GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I should like to congratulate Mrs Buitenweg on the report she has put forward. She has had a very difficult task; getting a consensus on this issue is impossible. However, to get a good majority, I believe, is possible. That majority will largely reflect the views of the people across the European Union. No-one would argue with the fact that we need to seek to reduce the devastating consequences of drug abuse for drug abusers, their families and society as a whole. There is nothing in the report that is contrary to that. We have heard some amazing things from Mr Pirker, Mr Santini, Mr Blokland and others which make one wonder how they chose to interpret the remarks in this report. Mr Pirker, you said a few minutes ago that if you voted in favour of this report, you would be against the health of our young people. Furthermore you said that if you voted in favour of this report you would be helping drug dealers. Really, if you read that into this report, I suggest that you go back and have another read of it. Moreover, if you want your group – the Group – to take that line, I must tell you that it is not just a simplification of the situation, it is a distortion, a gross misrepresentation of what is in the report. People have spoken about zero tolerance. There is absolutely no evidence that zero tolerance is a serious, effective, or even practical policy to follow when we are trying to address this issue. You only have to look at history, at Prohibition in the USA, when there was zero tolerance of alcohol: what a wonderful success that was in solving all the problems they had in the United States! It will not work. There is no evidence to support zero tolerance. I agree with Mrs Boogerd-Quaak when she said that no-one knows the real answer. There is no easy solution. But I believe that in voting for this report we are not saying that the conventions have to be changed but that there is room for an in-depth evaluation. That is why I will be voting for it: to be realistic, to accept society as it is; to be modernistic in our approach; and to be outward-looking. Yes, Mr Pirker, I am looking at the same report as you. We must be outward-looking in this Parliament.

Political group: PSE
Events in Afghanistan have been a cause for serious concern for a number of years. The world must not forget the Afghan people, who continue to suffer from the impact of wars waged by those who value their economic and geo-strategic interests ahead of people’s well being. The Taliban regime was appalling. Equally appalling, however, was the war started by the US Administration, under the pretext of combating terrorism. More than two years on, it is clear that the war did not solve the underlying problems of the Afghan people, nor did it help to support the country’s move towards democracy. As the report says, ‘the deteriorating security situation is the main threat to the population of Afghanistan and to the efforts of Afghan and international NGOs supporting reconstruction, rehabilitation and development initiatives and to the peace process in general’. Events today in Afghanistan, and indeed in Iraq, clearly demonstrate the complete mistake of going to war. The Bush Administration should be condemned for the appalling situation in these countries and for the terrible suffering of the majority of the population.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I should like to ask the Commissioner whether he could confirm that the moratorium on research into using embryonic stem cells is about to be lifted, and that the Commission will be prepared to consider, and potentially fund, applications for research involving embryonic stem cells on the basis of Parliament's resolution of 19 November 2003, which he mentioned.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to support the point raised by Mrs Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou, the rapporteur, and I welcome the initiative proposed by the Commission to provide a basic instrument to fund and to promote organisations active in the field of equality between men and women at European level. As mentioned earlier, many organisations are eligible for this funding. We cannot allow a Europe where some are more equal than others. We must vote in favour of equal treatment between men and women but also between the European Women's Lobby EWL and other women's associations. It is not equal treatment when one organisation can receive funding without needing to make a proposal to the Commission, and yet other organisations must compete against many other worthwhile proposals. It is not equal treatment when there is such a huge difference in the proportion of funding received by one organisation as compared to that granted to other women's organisations. We know that a great deal of the EWL budget goes to coordination and research, but EWL does not offer financial aid to the associations that make it up. These organisations in fact pay for membership of EWL and they do not have permanent financial aid available to them. This discriminates against the very worthwhile organisations that need support at European level to make their voice heard and it undermines the appreciation of the high quality of their work. I would like to point out that when I was newly elected in 1999, I had no idea what or who EWL was. I was contacted by women's organisations in Germany and Spain and I was asked to make a plea on their behalf for equal funding. They did not receive funding from the European Union and they could not receive it unless they were part of EWL, which claimed to be the only voice for women throughout Europe. I do not wish to undermine the work of EWL it has a legitimate purpose and has a right to receive funding but I simply propose that the funding should also be available to other women's organisations, who feel that EWL does not speak for them. Many parties make up this House and sometimes people feel that their voice can be heard perhaps better with one side of the House than with another. That is the situation we are in. Specific organisations should not be mentioned in this proposal. They should be mentioned in the Annex, and there should not be funding for specific actions that can be funded in other programmes. This is in line with the Council position.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, last week, I was on an official visit to Greece with a Parliamentary committee. I approached some Greek family farmers, and they said to me: ‘Do you know, next week, there is going to be a vote on a report on the treatment of foods with ionising radiation. This will mean there will be increasingly big farms which will prepare the food and send it throughout the world, for this treatment will make it possible to preserve food for longer. No, Mr Fatuzzo, we want there to be market gardens in every town, tended by farmers who prepare the produce necessary for each day, with the produce coming straight from the ground, for all the inhabitants of the towns. Vote, therefore, for the least possible aid to be given to this type of treatment of agricultural produce.’

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the agricultural sector of the European Union faces many problems. Greek farmers in particular are anxious about their future. They are anxious about whether to continue to farm their land or to join the queues of the unemployed in the towns. However, we cannot hope for a strong Greece unless we safeguard strong regions. And strong regions mean strong farmers. We must apply a policy which secures farmers a decent income so that they can be master of their own land; so that they have employment, prospects, a future, a productive horizon for their children. Regions without farmers mean a country without a future. Guaranteeing agricultural incomes at decent levels is not just an economic issue. It is, at the same time, a huge social and moral issue. We therefore need to follow an organised agricultural policy which will consistently and constantly lead to the strengthening of the agricultural sector. It is necessary, now, without delay, for us to fight bureaucracy, to simplify procedures to integrate new farmers into Community initiatives and to encourage the development of organic products with less paperwork and more support, with cheap certification of organic products and with undivided advisory support for farmers from the agriculturalists and veterinarians of the Ministry of Agriculture. We need to give Greek farmers the optimism which they lack today, the belief that their work has a future and that their future is close to their land, with prospects, with a serious income and with dignity. IN THE CHAIR: MR ONESTAVice-President President. – Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, do I take it that you are seeking the floor for a procedural motion?

Political group: PPE-DE
Yes, Mr President, I note that the law is not equal for all, because I wanted to speak along the same lines, in the previous sitting, on the resolution on Feira, and I was not given the authorisation to do so, and I did it at the right time in the end. I remember that there was a general row, in those benches, calling for the Rules of Procedure to be respected. This has not been the case today. On behalf of my group, I would like to point out that it is absolutely unacceptable, firstly, that a non-existent agreement be cited, and secondly that my group be threatened. It makes no sense to put conditions on other people’s votes. I accept that one can defend one’s positions, but what is not acceptable is that, in this action, before the vote, my group should be threatened in relation to an issue which has been voted on by the Committee on Budgetary Control, with the votes, also, of the Members on those benches. (Applause) Furthermore, and I will end, Mr President, by saying that there is no mention by name of any group in the Kuhne report. I recommend to Mr Poettering that he reads the report carefully. (Applause from the Group)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, today’s good news is that the UN General Assembly has, by a very large majority, adopted a resolution demanding that Israel stop erecting the so-called security wall. The resolution even demands that those parts of the wall that have already been built should be torn down. Today’s bad news is that, in spite of the UN decision, Israel is continuing to build the wall. In the report we are debating, the European Parliament regards the bringing of peace to the Middle East as the most important task to be shared with the United States, together with Russia and the UN. We reiterate, moreover, our unqualified support, with which the UN decision is splendidly in keeping, for the implementation of the road map. Today, we are also able, together with Commissioner Patten, to be delighted that the hierocracy in Iran is to allow comprehensive inspections and to refrain from producing uranium for use in nuclear weapons. The final Iranian acceptance of nuclear inspections followed a visit by the foreign ministers of Germany, France and Great Britain – an international agreement for which the EU can take credit. We are today debating a sound report, and that is something for which I should also like to thank Mr Brok. It is a very concise report, but not a short one, and I only have a short time in which to mention some of the points I think important. The US-NATO relationship is quite fundamental to the European security structure, and we must support the development of reinforced cooperation in the defence area. Asia, and China in particular, has not been given as much attention in the report as might perhaps have been wished. The increased tensions in relations between China and North Korea is cause for concern, but what is more worrying is, of course, the fact that North Korea will not phase out its nuclear weapons programme. We regard this as a considerable threat to stability in Asia. The Taiwan issue must also be mentioned in this context. In a democratic institution such as this, we must regret the lack of progress on this matter. Taiwan is both democratic and peaceful, but the Taiwanese cannot live in the same manner as people in other free, democratic countries, given the way its neighbour is behaving. I should like to call for a new dialogue between China and Taiwan and for the EU to do more in pressing for a solution to the conflict.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, may I ask the President-in-Office a question of a different sort on air traffic control. I appreciate she may not have been briefed on this, so if she does not know the answer perhaps she would be kind enough to write to me in such a way that we can publish it for our colleagues. It concerns the issue of the regulation which is shortly to come in which will enable airline pilots between the ages of 60 and 65 to fly freight traffic throughout Europe, with one exception. The one exception is France. That means, because of the extent of French airspace, pilots over 60 will effectively be out of a job. Will she take that back to the Council of Ministers, raise it with her French colleagues in particular, and answer me, perhaps in writing later, unless she is able to do so today, about what can be done to ensure that these older pilots' jobs are made safe.

Political group: PPE-DE
The process of European integration has moved on apace in recent years. Enlargement towards the countries of Eastern and Central Europe (CEEC), Cyprus and Malta has been called an ‘historic task’ for the European Union. This phrase gives us an idea of the scale of the issues that have been grafted onto the process. Extending the European Union, at least in the first stage, to more than 100 million new citizens, will provide new impetus for the development and integration of the European economy as a whole. The accession of new Member States will provide the Union with further weight and influence on the international stage. At the same time, there are still considerable difficulties to overcome, particularly in terms of budgets. The first wave of new Member States could increase Europe’s population by more than a quarter, taking it to almost 500 million people, whilst the total GDP of the European Union would increase by only 5% at the most. Despite the enormous efforts that these countries have made, integrating them into existing structures and programmes will be a particularly tricky task. The report we have been debating today seeks to provide an update on the progress that has been made in accession negotiations with all the candidate countries. The report urges the Commission and the Council to ensure that the principle of differentiation, as defined in Helsinki, is implemented to the letter, so that each country is judged on its own merits. The candidate countries themselves must continue their efforts to strengthen their administrative capacities for the implementation and enforcement of the Community aquis. They are also asked to build up effective financial control and audit procedures in order to effectively control the use of the pre-accession funds. Furthermore, they would under no circumstances be able to demand an opt-out clause in the context of the EMU. We are making many demands of the candidate countries, but at the same time, the European Union too has its duties: it is obliged to implement the reforms necessary for enlargement. The forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference is due to look at improving the European Union’s institutional framework. To return to the budgetary aspect, I think it is crucial that we study the budgetary consequences of such a large number of new Member States joining before the end of the current financial cycle in 2006. Lastly, I wish to stress the fact that the enlargement process must be a gradual one, following the pace at which the candidate countries are making the necessary changes. That is why I, like several of my fellow Members, do not feel it would be wise to set deadlines. I should also like to remind you that this process must not cause us to neglect the cooperation with the countries on all sides of the Mediterranean to which we are committed!

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am going to be very brief, but first I would like to congratulate all the rapporteurs. The basic consensus with which they have worked is something to be greatly welcomed and is very encouraging. The debate, as we have seen, is not so much about the principles, objectives and timeliness of the reform as about the procedures, pace, timetable, and possible shortcomings or unwanted consequences of its implementation. This is a necessary reform because at the root of it was a real political crisis, not just the normal self-criticism which occurs in the course of an administration that has been in action for several decades. However, what we are dealing with here is not a political reform with administrative consequences but an administrative reform with political consequences. We are therefore dealing with one of those challenges that are occasionally faced by politicians who must find the best way to safeguard the governability of institutions, as well as the best way to provide the citizens with a good administration. The success of the reform will be a success for all of us and we all have a great deal at stake here. This being the case, it seems to me not only appropriate but also necessary to explore all the possibilities offered by interinstitutional dialogue. This dialogue must open up the basic legislative framework of Community finances to the codecision procedure. This dialogue must allow the establishment of common mechanisms in human resources policies. It must yield fruit in terms of multiannual budgetary agreements, within the framework of the Financial Perspectives and, finally, it must allow us to work jointly on the monitoring and control of the reform. Ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the European public is not so much interested in our plans, in the sense of the material design of the reform, as in the intentions, that is to say, its objectives and consequences. The public is going to judge us according to the degree of transparency, closeness in the decision-making responsibilities, coherence in the distribution of responsibilities, and according to the efficiency which is finally achieved.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, environmental considerations are very important in the field of energy and that is why I would like to thank Mr Chichester warmly for his report, which addresses the right questions in substance. Approximately 50% of our energy requirement in Europe is met by mineral oil and 25% by gas, which means that 3⁄4 of our energy currently derives from fossil energy sources. If we take as read that we import more than 50% of the European Union’s total energy requirement then we definitely need to ask ourselves the following question: how can we guarantee reliability of supply in the face of climate change, which in view of the worldwide CO2 problem may, indeed will affect us, not just if there is a failure to take preventive action on our part, but, above all, if there are changes in the political climate? Speaking of changes in the political climate, I would like to point out that we are extremely dependent on certain regions. 39% of the gas we use has to be imported and 41% of this comes from the CIS States. Gas consumption is experiencing very rapid growth in the European Union and energy imports to the European Union are still rising at a rate of 0.9% per annum. We have made good progress where the environment is concerned. CO2 levels are constant to rising slightly, we achieved a 30% reduction in SO2 levels between 1990 and 1994 and a 9% reduction in the case of NOx. Nuclear power cannot be the answer to our problems. That is why the Austrian delegation intends to abstain when it comes to consideration L and section 5. Increasingly, nuclear energy is being replaced by gas. That is why we consider reliability of supply in this sector to be paramount and also why Parliament does not intend to give way in the negotiations with the Council on ALTENER and SAVE – that is to say with EUR 81 million and EUR 68 million. We need reliability of supply, we need competitive energy!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I consider the proposal of the Group that an own-initiative report should be drawn up on the fish processing industry was a good one. And, in light of the magnificent report that has been produced, I also welcome the fact that it was drafted by our rapporteur, Mrs Langenhagen, whom I wish to congratulate once again on her work. As our rapporteur said, we feel that the Commission is not addressing the issue of this industry with the appropriate seriousness. The Green Paper is a clear example of this. This is why we expect more from the Commission in terms of its proposals, and I would say that this report is apt for that very reason. The Langenhagen report addresses the problem as a whole. In 1998, we drew up a specific report on the canning industry – for which I had the honour of being rapporteur – but this report provides an update and, furthermore, encompasses the entire industry, including frozen products and the marketing aspects, as well as the products of aquaculture. From Mrs Langenhagen’s report I should like to highlight her observations on both the global and European frameworks, taking account of enlargement. In the first case, she considers the liberalisation of imports of raw materials, which is very important, and makes specific exceptions for sensitive products such as tuna loins. She also refers to quality, to the environmental and health and hygiene standards of European products compared to imports, in order to protect European consumers from labelling fraud, which has occurred in the cases of sardines and tuna. At European level, as has been said, plans are being made to deal with the consequences of the candidate countries’ accession, but in a way that does not damage the industry in regions which are behind in economic terms, and which are currently experiencing difficulties. Lastly, the report calls for our fisheries products to be promoted more vigorously and for more assistance with R+D to be given to our companies. I wish to conclude by stating, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party, that we will be supporting the three amendments tabled by the Group of the but that we shall be voting against Amendment No 4 by the Group of the European Liberal, Democratic and Reform Party, because we feel that the text submitted by our rapporteur is better.

Political group: PPE-DE