GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I was unable to assent to the Ferber report. From Parliament’s viewpoint, there is always a reason to ask for more money for our own operations. But the European Union will not become more democratic if the European Parliament receives more funding. Public opinion within Europe requires us to be frugal. The money that is available should be spent on the needs of our 375 million people and on the protection of our environment, not on the European Parliament as an institution. I am of the opinion that we could save ourselves a great deal of cost and unnecessary effort if we were to replace the system of reports and rapporteurs by getting the groups to react directly to the planned proposals, as is the case in most national parliaments. Finally, I am also against donating tax money to European syndicates of political parties and against filling vacancies for interpreters in a way which offers newcomers a poor legal position.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I am against the proposal that has been made. This is firstly because the Cunha report has been approved by a majority in the Committee on Fisheries. And not only that; the philosophy of this report is the one maintained by this Parliament in successive reports on the evaluation of the MAGPs. In response to Mr MacCormick’s specific question, on whether paragraph 6 undercuts, or not, the principle of relative stability, I would point out that paragraph 6 in no way undercuts that principle. It simply proposes, as a possible penalty against those who fail to comply with the MAGPs, who are the people who do most harm to resources, a temporary suspension of quotas, which is not a definitive suspension, nor does it imply the transfer of quotas from some Member States to others. In short, the principle of relative stability is maintained as are – and this frightens some people – the key points on distribution of the principle of relative stability. Therefore, I would like to tell you that there is not the slightest danger of that principle, the sacred principle of the common fisheries policy, being attacked. It simply proposes serious penalties – and because they hurt a lot, some people will complain – which should make the protection of resources more effective. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot remain indifferent in the face of the current situation in Algeria. On the contrary, it should make us more committed to making a clear assessment of the current state of the country and to helping the Algerian people to overcome their difficulties. That is why I am giving my full support to the Euro-Mediterranean association agreement that has been presented to us for our agreement today. I believe it is along the right lines for four main reasons. This is part of the very rationale behind the process opened in Barcelona, encouraging Euro-Mediterranean dialogue. This agreement will facilitate regional integration and in particular the Arab Maghreb Union, which we are hoping for with all our might. This agreement sends a strong signal of the solidarity of European citizens with the Algerian people. And in particular, this agreement should support Algeria in its efforts to achieve openness, reforms and modernisation. That is the most important thing. In this context, I am pleased to see the broad consensus within the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy in favour of the proposed measures. Nevertheless, our agreement must not be interpreted as giving the Algerian authorities carte blanche. We must remain vigilant on the subject of human rights, democracy and good governance. These fundamental values are the very cornerstone of the European Union and must be respected as a prerequisite for the correct implementation of the agreement. That is why Parliament’s motion for a resolution, which recalls these requirements, is along the right lines and should be given the utmost consideration. Please allow me to add that, as a Frenchwoman, I am particularly aware of the difficulties that the Algerian people has suffered for so long. The suffering of this country has gone on long enough. We all need to take urgent action to find concrete solutions. The association agreement will contribute to this if we are able to give objective consideration to Algeria’s real problems.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I asked this question before this agreement came along, which paves the way for the implementation of this very important programme, and I am delighted that this has happened under the Greek Presidency, given that I am Greek, and I also have a great deal of respect for the President-in-Office who has replied to me. As this obstacle has been removed, I should like to ask the honourable President-in-Office to tell us what he calculates will be the amount invested in Galileo, if all the Member States of the European Union will take part in it and in what proportion, when the procedure to promote implementation will commence and when he calculates that it will start to provide its services, which is the most important, and if they will be of only European and/or worldwide range. Similarly, I should like to ask him to tell us if the objections of the United States have been answered and if, in fact, as the American side maintains, there will be a danger of Galileo interfering with the American GPS frequencies, which in fact give priority to military requirements.

Political group: PPE-DE
I am very disappointed by what the Council has done. If you boast about 43,000 documents I wonder if you have actually visited the Internet site? This is a very small mouse that you have managed to produce so far. Forty-three thousand sounds like a lot. But anybody can produce 43,000 documents. It is what they say that matters. They are very slow in arriving. You cannot find out how votes went in the Council. That is still secret. You cannot find a compte rendu of what people actually said in the Council. That is still secret. It is deeply inadequate what you have done. In answer to the last question, Mr President, you said that transparency was one of the great priorities of the Finnish Presidency. The Finnish nation is famous for its openness but so far we have reached November in your Presidency and this is still a disaster. Would you please try and improve the register which is, as I said, a very small mouse. There is still a long way to go.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, from the previous interventions of the rapporteur and the draftsperson of the opinion, and the intervention by Mr Lehne, on behalf of the European People’s Party, it appears that there is a degree of unanimity which the Socialist Group shares. We believe that the Commission’s proposal is appropriate and that Mr Inglewood’s report goes into detail on certain aspects, in particular the reference to the commitology procedure and the explicit reference to the commitments made by the President of the Commission during last February in relation to the participation of Parliament in the development of the legislation on the financial markets. Secondly, as Mr Lehne has said, the adoption of international accounting standards by the Community involves a second part, the negotiation with the competent authorities in the United States – not with the government of the United States, but above all with the Securities and Exchanges Commission – of standards which prevent European companies from having to conform to dual accounting requirements in order to operate in Europe and in North American markets. Mr Inglewood has introduced a series of amendments which, in our opinion, are aimed at improving the text of the directive, within the framework of the spirit of cooperation between this Parliament and the Commission. As Mr Inglewood has said, our hope is that an agreement can be reached soon between the Commission, the Council and Parliament so that the directive can be adopted very quickly without having to go to conciliation. In principle, therefore, the Socialist Group will vote in favour of all the amendments. We have certain difficulties in relation to some amendments and we will still have to examine whether they are compatible with our position and, above all, we await the Commission’s opinion with regard to certain aspects of them.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to thank Mrs Schroedter for an excellent report. She has gone into the issue in some depth and in the committee debate she took account of many of the amendments that have been tabled regarding this report. The rapporteur has also quite rightly stated that Parliament was not heard in time regarding the guidelines. We are badly behind now in this matter. Hopefully, the stands Parliament has taken will help, however, in the mid-term appraisal of the programmes and in their practical implementation. For the time, the report grew too large when it was being debated. It contained details and issues that had already been raised in previous reports. At this stage it is more important to concentrate on assessing how we can use this process to steer Union regional policy, bearing in mind that the aim is to reduce regional inequality. Our Group emphasises the importance of the principle of subsidiarity, the responsibility of Member States and the role of local players in drafting and implementing programmes. It is especially important to get SMEs involved in the planning and implementation of programmes. Our Group also considers it important to take greater account of remote and peripheral areas and wishes to increase interaction between towns and rural areas. We oppose the excessive control the central administration of the Union and its Member States exercises and we are calling for a reduction in the bureaucracy that has taken root in the drafting and implementation of programmes. Projects implemented with support from the Union have had their effect watered down all too often by slow decision making and complicated administrative processes. Funds have often been granted for projects which have had no lasting benefit for the area concerned. Projects have to be carried out more efficiently, more flexibly and they have to be made more productive. While the report was being prepared, it was interesting to discuss the Union’s regional policy in general. For us new members, it was the first time, and this was a very interesting process. This report is very good and our Group supports it.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission has presented a proposal on minimum standards for the protection of pigs in order to improve the welfare of these animals. I think it is a real pity that animal protection directives are being issued rather than regulations. I say this as an enthusiastic supporter of regulations because, when directives are implemented, they generally bring new distortions of competition in their wake in my country. I do not intend to address all the individual compromise amendments proposed here because a great deal of what we have set out here is, in my view, glaringly self-evident. To cite just one example: training for qualifications is recommended, but young farmers in Germany gave up trying to survive in this fiercely competitive sector without qualifications a long time ago. I think it is a great pity that the Commissioner does not have much time to listen but I shall address the controversial interests of consumer organisations once again, given that they are wheeled out in every debate and everyone keeps saying that consumers are calling for better protection for animals. Just by chance, I received Commissioner Fischler's press communiqué yesterday in which he said during an interview with a German broadsheet that consumer habits have now reversed post BSE. According to Commissioner Fischler, people are increasingly turning to cheap supplies once more. My many years' experience confirms precisely that. People obviously have to watch their budget and we need to be sensitive here and not overstep the mark. Everything we do has a very decisive impact on costs. Many of our proposed amendments refer to slot widths. We almost make out that we are experts here. I think others are far better placed to judge. Mr President, I think that you know everything there is to know about pig production in Bavaria. You know what it means when we talk about docking tails, castration, teeth clipping and all these important things. I should like to close by saying that we need to strike a balance between animal protection, health and environmental aspects. We also need acceptable transition times for the whole business.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I have one comment and one question. My intention was not to accuse the Commission of rampant optimism, I was merely comparing what the Commission says with the Council of Europe report entitled 'Extremist threat to democracy' and I used that as the basis for my judgment. The question, Commissioner, is this: we are calling for everyone else to do a whole host of things. But what are we doing? I do not mean programmes and money, I mean something else. You know that, because they have no country of their own to look after them, no place to call home, the Roma, of whom there are some 7 or 8 million, need to find a different mode of expression. They have set up a council, they have made a number of requests, they have asked for a pan-European forum, they have asked for special relations with institutions of the European Union, some sort of recognition because, as they have no country to recognise them and kick up a fuss about the holocaust, the horrendous holocaust which they suffered half a century ago, someone has to speak for them. We cannot speak for them. Do you intend to submit a proposal for us to recognise some sort of special representation of the Roma to the European Union?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, Mrs Corbey, most warmly for her report and congratulate her on it. She has expanded the debate on the amendment of the Packaging Directive and put it in the broader context of environmental policy. Over and above the change to the recycling quotas, she has added consideration of environmental impact assessments to the discussion, by, among other things, drawing on life-cycle analysis. One might say that she has thus already pre-empted the discussions on the White Paper on integrated product policy. It is of course never wrong to give consideration, at as early a stage as possible, to methods of assessing environmental impact, for this is how more general awareness of environmental policies of this sort is created. On the other hand, however, we must not use the Packaging Waste Directive to prescribe the outcome before we in this House have thoroughly got to grips with the issues. This, after all, is what the White Paper on integrated product policy is about, or, in any case, that is what almost everybody on the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy thought. That is why a majority of us on the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy urged that we should vote for the removal from the report of Amendment No 16, which provides for the immediate introduction of environmental indicators for packaging. Moreover, Amendment No 16 envisages an overall reduction of 10%. Does this mean that the production of packaging material is to be cut back? How is that to be achieved? Do we intend to reduce by 10% the industrial production of goods that need to be packaged? That too is a proposal to which we should give a wide berth. Just a few brief words on the content of the Directive. The new targets must be seen as ambitious, but I do believe that they are justified, from the point of view of industrial policy, in terms of their objective, which serves the European Union's environmental policy objectives. Albeit with the reservations to which I referred earlier, we will be happy to give substantial support to Mrs Corbey's report. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
The prospects and expectations of Lisbon are, unfortunately, a far cry from the situation on the ground in Europe. Europe has not only failed to take the lead in the most important technologies; it is still as far behind the USA as it was before, growth has slowed, unemployment has risen, new sciences are finding it hard to break into the market and regional disparities persist. Unfortunately, the summit Council does not appear to have a cohesive programme or proposals and the proposals by the leaders of France, Germany and Great Britain are confined to the industrial sector. The Spring Summit will need to set out new priorities, tailored to the current climate of economic recession and international tension, which include relaxing the Stability Pact criteria, tax incentives to boost labour intensive activities, special incentives to help regions lagging behind in the new technologies, joined-up interventions to upgrade the education system and monitoring the implementation of eEurope objectives in each Member State.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I too would like to praise the work that our fellow Member, Mr Sturdy, has carried out on the issue of amending the COM in beef and veal, following the BSE crisis. We are faced with several problems: we need to address the imbalance in the beef and veal market, support farmers’ income and restore consumer confidence. With regard to addressing the imbalance between supply and demand, first of all, I would like to point out that no one here and that includes the Commission, the rapporteur and the Committee on Agriculture is suggesting that we leave it simply to the effects of the free market. I would like to think that the need to regulate supply, as we have to do today, will also be uppermost in our minds when we tackle the new, further-reaching reform of the common agricultural policy. To return to the issue that we are dealing with today and in view of the reduced level that production must fall to, I would like to stress how crucial it is that we find a balance in the division of efforts required, on the one hand, by suckler herds and milk herds, and by industrial rearing methods and farms using grazing. It would be ironic, just when the need to produce quality beef and veal by encouraging the use of grass is acknowledged, if it is the traditional suckler herds that are the cause of the main expenses of this COM’s new adjustments. I therefore ask that the 90 head limit be reinstated in order to qualify for the special premium, which supports the Commission’s point of view. I am not neglecting the fact that the Member States who have waived this limit as part of Agenda 2000 could come up against some problems. Since Amendment No 12 of Article 1 introduces the possibility of taking into account wage costs, however, I believe that this measure is fair. In the same way, I believe that the farmers who are already being penalised by the fall in market prices must not be punished further by a reduction in government support for cutting their numbers of cows per hectare. I would also like to draw the Commission and the Council’s attention to this issue so that the level of premiums per hectare of forage area remains unchanged. As for the other points, naturally, I would also like to voice my support for not applying the ceiling for buying into public intervention of 350 000 tonnes of beef and veal per year in 2001 and 2002 as well as my support for the steps advocated by the rapporteur to promote beef and veal products.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, I wish to express our rejection of this emergency procedure, which the Council requested of Parliament on 18 January and which asks us to deliver our opinion before 14 February. Our committee has given a commitment to process this legislative proposal as rapidly and as diligently as possible, whilst adhering to the legislative procedures that have been laid down, according to which the vote will take place on 13 February in the Strasbourg part-session, as has already been scheduled on the agenda. I wish to take this opportunity, Mr President – because lately these last minute rushes have become a regular occurrence – to say that the Commission and the Council are given considerable notice, a whole year’s notice, of Parliament’s timetable, which should give them – and us too – sufficient time to work on processing these proposals. We were consulted too late, on 7 December to be precise, but even so, we appointed Mr Nicholson as rapporteur and he presented his draft report immediately, the following day, which was 8 December. As I say, we plan to vote in committee on Monday 5 February and debate the report in Parliament’s sitting of Monday 12 in Strasbourg, in order that the vote can be held on 13 February and thereby meet the deadlines that we have been set. I simply wish to point out that we have shown nothing but good will and have shown ourselves to be completely willing, but we do not want to be asked the impossible and, even less, to do our work badly. (Parliament rejected the request for urgent procedure)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too would like to thank Mrs Haug for her excellent work in preparing the budget. Mrs Haug and the Committee on Budgets have taken account of the proposals by the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism. Our committee’s main objective was to see that there were sufficient payment appropriations in next year’s budget. In this way, we ensure that problems with last year’s arrears are resolved and new programmes are introduced effectively. If necessary, the matter of payment appropriations must be examined in the supplementary budget in 2001. The amendments to cross-border cooperation are justified, but we were slightly off target with regard to Interreg and URBAN. The focus for transport is the development of the trans-European transport networks. I am grateful for the investment in sustainable transport, but it has to be said that transport and tourism appropriations are little more than token gestures. In the years to come we will need considerably more in these areas. Our committee will be monitoring the implementation of the budget. The effective use of resources will serve to improve the employment situation, particularly via SMEs and new technology.

Political group: ELDR