GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Fisheries. – Mr President, as draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Fisheries, I would like to compliment Mr Koukiadis on his report and thank him for the consideration he has given to the conclusions of the Committee on Fisheries, for whom issues of safety are a high priority. Mr Koukiadis' report directly concerns only the first of what are now three directives on working time. He pinpoints variations in interpretation, types of derogation and manner of transposal as contributing to defects in its implementation. Such problems could be compounded by the fact that different rules apply to different sectors. For example, fish processors are covered by the first directive but those engaged in fishing as such by the second. It is difficult to predict the effects of this for two sectors that are so closely related to one another. Similarly, potential changes in the nature of aquaculture may mean that different rules are needed for the future from those that fit its character today. That is why we are asking the Commission to monitor these aspects of implementation in future reports. It may be that there are other sectors for which a similar approach would be helpful. It is desirable that individual sectors are covered by rules that are genuinely appropriate to their own particular situations. However, many implementation problems might be avoided and quicker adaptation made to technological and other change if such rules could come out of agreements between the social partners. We point to the agreement between the European Community Shipowners' Association and the Federation of Transport Workers in the EU as an example of best practice in this regard. Finally, with safety so much at stake, we hope that the rules will become accepted as setting minimum standards to improve upon, rather than maximum ones to adhere to simply because that is what the law demands.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Mrs Ferreira had good things to say about solidarity and people’s demands that solidarity be shown with Third World countries. Unfortunately, that is not the development we are seeing in Denmark at the moment where we are cutting back on development aid in a way that I think is very unfortunate. Even though we have cut back, we shall of course still be among the largest providers of aid, but it is, at any event, totally the wrong signal that we in Denmark, and the Danish Government, are sending at the moment. I also fear that the Montreal Conference will just be another conference, with no practical consequences, and I should therefore like to highlight three practical issues in my speech here today. The first is the demand for development aid. I think it absolutely crucial that we set practical objectives for when the individual EU countries are to have reached a figure of 0.7%. As far as I remember, we have been hearing about this 0.7% since 1974, and the vast majority of countries are still a very long way from achieving that goal. That is why I am also looking forward to hearing what the Commission has elicited from its visit to the different countries in terms of establishing definite time frames. These are what are needed. The second thing I should like to urge is that Mr Lamy’s efforts to remove trade barriers – efforts which have so far been directed towards the least developed countries – should also apply to other countries for, without trade and without the opportunity to trade without customs barriers, no progress can of course be made. The third thing I should like to emphasise is that we must look at what we can do in the public sector with a view to promoting private investment, and I believe that, in this area, we can bring about more fruitful cooperation than we have done so far. In that way, it will also be possible to translate the World Economic Forum’s words into practical action.

Political group: ELDR
We have naturally voted against this report. Under cover of establishing and developing a so-called European security and defence policy, it glaringly exposes the need for a military policy in the service of what it calls ‘the foreign policy objectives of the European Union’, in other words, the interests of the imperialist powers and major capitalist groups which dominate Europe and which dictate European Union policy. We protest against this imperialist military policy all the more given that a declared consensus on the issue holds sway in this Chamber, with acceptance of and open support for this policy on the part of the vast majority of groups, from the extreme right to the and the s. The truth is that this policy is directed against ordinary people, like all those who, as we saw recently in the Balkans, have to endure the imperialist military interventions by the European Union and its allies. It is also, however, directed against the people of the European Union who will, in any event, have to finance the new expenditure on armaments which the report advocates and who will not even have a guarantee that these military forces will not one day be turned against themselves for the sake of ‘maintaining law and order’.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I particularly welcome the efforts of the Commission President, Romano Prodi, to set the contours of this debate, which follows on from our debates in January and February in this House. Now, it is not the post-Nice debate but the debate on Europe's future. It is vital that European institutions get this opportunity right. It is a rare occasion in history where peoples of Europe can potentially have their own say on what a so-called constitutional framework would look like post-2004. It is now up to Europe's political leadership to set the terms and determine the nature, breadth, substance and intensity of this debate. At present there is some imagination but little action, given the extensive nature of Annex IV of the Treaty. This morning I looked at the website that the President of the Council mentioned. There is no mention of Parliament participating in the debates on 7 March. It is simply a web page with no facility for citizens to communicate their own views by e-mail. There is only a skeleton programme which is put on this web page under the Belgian Presidency, who will have a business forum. It is deeply unimpressive and needs to be looked at immediately. So let us look at the future debate. First, its nature. It needs to be politically led rather than bureaucracies being left to run expensive programmes which will look like propaganda in the view of our citizens. Perhaps this would be a subject for Stockholm: stimulating heads of state to start debates. Madam President-in-Office, you have said that this should be something which should be done but in my own country our Prime Minister, Mr Blair, has been curiously silent on this subject. Secondly, the breadth. This needs to be something which will involve all parts of society, as Mr Bonde has said. You cannot simply preach to the converted as you did in the European School a few days ago. Thirdly, the substance of the debate: that needs to be considered in terms of papers, broad dialogues and other ideas of this kind. Lastly there is the intensity of the debate, which needs to be developed with the best technological means available. I conclude by saying that in our Parliament we need to network with the national parliaments, the Council needs to give us the lead through the heads of state in each of the Member States and last, the Commission can produce guidelines so that we know what course this debate will follow. We can then discuss this when we come to ratify the Nice Treaty a little later this year.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, firstly I would like to reassure President Prodi. The difference between the parliament of a dictatorship and a democratic parliament is that the parliament of a dictatorship is always full and the Members applaud, and a democratic parliament is not very full because the Members are working in other places. Secondly, I would like to make a comment concerning the reassignment of Directorates-General in the Commission: I welcome the political courage which this Commission has had. And finally, I would like to ask a question regarding the budget: bearing in mind that almost all transferrals involve Category 4, that is, the external activities of the Union, and that is one of the points that produces most dissatisfaction in my group and, in general, in the Committee on Budgets. Does the President not think that it would be appropriate to revise the Financial Perspective with regard to the Union’s external policy?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, firstly I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Hatzidakis, for his excellent report. The rapporteur has gone into the matter with great care and raised some very important issues. Our Group supports him, for example, on the issue of coordinating regional and private funding in the Member States of the Union. However, I would like to underline a few issues. The annual report shows that shortcomings exist in the way money spent on the development of trans-European networks is monitored, and insufficient details are available as to the results achieved through the use of funds. We need more precise accounts of inter alia how the European Regional Development Fund, the Cohesion Fund, funds from financial sources not included in the Union budget and funds from the Member States are spent to improve trans-European transport networks. We also need a report on the effects of functional transport networks on a sustainable economy and employment. The rapporteur has quite rightly pointed out that, of the fourteen Essen specific projects, seven still require confirmation of their funding and timetables. In addition, the Essen projects have devoured a larger proportion of the Union’s funding for transport than was agreed. In the future, greater care should be taken in selecting such specific projects. At the same time, it must be ensured that the Member States will commit themselves to them, set aside a sufficiently large share of funding for them, and give them priority in their own plans. The Annual Report shows that more money is also needed for the development of transport and traffic safety through the Union budget, since transport communications are so vital for the economy, employment and, furthermore, for social cohesion. In the future we shall have to pay more attention to the coordination of various forms of transport. At the same time, we shall also have to give consideration to the link between regional policy and transport. Balanced regional development can help to slow down the trend towards centralisation and reduce traffic congestion. In addition to addressing the problems of traffic in congested areas, we will also have to ensure that the trans-European networks are extended and that they are also developed in areas where the volume of traffic is lighter – areas where there is less traffic, remote areas, and areas where the physical environment presents greater problems. Good communications are a vital necessity in these areas.

Political group: ELDR
The ΕU is going to Cancun having carried out what is for farmers a disastrous interim reform of the CAP, which it is offering as a 'gift' to the competitive global market in agricultural products. It is also prepared to abolish export subsidies and duty on imports from developing countries, which will result in the sidelining of our agricultural products. It is also going prepared to start discussions on competition and foreign investment, on terms which will be onerous for developing countries, in that they will suffer even greater exploitation by the multinationals. They are also discussing the opening up of public services and utilities in these countries, so that the multinationals will have unimpeded access. What the WTO is not prepared to discuss is access to cheap drugs and the protection of biodiversity. The right to health, education, safe food, water, telecommunications and energy is being subjugated to commercial interests and increased profit. We voted against the European Parliament resolution because, although it expresses certain reservations, in essence it accepts the role of the World Trade Organisation. The Communist Party of Greece does not believe in the reformation of the WTO, so that inequalities in international trade can be levelled out and the countries of the developing world can develop. However, it does believe in the fight of the peoples.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I shall do my best to convey the stance endorsed by the majority of my group if not unanimously. Firstly, our group has strongly criticised what we consider the unduly harsh sentences handed down to the Cuban dissidents referred to earlier in the House. Secondly, we state clearly that freedom of expression and assembly must be respected as the fundamental rights they are. It is important however to take account of the context in which these sentences came about. Firstly, the embargo or blockade, call it what you will, which has had drastic social and economic consequences for Cuba over the last 40 years, and which the international community has condemned at the United Nations year after year. Secondly, the constant harassment by the representative of the United States in Havana for the last six months. That individual, Mr James Cason, has drawn on substantial financial resources to destabilise Cuban institutions. The sum of USD 20 million has been mentioned. Thirdly, the incredible leniency shown by the United States to those who hijacked two aircraft and a vessel during the last month, putting hundreds of lives at risk. Fourthly, the imprisonment of five Cuban citizens sentenced in the United States without guarantees. This was simply for attempting to prevent the terrorist attacks that took place a few months ago in tourist establishments. They caused serious damage, injury, and the death of an Italian holidaymaker. It was because the situation on the island had not been taken into account that we decided not to sign this joint resolution. Mr President, I should like to conclude by expressing a personal view. I believe it is regrettable that the majority of Members who are being so severe on Cuba today should have voted last year against the resolution calling for diplomatic relations with Israel to be broken. This was because of the repeated killing of Palestinians, many of whom were children. Thirty-four Palestinians have been murdered over the last three days. I also believe the vote against any proposal or amendment to condemn or stop the illegal, immoral and unjust war against Iraq during the last mini-session was most regrettable. Mr President, I do not know what to make of these double standards. Such an attitude is unfair above all to the victims. These run into the hundreds in Palestine. We may never know the number of victims in Iraq, as history tends to be written by the victors. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, my sense of nobility obliges me to respond to the positive and constructive speech by Mr Bolkestein. As rapporteur, I would say to him that I almost did not miss Mr Patten’s absence. I would also like to express my thanks to all of my fellow Members. For reasons of accuracy, I would like to refer to a point that has been made in this debate that the great omission from this report was the failure to mention indigenous peoples. I would like to quote directly from paragraph 27, which 'calls for the new common strategy to make education, health and culture its priorities and to provide for targeted measures in support of those Latin American countries which require them, with particular attention paid to ethnic minorities and indigenous groups'. Therefore, to say that there has been an omission, when we are asking that the maximum priority within the new common strategy be given to indigenous peoples, seems to me to be a clear contradiction, although, naturally, I respect the opinion of all my fellow Members.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, we feel that this directive is far from satisfactory because it involves a combination of two texts, one on the incineration of dangerous waste and the other on the incineration of non-dangerous waste. This raises problems for us at several phases of the incineration process: the reception, processing and handling of the waste. One might well ask what was the point of combining these two matters. We can find the answer in Mr Blokland’s report, which is violently opposed to the coincineration industry. Paradoxically, however, by the same token, the rapporteur is in favour of mixing dangerous and non-dangerous waste. What is the advantage of this for the environment? Our Group has no wish to favour either type of industry, since both are extremely useful to waste management in Europe. The practices of each Member State must be taken into consideration, while maintaining the existing industrial balance and investigating how the environment can be better protected. This is what the common position proposes. Priority must be given to the emission limits for the most harmful substances, i.e. NOx, dioxins and furanes. Moreover, the common position suggests an NOx limit value for the incineration of dangerous waste for the year 2007. Such a thing does not yet currently exist. As regards dioxins and furanes, the limit values have now been made mandatory for all types of waste. Until now, they applied only to non-dangerous waste. It is therefore unfortunate that the Blokland report is putting unrealistic solutions forward when it is known that a good many directives on waste management are not yet applied or are not properly applied by Member States. If one wishes to go too far, one becomes counter-productive. It is completely unrealistic to wish to review the limit values of this directive every three years, if one considers the considerable investment that the industry would have to make. What the industry needs is legal certainty and reasonable time periods. The real problem is that in Europe we do not have a proper definition of what waste is, resulting in ongoing confusion when we have to revise a text on waste or to present new proposals. Commissioner, waste management in Europe must undergo complete reform as a matter of urgency.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, the Socialist Group accepts Mr Miranda’s proposal and we would vote in favour of the first part and against the second part.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, in my country, Austria, during discussion of the transit issue, the prevailing opinion was that the European Parliament was responsible for the failure to come up with a reasonable successor regulation. I believe that this was not the case, but it is essentially idle to argue about this. Here and now, we have what we always supported in Austria, namely a signal for a new Pan-European transport policy which, in addition to the classic objectives of such a policy, namely traffic capacity, a favourable costs ratio and road safety, the needs of others are also considered, in particular the needs of people who reside and have to live along the European transport routes, and the requirements of the environment and the goals of sustainable development. In this debate, which will, today, conclude with a result at first reading, the rapporteur, Mr Cocilovo, has achieved a great deal in an excellent collaboration with many people in this House. For this we must thank him, and also for the good deal of progress that we have made, which has produced results which should, at the end of the day, complete this procedure. We have prescribed cost-fidelity as a principle of European transport policy in general. In particular, we have also managed to get the so-called external costs integrated. We have addressed the special legal protection of sensitive areas, but also non-sensitive ones, and also sensitive times – with the emphasis on night-time traffic. We have, as is particularly important, ensured that toll revenues end up and are applied precisely where we urgently need them, namely in a combination of purpose for the transport sector and the possibility of achieving cross-finance between the individual transport players. Not everything that we have achieved in this first reading in this House is sufficient in each individual case, and, for that reason, the next few months will find us having to do more work on the subject in the new parliamentary term, and we will have to endeavour, in the new Parliament, in a larger and expanded Parliament, to gain an understanding – if possible an improved understanding – for the matters of which I have spoken. We will in particular also be required to ensure that the Council is involved in our discussion and that in the foreseeable future we will have a reasonable overall result.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in my view this debate is taking place in an unreal atmosphere. We have in front of us a budget relating to the BSE crisis, but know that at this moment a far greater danger is haunting Europe: the danger that foot-and-mouth disease will spread on a large scale. This budget will, in any case, not be adequate to confront all these calamities. If we approve this budget, there will not be the slightest leeway left in the 2001 budget. Is that sensible? In the view of my group it is not. We believe extra leeway should be created for the months ahead. The only leeway that we have been able to find at the moment would be created if instead of a proportion of 70-30 for financing the disposal of livestock, a proportion of 50-50 were introduced. This would create the extra scope of approximately 300 million euro in the budget for dealing with other calamities in the future and maybe also for financing measures for combating foot-and-mouth disease. In the view of my group, the greatest threat looming at the moment is the renationalisation of agricultural policy. Every country will try in its own way to find funds to confront the outbreak of all those diseases. We must prevent every Member State pursuing its own independent policy: all policy must continue to issue from Brussels and that is why that extra leeway in the budget is necessary. I should like to ask the Commission what steps it has taken since the Haug resolution of last July on the guidelines for the budget: that resolution clearly asked for a consideration of alternative forms of finance in relation to outbreaks of disease. What has the Commission done on this point? Is it possible to insure ourselves in future against these kinds of calamities? Is a levy on meat required for an emergency fund? We would like answers to all such questions, because it is unacceptable that diseases should break out and we should have no resources to do anything about it.

Political group: ELDR
I want to thank the Commission for what I perceive as a very positive answer. For safety’s sake, I should like to have confirmation that it really is the case that, where the Commission and good administration are concerned, there is no part of Jacob Söderman’s proposal which the Commission thinks is unacceptable. Is it true that the contents of all parts of the proposal will be approved?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, it is always sad to talk about human rights abuses because we in the EU take for granted the universal rights that we exercise day in, day out. The case of Dr Ibrahim is deeply worrying because it is part of a trend that we see increasing in Egypt. Yet Egypt – as we have heard from Mr Posselt – is a friend and ally. Therefore I urge the Commissioner on his visit to Egypt to raise at the highest level with President Mubarak the case of Dr Ibrahim and his colleagues. He should be released immediately. There should be a fair appeal process. I equally urge him to raise the case of the 'Cairo 52', who are also undergoing a retrial, and of the four British men held pending trial in Cairo at this moment. We are friends of Egypt. We must encourage dialogue. When dialogue fails, we must bring forward sanctions.

Political group: PSE