GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, anyone who travelled at the time with the delegation of the committee to Galicia will never forget the inexhaustible assistants in their initially white, but soon oil-stained overalls, above all how they attempted stone by stone to wash away every trace of oil from the coast. It is, sadly, the case that in particular it took so serious an accident as that of the tanker Prestige finally to improve safety in maritime traffic. Today, however, I would like to emphasise that we will have succeeded in doing that, if we implement the measures indicated in the report and follow them up. This needs a maritime network rather than another bureaucratic skyscraper in the big city of the European Union. Effective protection of the coast can only be achieved through greater safety at sea at the multinational level. Any particularist approach by small states must be relegated to the past. What is effective is if, in the context of joint protection of the coast, synergies can be recognised and, through a joint organisation, people and materials be aligned with each other and the best possible use made of them across the countries and seas of the region. For me, therefore, coastal protection, environmental protection or whatever you would like to call it is also a form of regional and structural support across Europe. I take such protection to mean preventive measures for the protection of the environment and, in the context of a joint monitoring of the coast, also an effective resource for combating crime at sea. I am proud of this and I am sure that the catalogue of measures we have decided on will achieve its objective. This will be to the benefit of everyone in the European Union, in both the present members and the new ones, in the short, medium and long term. A revival of the maritime ecosystem and increased readiness for investments in maritime routes, the maritime motorway of the future, will be the payoff.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I am able to agree with Mr Cocilovo, and also to go some of the way with Mr Sterckx. We are dealing today with a slight reworking of the TENs. The really major revision will be in 2004, when we will certainly put our heads together and draw up sensible amendments for them. Thanks are due to the rapporteur for the work he has done, but also for the unsparing conclusion he draws. What is crucial is that, of the fourteen Essen projects, three have been completed, which means that the Council had at that time bitten off more than it could chew. Not listening to Parliament, it was guided by obstinacy rather than wisdom. Nobody, not even Parliament, can lay down the law to a Member State when it comes to when and where this or that project is to be put into effect. But, when a Member State says that it wants to have a project certified as being of European Community interest, then that Member State must comply with European conditions. That is why the rapporteur's proposal – that, if a project is not completed within a specified time, it is taken off the priority list – is very good. This proposal by the Commission is realistic and sensible. It deals with environmentally friendly forms of transport, and, so, tomorrow, we should support it accordingly. I can tell the Council that they would be well advised not to conjure up any conflict between the institutions on this point. It would not be worth it, as we have already made a whole series of changes to the TENs. That means that we should work together well... (The President cut the speaker off.)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I welcome Mr Maat's attempt to tackle this very difficult subject. Animal welfare is a very emotive issue in many ways, so any new legislation must be based on sound veterinary and scientific information. To judge from the amount of lobbying on this issue, this is clearly a very important issue for the citizens of the European Union. I particularly welcome amendments acknowledging difficulties facing remote and peripheral areas for the transportation of animals – including Wales and the Western Isles of Scotland. That is an important inclusion within the body of the report. I hope we do not get bogged down, for example, in whether it is to be eight or nine hours. Rather, we should focus on what in my view is the far more important issue of proper policing of the regulations and ensuring that the rules are as practical and as workable as they can be. I would like to see the live trade ultimately replaced by a carcass trade, with animals slaughtered locally. We know of the dangers of not slaughtering locally in the wake of the epidemics of foot-and-mouth and other diseases, where because of transportation of animals, those kinds of diseases spread across the country far more easily. Where the transport of live animals is necessary, I hope we will end up with legislation that is both firm and fair for the industry.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Events at the World Trade Organisation Conference in Seattle confirm the important and justified reactions to the way in which globalisation is being promoted. The European Union, shaken by the resignation of the Santer Commission during preparations, pursued a policy of seeking compromise with the other major powers which was far removed from the claims of developing countries and the concerns of civil society. The policy of the European Union needs to be fully reviewed so that it comprises and includes: the democratisation of the World Trade Organisation, support for the family farming model, mechanisms for improving the lot of workers in the Third World without damaging their productivity or trading status, environmental protection, the dissemination of technology to poorer countries, action on the international debts of weaker countries and finally, protection of the multi-cultural identity of the world from the American superpower of entertainment.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, without alcohol, tobacco and drugs, we would live a healthier life and cause each other less nuisance. But a world without unhealthy stimulants is an unattainable utopia. Two groups of people are attracted to these: adults who, because of the free market, are at the mercy of social insecurity and tension and young people who want to explore all that is risky and forbidden. Strict centralised European rules banning the use of drugs and regulating prosecution do not solve this problem. Small-scale projects for the support of addicts, including training, housing, employment and income and also the provision of information regarding the effects of drug abuse are much more important. I am somewhat alarmed at President Prodi’s recent announcement that small-scale, customised solutions will be prohibited in future. In the Netherlands, the use of soft drugs has been permitted for the past twenty years. This safeguards the users against sliding into crime and hard-drug addiction and offers the best chance of returning to a life without drugs. This important public-health measure has since been adopted in many towns and regions in other European states. It would be bad management to ban this policy, which can be held up as an example, in the name of European unification. As far as I am concerned, Mr Prodi’s statement is actually an important reason why I would reject this proposal out of hand, despite all the balanced views contained in it.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, I am pleased that we have witnesses here today to hear us – their visit to the European Parliament will have served a useful purpose. All the citizens who are listening to us today are taxpayers and in the final analysis they are the ones who finance officials' salaries and some of them are following our debates with a certain sense of irony. And, Commissioner, it is the Commission's third-tier officials in particular who ought to be aware that they bear an enormous responsibility in Brussels, and that they also have to protect the interests of Europe's citizens. It is already clear that we need to fight terrorism. I myself am each year the budget rapporteur of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, and we give Commissioner Vitorino everything he needs for the war on terror. None of us will refuse if the measures proposed are reasonable. Especially since 11 September we have been aware of the need for vigilance on our planet and the need to take appropriate measures at any given time. On the other hand – and I say this as someone from Germany – data protection is not just something that you can surrender if you consider it important that the European Union should not become like America. It is our task as Members, as representatives of the people, to take our electors' and our citizens' interests seriously and to defend them. We are not just talking about the airlines' interests here. We are talking about the interests of people who will soon find – without their knowing anything about it – that every detail of their lives has been handed over to the American security services, without ever having approved that and without knowing how this data will be used. Up to now they have always assumed that constitutional arrangements apply in the European Union and that data about them is sacrosanct. What I would now like to know is this: how will we be able to convince these citizens in the future if the American authorities, who are giving no guarantees at all, are in a position to use or abuse their data as they wish?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, first of all, I should like to thank the rapporteur for his considerable efforts, even though he and I are definitely not in agreement. I am, however, very pleased about the discussions to which this report has led, with their focus upon a list of important issues concerning services of general interest. It has been a refreshing political discussion, reflecting the political differences in this House. On behalf of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, I should like to express support for the report, as adopted by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. For the Group, it is important to emphasise that the liberalisation already implemented by a range of sectors has generally been a great success. It has meant the creation of approximately one million new jobs and, in particular, better service for less money. At the same time, the issue of whether or not Parliament should demand a framework directive has been of crucial importance to the Group’s support for the present report. I should like to emphasise that the Group does not support a framework directive. The purpose of a horizontal directive would be to freeze a number of areas which, as we know by experience, develop the whole time. There is absolutely no need for this at a time when we in Europe are already lagging behind with economic reforms. On the contrary, we should support further liberalisation, but on equal conditions. This must, however, take place via sectoral directives of the kind of which very successful use is already being made in a number of sectors. In the Group, we are, as I say, convinced that it will be neither possible nor desirable in a framework directive to establish any usable definitions of services of such different kinds as are at issue in this House, at the same time bearing in mind the large regional and national differences that exist in the area of services of general interest. We recognise, however, the doubt and uncertainty to which what is termed the Altmark judgment, concerning the funding of locally based services of general interest, has led. We therefore wholeheartedly support the Commission’s reflections concerning a legal initiative to clarify this issue. Nor, as I say, do we think, however, that a framework directive would be of any help in this context. If it were a question of a legal initiative, we should, however, greatly regret the fact that the existing Treaty does not give us in the European Parliament power of codecision concerning such an initiative. To dispel any doubt, I should like to emphasise that our opposition to a framework directive does not in any way mean that we in the group want the duty to supply certain services of general interest to disappear. On the contrary, we believe that such a duty could easily go hand in hand with liberalisation and, for example, environmental requirements, if only the political authority were to require this. Responsibility for demanding quality lies, of course, with the political authority, which must also ensure that the demands are complied with. I want us to obtain more value for money.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, yesterday morning we had the part-session with our colleagues from the candidate countries. Although it was not an official meeting, it was one of the most interesting meetings ever held in this House. I therefore think that it is a matter for regret that although there is a verbatim report of proceedings for yesterday afternoon, there is no verbatim report of the historic proceedings yesterday morning, and I simply wanted to ask if that would be rectified.

Political group: PPE-DE
I also welcome the White Paper. But do you envisage that the Food Safety Agency will have enough teeth to prevent something like the beef war that we have had and France's refusal to lift the ban? You mentioned the Commission being able to withhold grants and subsidies from countries who are acting in the way that France is acting. Would you also propose that the Commission could give interim payments for instance, similar to the one that the British farmers are asking for at the moment?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, firstly, can I congratulate the rapporteur and the Chairman of the Committee on Fisheries on his report on the revision of the regulations on the conservation of fishery resources and technical measures for the protection of juvenile marine organisms. This report, whose name probably causes more confusion than clarity amongst those people who have not been following, the subject is in fact a number of separate amendments updating the original regulation. Firstly, with regard to separator trawls or nets with sorting grids used in shrimp fisheries; secondly, the revision of minimum sizes for a number of bivalve molluscs and crustaceans; and thirdly, with respect to the establishment of a closed area for fishing for sand eels off the north-east coast of England and the east coast of Scotland. It is on the last proposal that I primarily wish to speak. This is a very good example of the eco-system approach to fisheries: taking action for environmental reasons beyond those applying strictly for fish stock levels. In 1998, a report by the Working Group on Eco-System Effects of Fishing Activities of the International Council for Exploration of the Seas identified for the first time that sea birds, specifically the kittiwake, which has been experiencing low breeding success over recent years, were in fact in competition with the industrial fleet, primarily Danish operators fishing for sand eels off the East coast of Scotland and England. The United Kingdom requested the Commission to submit an appropriate proposal in the light of that report and the United Kingdom made initial approaches to the Danish government to encourage their support for the initiative. It was suggested that a closed season for sand eel fishing should be introduced between April and August when the breeding birds were most dependent on sand eels for food. The ICES subsequently looked at the science again and suggested a closed area stretching from mid-Northumberland northwards to include the Grampian coast. This closed area is the one proposed by the Commission in December as part of the annual TAC Regulation and adopted by the Council. These measures have, I understand, already been accepted in principle by the key parties involved. I therefore hope the Council will be able, after this debate, to reach a speedy agreement. It is important for the conservation of sea birds. It is important for us to demonstrate our concern in this area.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, there is in fact a very serious translation problem because the English text says the following: 'Believes that the EU should ensure that WTO rules relating to the agricultural sector do not have an adverse effect on the economies of developing countries and that security of food supply should be considered as a multifunctional aspect of agriculture'. You will see that the French version says the opposite! This may happen more often than we think but fortunately this was noticed on this occasion. Please vote bearing in mind the English original.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, in this debate on the agenda and procedures for the upcoming IGC, I would first of all like to express that I, like the rapporteur, would advocate taking a wider approach, at least wider than proposed at the Cologne Summit. The reasons have been spelt out loud and clear. During this Summit, the accession, in the short-term, of four or five countries from Central and Eastern Europe was discussed. This number has since grown to ten or twelve. This has the immediate effect that a root-and-branch reform should be undertaken and this is more than a few institutional reforms. As far as I can see, there are six points to this argument. Firstly, there are the institutional reforms as planned in Cologne, the make-up of the Commission, one Commissioner per Member State as far as we are concerned, the weighting of votes, which should be proportionate to the size of population and qualified majority voting. This should encompass the budget but also agriculture and legislation. Secondly, there is the integration of the second and third pillars, more integration in the Treaties. In order to achieve this, more of a Community approach needs to be adopted. Thirdly, the new Treaty should contain a sound legal basis for a European regulation on the openness of government and transparency. Fourthly, we also need a legal basis for the European Union itself so that we can act autonomously in bodies such as the United Nations and the WTO. And I agree with those who say that the constitutional aspects in the Treaty should be separated from those components relating to the executive. I think this is a sound line to take. Finally, this Charter of Fundamental Rights, to be laid down in future, should be embedded in the new Treaty. These seem to me to be the salient points. As for the procedure, our most important wish is, of course, maximum involvement of Parliament. Two MEPs seems just fine but they will need to be able to play a full part. We give our full backing to the reports of Mr Leinen and Mr Dimitrakopoulos. They did a marvellous job and let us hope that the summit in Helsinki will indeed decide to incorporate the wider agenda we are proposing in the IGC

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to respond to a number of remarks that have been made about these Budget lines from the point of view of foreign policy. Traditionally, in the Member States, foreign policy is a matter for governments, but the parliaments are involved via the budget procedure, which enables them to influence foreign policy and the government's setting of priorities. As there is something of a lack at European level of any counterpart to this sort of democratic control, we welcome the attention given by the Convention to a wider range of options for Parliament to exert influence on fundamental issues of finance for foreign policy concerns. Above all, we welcome the fact that it was possible, in the course of the 2003 Budget procedure, to come to an agreement with the Council on information concerning measures in the area of foreign and security policy. For the Council to take significant steps to accede to Parliament's wishes is a new thing, and although it did not, initially, keep to the undertaking it had given during the Budget procedure, information on our activities in Macedonia has now found its way onto the table. The most recent consultation with the Council made it possible for this to be guaranteed, and I see this as having been a step in the right direction. Such cooperation between the Council and Parliament is a foundation for our future endeavours. It is for this reason that we consider particularly important the passage in the guidelines in which Parliament lays renewed emphasis on its willingness to work together with the Council on the common foreign and security policy, and on its own insistence on its involvement to the fullest possible extent in budgeting for joint actions, planning them and taking decisions concerning them. We have had problems with this in the past, in that financial undertakings given by the Council meant that Parliament ended up being obliged to provide the funds from the Budget. That can be changed if Parliament is informed and involved in good time. If that happens, I think these Budget guidelines may well usher in a new stage in cooperation between Parliament and the Council. Still on the subject of foreign policy, let me make another observation concerning the ad hoc group that we have now set up to examine direct payments to the Palestinian National Authority. I think this ad hoc group gives us a good opportunity to cooperate with the Commission in seeing exactly what has been done with European taxpayers' money. We decided not to set up a committee of investigation, which would amount to laying charges at the outset, whereas we simply want to know how this direct aid worked and how we can organise it better in the future. This working group is about to start work. This is not so much a problem between Parliament and the Council as one between Parliament and the Commission, and we hope that, in the working group, the Commission will keep to its promise and be willing to work together with Parliament.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I should like to thank the Commissioner, for I think that this is one of the most important areas of all that we are discussing here today. We are, of course, concerned here with the creation of those values which will ensure prosperity in Europe for many years to come. Unfortunately, responsibility for research lies, in particular, with governments which, in all European countries – almost without exception – have merely been cutting back. Nor am I sure that our Swedish brethren are in any way doing anything to encourage support for the national basic research programmes which generate the new knowledge. If, in the Sixth Framework Programme, we are to achieve a situation in which innovative small companies have access to programmes without their intellectual rights being destroyed, we must have mechanisms which enable companies to have access from outside to the major research programmes and which make it possible for contracts to be concluded without subsequent unnecessary bureaucracy. One fundamental question is therefore the following: has the Council finally got around to giving the research department a mandate to conclude contracts without the need for umpteen signatures? If it has not done so, then your power to act is very limited, Commissioner. It is frustrating for a small enterprise or university department to be obliged, at the diktat of the Council, to wait for heaven knows how many signatures. Have we taken account of this important issue in connection with the restructuring of the Commission's procedures? I am delighted that the Council is there for once, and I am looking forward to hearing the Commission’s answer.

Political group: PPE-DE