GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I thank Mr Peres for the work he has done and especially for his willingness to receive proposals and suggestions; I thank the Commission for having done such a thorough job; and I thank the Committee on Agriculture for having unanimously approved the amendments tabled. This means there may be a unanimous vote in Parliament tomorrow, and there is hope that a strong proposal may reach the Council, strong because it is expressed by a unanimous Parliament. It is true that in the debate about the reform of the common agricultural policy, which is beginning to be discussed, the conviction is emerging from many parts that in time aid for production will gradually be cut down. Producers are not frightened by this prospect as long as it is possible to sell on the market at a fair price. This objective can be pursued essentially in two ways: either by organising a promotion, information and consumer awareness campaign as well as advertising the product, which is the only way to make quality prevail on the market, or by preventing and discouraging fraud and adulteration. The latter is a problem that cannot be left just to the Member States, but one that the whole Union must face by understanding that it is responsible. The amendments tabled and approved are a step in this direction. Here I shall ask the Commission a formal question. With this resolution we are going to intervene in Regulation 1638/98. There is, however, an amendment which explicitly seeks an undertaking regarding Regulation 2815, the regulation which provides for the possibility of marketing oil without labelling and lays down the origin of the product linked to the place of pressing and not the place of harvesting. Commissioner Fischler gave me and Mr Lavarra an undertaking that at the time of the COM reform this Regulation too would somehow be eliminated or at least modified. The Regulation expires on 31 October 2001. My question is this: what is the Commission going to do? Does it intend to keep faith with this undertaking and also with this approved amendment which will surely be approved by Parliament tomorrow, and thus not renew this Regulation from November 2001 onwards, or change it in line with the wishes of the highest democratic assembly? We ask for an explicit undertaking by the Commission because while we are discussing and legally intervening in Regulation 1638 we do not want the other Regulation to go off in a different direction which does not allow for the possibility of its being legally amended.

Political group: ELDR
Commissioner, albeit somewhat belatedly, we are taking stricter and stricter measures. However, what you have said begs the most important questions about which neither you nor the Council have said anything. I refer to coordination and control. You have indirectly identified the shortcomings; we know that there are serious shortcomings but where are the proposals? Legislation on inspections, for example, is making no headway whatsoever at European level. My second point concerns alternative solutions. Other Members have raised the same point. What is to be done with the meat and bone meal which has to be destroyed? What is to be done with the dangerous substances which we remove from the food chain? I know from my own country that this is a problem. But what I do not know is how they can be reliably destroyed or, more to the point, how the costs can be covered. That brings me to my last point: how are the costs to be covered, even at European Union level? As far as I know, we have about EUR 1.5 billion in our coffers. Your lowest estimates put the cost at EUR 3.5 billion and many are saying that it might be as high as 7 or 8. Proposals for covering the cost as the budget now stands and with the financial perspectives which you support there are none. What are we going to do? We want more credible answers.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, every year, the discharge is the highlight of the year in the Committee on Budgetary Control. I wish all rapporteurs every success in their work, and Mr Blak, in particular, who will probably ensure, for the first time in many years, that the Commission will be granted discharge on time. I hope I can congratulate him on that tomorrow. In fact, I also hope that he has enjoyed reading the answers to his questions. They turned out to be rather lengthy, and got the better of me at times. The hallmark of this budget is the fact that the Statement of Assurance is still not positive. This has to become positive, and Parliament must also be able to judge whether any progress is being made in that respect. We as a group support every effort to secure this Statement of Assurance and we believe that it should be extended to include every sector, or maybe to include every Directorate-General. I would like to make a few general points. The figures which we are familiar with show that agriculture is in a considerably better position than the other sections of the budget. That is very positive. Compared to the other sectors, agriculture can afford to present the margin of error of 3%, although this is probably still far too high. The Commission must apply this as soon as possible to the other sections of the policy, and other Commissioners must follow Mr Fischler’s lead. I would like to comment on the superlevy in agriculture. We all know the system of milk quota. All farmers in Europe pay extra if they produce too much milk. There is one country which forms an exception to this rule, namely Italy. The Italian government pays the levy on behalf of the farmers. Is this not a case of distortion of competition? Should the Commission not do something about this promptly? I am pleased with the Commissioner’s reply further to the Fléchard affair. Although we do not have all the facts of what happened between 1991-1994, there is every reason to believe that it was unacceptable. We are pleased with the fact that the present Commission has dissociated itself from this and that it is submitting proposals as soon as possible, which pertain, among other things, to the way in which the proportionality principle can be applied. What is the responsibility of the officials in this respect? When should it be assessed by the Commission or Commissioner himself, etc.? What are the exact procedures to be followed in those cases? There are still many ambiguities surrounding flax. What will be important for this Parliament is the question as to what will ultimately be the financial correction which the Commission will apply to the countries which are involved in this. This will probably not only affect Spain. My conclusion on behalf of the group is that we will be granting discharge. We are aware that this is the last year for which the Commission can say that it was not responsible. The real test for the current Commission will come with the examination of the accounts for 2000.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the fisheries agreements the EU has signed with third countries have always formed a decisive part of its common fisheries policy. I want to pay tribute to the excellent work carried out by Mrs Fraga Estéves, the rapporteur. As a Member from Réunion, I am naturally interested in the conclusion of this seventh fisheries agreement between the EU and Madagascar, given its implications for fishing in the Indian Ocean and, obviously, off Réunion too. Let me start by pointing out that there is an enormous paradox between the restrictions imposed by the establishment of a European common fisheries policy and the precautionary principle the European Union advocates. In fact, at the same time that the Commission was refusing to countenance any increase in the rate of public aid for longliners in Réunion on the grounds that this resource could be at risk in this part of the Indian Ocean, it was also saying that this same resource was abundant enough to allow for an increase in catches under its fisheries agreements with third countries. For those of us who come from Réunion, this is rather difficult to understand, as, moreover, I explained, in Réunion, to some of our MEPs in the Committee on Fisheries, pointing out that the fishing resources of this sector are young, specific and over-abundant, with the result that the catch quota criteria imposed by the common fisheries policy are inappropriate. The rapporteur refers to the increased fishing opportunities given under the agreement between the EU and Madagascar, which will make it easier for fishermen from Réunion to acquire additional fishing rights in Malagasy territorial waters. We would be allowing them to increase their catch quota, which, at present, accounts for only 0.12% of the total EU catch in this zone. The fisheries agreements are the EU's main instrument for contributing to the development of the fishing industry in third countries. A large part of the total financial contribution is allocated to this under the agreement with Madagascar. Since it is quite familiar with the real situation in Madagascar, Réunion is prepared to offer its experience and to take part in co-development projects, based, in particular, on the creation of joint enterprises with Madagascar and the development of aquaculture. In fact, some projects of this kind have already been conducted and simply need reinforcing. Finally, I do hope the European Union will adopt a strict policy with regard to poaching in the Indian Ocean. Madagascar has recently signed bilateral agreements with Japan, Taiwan and Korea, the terms of which are not always entirely clear. I therefore feel it is crucial for the European Union to keep a very close watch specifically over the implementation of the special surveillance and monitoring measures aimed at restricting poaching activities in this zone and thus to ensure that the signing of the fisheries agreement with Madagascar is genuinely and indisputably valid.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this is nothing to do with aeroplanes, although I could speak about flights if you wished me to. I want to refer partly to a point of order and partly to yesterday's Minutes. As you will recall, the first thirteen items of yesterday's agenda took the best part of an hour to get through. We then had the privilege of the Prime Minister of Portugal speaking. At the moment the Prime Minister spoke about half the Chamber got up to walk out. This may have been because they had other meetings, or whatever, but it is a gross discourtesy for people to walk out when the Prime Minister is speaking. I would ask you to ask the political groups and Parliament to try to ensure that when there are heads of state or prime ministers speaking in this Parliament there are not other meetings happening at the same time, which give people the opportunity to walk out. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the proposed resolution on a common European security and defence policy is an important signal from the European Parliament in the run-up to the Feira Summit, a signal which points in two directions. First, a declaration of an independent role for the European Union in both civil and military security policy within a clearly defined remit, as in the Petersberg tasks for maintaining peace and peace-making. Secondly, a signal to take account of and strengthen the role of the European Parliament in fashioning a common European security and defence policy. The European Union needs to make up lost ground when it comes to a common security and defence policy if you think that its defence spending does not even equal 60% of comparable spending in the USA and only achieves 10% of the operational efficiency of the USA. The specific undertaking to create a European strike force no more than 60 000 strong in order to complete the Petersberg tasks calls for solidarity between all the Member States of the European Union. The lack of any real common foreign and security policy has been exacerbated by the Balkan crisis, which highlighted the weakness of the European Union in this area. We cannot double the functions of NATO in the area of global security. We cannot build up an expensive parallel structure. But completion of the Petersberg tasks must be guaranteed and the principle that security is indivisible must be applied, which is why mutual support, as anchored in Article 5 of the WEU Treaty, must be open to all sides in a revised EU Treaty. The idea of attaching Article 5 in an additional protocol to a revised Treaty, to which the individual Member States may accede if necessary, therefore represents a reasonable attempt to find a solution.

Political group: PPE-DE
We Swedish Social Democrats, Mr Andersson, Mrs Hulthén, Mr Färm and Mr Karlsson, voted against Amendment No 63 because we think it important to have framework agreements for intellectual services too. The designation, ‘intellectual services’ should be specified. In Sweden, framework agreements concerning, for example, architectural, medical, auditing, banking and consultancy services are quite usual. If this amendment were to be implemented, it would have very awkward consequences in Sweden. We Swedish Social Democrats voted in favour of Amendment No 16, which we consider to be a well balanced amendment. It is desirable that public contracts should not be awarded to economic operators who have belonged to criminal organisations or have been guilty of acts involving corruption or fraud. We nonetheless believe it important that the recitals show that it is the Member States that are to determine which conditions are to be fulfilled and what penalty is to have been imposed for the judgement to involve exclusion. We also voted in favour of Amendments Nos 48, 79-83, and 86-90, but would nonetheless point out that we really do not think that an enumeration of these different crimes belongs in a directive such as this, because such a list can never be complete.

Political group: PSE
I am voting in favour of this report because it is urgent that the European Union takes specific decisions to combat the greenhouse effect. However, the reference, in point G, to “flexibility mechanisms” is unacceptable to me because the principle of organising a market for the right to pollute would be scandalous. The “right to pollute” should not be for sale and the richer countries should not be able to side-step the common law by means of a payment or transaction. It is they above all, who should have the means to conform to the necessary constraints in order to improve the environment. Everything possible must be done to ensure that each operator will make the greatest possible reduction in its pollution, guaranteeing that the minimum effort laid down is carried out by all parties. Market regulations should not replace the requirements of the law – and therefore the duties – which apply to everyone. This is a crucial choice of society which is fundamental to European identity. In this respect too, we are making serious concessions to American and liberal ideas which, however, have proved to be ineffective in terms of protecting the planet and to be unfair. Europe has not been able to prevent the establishment of this principle in Kyoto, however it is in no way obliged to implement it in its own territory. Finally, I hope that we will be able to resist it.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as speakers have already pointed out, when the Erika sank last year it released an oil slick into the waters along the French Atlantic coastline, threatening wildlife and the local tourist and fishing industries. Regrettably, however, this was yet another in a catalogue of marine environmental disasters which included the Braer spill off Shetland and the Sea Empress off Wales. Recently in Ireland we were fortunate to escape a similar disaster when an oil spillage some 88 miles west of the Aran Islands threatened to engulf the Irish coastline. Thankfully the danger passed. An added difficulty with marine pollution is that because of the nature of the sea it can rapidly spread to the coastlines of many Member States at once. Hence the need for a coordinated, effective EU response rather than simply leaving it in the hands of the Member State initially affected. I welcome Ms McKenna's report. I would like to pay tribute to her for her work. But the real question is how we implement the legislation and what sort of action we take. The ability to respond quickly with sufficient resources is an essential element of any strategy that must be put into place immediately in the wake of a disaster to minimise environmental damage. It is doubtful that this could be adequately provided at a national level, which is why it must be done at a Europe-wide level. The most effective way of achieving this is by establishing an EU coastguard which, as well as having responsibility for pollution control, could also undertake responsibilities for policing the high seas, enforcing the common fisheries policy and also marine rescue. I believe this is an issue which should be tabled for discussion at the forthcoming IGC.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President-in-Office of the Council, my question touched on two issues. First, Mr Berlusconi's views, if I may call them such, on Arabs and Islam. It seems to me from what you have read out that the Council begs to differ from, not to say condemns these views. And that is good news. But I asked you a second question, Madam President-in-Office of the Council. In his statements, Mr Berlusconi equated the huge demonstrations being held all over the world, in both Europe and America, by people who believe that globalisation could take a different form and a different direction, with terrorism. In other words, he equated these demonstrations with terrorism. What is the Council's view on this issue, which is an extremely important issue and one which will no doubt crop up again in the future?

Political group: GUE-NGL
I would like to say the following in support of Mr Koukiadis. I thought that somewhere in the Rules of Procedure – I was unable to look it up in this short space of time – it is stipulated that the Commission can be asked to comment on any point that is presented. I think it good that this should happen in this case, and I have the impression that the Commission is also willing to comment. I thought that it was a general rule in this House that if the Commission wishes to speak out on something, it actually does so. This is only a rare event because issues like these hardly ever get into the news so suddenly but, in this case, I think we ought to create a precedent and that the Commission, if it so wishes, should be able to make a statement in a case like this, especially because its own role is at issue and, otherwise, widespread confusion could be created in the press. Madam President, I should like to insist emphatically that this statement be made and I do not think that it should take very long.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I believe the issue of ensuring integrated and correct implementation of the Community’s environmental policy is perhaps the greatest challenge facing the Member States today. Unfortunately, however, the requirements of environmental policy are not being respected and are not being properly incorporated when programmes and projects are formulated and approved in the Member States. The problem is in fact much worse; in addition to the fact that environmental legislation is being contravened in projects and programmes which have received Community approval and funding, it is also being contravened during the implementation of projects and programmes in receipt of private or national funding. I should just like to draw your attention to paragraph b and point 3 and 8 of the resolution which takes account of precisely this issue. It is absurd for EU environmental legislation not to be applied or respected for all projects in the Member States, irrespective of whether they require Community or some other type of funding. We should make it quite clear to countries which contravene environmental legislation that the Commission, which is the guardian of primary and secondary Community law, will ensure that the environment is not damaged when projects are constructed. This flagrant violation of our basic environmental laws must not be allowed to continue. We need, once and for all, to come out and say what is happening in the Member States, because transparency, courage and the truth are the best policy. And the truth is that the directives for the Natura 2000 network have been inadequately implemented both in my country and in other Member States. For example, despite the fact that the Maliakos Gulf and the wetlands of the Sperkhios river have been designated as conservation areas under the Natura 2000 network, there are proposals to bridge the Maliakos Gulf, in violation of Community law, despite the fact that an alternative solution could be found. I therefore insist and we call on the Commission to ensure that EU environmental legislation is properly implemented and respected in all projects and, if need be, to take recourse to the European Court, as another speaker has suggested, and propose huge fines and take a strict line.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as it is now after midnight, I say to you, Mr President and to you, Commissioner, happy Valentine's day! This is a very good report. I say that without surprise as it is by Mrs Jensen, so of course it is a good report. However, it was a slightly better report before the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs ‘improved it’. Some of the amendments that have come through have not made it a better document. I refer to just two aspects. The first aspect – taking my life in my hands – refers to some of the amendments of the Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities. I strongly support women's rights. I strongly support the rights of young people, of old people, of disabled people and many other minorities. But only the women have their own committee to speak up for them. At times, perhaps, their voice drowns out some of the other groups, in my judgment. I take as an example Article 3.1(1) where the original text said: 'To the maximum possible extent analysis will be gender-specific'. I agree with that. It should be gender-specific to the maximum possible extent. But the Women's Committee has taken out the words 'to the maximum possible extent'. Apparently 'maximum possible' is not quite maximum enough. I believe it was fine as it was. I use that as an example, but I am still supportive of women's rights. I have my tomato-proof suit on just in case you were thinking of doing something. The second point concerns the budget. I believe the Committee on Budgets made a reference to the budget increasing from EUR 50 million to EUR 55 million, but on the basis that this should be proportionate to the implementation. Last year's budget was EUR 50 million. Only two-thirds of that was spent; 25% of that was eaten up by administrative costs. To go up from EUR 55 million to 65 million – which is the latest amendment – is, in my view, disproportionate. It is a reflection of the enthusiasm of the committee for this particular project. Sometimes it is all too common that in order to signify the importance of a subject more money is offered to it. I should like to hope that, increasingly, colleagues could recognise that money is not just a reflection of importance, and that it is possible to vote strongly for a report without increasing the money. I fear I may have to wait a long time to see that. Given my advancing years it may be my successors who see that approach first.

Political group: PPE-DE