swedes and Danes were in charge of the match, so I think we should thank the referees and linesmen for their considerable efforts.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, my group believes that this amendment should not fall even if Amendment No 24 is adopted.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, five principles form the basis of the Commission’s reform of the EU’s forms of governance: openness, participation, efficiency, consistency and a clear division of responsibilities. The work on these areas cannot be regarded as being complete if one half of humanity is ignored. No one can say they are working for participation if they do not guarantee that it is both women and men who are participating. Our Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities called for a council on equality to be set up to, for example, gather information and analyse trends; for women’s rights groups and non-governmental organisations to be part of the database on civil society that the Commission intends to set up; and for considerations of equality to be integrated into information gathering at both national and local level, because women’s and men’s priorities, circumstances and needs often differ. It is unfortunate that none of our demands has been incorporated into the report.

Political group: PSE
Given the indicators of developing countries’ social and environmental unsustainability, the impartial Economist acknowledged a year ago that it would be impossible for living conditions in the southern hemisphere to improve unless the northern hemisphere relinquished a small part of its wealth. If we want to be credible partners in the eyes of developing countries, therefore, and if we want to bridge the shocking gulf between living conditions in the two hemispheres, both the EU and the United States must, above and beyond attaining the Monterrey and Johannesburg objectives, take advantage of the next round of WTO negotiations, due to take place in Cancun, to move towards the abolition of trade barriers and the gradual removal of agricultural and energy subsidies.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on behalf of myself and the other Labour Members, I want to point out why we voted against today. It was in no way because of the resolution presented to this Parliament by Mrs Jackson, which we fully supported. But we have to bear in mind that, although this resolution was only advisory, the Commission had specifically said that it would take careful account of what we said in it. It specifically said that, whilst under the present modus vivendi this resolution could not have any binding impact upon its actions, it would be taken fully into account. Regrettably, some Members of this Parliament have not taken up the serious responsibility that the Commission has put in their hands and have not acted sensibly, particularly with regard to Amendment No 4. This contains labelling proposals for products derived from animals that have been fed GMOs. This is something which is bound to happen to almost all the animal livestock within the European Union and is happening now. The consequences would be that the vast majority of meat products in our shops would be labelled as having been derived from genetically modified organisms. This would not give beneficial information to the consumer but simply cause confusion and create an atmosphere in which the whole issue of genetically modified organisms would take a new and more confusing turn. It seems to me that, whilst Labour Members are fully in support of the resolution, we have to accept our responsibility and acknowledge the maturity of our position.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, for most of this year the College of Quaestors, with the support of the Bureau, has been trying to amend the budget to extend the health insurance scheme to former Members as long as: they have served at least two terms in the European Parliament; are aged at least 60 when they leave the European Parliament; and the costs of the scheme will be shared in the same way as for Parliament's officials except that, additionally, former Members will pay a premium equivalent to roughly five years' contributions into the scheme. This will put this category of former Members in the same position as staff with the same length of service. In this multi-million euro budget, Miss Gill has sought to frustrate this modest and comparatively inexpensive scheme at every opportunity. Her attitude towards her ageing former colleagues has been cruel, vindictive and hypocritical. While she condemns them to a painful and sick old age she has no similar reservations regarding her own benefits. I challenge Miss Gill to tell us whether she makes use of Parliament's private health reimbursement scheme and whether or not she benefits from Parliament's voluntary pension scheme. Miss Gill's attitude has been and remains a disgrace. Even now I hope she will soften her attitude, but I fear I will hope in vain.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would firstly like to congratulate the rapporteur on the hard work she has done and to say once again that sport has shown itself to be a very effective tool in education. Both in normal situations and in extreme situations, in marginalized areas, when there is a need for integration, amongst many others. Furthermore, it is a great tool for educating on issues such as the environment, food, health, teamwork etc. We should take the greatest possible advantage of this. We must take advantage of the fact that 2004 is the European Year of Education through Sport in order to demonstrate to the Europeans that we in the European Union are also concerned about sport and that we attach much importance, for example – since I do not want to give an interminable list – on the benefits which it brings for health, for the integration of people in our Europe and for the fight against xenophobia. We must also take advantage of the possible impact of 2004 to demonstrate that it is entirely compatible to work for sport in the 15 Member States – or 25, when enlargement takes place – and also at Community level, at the same time, and that they must not fear that we are going to take over their competences. What we do want is to fill the vacuum left by subsidiarity so that the Europeans can benefit from the numerous positive aspects of sport. I therefore ask that we all make an additional effort so that, in the next review of the Treaty on European Union, an article relating to sport may be included, once and for all, so that the Europeans may see that here, in the European Parliament, in the European Commission and in all the European institutions, we care about sport as an essential tool for improving their quality of life.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as Chairman of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, I would also like to personally acknowledge the extremely valuable work carried out by Mr Veltroni. I am pleasantly surprised that such a major, essential measure has been able to obtain the unanimous consensus of the Committee, for I honestly did not think that it would have been possible. Digitalisation will enable citizens to access a substantial quantity of new, innovative content and this is why I can only fully support Mr Veltroni's consideration that all this has implications for democracy, the organisation of Europe and the States and the quality of the communications that we provide for our citizens. This is why I consider that the period of transition from the analogue to the digital system must be our opportunity to entice the user to sample a series of new programmes on offer, not just a mere duplication of the programmes currently available on unencrypted line-aside channels. Mr O'Toole is right in saying that simulcasts would not make it possible to attract a group of substantial users and he therefore believes that a trial period for new audiovisual products on channels made available through digital transmission, possibly only over sections of territory, will enable operators and users to achieve the same objective. The Commission is right to say that the system of funding adopted by the Member States must comply with the principle of proportionality and must not influence market conditions and competition in the Community in a way contrary to the interests of society. In the audiovisual policy, the two fundamental criteria to be applied when drawing up provisions for funding are proportionality and transparency. Transparency implies that the Member States should define a clear public service mission, that financial transparency should be guaranteed and that, if public service operators carry on purely commercial activities, separate accounts should be kept. I consider that this separation has prompted the Commission to produce the best policy currently possible for the States and Europe, a policy worthy of the changing technologies and which will lead to the switchover of the entire system.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I rise on a similar point, because I am not clear what the House has agreed to. We have agreed to vote at 6 p.m. What we could do is reduce the amount of speaking time for urgencies so there will be an opportunity for a debate on each of them. It is certainly not clear to the House that we have agreed to vote on urgencies that have failed to be discussed.

Political group: PSE
The challenge that the Désir report sets the European Parliament is to make world trade more free but also more equitable and sustainable under a multilateral system and within the auspices of a reformed WTO. Although it states its support for multilateralism in international trade negotiations, this report has the intellectual honesty to admit that globalisation, in its current state, has some serious shortcomings. The specific proposals put forward by the rapporteur on reforming the international institutions warrant our attention: greater transparency and reform of the settlement procedure. I also wish to say something about democratic control: my own view is that a parliamentary forum within the WTO would be democratic in name only rather than genuine parliamentary control. Such control can only be guaranteed when national parliaments have real control over their governments in negotiations, and when the European Parliament, Mr Lamy, has real control over the Commission and not only the nominal control that it has today. If the European Parliament’s position for the forthcoming round is based on the Désir report, it will have to be to reform the WTO, to implement the so-called Uruguay agreements, but without extending them to cover issues that remain controversial. In voting for the Désir report, I also see a very clear advance by the Socialist Group here in the European Parliament, which is finally, after many years, returning to its true values, which are solidarity and the better distribution of wealth, and I am also pleased by the words of Mr Verhofstadt, this morning: he has, at long last, understood that dialogue with the political wing that wishes to see a more equitable form of trade cannot take place if it is consigned to the bin on the pretext that its members are anti-globalists.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I have a few minor changes that are required by the changed situation in Chad and an addition on which all groups agree and that are also very simple and short. In item i) the words must endorse are changed to did endorse (past tense). In item 3 of the regulatory section the following must be added to the first line: notes that the election of President Idriss Deby on 20th May 2001 was confirmed by the Chadian Constitutional Court on the 13th of June. This is because of the changed situation: it has already happened. We can therefore no longer do anything to change it. Then there is agreement on the addition of item 10 b: calls on the Commission to examine the possibility of using the consultation procedure under the terms of Article 96 of the Cotonou Convention.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are living through one of the most important periods in modern European history. All of us, nations, governments, parliaments, and we here in the European Parliament, are starting and writing a new chapter, with vision and realism, with hope and firmness. And every country, every nation, must feel equal and secure within this development. In this sense, Lithuania – for which I am acting as rapporteur – must not feel, when it comes to the final arrangements for Kaliningrad, that it has been treated differently, as far as its sovereignty is concerned, from the other Member States of the European Union. Malta, for which I am the Socialist Group's shadow rapporteur, has nothing to fear. Besides, all of us Mediterranean people, especially those of us from the islands, know that the human spirit creates and develops against the deep blue of the sea and sky and that, as sure as night follows day, the creative spirit will win through. The political determination of the Union, which must not tolerate any conceptions which might allow third parties to intervene in Union's activities, is being judged in Cyprus, the most institutionally and economically advanced of the candidate countries. The Union's determination to support any solution that respects the acquis communautaire and the need for the Republic of Cyprus to be an operational state is also being judged. That being so, the integration of Cyprus in the European Union is a foregone conclusion, irrespective of progress made in resolving the political problem. I trust that Romania and Bulgaria will soon become members of the European Union. I think Romania in particular is being treated a little more harshly than the other countries and I must point out that its quota of parliamentarians is out of proportion to its population. As a Greek, I expect that Turkey will soon become a fully paid-up member of the European Union. By which I mean a democratic Turkey, like all the other European countries. Kemal Ataturk, who planned a modern state for the Turkish people, will be vindicated once all the institutional reforms have been completed and implemented, once the military leadership obeys and executes the decisions taken by the democratic political leadership in Turkey. I am positive that the new political leadership in Turkey has realised that the way to build Europe is through democratic procedure, not eastern haggling. Finally, we are not accountants. We are politicians who need to pave the way for the new Europe with visionary realism and that is precisely what we shall be judged on and that is where we shall be vindicated. As a Greek, I wait and hope, as do you Commissioner, for the Treaty for the new Europe of the twenty-first century to be signed in Athens, in the shadow of Pericles' Acropolis, of Pnyka Hill, the site of the Municipal Church, and of the tribune from which Saint Paul preached to the Athenians.

Political group: PSE
I should like sincerely to thank Mr Haarder and the Danish Presidency for that detailed and excellent reply. It is my personal belief that it was of great strategic importance when, during the Swedish Presidency, Swedish Prime Minister Göran Persson, on his last trip away on foreign policy business, actually visited Kiev and met with the Ukrainian government. I view the line taken by the Danish Presidency as a continuation of that policy. I should like to ask a couple of follow-up questions. Firstly, is it conceivable that, in the relatively near future, Ukraine could be offered a special agreement, which could be an Eastern European variant of a special economic relationship, that is to say, a form of Eastern European EEA Agreement? Secondly, I wonder how you feel that relations between the EU and Ukraine have been affected by the claims concerning military cooperation with Iraq on the part of Ukraine.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, as we have already told the rapporteur and the House repeatedly, there is an important piece of legislation on the release of genetically manipulated or modified micro-organisms, namely the report by David Bowe, which we are currently dealing with in the conciliation procedure. This is the fundamental piece of legislation and it forms the basis for any other piece of legislation governing genetically modified plants. It is therefore only sensible, and indeed, right and proper, to wait until the end of the conciliation procedure, which will not be for another six weeks or so, and then take decisions on all the other pieces of legislation. I therefore support Mr Lannoye’s amendment.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a surfeit of scandals has shaken public and consumer confidence. In the interests of farmers and consumers, we need clear and transparent rules for animal feed too, but it should be said that farmers are always the first to suffer when abuses occur. As far as the directive on undesirable products and substances in animal nutrition is concerned, let me say from the outset that we need a more workable solution here which strikes a fair balance between the interests of producers and those of consumers. We must create a realistic statutory framework. Contaminants which affect human and animal health are unacceptable. You know I come from a Member State where very high and strict standards are imposed, which I fully support, and those standards have certainly proved their worth. As far as checks on feedingstuffs are concerned, I should like to state that the problem is not so much the lack of a European legal framework as the failure of the individual Member States to transpose the existing provisions. I cannot but warmly welcome the pressure for the creation of a European information system for food crises, the standardised transmission of information on the monitoring and safety of animal feed and the dissemination of information on cases of contamination and of damage to public health and the environment. I take a more critical view, however, of the escape clause which would give the Commission the scope to take measures of its own without consulting the Member States. Lastly, I should like to say a word or two on the conflict of competence between the Agriculture Committee and the Environment Committee. I believe the specialised knowledge and the powers of judgement of the members of the Agriculture Committee on farming matters, and hence on animal nutrition too, are beyond question and that the Agriculture Committee is therefore the body which is best qualified to arrive at a practical and practicable solution that the farmers in question will apply and which consumers will understand. For that reason, subjects such as animal feed really ought to be dealt with under the direction of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. What we feed our livestock is just as important to us farmers as it is to the consumers who subsequently buy our meat.

Political group: PPE-DE
We voted in favour of the report because a point of fundamental importance to us was otherwise being voted away. Paragraph 5(2) proposed that the ratification procedure for a future constitution should be designed in such a way that a ‘small minority’ of Member States should not be able to oppose ratification. That is unacceptable because this veto is one of the constitutional cornerstones of the EU. We believe it would have been very unfortunate if the European Parliament had signalled to the Convention and the Intergovernmental Conference that, as proposed by the report in its original form, a minority of a third of the EU Member States could be ignored. Moreover, we wish to point out that it would not be especially appropriate to demand that future constitutional proposals from a Convention could not be changed by the European Council without the Convention’s approval. The Convention’s democratic representativeness in such a case cannot be seen to be greater than that of the governments. We wish to emphasise that, even though we are in principle in favour of extending the codecision procedure and the procedure whereby decisions are taken by qualified majority to include all legislation, we believe there may be a requirement for unanimous decision-making where foreign and security policy is concerned. We also wish to point out that codecision in connection with the procedure laid down in Article 139 should not mean any restriction in the ability of the two sides of industry autonomously to reach agreements. Codecision must not lead to a shift in current procedure whereby the material content of agreements is examined, something that would not be the role of the legislative authority.

Political group: PSE