GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, I do not know who Mr Schulz was speaking for. I clearly recall that the Vice-Chairman of the Group of the , Mrs Napoletano, stated, during the Brussels session on 28 February, that this was not a debate for the European Parliament. So first of all, Madam President – and I speak on behalf of the entire Group of the – I should like to say that you have behaved quite correctly in this matter, and you have the full confidence of our Group. That is the first point. (Applause from the right) Secondly: Mr Schulz, there has been correspondence between the Chair of your group and the President of the European Parliament. I assume that your contacts with your group Chair are such that you are aware of this correspondence. You also intervened in Brussels, and so the President supplied the necessary answers. In essence, what you are trying to do, two months before the elections in Italy, is to engage in electoral posturing in the European Parliament in order to give a boost to your friends in Italy! (Applause from the right) Mr Schulz, you were a bad loser in Austria, you and your party friends, and now you are up to the same tricks in Italy. If that is what you want, you can be sure that we here in the European Parliament will be your most determined opponents. (Applause from the right) Mr Schulz, let me get to the crux of the issue. Instead of interrogating the President for the umpteenth time on this affair, I wish you would put the same questions to your ally Mr Cossuta in Rome, an old-fashioned Stalinist who never fails to support this government in Rome. Why do you not ask him the same questions you are asking here, to the disadvantage of our party friends in Italy? Mr Schulz, I also have information which shows that there is a very wide range of opinion on this issue within your Group. That is quite plausible and entirely natural, but let me tell you that if you do not observe this Parliament's long-standing tradition that no national election campaigns are conducted here, and if you insist on adopting this new approach instead, you will get the proper response from us. (Applause, heckling)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to thank the rapporteur for the valuable work she has done with both competence and impartiality. I particularly thank her for the great patience she has shown in the face of the unjustified criticism and obstructionism of the last few days, which were certainly not inspired by an interest in protecting a fundamental right of European citizens. The report, which was drawn up with the authorisation and according to the instructions of the Conference of Presidents, addresses the subject of the freedom and the political and cultural pluralism of the media, which are essential elements in a full democracy. This, in turn, is a founding value of the European Union, as enshrined in Article 6 of the Treaty. The report, which is entirely acceptable, analyses the criteria to be observed and the instruments that can be adopted to ensure that freedom and pluralism of information are guaranteed, and suggests possibilities for intervention by the Community and the Member States in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. With its analyses and proposals, this work will be of great significance for the future of the enlarged Community of 25 Member States. The report also examines the risks of violation of freedom of expression and information, particularly in Italy, as specified in the mandate given to the committee. There are risks everywhere and all the time, but it is difficult to deny the anomaly in Italy due to objective and incontestable factors: it has the highest level of concentration of the audiovisual market in Europe, characterised by the duopoly of a public organisation, RAI, and a private group, Mediaset, which collect 96.8% of advertising resources; by the fact that the Mediaset group is controlled by the current Prime Minister; by the fact that in Italy the structure and programming of the public television service are influenced by the government and its ruling majority; and by the fact that the conflict of interests of the Prime Minister has still not been resolved. In addition, as demonstrated by numerous judgments by the Italian Constitutional Court, the Italian broadcasting service has for years been operating in unlawful circumstances, which the legislators have not yet remedied; indeed, the laws passed so far, which have ratified the de facto occupation of frequencies – that is to say, the operation of installations by the largest private group without concessions or authorisations, totally at variance with any concern for greater pluralism – have gradually been declared unconstitutional, and the latest law reforming the audiovisual sector has been referred back to Parliament by the President of the Republic because it did not comply with the principles laid down by the Constitutional Court. In view of these incontestable facts, it is impossible not to see the serious risk of concrete, repeated breaches of the fundamental right to pluralism of information that the citizens of Europe are facing in Italy.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the discussion we are having this evening in plenary is evocative of the hearing of the Committee on Development and Cooperation that took place back in September of last year. There is widespread agreement as to the fact that Plan Colombia and these pronouncedly military components pose a threat to the peace negotiations now under way, and will engender an escalation of the conflict in Colombia after more than three decades of civil war, over 300 000 dead, and when we had hoped that it would be possible to engage in dialogue once President Pastrana took office, and resolve the country’s problems, i.e. the conflict. The point has been made repeatedly today that the world drugs problem must be tackled at its roots. Naturally I agree with this, but the problem of the conflict in Colombia must also be tackled at the roots, and Europe cannot afford to make the same mistakes as the USA, by believing that the drugs trade is at the root of the intensifying violence and conflict, and at the same time, closing its eyes to the unjust social system and difficult political system in Colombia. Commissioner, Representative of the Council, last September, Parliament called upon the Union to develop an independent strategy for tackling the drugs problem. A month later, in October, the Council declared that the Union supports the peace moves and also wants to attend the negotiations. What we have heard you say today sounds very promising and I believe the Union must continue its work along these lines. It is farcical to believe that we can resolve the conflict in Colombia by deploying military means in order to fight the drugs trade, whilst forgetting the social and political problems facing this country, and it is also a betrayal of the Colombian people, who have already waited so long for peace and stability in their country.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I refer to Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure. This report on ‘the new policy for the neighbouring states’ involves reorganising the lending facilities of the European Investment Bank. In consultation with the majority of the coordinators, I would like to request that the plenary should vote on the individual amendments, but should postpone the vote on the draft legislative resolution, so that we again have an opportunity to negotiate with the Commission and the Council on our amendments and so that the views of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy can also be taken into account, to the effect that the negotiations should impose new priorities in connection with Russia and the new Independent States. (Parliament decided to defer the vote on the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0225/2004) by Mr Berenguer Fuster, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on the proposal for a Council decision providing macro-financial assistance to Albania and repealing Decision 1999/282/EC (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0219/2004) by Mrs Sanders-ten Holte, on behalf of the Committee on Development and Cooperation, on Governance in the European Union's development policy (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0139/2004), on behalf of the European Parliament delegation to the Conciliation Committee, on the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee for a European Parliament and Council directive on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (Parliament approved the joint text) *** Report (A5-0133/2004) by Mrs Keppelhoff-Wiechert, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down requirements for feed hygiene (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0147/2004) by Mrs Thors, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on materials and articles intended to come into contact with food (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0132/2004) by Mrs Maes, on behalf of the Committee on Development and Cooperation, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on Amending Regulation (EC) no 1726/2000 on development cooperation with South Africa Before the vote:

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this evening, we are discussing the tightening of controls on expenditure by the European institutions. An important topic, I might add, as Europe has a bad reputation among its electorate in this area. Too much European money disappears to unknown destinations, both at Brussels level and within the Member States. The objective of the Commission proposal we are discussing today is to separate the internal audit function from the ex ante financial control function. The Van Hulten report is right to define further the discrepancy put forward by the Commission and sets the right tone for exchanging best practices among institutions. There might be some reservation with regard to the exception Mr Van Hulten makes in his report for smaller institutions where the appointment of auditors is concerned. However, I can understand the pragmatic reasoning behind this idea. I too believe that the staffing levels in those institutions are too low to warrant extra manpower. I would like to pay special attention to one point in particular, namely the fact that the separation of ex ante control and the audit may not have any bearing on the position of ex ante control. After all, these are administrative-official institutions where the option of ex ante control remains an absolute necessity. This does not mean that permission must be gained from the financial director for the purchase of every single pencil. What it does mean, however, is that an assessment is carried out, according to modern methods on the basis of risk analyses, to find out in what cases of expenditure ex ante control is absolutely essential. It also means that ex ante control must still be required when the services request this. If this possibility were not to exist, this could lead to a situation in which people no longer dare take decisions. Also important is that the ex ante control continues to be carried out independently, admittedly in a decentralised manner, but certainly not under the Director-General of the Directorate-General under scrutiny. In summary, independent audits are compulsory but cannot be carried out without modern and efficient ex ante control. The two are strictly separated but jointly responsible for the sound supervision of the European institutions’ expenditure.

Political group: PPE-DE
The draft resolution is unbalanced and does not say what the European public wishes to hear. First of all, the resolution should state that the people are paying a high price for the folly of their governments, since the latest uprising was caused by General Sharon’s stroll – which was for purely electoral purposes – in the gardens of Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. It should state that we are increasingly finding out what a fraudster Mr Arafat is; a fraudster who is playing a double game, a warlord who encourages, organises and pays the terrorists while pretending to condemn them; Second, the resolution should state that we have twice come excruciatingly close to peace, first with Mr Rabin, who, sadly, was assassinated following a hate campaign by the Israeli right, then with Mr Barak, whose offers of peace were rejected by Mr Arafat with the consequences we are seeing today; Third, it should state that peace will not come out of suicide terrorism or state terrorism, and that where there were 20 or 25 candidates for suicide, there are now 200 or 250 if not more, as demonstrated by today’s attack; Fourth, it should state that Israel, which owes its existence to international law, cannot behave as if this law did not exist, nor can it ignore the Security Council resolutions.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, with growing signs of the depletion of many fish stocks, the common fisheries policy (CFP) has incorporated and progressively stepped up the component of stock protection and conservation. This is an issue of civic and political responsibility, because such measures are crucial to safeguarding the future of the fisheries sector itself and of fishermen, even though the measures might not be very popular in the short term. In order to ensure the effective implementation of this important aspect of the CFP, we have for a long time had a set of Community control, inspection and surveillance mechanisms, compliance with which depends, basically, on the Member States. What the Commission has now presented is an evaluation report on the way in which these mechanisms are implemented in the various Member States. This report shows that profound inequalities exist in the interpretation and implementation of these measures, specifically: in inspection and surveillance equipment, in the training of inspectors, in the frequency of inspections and in sanction procedures. Mrs Attwooll’s report also focuses on some of these very problems. This being the case, it is obvious that such disparities are creating genuinely unequal treatment of fishermen in the various Member States. These inequalities also lead, ultimately, to a distortion of competition. This is what has happened, for example, with the famous Multiannual Guidance Plans for Fisheries – the MAGPs – under which the Member States failing to meet the established objectives have not had any sanctions imposed on them and it is ultimately those who have broken the rules who have become the beneficiaries. What the Commission is now suggesting in this report is the need substantially to strengthen the mechanisms for the control and surveillance of fisheries, including the possibility of the Commission’s corps of inspectors’ being able to act independently of national authorities. We agree with this proposal, and this debate must now be incorporated into the debate on the CFP following 2002. To conclude, I simply wish to thank Niels Busk for his support for the Committee on Fisheries, and for his report, the content of which we broadly agree with.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mrs Peijs, I should first of all like to congratulate the rapporteur on the quality of her report. All the previous speakers have said this, and, like you, regretted the fact that short sea shipping suffered from such a poor image in terms of its slowness and inefficiency, even though it provides one solution to traffic congestion, high infrastructure and environmental costs. Moreover, in recent years, this form of transport has enjoyed an unquestionable success, even though it is not very well known, or not well enough. It does however offer, as you said, advantages in terms of costs, energy, efficiency, regional cohesion, the environment and even intermodality, as it is an ideal means in the implementation of multimodal transportation. Measures must therefore be taken at the earliest possible opportunity to step up the efficiency of dockside operations and reduce waiting times in port. Speaking personally, I would insist on the public authorities playing a part, at regional as well as national and European levels. There are, however, two points in your report that I have a problem with. Firstly, the proposal to draw up a list of ports particularly suitable for short sea shipping. I do not consider such a list to be necessary, as it entails a risk of penalising the ports which are not currently entirely suitable, but which are going to be modified in future. Moreover, there is a suggestion that the logistical services offered to users should be combined in a single unit. I am in favour of an information system but, personally, I reject the idea that a thriving major port should have central control of all the services. Finally, I should have liked, as a member of the Industry Committee, to have heard someone say clearly that short sea shipping must not be considered as an alternative, but that indeed an intermodal strategy should be found, establishing complementarity between modes of transport. In this context and in this spirit, the Member States should moreover harmonise their regulations so as to prevent distortions, which, particularly in the case of mainland transport, often cause hold-ups. If we wish to achieve a multimodal system, it is important to have a set of means of transport and regulations that are, if not common to all, then at least perfectly harmonised.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, at the Edinburgh Summit nearly ten years ago, Mr Kohl and Mr Major assured one another that there was no need for a European water policy. If the Spanish wish to pollute their water, they should do just that. But the tide of deregulation has turned. In 1996, the Commission proposed the ecological water directive, which did not amount to more than five pages, however. We now have a substantial legislative document of 60 pages, with 90 pages of appendix. This is thanks to cross-party cooperation, between the groups within the European Parliament. I would especially like to thank Mrs Lienemann, but also Chris Davies from the liberal group and Mrs Schleicher from the Christian-Democrats. The feel that 80% of this document has been a success. What was disappointing was the water price policy. What is successful is the fact that we have a new principle for chemical substances. Chemical substances are no longer banned because they are also harmful to human health, but in line with a new principle that harmful substances do not belong in the water. I think we can be proud of this.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, just on a point of order, Mr Dover appears to have requested a split vote, and there are rules governing that sort of procedure. Therefore, if it can be done, that is all well and good: it will be a precedent that we should follow.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, I should first like to congratulate Mr Koch on his reports which, though technical, are nonetheless of very great significance for safety. I should like to make just a few comments. Firstly, I should like to ask the Commissioner – and I am convinced that my request will fall on fertile ground – to ensure that more attention is paid to the issue of safety, be it on the roads, on the waterways or at sea. Considering that it is only today that we are dealing with a Commission proposal first made on 19 March 1998, even though Parliament responded relatively quickly, this time lag is a little too long. This is not just the fault of the Commission, but I believe that we need to take action more quickly so as to achieve harmonisation in this area as well. My second point has already been mentioned: it concerns the minimum standards. In principle, I believe that in many cases where transport is concerned we should be working towards increased flexibility and country-specific rules. However, when it comes to safety, I am rather sceptical because safety in Sweden, for example, is in principle no different from safety in Germany, Italy or Austria. I can live with these minimum standards, but I would ask the Commission to monitor the situation very carefully. Should flexibility of this kind result in there being inadequate rules in some countries then we should work towards greater harmonisation. My third point has also been mentioned already. As you know, like Mr Rack, I come from a transit country, where this issue plays a particularly important role. We do not want to make the conditions of competition worse for some countries unilaterally and improve them for countries such as Austria or other transit countries. But I believe that we should do all we can to keep the transport of dangerous goods to a minimum, in all countries, whether they are transit countries or not.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, allow me to begin by congratulating everyone who has been involved in the creation of this directive and especially those who have done the hard work of negotiating during the conciliation procedure, which I know has been hard, although I personally have not followed it – I followed the two readings, but not this third reading. As the esteemed Member, Mrs Thyssen, has said, this directive deals with what it can and must deal with, no more and no less. I believe that this is a magnificent definition. The Commission’s initial proposal was much more ambitious, but since we are moving in that pioneer territory of the internal market – that territory which involves elements which are still the competence of the Member States such as procedural rules and civil law, ownership reservations, or Article 5 of the procedure for the recovery of non-contested debt etc...– the Commission’s proposal was not in accordance with the Treaty, since we lacked a legal basis. The present proposal is less complete, if you like, but no less effective. I believe that it will have significant repercussions, which have been listed by previous speakers. Above all, I am going to highlight one more, and that is that it opens up the road to seriously dealing with the need to fully enter into this pioneer territory. This is because, today, there are still genuine obstacles to the perfection of the internal market, genuine obstacles to the four freedoms laid down in the Treaty, precisely because we do not have a clear legal basis. Now, with the Treaty of Amsterdam, we may have a clearer legal basis, but we must make a great effort to establish effective coordination and harmonisation in all of these areas.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-designate, just a few words on the WTO and agriculture. We do indeed need the WTO in order to organise the opening of markets and not to suffer from them. This is particularly true for agriculture. Everyone knows that our form of agriculture, our rural environment, is not comparable to that in Australia, Argentina and the USA. Confronted with this, Europe therefore has a duty to defend its own model of agriculture and has the right to an appropriate common agricultural policy. We expect specifically that multinational agreements integrate the concerns of our farmers and of our consumers. We expect the forthcoming negotiations to expressly take into account the fact that, in Europe, we have structures of production, and environmental and social conditions, which entail costs which must be compensated by public subsidy. I also wish to point out that competitiveness in agriculture is measured not only on the world market but also in terms of balance of the land, maintenance of the fabric of rural life and conservation of our natural heritage. That is why the concept of multifunctionality in agriculture must also be recognised in the WTO. That is why, Commissioner, we intend to continue the debate on all these matters with the Commissioners concerned and we intend to monitor developments in negotiations very closely.

Political group: PSE