GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I intend to talk about islands. When the intergovernmental conference in Amsterdam inserted a special reference to islands into Article 158 on economic and social cohesion, adding the word “islands” as a special category under the regions which deserve particular attention within the context of cohesion policies, we here in the European Parliament who had first fought for this development thought that it marked the start of a new era for island regions. This conviction was strengthened when declaration No 30 to the new Treaty of Amsterdam was adopted, stating that the intergovernmental conference recognised that island regions faced different problems due to their island status which, because they were permanent problems, hampered their economic and social development, adding that the intergovernmental conference also recognised that Community law should take account of these problems. Unfortunately, our hopes were dashed because, in addition to all their other problems, islands are paying the price for the different translations of the point in question. According to the first version, the text covers all islands, whereas according to the second version, it only applies to islands with problems. Obviously the second version is incorrect, first because regions lagging behind economically are, in any case, covered by the Structural Funds and, secondly, because if this interpretation were correct, there would have been no point in adopting declaration No 30. As chairman of the Committee on Regional Policy, I should like to reiterate that the European Parliament has always highlighted the fact that island regions are at a permanent disadvantage by reason of their isolation. Commissioner Barnier, who was in Crete last weekend and whose position I welcome, saw the ships tied up in the harbours in Crete. They have been tied up for five days now and their cargo is not being moved. The cost of transportation from an island to the mainland is three times the cost of transportation by road. Farmers are often forced to cultivate a product and, if the product does not do well, it is destroyed. A kilo of oil, which is a staple product of the Greek islands, costs less than a packet of cigarettes. And let us not forget that these people sometimes die on small islands when the weather prevents them from being moved to the mainland. We must therefore move in this direction. IN THE CHAIR: MR WIEBENGAVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I wonder which of these is more serious: what the Council has done by means of an intergovernmental method, once again, to reform the Treaties and an extraordinarily limited agenda for this IGC, bearing in mind the challenges facing us, or the report that we are going to adopt tomorrow in this House. I believe that our report is more serious. How can it be argued that this report is less serious when it proposes exactly what we need? It speaks of constitutionalising the European Union, it proposes suitable changes for its institutions, it requests an extension of policies and, above all, through its proposals, it tries to put the Union in a position to confront such important challenges as, firstly, globalisation and, secondly, the new economy which we have just discussed in Lisbon. I do not believe that the proposals which we make in this report are extravagant. They are consistent with what this Parliament has always demanded: more democracy and efficiency for the European Union. Furthermore, in this respect, I believe that the effort of the rapporteurs in drawing up the original draft and seeking a compromise through the amendments will lead to a position which should be taken into account by this Parliament and by the national governments. Madam President, I would also like to welcome the efforts of the Portuguese Presidency at the moment, and ask certain governments – I am not going to say which ones – to be a little bit more generous when it comes to European construction.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Afghanistan is a country with an average income per inhabitant of USD 800. This statistic makes it the poorest country in Asia and the world’s fifth poorest country. There are some five million people who rely on food programmes. Millions of people live on the Iranian side of the border, millions of others live on the Pakistani side. The borders are now closed, but it is expected that another million people will end up fleeing. The hands of the WFP and UNHCR are tied, for they cannot work in that country. There are a few other international NGOs which boast sound structures and can offer aid. Over the past few years, the Commission has granted a great deal of aid via the ECHO programme. I should like to hear Commissioner Nielson give us an extensive account on this in a moment. We know that we are extremely limited in what we can do. We, as Europe, must do more. We cannot cross the borders. We can use the structure in the country to some extent. UNHCR and WFP are in the same boat. I would actually like to echo Mr Lubbers, the High Commissioner of UNHCR who stated that ‘in fact, we also need a new coalition which can cope, as it were, with the huge humanitarian tragedy which is unfolding before our eyes’. I am consciously disassociating myself from tomorrow’s debate on security issues that is much broader still. I should now like to home in on this particular region, however. We will need to take action in Iran. We, together with UNHCR, will also need to take action in Pakistan. We will need to do this as Europe. To date, each of our Member States has failed to earmark sufficient funding. They are dallying and dithering. The European Union has taken sound initiatives in that respect, for which I should like to praise Commissioner Nielson and the Commission, but now is the time to build this coalition. For if we are not able to tackle this humanitarian issue jointly, we will be presented with the political bill in due course. You are dividing the world into two. You are on your own side but not on ours. It is not ‘them’ or ‘they’, but it is our joint responsibility to act in that region. On behalf of the Socialist Group, I hope that the Commission, in close cooperation with all those involved, the international NGOs, UNHCR, WFP, in Iran, in Pakistan, with the political initiatives which Commissioner Patten indicated a moment ago, manages to send out that signal on time: a new coalition for humanitarian aid in the region.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, please allow me to congratulate you on the award of the Charlemagne Prize, which is also good news for this Parliament; a Parliament which, since 1984, has wanted a Constitution, through the Spinelli Treaty, then through the Herman, Oreja and Colombo projects which called for the establishment of the Convention in 1997 and which, after Nice, opted for the Convention. That is why there is a touch of melancholy in the air today. What I mean is that, although this contradicts the philosopher, this melancholy is not the result of pointless efforts. The Convention’s efforts have not been pointless, because – and I firmly believe this – this Constitution is necessary for the enlarged Europe and there is no alternative. Since the European Parliament – as the poet would say – has yet to speak, we must now consider how we are going to act in the future. Firstly, we must recover our common sense, and there are a series of things we must not do: we must not talk about dividing Europe, about dividing ourselves, the Europeanists, up; we must not talk about founding countries, about pioneer or vanguard countries, as if to reproach those countries which do not seem up to the job; and, at this time, nor should we send letters to the President of the Commission telling him to reduce the budget to 1% of GDP. We must recover our common sense. We must consolidate the constitutional acquis. You, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, have said that 82 solution measures have been proposed. Tell this House whether this is the case and, if it is, they must be consolidated. Let us consolidate them under the Irish Presidency and, before 1 May 2004, let us resolve the outstanding institutional issues and let us go into the elections of 13 June asking the Europeans to vote for this Constitution.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in the fight against the trade in illegal substances and the drugs trade, in particular, an efficient system would not go amiss which would enable us to analyse the trade in the products within the Union in a coordinated manner and to chart the networks. But that is exactly where the problem lies. Setting up laboratories presupposes that the criteria are sufficiently clear and the procedures transparent. However, it appears that there are many unanswered questions surrounding the method, the results of which are said to lead to different validations in different countries. The Swedish proposals seem to want to hide the fact that Sweden itself needs a few years yet in order to fully develop its own capacities, but it wants to get the ball rolling at this stage nevertheless. At the moment, we are still waiting for the recommendation of the experts from most central laboratories, but we will not receive it before the end of the Swedish Presidency. Not everyone in my group will agree with me that this is potentially a sound proposal and that, in time, such a set of instruments could be really useful, whichever way the drugs issue is addressed in future. However, it is extremely regrettable that the diligence which Sweden has displayed in this matter is particularly ahead of its time.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Mr Cunha said earlier that the best cure for Commissioner Fischler's flu would be to eat Portuguese cod. I thoroughly agree with that, so long as it is washed down with copious quantities of Scotch whisky. I welcome the terms of Mr Lavarra's report, but I would like to ask for support from this House for the two amendments by my Danish colleague, Mr Busk. Mr Busk is quite rightly concerned that the rapporteur has taken a rather negative attitude to industrial fishing, which, as we know, is a mainstay of the Danish fishing industry. The Committee on Fisheries recently visited Denmark and met key people involved in industrial fisheries. Again, yesterday, there was a seminar here in Strasbourg organised by the Intergroup on Sustainable Development, which heard all sides of the debate for and against industrial fishing. It is quite clear that there are many and widespread misconceptions regarding this sector and it is important that this House corrects these misconceptions. Firstly, it is worth pointing out that the sandeel fishery is a clean fishery: by-catch is relatively unusual and where, on occasion, there have been well-publicised cases of juvenile haddock or other by-catch being landed by Danish industrial trawlers, these cases have been brought to our attention because Denmark has an effective inspection and monitoring regime with very strict discipline and very stringent punishments for offenders. Secondly, as indicated by Mr Busk in his amendments, the TAC for sandeel has actually been reduced by the Council this year to 850 000 tonnes, against scientific evidence which stated that we could take over a million tonnes. Only 25% of the sandeel biomass is being fished. Compare that to the 75% of the cod biomass that we exploit in the North Sea. So if anyone is guilty of overfishing, it is certainly not the sandeel fishery in Denmark. They have also invested a lot of money in getting dioxins out of oil, fish oils and fishmeal, which is a product of the sandeel fishery. We must support the Danish fishing sector in this case, and that is why I ask this House to support Mr Busk's two amendments.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, I will adopt a slightly different position from that of the previous speaker. The Members of the will approve the measures to combat terrorism. We want to strengthen the criminal law measures to combat terrorism. However, we do want to underline that the term terrorism is to be defined as proposed by the European Parliament, for I am a little wary in that respect. A moment ago, we discussed the procedural motions on train and plane spotting in Greece and on the people who are imprisoned in this connection. You may well say that this is a completely unrelated matter, but the sense of justice is very different in the different countries. Similarly, the keenness with which some label anything and everything as terrorism, makes me a little suspicious. But the measures should not be exploited by the authorities and neither should it be possible to exploit them. Some of our representatives of the struggle more with the European arrest warrant. The approval we grant in this connection is clearly conditional. The guarantees we want to give are contained in the EP amendments which will hopefully be adopted and which we really consider to be minimum requirements. If the Council refuses to accept these, we will review our position and convince our colleagues in the national parliaments of the fact that better protection of citizens’ freedoms is necessary for a fair course of justice. In other words, this is about minimum conditions, but further to the speeches of both the acting President-in-Office and Commissioner Vitorino, we are quite optimistic about the right direction which this could be heading. It is, of course, clear that we must be able to make further progress in the harmonisation of legislation, and in the European judicial procedures involving a European public prosecutor, etc. A number of people put the federalisation of the Third Pillar first and foremost, and maybe we need to be more pro-active in this direction. We will not tolerate normal, democratic opposition being muzzled or suppressed, or the actions of trade unions and of movements and associations being thwarted in the name of combating terrorism. But more than anything, we also want progress to be made in the fight against internationally organised crime. I have first-hand experience of hopeless situations in the fight to surrender people of whom it had been clearly proven that they had committed crimes. I therefore want to give you my unqualified support in this matter, but subject to the conditions I have announced.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, there is a lot of talk about quotas in Mrs Karamanou’s report. I have abstained, and this is why. I have been national secretary of the Pensioners’ Party in Italy since 1983, and throughout that time people have been asking why I represent the Pensioners’ Party when I am not a pensioner. They say I am too young to be retired, which is very nice, but it often bothers me that people should think someone who is not retired might not be able to stand up for pensioners. Madam President, do you think not being retired means I cannot defend pensioners with determination, conviction and constancy? So does not being a woman mean a man cannot defend the rights of women just as well? That is why I am not so keen on quotas.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I have to admit that I had a little nap during the votes, and, while I was asleep, I saw the 15 Heads of State, meeting in Brussels for this European Council, having an animated discussion. One of them said to the others: ‘In order to balance the pensions accounts, you should do as we used to do in Italy and still do today. In Italy, when we select the Finance Minister, we give him a medical examination. We x-ray his chest to see if he has a heart of stone. We test his eyes to see if he has square pupils for squaring the accounts. Then we carry out a blood test to see if he has a high resistance to alcohol because, in some governmental circles, a toast is drunk every time a pensioner dies. We selected our Finance Minister in this way and so we do not have to worry. You should do as we have done!’

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, unlike Mr Titford, I am convinced that setting up an efficient and independent European Food Authority as an early warning system is something very much to be welcomed. It should act as a transparently functioning scientific reference point for the Commission, Parliament and the Member States, but it should also be open for producers and consumers. Advice, information and risk communications for consumers can help to increase our confidence in the food we eat. Food safety is a fundamental requirement for consumers who want to eat healthily and we must take responsibility for that here. The food scandals over the past few years have demonstrated that we need, in particular, consistent implementation of directives and on-the-spot controls on food and animal feed. If we are to achieve seamless traceability of production, it is essential to optimise the way we link the scientific facilities of this Authority with the control authorities in the Member States. This will ensure safety in the whole chain from producer to consumer. And imported food must be just as safe as food produced in the EU. This safety can be guaranteed by imposing strict controls on food imports at the EU's present external borders. In parallel to this, the countries of Central and Eastern Europe need to establish properly functioning systems for monitoring the safety of food and animal feed before accession. However, one important problem will not be solved by the regulation before us today, and that is the dividing line between food and medical products. We need to minimise the grey area between these two product categories, food and medical products, as far as possible. If we do not succeed in this, the result will be new demarcation problems and legal uncertainty. That is why it is a matter of urgent necessity for us to make sure that when legislation on medical products is reviewed, an unambiguous EU-wide definition of food and medical products is established, so that there is a clear dividing line, because we can only improve safety for the consumer if we establish a clear definition.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, I would like to make two observations as well as two requests. The first is about emissions trading. Emissions trading has two sides, one is political and the other economic. In political terms, there are different ways of evaluating emissions trading. Many in our group take the view that emissions trading, i.e. the freedom to buy the obligation to reduce CO2, is not politically tenable. I do not want to evaluate that further now, but I think that the reduction of CO2 should not be seen merely as a burden but that it actually has an economic effect, and offers the opportunity, and the possibility, to bring the improvement of the quality of life into line with employment. That is why I feel that we should not participate in unlimited emissions trading. I am absolutely convinced that Parliament’s position, which we drafted – to permit at the most 50% emissions trading, that is, 50% reduction of CO2 must be done in one’s own country – is in political and also economic terms, exactly the right way to generate employment here at home. There is a sufficient number of studies which show that, for example, a reduction by 34,000 carbon equivalent units creates around 100 jobs in Europe, and this is the route we should take in order to bring ecology and economics designed to increase employment more in line with one another. Hence my request: could you please confirm that you do not support any agreement which allows more than 50% emissions trading to take place outside one’s own country. Secondly: the European Parliament’s participation. I was very pleased Mrs Wallström, that you emphasised once again your desire to work closely with the European Parliament and I fully accept what you say. Past experience has shown, though, that this was sometimes not the case and that participation indeed worked on a very ad hoc basis. This occurred firstly in the delegations for example, where one sometimes had the impression that the European Commission did the actual negotiating there, and that the Members of Parliament who were also present, were just there to make up the numbers. It also occurred in the drafting of the mandate or, to give a particularly negative example, in the issue of individual obligations to reduce CO2 and their negotiation by the Commission with the relevant partners, especially recently with the Japanese and Korean car manufacturers. In this case, there was absolutely no contact with the European Parliament and the Parliament was not even officially informed. The Council on the other hand, was informed and will make its decision on this on 12 October, but we have been cut out of the loop. If we want to establish an instrument for individual obligation, then please ensure that all partners participate. This brings me on to my second request: could you please confirm that a modus vivendi for the participation of Parliament will be found.

Political group: PSE
I know that it is very late at night and everyone is very tired but I did ask a specific question of the Commissioner and I think the Commissioner misunderstood me. The are voting against this agreement, as we do with all third-country agreements. We are not happy, as you said in your introduction, in relation to the agreement with Equatorial Guinea. The question is in relation to flags of convenience. Equatorial Guinea is notorious in relation to that and you did not address the question. Maybe it is too late tonight, but we would like an answer because you are negotiating, despite the fact that there is an agreement to ban tuna imports and this agreement is very much related to that. We need a reply. Maybe it is too late tonight, but it is important.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Following the discussions which led to this report, my group helped to improve the Commission’s proposal, by means of amendments which were legally sound, progressive, in the spirit of the Treaty of Amsterdam and in line with the directive, and which, above all, would not lead to any increase in bureaucracy for employers, Unfortunately, in spite of compromises, with which we were largely in agreement, the rapporteur and other groups, without consulting us, introduced further amendments which called the compromises into question and which culminated in the tabling of a so-called Compromise Amendment No 70. On this point, I should like to point out that, while I agree with the idea that one should not discriminate against fathers either, the members of my group were unable to vote in favour of this amendment because there will always be a difference between ‘maternity’ and ‘paternity’. Unless the present order of things changes, men cannot become pregnant and cannot, therefore, give birth. Moreover, this amendment is something of a muddle, so that those of us who like good, solid, legal texts cannot agree to it. As far as the final voting is concerned, many of us were unable to vote in favour of the report because, against our wishes, amendments such as Amendments Nos 4, 36 and 44 were adopted. As the Commissioner has said, they are unacceptable because they ignore the most basic procedures, and in particular the provisions of the Treaty. If this Parliament is a co-legislator, it should not confuse a legislative text with a resolution, in which one can reveal all kinds of wishful thinking. A legislative text must be capable of implementation. Let us not forget, either, that in seeking to give women at work all-round protection, we run the risk of impairing and endangering their access to employment and their chances of promotion. Please, let us stop getting so worked up over sexual harassment, and finally, in this area as in others, let us not ignore the principle of subsidiarity. These are the reasons why many of the members of my group were unable to vote in favour of this report. I await the second reading, and I hope that the wisdom of the Council will be brought to bear on the irrational proposals which we have adopted.

Political group: PPE-DE