GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, first of all, I wish to convey my thanks to Mrs Redondo Jiménez for the sound work she has done on Forest Focus. Allow me to make it clear that we fully support that part of the regulation concerning protection against forest fires. I nonetheless consider the new parts of the regulation concerning soil strategy and the monitoring of biodiversity to be issues for each and every Member State. Forestry production in southern Spain and northern Scandinavia cannot be compared with each other. Finland and Sweden together account for 40% of European forestry production, and that is the backbone of the biggest export business in these countries. Sweden has a forestry law that is a hundred years old this year. Most forests are now certified, which means that forest owners themselves take responsibility for biodiversity. Responsibility at local level is best. The European Union cannot, on this issue, be controlled in its entirety from Brussels. The Member States’ national forestry strategies and laws must be all-embracing, and the individual forest owner must have control of what he rightfully owns.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as Mr Watson said, we have had a full investigation on this matter in the Fisheries Committee at the request of the Conference of Presidents. We have now drawn up a report based on a very frank two-hour hearing that we held with Mr Fischler, who gave very frank answers to a barrage of questions. We will be submitting that report to the Conference of Presidents after the Fisheries Committee has had a further look at the report to make sure they agree that it is a fair record of the hearing that took place last week. Our job in the Fisheries Committee, as Brian Crowley has just said, is now to focus our attention on the common fisheries policy reform package. To do otherwise and put any further obstacles in the way of getting this reform back on track, is simply to play into the hands of those who sought to derail the whole process in the first place. I would hope this House would support the Fisheries Committee in looking at the reform package. If there are other questions to be asked about personnel management or any other aspect of this controversy, then I would leave that to your good offices in the Conference of Presidents.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I, too, think it would be right to vote on Amendment No 13 first, but I do believe that, in the event of Amendment No 13 being adopted – which I hope it will be – all the others will lapse. I do not see the need to vote on the others. As regards the question of language, we should not be having a great debate about it right now, but should proceed as follows. The committee wants – as, I assume does this House – to delete the words ‘regular land-based personnel’ from the Council's version. Whatever is in the other part – ‘seafaring personnel’ – we do not want to change it, and it should remain in the text the way it is in the Council version, so that questions of language do not bring us into conflict with the Council. So what we are aiming to do is to delete the words ‘regular land-based personnel’, and we should approximate the terminology used in English, French, and so on to the Council's Common Position, as we should not deviate from that. Thus far, I believe that Mr Piecyk and I are of one mind without having to engage in great linguistic discussions.

Political group: PPE-DE
No one any longer denies that there is an information deficit with regard to the European Union, the way it operates and its usefulness. One only has to recall that 50% of Europeans is ignorant of, or indifferent to, the Union and that the rate of turnout in elections to the European Parliament fell from 63% in 1979 to 49% in 1999. This information deficit contributes to creating a veritable gulf between European citizens and Community Institutions. This is the context that forms the backdrop to the European Commission’s strategy for information and communication in the EU. Access to information is crucial to the full exercise of European citizenship. For this reason, effective information policy must be based on the ‘assertion of its common values’ such as democracy, pluralism, cultural diversity, cohesion and solidarity. More important still is to show, by giving practical examples, the everyday advantages gained from joining the EU, such as the euro, citizenship and freedom of movement. In order to improve the effectiveness of EU information campaigns, every message must be clear, impartial, accessible and available in every citizen’s own language. Lastly, information campaigns must be coordinated at Community level, by the European institutions, thereby better enabling needs to be identified. At the same time, however, such campaigns must be decentralised to national and regional level.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I very much support the rapporteur's position. I agree with everything she said. I was quite shocked at the Commissioner's attitude towards Parliament today. It was extremely arrogant, to say the least. Parliament has adopted a position much more in line with the Treaties than that of the Commission. The Commission should ensure that the Treaties are complied with and that data transfer complies fully with EU legislation on data protection. Last March Parliament asked the Commission to do this. However, what it seems to have done is to have gone away and come back claiming that it has adequate levels of protection. The Commissioner said that adequate levels of protection from the US is the best he can do and that Parliament's attitude is irresponsible. I do not believe that is justified. That is a cavalier attitude towards long-fought and established civil liberties. What has been said today is in relation to access to data, trying to correct errors, the purpose for which this data will be used, where else it might go and, in particular, the right of people to legal redress. People's lives could be dramatically changed as a result of incorrect data held on them or mistakes that have been made. Why should European citizens have a different level of protection from US citizens? Ideally I would like to see an immediate termination of PNR transfers to the US until we have a permanent legislative solution in place. This is not the way to fight terrorism. If we push aside the rule of law and long-established civil rights, we will not only allow the terrorists to win on one front, but allow them to win on all fronts. We are creating a very dark and oppressive future for everyone. This is not the approach that should be taken. Civil liberties have to be upheld. One only has to look at the United States to see the measures that have been brought in, in recent times, to combat terrorism. They do not work. The Patriot Act and other measures do not work. All they do is suppress the rights of ordinary law-abiding citizens, without them having any right to legal redress. I do not believe that this is the way forward in the 21st century.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I would like to make a political declaration on behalf of my Group in relation to an issue which I believe has left a nasty taste in the mouths of all the groups in this House: the vote on paragraph 3, on the composition and distribution of seats in the European Parliament. My Group will vote in favour of the Dimitrakopoulos/Leinen report, but I propose that the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, in its wisdom, be charged with the task of finding a solution to this issue, because it is enormously sensitive throughout this House. (Parliament adopted the resolution) President. – I warmly congratulate our two rapporteurs, Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen. (Loud applause) IN THE CHAIR: GERHARD SCHMIDVice-President Explanations of vote- Stauner Report (A5-0087/2000)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, every year hundreds of human beings are executed in the world – often in the so-called civilised world – at the hands of other human beings. In 1998 it was noted that there were at least 1,625 executions in 37 countries and almost 4,000 death sentences in another 78 countries. These figures refer exclusively to the information which Amnesty International has been able to collect. The true figure is, without doubt, much higher. Every year an unknown number of people are declared innocent after being executed. According to a report released recently, since 1973 and in the United States alone, 75 prisoners condemned to death were released when it was discovered that they had been wrongly convicted. We will never know how many innocent people there were amongst the approximately 7000 prisoners executed in the United States of America during this century. According to Amnesty International, for every six prisoners executed since the restoration of the death penalty in the United States, one innocent person was condemned to death and later pardoned. Therefore, it seems to me that the Council’s proposal to the United Nations, however important and positive the initiative may be, is very timid because calls on those States which retain the death penalty – and I quote – “to progressively restrict the number of crimes for which it is imposed”. Does that seem to us to be sufficient? Do we want to be a diplomatic Assembly or a political Parliament? That is why we ask the Council, in section 9 of this resolution, in the negotiations with third countries, to examine the possibility of incorporating the abolition of the death penalty into the clause on human rights. Perhaps the Council is not in a position to do any more, but what about us? Should we not be more demanding? Should we not be more ambitious? The answer is yes. This is why we are sending this message to the Council and all the nations of the world. The case of the Spanish citizen, José Joaquín Martínez, is a clear example of justice with no guarantees. That is why he is calling for real justice, and that is why we support him today. He wants a new form of justice so that he can demonstrate his innocence, and he has the right to it. But I declare, we all declare together, that no death sentence is a just sentence. None is. I will also end with a biblical quote which is more positive than the one quoted by my colleague. It is a quote from Genesis. Cain killed Abel and nobody disputed his guilt in this horrendous crime. He spilled the blood of his brother and the Lord cursed him and expelled him from his house and condemned him to live as a fugitive and a vagabond: “And Cain said to the Lord: ‘every one that findeth me shall slay me’. And the Lord said unto him: ‘Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold’. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain lest any finding him should kill him”. May nobody touch Cain, that was the message. May nobody touch Cain. That should be our ambition: that nobody can execute any human being ever, in any part of the world, for any reason. Nobody. Not even the United States of America.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Europe cannot try to define the political prospects of the Middle East while ignoring certain realities, even though these may be disagreeable. On 1 January 2000, Iran demanded the dissolution of the Israeli State. This echoed the demand made by Mr Gaddafi who Mr Prodi is, however, intending to meet in the near future. This would be a mistake. It seems to me that the goal of the dissolution of the Jewish State has an underlying aim of the destruction of the Jewish people. We all sincerely hope that peace can be achieved with Iran and certainly not against or without this great country. Yet, I would remind you that standing between Europe and Iran are the 13 imprisoned Jews about whom we know virtually nothing other than that their lives are in jeopardy. We have taken steps to help them and will continue to do so. Finally, we cannot continue to read in the press, without reacting, that European public funds may be being used irregularly in Palestine and not as intended. Peace will be achieved on the basis of economic and cultural development and it is to this alone that Community funds must be allocated. I would ask the Commission to set up an assessment mission to report to Parliament within six months.

Political group: PSE
The Guarantee Fund was originally established as a way of protecting the EU budget from potential risk in relation to its growing external loans. The guarantee fund mechanism covers three different types of lending in third countries: guarantees for EIB lending, for EU macro-financial assistance loans (MFA) and for Euratom external lending. In this context, the Fund is also an important instrument for our policy of cooperation with third countries. The aim of this proposal is to remove the new Member States from the coverage of the fund, provided that they do join the European Union, and to establish a uniform framework for future rounds of enlargement. We have no objections to this. We do, however, agree with the rapporteur’s view that the funds’ parameters should be set more appropriately, because they could be seen as being over-cautious. Amongst the amendments that are proposed, we feel that it would be useful but somewhat unrealistic slightly to relax the provisioning rate of the Fund before the current financial perspective runs out. As the rapporteur confirms, the Commission should carefully assess the fund’s financial parameters and submit proposals that are more in line with the real risks within the post-2006 framework.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, military manoeuvres and Guantanamo analyses aside, mankind is on trial now, as are our willingness and ability to sustain a world in which the rules of law agreed a priori will prevail, because only then will we retain the moral and political right to judge everyone else who is indifferent to or tramples international rules of law underfoot, be they terrorists, the Taliban, anyone at all. The European Parliament cannot demand any less than what is being demanded by various legitimate voices in the United States, at the UN and even in the European Union. By Mr Powell himself, by Mr Robinson, even down to Mr Solana. The world cannot be governed by the law of the Far West, including Texas, or by the customs and habits of the town of Leeds. Those with the fastest guns and the slowest reflexes to ideals and institutions cannot take the law into their own hands. Because otherwise we shall end up, Madam President, with a world in which what we see is tragedy rather than cinema. Ladies and gentlemen, and I appeal here also to my fellow Members on the other side of the House, when we rally against the death penalty, we are not defending the wretched crimes of some murderer or rapist. We are defending ourselves, our perceptions and our culture. It is for the same reasons that we are calling for the prisoners at Guantanamo to be treated as required under current international law or even American law, which cannot of course be limited to members of the Taliban who are American nationals. This sort of discrimination is unacceptable even in the jungle.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, having heard the interventions of Mr Jové and Mr Fischler, I believe I should change the form of my intervention and go straight to what I believe is the crux of the matter. The Commission’s main argument is that which was agreed ten years ago. That is to say, ten years ago there were certain conditions, we established a programme and it has come to an end. I believe that it is precisely the change in conditions compared to ten years ago which weakens the Commission’s position, and it is therefore important for them to be sensitive to an agreement which originates from the action of certain MEPs from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the European Parliament at the moment. In my opinion, there have been three changes. Firstly, the competition conditions have changed. They are not the same as ten years ago. Secondly, according to the assessment of the agricultural sector, and this one in particular, it should be pointed out that there is much greater sensitivity towards environmental responsibility than there was ten years ago. It is an economic sector, I agree, but it has much greater environmental responsibility than it did ten years ago. Thirdly, if this aid is removed today, the loss of the land recovered over these ten years would be irreversible. I therefore sincerely believe that there is no margin, either within the framework of rural development or in other areas, because we are not talking about vegetables, we are not talking about any other type of product, we are talking about a very specific product, with very specific circumstances, which were analysed ten years ago and which must be analysed today once again. For this reason, I believe that it makes absolute sense to carry out a study of a new framework of aid and, in any event, there should be an extension with immediate effect.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I rise to support this budget that should be spent to help with the BSE crisis. We have to accept that we will have to incinerate a great many of the older cattle in order to restore consumer confidence. It has the advantage of taking away some of the production when those cattle are incinerated, so I support the majority of this budget going towards the incineration of older cattle. As we move forward to reforming the CAP – and we all accept that it has to be reformed – we must not do this with a gun to our head. We must do this in a calm way. It is no good just blaming the large farmer versus the small farmer. It is not as simple as that. It is about intensive production and this does not always take place on the large farms. We cannot in Europe look only at the way we produce our food under the CAP. We must also look at food imports from outside the European Union. It is madness for us to put our house in order and then to see food coming into the European Union that does not meet the same safety standards as ours. We have to be very concerned about this but we do not want to take too negative a view as regards consumption. Consumption can return, and it has returned in the UK. It has been a painful process, but now is not the time to make a judgment on exactly what in six months’ time the consumption will be in Europe. If the safety measures are put in place, if confidence can return, then the consumption can rise again quite dramatically. That will be the time to reform the CAP and make sure we get it right.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the founding of the Red Cross after the battle of Solferino was a response to an, until then, unknown dimension of cruelty, modern, total warfare, which was such a decisive feature of the twentieth century. At the beginning of the 21st century, we are experiencing, however, an ever greater proliferation of new forms of war in the shape of ethnic conflicts. Militias clash, or the opposing sides in civil wars or simply criminal gangs. Governments are either implicated in the conflicts or else they are completely, or largely, powerless to resolve them. Naturally, this also greatly jeopardises humanitarian and development aid. It is therefore our task as the European Parliament to focus very strongly upon this issue. We may well admire the contributions which people are making here in the fields of humanitarian and development aid, but we must also ensure that their living and working conditions improve. I believe that we have quite a lot of catching up to do in this regard. We must see to it that the European Union in actual fact provides aid in every place where, for example, NGOs are doing so in an exemplary way. It is not only in South America that we have this set of problems. This week, we had the debate about Chechnya and, some time ago, the debate about Central Asia. Then, Mr Madelin addressed us on the subject of Afghanistan. And, again and again, we observe the same phenomenon: the withdrawal of humanitarian aid because safety is not being guaranteed. A number of NGOs demonstrate to us how, in spite of this, aid can be supplied, albeit under very perilous conditions. However, the European Union as well as other large organisations, such as the Red Cross, are all too often on the retreat. We must be careful that this trend does not continue, for it is shamelessly exploited by some governments which then say that aid may only be provided to themselves and not directly, through the NGOs, at the coalface. That is dangerous because these governments are in fact not the solution to the problem but a part of it, and even the cause. We must therefore remain very firmly in control of the situation. For this reason, we are beginning, as a Parliament, to be very disappointed in our Commissioner responsible for this area, Mr Nielson. I would ask you, Commissioner, to also convey this to Mr Nielson. For some weeks, dissatisfaction has been growing in this House. We had criticisms to make of Mrs Bonino in the administrative area, but Mrs Bonino was present. She was not only present in Parliament but had also visited the regions in crisis. The European Union had a human face where humanitarian and development aid were concerned. The Commission has a considerable amount of catching up to do in this area. We are slowly beginning here – I can detect this in all Groups – to develop a very critical attitude. I believe that we ought to move early to a situation in which we are again developing joint initiatives in this area for the purpose of stabilising the political sphere and supporting NGOs, but also of making the European Union’s presence felt, where necessary, at the coalface.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I have a specific question: Mrs Schreyer, you said that the list will be made available to us before the end of today. Which list is that? The list of eleven or a list of four? Mr Bösch explained it in great detail. I would like to warn of the fact that we are not pursuing the procedures properly. They are clearly set out in Regulation 1037/1999 and in the interinstitutional agreement. Parliament is not in a position to say “we will hear eleven“, or if there is another list, “we will hear four”! That is not how it works! We cannot afford to open up the possibility of those who were placed on the list by the monitoring committee taking legal action. First of all you must reach agreement with the monitoring committee and then you must officially pass the list on to us so that we can then set our own procedure in train, come to an agreement with the Council and then make a proposal to you as regards who to appoint. Ultimately therefore, you appoint in name only, but the procedure leading up to this must be conducted properly. Could you please tell us exactly which list it is you intend to make available to us today?

Political group: PPE-DE