GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Commissioner, allow me to focus for a moment, in the context of Mr Da Silva's excellent report and the situation which she has just described, which is important and full of potential for the future, on a phenomenon which is assuming dramatic proportions: the floods which affected huge areas of Europe last week, primarily northern Italy but also France and Spain. We are acquiring the habit of describing our times in dramatic language: verbs such as to overflow, to flood, to burst banks, are part of a vocabulary which is becoming almost the norm. We feel that this is a dramatic consequence of the climate change taking place and that the social and economic system must provide some sort of response to this. Even the climate experts tell us that the very meteorology of our regions is changing. The exceptional amount of rain which has fallen over the last few days has served to offset the prevailing drought of the past year. We are told that the drought trend will continue into the years to come and worsen as time goes by, unavoidably interspersed with the odd deluge and resulting floods. And so, now that, sadly, our dead have been buried, the journalists have left the devastated areas and the river, in this case the Po – I live by the Po – is again taking its normal course, it is time, as we say in Italy, to put up our umbrellas, not to appear prophets of doom but to evaluate once again the requirements and the remedies. Certainly, a great deal of progress had been made in recent years in the area of alert and alarm measures, which have made it possible to keep the scale of the disasters in check, but although this is important, it cannot be considered a primary factor. We need a defence policy dedicated purely to following up the recommendations of the experts. We need to be making political and regional planning decisions that protect the earth even when the sun is shining. I would therefore stress a few points. The first concerns the approach to man's built environment, which must not be overlooked. Construction must be oriented towards ever more stringent application of planning rules, standards and controls. In particular, there must be greater emphasis on man's agricultural environment. In the recent flooding of the Po, farmland acted as a floodway, protecting the urban centres, and agriculture channelled off the floodwater, bearing the brunt of it itself in order to protect built-up areas. Therefore, we must reaffirm the role of agriculture as the protector of the environment, a role which is wont to be sidelined, overlooked and undervalued on sunny days. There is no provision in agricultural or environmental policy or in town and country planning for this role played by agriculture. Europe needs to pinpoint appropriate forms of coordination in this regard.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, the United States thought it could manipulate the United Nations in order to obtain legal cover for its predatory war in Iraq, but the UN stood its ground. The UN and public opinion worldwide want nothing to do with this war. Reason and justice refuse to submit to the fanatical fundamentalism which has been holding sway for some time now in Washington. The Iraqi people are innocent. Why, when they have been suffering for so long under such a cruel embargo, is it necessary to bomb them as well? This war will precipitate a conflict between civilisations. This time, it is not the Islamic fundamentalists who are pushing for war, but the US administration. The reactions will be terrible. They have already begun. Yesterday the Al-Hasar mosque, the Moslem Vatican, called for a holy war against the United States. In the Security Council, France will use its veto to oppose the war, and so will Russia. We must preserve peace.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, when a delegation from our parliamentary group recently visited Iran, we were actually surprised at the degree of discussion that took place there as well as at the willingness to engage in dialogue which was shown by the many young women who constitute the majority of the student population in Iran. Yes, the majority of university and college students are women. It is probably this very situation that prompted the Council of Guardians to curb and nullify the potential effects of what we, from our perspective, see as an encouraging development. If we talk today about the elections in Iran, it would be quite legitimate for anyone to say that Iran should take its own decision and to ask why we are interfering. I would say yes, Iran – that is to say the population of Iran – should decide for itself. That, however, is precisely what the Council of Guardians wants to prevent. It is not a matter of reformers or non-reformers. If the non-reformers are elected, we shall have to live with that. The point is that the Council of Guardians operates a selection process from the outset to determine who is allowed to stand for election, and it is this very selection process that prevents the Iranian people from deciding freely. Such elections cannot produce a truly legitimate freely elected Parliament because of the way in which candidates are preselected. We in the European Union have no option but to press for the most important changes that are needed in Iran, whatever happens at the polls. I am thinking here of the death penalty. The present moratorium on stoning, a particularly barbaric form of execution, must be scrupulously observed and even enshrined in a legal instrument. I am thinking of the ratification of the Additional Protocol to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which will probably be a matter for the new Parliament. Whoever is elected, we must press a clear case for ratification. I am also thinking of the situation in the Middle East, where we need Iranian support. Let there be no shortage of criticism – unsparing criticism – of these conditions in Iran. At the same time, the Commission will no doubt also have to work to ensure that all the main aspects of Iranian conduct in the Middle East are conducive to peace in the region. Be that as it may, the fact remains that we cannot but roundly condemn the approach adopted by the Council of Guardians.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I thank the rapporteur for his kind mention of my Amendment No 11, which referred to Article 6, paragraph 5a (new). This called for Commission officials responsible for non-payment in due time to be named in the official Parliamentary record after a three-week deadline. The purpose of this flowed from an experience of one of my constituents in the West Midlands who had to wait for over a year to get paid his due from - I have to say - the Agriculture DG rather than your own, Commissioner, but who none the less came across two particular individuals who were not only incompetent but also unhelpful. They know who they are. I think it is appropriate that other people should know who they are. So this amendment was not tabled out of malice, but out of experience and a desire to be helpful, in my usual style. I was pleased that in your opening remarks you said that, perhaps as a result of this amendment, it is your intention to speed up decision-making. But I was concerned about your follow-up comments when you said that we have to take note of the possibility of enlargement slowing things up, that we still have to take care of evaluation, and so on. There were too many 'buts' from my point of view. I have to say gently, but firmly, Commissioner, that those are fine words but we shall be watching you. It is important to say that this should go through at first reading, despite what I have just said. I agree with the rapporteur that this is an important issue. To help it on its way the Group is calling for a roll-call vote on this particular amendment but will then abstain so that the amendment will fall. Hopefully then, the report will go through but we will have put down a marker. As MEPs we are each held accountable for what we say, what we do and what we fail to do. This is as it should be. But I must say to the Commissioner that such a policy should not just apply to us; it should apply to everyone in authority and especially to those in public service. Some Commission officials clearly believe that it does not apply to them. They are quite wrong. If they fail to learn, then I am confident that Parliament will put forward another helpful amendment in due course that will not be voted down. Today and tomorrow we will have given a warning shot. If this fails to work, we shall use live rounds.

Political group: PPE-DE
Then, you could have said so far earlier. In that case I would have left the Chamber and followed the discussion from my office, where I could also have got on with my work.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I appreciate the spirit in which Members have spoken in this House today, and also on previous occasions, over months and even longer, in addressing this issue. It is surely one of the issues which European and, I might say, world public opinion cares about most, as well as being one of the most important for Europe’s identity. There are arguments on which Europe has intervened effectively but which do not receive the general support of public opinion and the citizens. There are other, more specific and sector-based topics, on the other hand, which have received approval. This, however, is a general topic which has received the general support of the citizens. On reading the documentation relating to this procedure as a whole, on how it developed and how it is concluded today, I find a vagueness in many chapters and recitals, as well as in many expressions that are or will be binding on this subject. It is a vagueness that is quite common in acts of the European Parliament, the Commission or the Council, but which, in this case, could perhaps have been more fully corrected. My concern is not the delay in reaching the position that is emerging today in the report, but rather that more specific detail should be given regarding interventions, the form these take, controls and the procedures by which they are enforced, and the flexibility and dignity of the controls – in other words they should not be humiliating for the producer or the consumer. I think that, in this sense, we could have been more specific and, at the same time, more respectful of the rights of producers and distributors, but always, of course, in the consumer’s interest. For instance, I find that expressions such as ‘dangerous’ and ‘serious risk’ are insufficient; they could certainly be used in a standard or a regulation – at national or other levels – but, as these arguments are so delicate and liable to affect the daily lives of consumers and thus of society and the community, we could, perhaps, have been more explicit. As for the future, bearing in mind what I have said regarding controls, I think that the three-yearly report required of the Commission should be drawn up at shorter intervals, without waiting three years, so as to prevent situations from arising over the three years that need to be remedied with specific provisions. That is why I believe that this point may warrant further consideration.

Political group: PPE-DE
We voted against the Commission proposal and the report on the budgetary means of the enlarged Union for 2007-2013 because we disagree with core approaches to resources and objectives which they are called on to serve. These objectives express basic choices of big business: the promotion of the anti-labour forecasts and arrangements of the Lisbon process, on the pretext of combating unemployment, support for and massive enlargement of a supranational and uncontrolled mechanism for prosecuting grass-roots movements, on the pretext of security, and the strengthening and militarisation of the ΕU, on the pretext of combating terrorism. We condemn the endeavour to reduce the resources available for social and regional cohesion, however fake these objectives may have proven to be, and to increase resources to serve plans to wage war on and persecute the peoples of the ΕU and third countries. We are against reflecting in future Community resources the principle of dealing at national level with the consequences of policies decided at Community level and we are against calling on the peoples to foot the bill twice. The solution to the problems of the peoples of the Member States of the ΕU does not lie in a few pennies more or less; it lies in the fight by the workers for radical change to the policies exercised by their governments and the ΕU, in the fight for the sovereignty of grass-roots choices against those of big business.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I naturally respect Commissioner Byrne’s view, recommending the committee procedure. However, what we are aiming at is not to delay the handling of this matter but to be able to conduct a debate here for, on this issue as on many others, there is a lack of scientific clarity. Yesterday in Stockholm, I met a representative of the American Department of Agriculture, who did not take the European view of science. In this Chamber, we need, then, to debate issues which are not only scientific but are also about ethical stances and the precautionary principle. It is not, then, about postponing dealing with this issue. Rather, the aim is to obtain a more thorough political debate.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, this has not been an easy report for the committee to handle but there are two points which I believe need to be addressed by the Council when it is reaching its final decision. First, the concept of viability in the industry should be strengthened. Productivity improvements should be demonstrated where financial aid is made available. The second point is that because of low world prices, developing reserves in existing coalmines is very often difficult to finance and this accelerates the closure programme. Support for such developments should be included in the provisions. I would also like to associate myself with remarks made by Mr Markov.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, should these reports be serious then they certainly deserve a quorum. What I will do is to press my point of order.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, this report on women in rural areas is well-timed, as the role and position of women in agriculture and rural areas will become even more important in view of the fundamental change in the system of the common agricultural policy to which the agriculture ministers more or less agreed when they met in Luxembourg last week. Now, at last, there will be improved opportunities for giving support in this area, although, of course, for the farmers whose income is to be cut, this is no substitute and not much of a comfort. This is where women will come into their own, having, as is well known, a greater flexibility and more imaginative approach when it comes to taking on new tasks that can bring in some additional income. This does of course depend on the right framework conditions being in place, and also on gender mainstreaming – or, to put it in comprehensible terms, equality of opportunity for men and women. Serious attention needs to be given to this in this context, so that new potential sources of income can be opened up in labour, marketing, tourism and culture – areas in which women are especially efficient, and in relation to which there are many sensible suggestions in the report by Mrs Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou, whom I thank most warmly for her work. I am particularly grateful that the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, in its opinion, harks back to my 1997 report on the situation of assisting spouses of the self-employed in agriculture. Six years have passed since this House called upon the Commission to cause an amendment to be made to the 1986 directive on the application of the principle of equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity, including agriculture. I regret that the Commission has taken no specific action in response to this report. As Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf has just reminded us, we did, for example, demand the registration of working married couples, so that they would no longer be invisible in the labour force. If I might say one last thing, Mr President, if you want to do something to keep women in rural areas, you have to ensure that they suffer no discrimination either as regards fair payment for their work or as regards social security. We want and need mandatory insurance specifically for the millions of assisting spouses, and this is where I might, perhaps, recommend Luxembourg’s approach as exemplary. (The President cut off the speaker)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start with warm congratulations to the rapporteur, Mr Salafranca. There were reasons for this Agreement's problem-free progress through the committee and the unanimous support it received in it, for we worked together very well, not only on this Agreement but generally, and Chile's concerns have found a worthy rapporteur in the person of Mr Salafranca. As has already been mentioned, this is an Agreement with a large number of objectives, a complete Agreement intended to cover a great deal and to bring us closer together. The Commissioner has stated that, even while the Agreement was being worked out, bilateral trade increased by 28%, and, whilst I believe that there is room for further increases and greater cooperation, I would like to point out that the actual reason Chile deserves this special new Agreement is that it currently represents an atoll of stability in Latin America, which is so turbulent economically, politically and in other ways. It is in our interests to maintain this stability and help to make it even more secure. My principal interest is in the political dimension, and there are two points I would like to address at this point. The first, the ratification of the treaty on the International Criminal Court, initially appeared to be something of a problem but has been resolved by cooperation with the Chilean embassy in Brussels and by the government's assurances. We attach great importance to Chile's ratification of this treaty. We are aware of the constitutional difficulties that exist at present, but, having satisfied ourselves that the government is working on it, we have hope of it being ratified soon. The second point is that Chile is currently a member of the Security Council. In these very difficult times, it will be very important that Chile should, in consultation and coordination with the relevant Member States of the European Union, help to achieve a peaceful solution to the present conflict.

Political group: PSE
We voted in favour of this resolution, because asking the European Commission for explanations regarding the management of Eurostat, in the same way as regarding all other activities or decisions, is the least we can do. We are in favour of all institutions operating with total transparency and of the whole population being able to monitor not only the decisions taken, but also the reasons for which they are taken.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner Verheugen, I think that the reports are very well balanced and very accurate. As regards Romania, I would like to add that even recently we have seen visible measures against corruption, and this should be seen as a good thing. There is one issue that I ask you to consider closely, Commissioner, namely the spread of some aspects of petty crime to neighbouring countries. This causes great problems and I ask you, Commissioner, to really urge Romania to do something to counter this; it would be in their own interests. As regards Turkey, I find your report very well balanced, and the issue of Cyprus was also handled well. I would like to ask you, Commissioner, whether you would join with me and perhaps also urge all parties in this House not to make Turkey a campaign issue for the next European elections, since I fear that there are some forces that see ‘For or against Turkey’ as the election campaign issue for 2004. I hope that you agree with me that this should not be the case. Thank you.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I take my hat off to the general rapporteur and his team. I regard the report as a great achievement. Not only will enlargement affect human beings, it will also have an impact on the plant and animal kingdom. This all-round view demonstrates the enormous complexity of the issue of enlargement. There are many individual aspects to be taken into account. The Committee on Fisheries wants to have its say, but has no intention of putting a brake on things. We have some quite specific proposals. We are not going to start back at square one, but we do insist on upholding the Community patrimony, which is of course known as the acquis communautaire, as does the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. After all, although the Brok report contains ten points concerning the agricultural policy aspects of enlargement, the common European fisheries policy goes unmentioned. Now that is a real Community policy, and an all-encompassing one to boot. It encompasses all aspects of our daily life and directly affects the European labour market. The consequences of failing to take the fisheries policy into account could prove disastrous and should not be dismissed merely by referring to solidarity amongst the nations. Unfortunately, so far, the report has failed to take account of these aspects, apart from the fact that the unanimous opinion of the Committee on Fisheries reappears as the annex. That is not enough. We therefore call upon the rapporteur, the Commission and the Council to supplement the agricultural policy section with the fisheries policy section, for example by changing the title ‘Agricultural Aspects of Enlargement’ to ‘Agricultural and Fisheries Aspects of Enlargement’. It should not prove difficult to make the necessary editorial changes. After all, the Committee on Fisheries believes legal provisions and information obligations, for example, to be of fundamental importance too. I would urge you to support the relevant amendments.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I agree with Mr Meijer on many points. However, I am afraid it is rather simplistic to describe the death penalty as a relic of the Middle Ages. I am afraid that the death penalty is quite specifically a feature of the modern age as well. The guillotine and the electric chair are symbols of the modern age. So that this phenomenon vanishes from the modern age, we must lobby actively for the abolition of the death penalty worldwide, regardless of the individual or the state concerned. We have great sympathy and understanding for the Philippines, a country which is more at threat from organised crime, separatism and terrorism than most other countries in the world. On the other hand, however, we must make it quite clear that terrorism and violence can only be overcome through justice and the rule of law, and that the thousands of detainees and persons condemned to death in the Philippines have just as much of a right to life as anyone else. We oppose the death penalty in every case – whether the person concerned is Saddam Hussein or the perpetrator of other serious crimes. The same naturally applies to the detainees in the Philippines. We must make one thing very clear. No state has the right – other than in self-defence – to challenge any individual’s right to life. For that reason, the EU opposes the death penalty as a matter of principle and has made this a criterion for accession. However, we must also make it a benchmark against which we measure our partners. We therefore send out a very clear appeal to the Philippines: a) to uphold the moratorium, b) to review the thousand or so trials, many of which are of dubious legality with miscarriages of justice and political caprice, and c) to abolish the death penalty in general, for it can play no part in enforcing the rule of law.

Political group: PPE-DE