GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, nuts, to which we should also add the locust bean, are one of southern Europe’s most common crops. The only specific aid from which they have benefited in the past and from which they benefit today is limited to cofinancing under plans to improve quality and marketing which expired at the end of last year and which the Commission is now proposing to extend by another year. This Commission proposal has come about as a result of the acknowledgement, as made by the Commission itself in the preamble to its proposal, that other measures, for which the sector is also eligible, have not been sufficient or directly applicable to nuts. The Commission therefore promised to present new proposals in a report that it would publish by the end of 2000, which it has still not done. It makes no sense to extend the already scarce measures in place by another year and to say nothing else about the future of this sector, still less so in that the sector is undergoing a particular crisis due to the extremely strong competition from third countries. What would make sense is for nuts to be treated as a separate sector within the Common Organisation of the Markets in fruits and vegetables. This was why, as a matter of fact, at the time of the proposal on the new COM in fruits and vegetables, the European Parliament adopted an amendment requesting the Commission to present proposals that would provide the nut sector with permanent measures and aid of the kind that exist for other agricultural sectors. This is what the rapporteur is proposing and this is what we hope the Commission will put right. In the short term, until these future measures materialise, the most prudent course of action to adopt would be to extend existing aid not by one year but by two, as the European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has suggested.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam Commissioner, do you know whether any Member States are already giving serious consideration to the possibility of banning these brominated flame retardants at present, or, indeed, have already introduced such a ban?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I do not think it is acceptable for most environmental matters to be debated as late as this in the evening. Environmental policy and legislation really need a bit of ‘prime time’ here in Parliament. It is a big responsibility to take decisions about public health and the environment that are to apply for a long time into the future. This directive and the report on brominated flame retardants are good examples of this responsibility’s being exercised. After the first reading in September 2001, there was a reappraisal of the EU’s risk assessments in relation to oktaBDE and dekaBDE. That took place in November of last year. The European Chemicals Bureau believes that, when it comes to oktaBDE and dekaBDE, the risk assessment and situation are now the same as they were for pentaBDE, when the result was a total ban. These substances are persistent and bioaccumulative. The scientific proofs in relation to oktaBDE and dekaBDE are now so alarming in terms of public health and the environment that the Bureau has recommended the Member States to take a political decision, that is to say to use the precautionary principle. In the European Parliament, we must also accept our responsibility as co-legislators. Following the reappraisal and the new risk assessment, we must also arrange for the precautionary principle to prevail. Those of us from the Group of the , the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party and the Group of the are therefore re-tabling Amendments Nos 7 to 10, according to which dekaBDE too must no longer be used. There is no reason to wait any longer. There are substitutes. In 80 per cent of cases, the use of brominated flame retardants involves the use of dekaBDE. In view of the new knowledge we have acquired, we cannot continue to gamble with the environment and public health. We therefore hope that the political groups will vote in favour of the amendments and that Commissioner Wallström too will confirm that the precautionary principle is to be applied.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I had the honour last year of visiting this beautiful, tormented country and it is a privilege accorded to us here in the European Parliament to be able to raise our voices to defend the rights of people a great distance from here. I also had the honour of meeting many of the human rights activists in Colombia last year. This year we have heard in Ireland, as is obvious from the concern expressed by Irish colleagues here today, of the danger facing Father Brendan Forde, a Franciscan working in the small village of La Ùnion who has chosen to remain with his parishioners at considerable danger to his own life. He is so isolated he probably will never hear of the debate here today. He has to go eight miles before he can find a telephone to communicate with anybody. For that reason, it is our privilege here to raise our voices to demand that his life and the lives of those living in his community are protected and to make sure that the Colombian Government is aware of our concerns.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to thank the Commission and the Council, and I think we can rely on the Commissioner to take a very strong stand on these important issues. As she acknowledges, the European Union has a particular and important role to play: as a major donor of aid, as the biggest donor of humanitarian aid in the world and as the biggest trading block in the world. We have clout and we need to punch our weight in Johannesburg, but I acknowledge that it will be difficult. Market access is a key issue. President Museveni, after the Bali meeting, said that talk about sustainability is all very well but that market access is the most important issue. Ghana also challenged the European Union last week, saying that the Union talks about opening borders and about bringing down barriers, but is clearly protectionist and unfair. Ghana, of course, is talking about the high tariffs that have to be paid when an attempt is made to introduce processed coffee into the European Union. Nor can we preach about free trade when we continue to hand out subsidies to our farmers which artificially depress the prices of commodities such as cotton. We need coherence, we need consistency, we need to have an understanding of what self-reliance actually means, providing a ladder out of poverty, and we also need to understand about creating real global partnerships. Commissioner, you need alliances in Johannesburg. The United States is blocking plans to halve the number of people who lack sanitation – two fifths of the population of the planet – while 2.4 billion do not have any sanitation, not even a bucket to use, in a world where that is one of the main causes of disease. Twenty five per cent of urban Africans have no piped water whatsoever. The US position is always a very negative one, as it was when I was at the UN Children's Conference. The world's superpower is not prepared to address these imperatives, and I hope that we will make a clear case that we will not meet the millennium development goals unless we take strong action.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to ask the movers of Amendments Nos 31 and 37 to clarify whether they intend that this should ban the therapeutic cloning of human embryos.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as always Mr Lagendijk's report is excellent, comprehensive and prudent. I genuinely believe that the Stability Pact and the Stabilisation and Association Process have chalked up a lot of successes overall. Some of these have already been mentioned, such as the elections in Macedonia and developments in Albania, although I have to say that I have heard that the consensus reached between the major political groups in Albania is now at breaking point. I would, however, like to comment on some of Mr Lagendijk's fundamental observations, because they seem very important to me. You mentioned the debates on enlargement and the debates on the Balkans. I was present at both debates today, and I was also at the enlargement debate, at which President Prodi made a statement that I consider to be very important. He pointed out that the enlargement process with the ten new countries and also with the subsequent applicant countries has not yet been completed, and that this gives an important signal to the Balkans in particular. I believe, and I also stated this in my own speech, that our experience with preparations for enlargement must act as a signal – and this applies to the Balkan countries too – that countries that advocate democracy, the rule of law, protection of minorities and human rights have a chance of joining the European Union at a later date. I believe that we need to consider now how we are to manage the organisational requirements. As I see it, the Stability Pact – and this is Mr Bussek's intention in his role as Special Coordinator – needs to become more focused, with a reduced role and tasks being increasingly transferred to the Commission. This should not, however, take place outside the enlargement process, but should come in at the latest with effect from 2004/2005, when the new Commission will meet in accordance with the enlargement process. I accordingly believe that we in this House need to give the Balkan countries a signal, or rather hope, that they too have a place in Europe, bearing in mind the Zagreb II Summit also. It will then be up to them to decide if they wish to do all this so as to effectively secure a place in Europe. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Madam President, this is a report which constitutes the final stage in an important procedure, a procedure which started with the report by my dear honourable friend Jo Leinen, a procedure which culminated during the Greek Presidency, when the Presidency and the Council, following an exchange of views with Parliament, finally adopted Regulation No 2003/2004, which substantially improves the statute and foundation of European political parties in the world of Europe. I do not think there is anyone who disagrees with the view that we need to do whatever we can so that European political parties, an institution which complements and completes the framework of European democracy, can operate correctly and directly. From this point of view, the report which I am presenting to the House and calling on it to support is a system, a procedure which will guarantee European parties the resources with which they can fulfil their objectives. It is a system which I at least, as rapporteur, and numerous members in the parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Affairs consider balanced. That is because, over and above all, this system directly links European political parties with the European Parliament, which is generally admitted to be the most political institution of the European Union. Apart from that, it takes account of the correlation of forces and balances which exist within Parliament. The first important element – European political parties and their financing, by which we mean the provision of the resources they need – depends first and foremost on the Bureau of the European Parliament; in other words on the body within the European Parliament which is responsible for all matters do to with the smooth operation of the political forces which act and are connected with it. At the same time, however, the Bureau is in the very happy position of having another two European Parliament bodies to assist it in its efforts to correctly fulfil the role allocated to it in connection with European political parties. One body is the Conference of Presidents of the political groups, which is the most political body within the European Parliament, and the other is the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, in other words the European parliamentary committee which is responsible for all matters to do with regulatory, constitutional and legal issues. Of course, there are certain honourable Members present now in this House who disagree. However, as I conclude Madam President and honourable Members, and ask plenary to vote tomorrow in favour of my report, I accept full political responsibility for this recommendation. We have made a very big effort and I want to thank all the honourable Members from all the political parties both for their advice and for their support while this report was being discussed within the framework of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. Thanking, therefore, everyone and you, Madam President, I call on the House to approve this report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on a point of order, I shall respect your request not to raise the issue of the building but I wish to make two points. I presume the presence of the bacteria was detected through a regular check-up, because this is the second time this has happened here and we were promised regular check-ups. It is inevitable that unused buildings will become sick buildings if they are not regularly checked. I should like to refer to Mrs Wallis' point regarding quite a lot of anecdotal evidence about Members' illnesses, particularly following the Strasbourg part-sessions. It would be a very useful exercise if Members would consider reporting to the medical services any unusual illnesses that they may have contracted and which are treated at home in their Member State. This applies also to staff, assistants, etc. The only way we will really find out whether there is more than anecdotal evidence is to have regular reports to the medical services. I propose, as a Quaestor, to discuss this with the medical services.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I must state my opposition to this request to postpone the vote. I do not think that there is any shortage of arguments against taking such action. I know that the tobacco industry lobby is most anxious to prevent this directive and I think that this request is yet another ploy to prevent a vote, which is clearly a matter of urgency, from taking place. I would remind you that the Council postponed its review of this dossier until it had heard Parliament’s views. If we postpone our vote, the tobacco industry will gain even more time, since the Council will then not be able to state its position until the end of June. Furthermore, I think that Mr Maaten and the Commission on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy have produced a good piece of work. It is true that many amendments have been tabled and also that in future we will have to make efforts to improve our work so that fewer amendments are tabled in plenary. As it happens, however, I do not think that this would in any way justify postponing the vote. Everything is in place for a vote to be held. (Applause) (Parliament rejected the request to postpone the vote) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) President. – I congratulate Mr Maaten and I shall take this opportunity, ladies and gentlemen, to tell you that I have received several letters from Members who would like us to respect the non-smoking areas because they suffer from asthma. (Applause) *** Report (A5-0142/2000) by Mr Berenguer Fuster, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC, 92/49/EEC, 92/96/EEC and 93/22/EEC as regards exchange of information with third countries (COM(1999) 748 – C5­0011/2000 – 2000/0014(COD)) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0144/2000) by Mrs Lulling, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, I. on the proposal for a Council directive amending Directives 69/169/EEC and 92/12/EEC as regards temporary quantitative restrictions on beer imports into Finland (COM(2000) 76 – C5-0137/2000 – 2000/0038 (CNS)) II. on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 as regards a temporary derogation for duty-free imports of beer into Finland (COM(2000) 76 – C5-0138/2000 – 2000/0039(CNS)) (Parliament adopted both legislative resolutions in successive votes) *** Report (A5-0159/2000) by Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on the European Parliament resolution on the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on historical liabilities resulting from nuclear activities carried out at the JRC under the Euratom Treaty – Decommissioning of obsolete nuclear installations and the management of the resulting waste (COM(1999) 114 - C5-0214/1999 - 1999/2169(COS)) (Parliament adopted the resolution) IN THE CHAIR: MR COLOM I NAVALVice-President President.- Mr Posselt has requested the floor for a point of order.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I should like to refer to the question referring to 'misuse of the budget to fund abortion'. This was a really dishonest question, because the funds go into the reserve and they are used for purposes such as HIV. Abortion rates in Ireland were referred to. Everybody knows that if you want to have an abortion in Ireland, you go to London! This is just a completely dishonest expression of the reality. I just want to make it clear to Mrs Schreyer that, as far as I am concerned, if the money goes into the reserve, it is perfectly reasonable for them to be funding things such as HIV and AIDS in the developing world, particularly in Africa. I understand that was what the money was actually used for. Can Mrs Schreyer confirm that?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to thank Commissioner Verheugen for the very thorough report he has given us of the problems he is encountering in this field which is so essential to the future of Europe. Listening to him and to my fellow Members throughout this debate took me back to the recent election campaign and to the answers that we were required to provide at that time to the voters regarding the need to establish and to complete the construction of Europe. Clearly this is one of the fields – i.e. the threat constituted by the existence of so many nuclear power plants but also all the armaments accumulated on the territory of the former Soviet Union – where none of the Member States may, individually, claim to intervene on behalf of security of the entire continent. Only Europe and – Commissioner, I thank you for having understood this – only a united Europe may go to the assistance not only of the countries which are applying for membership of the European Community, but also all those which have nuclear installations which do not comply with our safety standards, in solving this problem taking their own economic imperatives into account. I would therefore thank Commissioner Verheugen for reminding us that it is only if each of the Member States makes a contribution to providing the necessary appropriations that we shall be able to achieve this objective which is common to all of us and which has been mentioned by all of us.

Political group: PPE-DE
I have today voted in favour of Mr Bourlanges’s report (A5-0425/2002). I agree that the EU system must be simplified and that Parliament must contribute to the work of the Convention. I nonetheless regret the reference to management and labour. The rapporteur is trying to arrange for the introduction of an approval procedure by the Council and Parliament once management and labour have arrived at a proposal. In my view, that would give rise to an inappropriate third party in the social dialogue. The intention of the social dialogue is that management and labour should enter into binding agreements with one another. – Breyer report (A5-0384/2002)

Political group: PSE
Commissioner Fischler, I agree with you when you talk about extensification, but I do not endorse the measures that you are proposing because, ultimately, they will not facilitate extensification. If you are in favour of this approach, why do you not do the following: end subsidies for production and then pay in proportion to the least amount of animals per hectare? Then you will actually be bringing about the extensification of the sector because, otherwise, by maintaining aid for production, you are implementing a contradictory policy: on the one hand you are encouraging production and on the other, you are paying for it. This system defies belief! The second question I wish to ask you is this: given that this sector is undergoing a profound crisis and that there is an EAGGF-Guarantee, half of which is, in practice, spent on just one type of production, I should like to ask Commissioner Fischler whether it is not time to require... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, despite this discussion in Parliament concerning the changes which the Commission would like to make to the directive on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings, we will not have much of a say in it because it will be the Commission, and the Commission only, that will make decisions without further involving the European Parliament or the Council, much to our regret. In our opinion, on the basis of its autonomous powers concerning competition policy, the Commission approaches some sectors from a purely economic angle without taking into consideration other social aspects. For example, in the dossier on financing public broadcasting, the Commission still overlooks the cultural aspects and the aspect of media-pluralism, to our mind. Admittedly, an exception is made but then this exception accommodates further exceptions. For example, it is very difficult for public broadcasting to survive in an increasingly commercialised environment. I am against the commercialisation of culture. In my opinion, culture is above these market laws. The Commission has thus overstepped the mark. With this amendment to the directive, it is trying to change the Treaty of Amsterdam, namely the public broadcasting protocol which was attached to it. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the IGC should apply the normal legislative procedure for codecision by the Council and Parliament to general competition policy legislation. I can already tell you that I will be here once again when you produce a directive on film.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the draft Constitution for Europe reminds me of a cappuccino: lots of good coffee, a political froth which is a little too thin and very bitter institutional chocolate. As regards the coordination of economic and social policies, as regards foreign and defence policy, the political basis proposed is still flimsy. The permanent president of the European Council will certainly be competing with and clash with the President of the Commission. The division of the Commission into Commissioners that are accountable and non-voting and, therefore, unaccountable will weaken the Community dynamic and shatter the image of the Commission as a College with drive. I hope that the Intergovernmental Conference will draw its inspiration from the Commission recommendations and will improve on the Convention proposals. This would mean that I could fully support a genuine European Constitution. Awaiting something better, I abstained. I would like to say once again to Mr Posselt that Europe not only has Judaeo-Christian roots but also Muslim and secular roots.

Political group: PSE