GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, I had the same observation as Mr Corbett. We also received notification that a high-ranking Burmese delegation is in Brussels. It is the official policy of the European Union not to admit any government representatives from Burma because of the shameful regime in that country. No less a person than Aung San Suu Kyi, who received the Sakharov Prize here, is still in detention. I consider it an absolute disgrace that these people are able to come here and speak in our very own parliament. I should like to join wholeheartedly with Mr Corbett in asking for immediate action to be taken.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, agriculture is not like other commercial or industrial products. Unlike a captain of industry, the farmer cannot simply decide to relocate his means of production to wherever the manufacturing conditions are most favourable: where the wages are low, the sun always shines, and there is enough rainfall. So different rules must apply to agriculture, and food safety and food security – in other words, food sovereignty – must be the first commandment for every individual state. The multifunctionality of agriculture must also be recognised and enforced by the World Trade Organisation, and that means that agricultural funding must be based on ecological and social criteria as well. The task is not, and I must make this quite clear, to engage in new forms of agricultural protectionism targeted especially at developing and threshold countries. Again, they must be looked at separately in this context. It also means, however, that the European Union cannot dump its many surpluses with high export subsidies at global market prices in order to disrupt or even destroy markets elsewhere. There are countless examples of this. And one thing is clear; at the prices shaped by the global market, no one can possibly produce agricultural products under socially and ecologically compatible conditions and still make a profit. That is amply demonstrated by the current agricultural crisis which we are witnessing here in the European Union. We must, therefore, focus primarily on the European internal market, and those who wish to produce for the global market should do so, of course, but they should do so without subsidies and support from the European Union. One thing must be clear: food safety and consumer protection must have absolute priority. There is one basic rule which we must not ignore: people everywhere in the world need healthy food, drinking water and air to breathe. Unless we have these three basic elements of life, everything else is irrelevant.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Prime Minister, you have, amongst the six priorities of the Spanish Presidency of the Council, managed to say not one word on the protection of the environment. That is, I admit, a respectable achievement, indeed a transparent one. I have had to listen too often over the last twelve years to Presidents of the Council who, among their priorities at the outset of their presidency, announce things they cannot bring to pass. In this case, you do not even announce anything. I find that very frank, very transparent and very clear. I am very grateful to Mr Salafranca for bringing Groucho Marx into the discussion earlier on. I, too, was reminded of Groucho Marx when I listened to that speech, because I must admit that I found it more than grotesque. Groucho Marx represents the grotesque, and I find it more than grotesque that the Spanish Presidency of the Council, ten years after the Rio Summit and in the year of the Johannesburg World Summit, has nothing to say about the protection of the environment. Mr Aznar, it is not for your Ministry of the Environment to do that, it is for you to do it. Let me remind you that the last summit, the Summit in Gothenburg, called upon you, the European Council, to use your meeting in Barcelona in the first half of the year to check on what was still needed. You must, then, say something about emissions trading. You must say when you want to ratify the Kyoto protocol. You must, for example, say when you intend to implement the Sixth Environmental Action Programme's strategies for the various industry sectors. In no way is that a matter for the environmental authorities in your own country; it is a matter for you personally. We always consider it important to cooperate closely and well with the Council, and so, Mr Aznar, I offer you assistance should your government have need of it. I am perfectly ready to offer you all my group's suggestions – with all respect of course – as may be necessary to enable you to perform your duties at the beginning of the year. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Thank you for your answer, Commissioner. I am very glad that we are to be told the result of the questionnaire at the next meeting of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. I nonetheless sense from your answer that there is a very big difference between the status of the individual Member States, as we knew there was before 1 December. Only a very short time has, of course, elapsed. In view of the health situation, a particularly long period ought not to be allowed to elapse, out of consideration for both consumers and farmers. This is also because, right now, there is distortion of competition between farmers in the individual Member States, because the compensation offered is very different from one country to another. I hope it will not be the slowest, but the fastest, countries which set the pace, for I am completely convinced that it is in that way that we shall achieve a result in which all the current 15 EU countries have implemented these BSE decisions.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, much as I love Senator Doyle and her Irish friends, she is quite wrong about Sellafield in my constituency. I told her so, and the Irish government so when I was the Northern Ireland Minister responsible for Energy and I reiterate that view now. I applaud the British government's decision on the MOX plant, a long overdue decision which is going to ensure the economic and employment future of my constituents. So my message on that is to keep your hands off Sellafield. Briefly, about aviation. I congratulate Commissioner Palacio on the actions that she has already taken but there are three things we need to emphasise: firstly we must protect the aircraft on the ground; once someone is on the aircraft they can do more damage. Secondly we must renew and reinvigorate security screening at airports and thirdly we must assist with the costs of security and war-risk insurance. We must restore public confidence in aviation and the sooner the better.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I listened with great interest to the Commissioner. Maybe he could tell me when he is going to visit either the port of Kilkeel, Ardglass or Portavogie. Could he respond to that? He said he is going to visit the fishermen. I would love to be there with him. I would love to accompany him and speak to the fishermen alongside him. Can he tell me when he is going to visit those ports?

Political group: PPE-DE
This is a related question. Perhaps it is not related to the issue of the transport of animals over long distances, but to that of transport to abattoirs and what happens before then. By adopting a number of reports, we in Parliament have embarked upon the long road towards making food in Europe safe. When does the Commissioner intend to produce draft directives to make animal husbandry safe, that is to say the breeding of animals, how we treat the animals we eat, how we transport them to abattoirs etc.? When will these directives be part of the long chain?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I wish to address the person who ought to have been in the public gallery today, namely Mr Mugabe. Your task, Mr Mugabe, was to give the people of Zimbabwe freedom, democracy and the rule of law. Instead, you have given the people of Zimbabwe oppression, terror, ill-treatment, torture and killing. Your task, Mr Mugabe, was to give the people of Zimbabwe a new future and a new equality, including equality of rights. It was emphatically not to create an inverted racism or to degrade and oppress people because of the colour of their skin, their political views or their party allegiances. Your task, Mr Mugabe, was to give the people of Zimbabwe food and a future. It was not to give them hunger, famine, despair and death. Your task was, moreover, to become a part of Zimbabwe’s history, of its bright and positive history. It was not to enter the history books as a notorious, cruel, narrow-minded and malicious dictator. Mr Mugabe, I have had the privilege of meeting many worthy campaigners for human rights and democracy in your splendid country, Zimbabwe. The violence committed against them by your troops and soldiers will not prevail. In a year’s time, you will no longer be the leader of Zimbabwe.

Political group: PPE-DE
We MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece voted against the resolution because, unlike the European Parliament, the workers have no reason to mourn the failure of the Intergovernmental Conference on the 'Euro-constitution'. Although the failure was, mainly, the result of internal differences on the distribution of power, objectively it gives new opportunities for the further development of grass-roots reaction throughout the ΕU to the monstrosity of the new Treaty. For the rest, the Intergovernmental Conference in Brussels confirmed yet again the assessments of the Communist Party of Greece that the debate is far removed from grass-roots interests, given that no one contests either the introduction of neo-liberalism or the promotion of the ΕU to deputy policeman alongside the USA or the attack on democratic rights and freedoms.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I am pleased to see the quality of the seventh report on state aid within the EU, and to see that it will henceforth be an annual report, and also that the Directorate-General for Competition will be making information, both general and specific, publicly accessible via its website. I am happy with the rapporteur’s treatment of state aid and I congratulate him on this. There is too often a tendency to criticise state aid harshly as a measure causing distortion in competition. Admittedly, an effective competition policy is a prerequisite for the proper operation of the internal market and of economic and monetary union. However, as the rapporteur pointed out, such aid is occasionally essential and may, in addition to enabling the survival of a specific firm, make it possible to contribute to sustainable development (Article 6 of the Treaty), services of general economic interest (Article 16) and economic and social cohesion (Article 158). Clearly though, it must be monitored, a task which falls to the European Commission. The aid which Union Member States allocate each year to the sectors under consideration reached a total of EUR 95 billion in the period 1995-1997, including 40% allocated to the manufacturing sector. This aid is considerably less than the previous period, 1993-1995 (a 13% drop in the total amount and a drop from 3.8% to 2.6% in the amount of aid to the manufacturing sector). This downturn in aid is chiefly due to the reduction in aid granted to the new German Länder. Like the rapporteur, I deplore the fact that the figures given in the report do not cover all state aid. The European Commission must make good these omissions as soon as possible. It must also cooperate with the Member States in order to improve the quality of data in good time, which is to say in time for the ninth report. I think it would be a good idea if the Commission published a register specifying the amount of state aid per Member State. I also deplore the fact that the European Parliament has been totally excluded from the Advisory Committee on State Aid. In order to compensate for this situation, the European Commission should be obliged to make regular reports to us. I shall conclude with one aspect of the use of state aid which I feel is particularly dangerous: the matter of aid resulting in businesses relocating from one Member State to another, with the risk of subsidy hunting which makes no contribution to the shared objectives of the EU. This is why I should like to see the next report on state aid include some assessment of the effect of such aid on employment, industry and craft businesses in the beneficiary countries. – Langen Report (A5-0073/1999)

Political group: PSE
We Swedish appreciate the set of problems that has given rise to the proposal but nonetheless choose to refer this back to the Council and the Commission whom we call upon to develop a proposal taking a more holistic view of the EU’s asylum policy. The present proposal is problematic because there is a risk of transferring responsibility for making prior checks on asylum seekers to carriers who do not have the required knowledge or authority. As a result, the right to seek asylum may be undermined, especially since refugees often have difficulty obtaining passports and visas.

Political group: PPE-DE
Thank you for your reply, Commissioner. I would like to congratulate you on the good work you have done, because I believe that introducing sport into the future European Union Treaty is very important. It seemed very difficult, but all indications are that it will be achieved. I am reassured by the information you have given me, because I had seen certain proposals from international sporting organisations which really did not reassure me very much in terms of the inclusion of sport in the future Treaty, amongst other things, because, being rather difficult, we ran the risk of achieving nothing in the end. With regard to combating doping, my feeling is that, since the World Anti-Doping Agency was created, there is almost less control in this area then there was before. I would like to hear the Commissioner’s opinion on this and on whether she believes it is necessary to rather reinvigorate the fight against doping at European level and, if possible, at world level.

Political group: PPE-DE
The conciliation procedure under discussion allows the European Parliament to assess the requirements of the 2004 EU Budget. Among other things, it establishes an agreement on levels of expenditure for agriculture and fisheries. Against the backdrop of enlargement, this budget promotes greater economic, social and territorial cohesion. On the other hand, it offers a very limited increase in appropriations. I wish to comment here on some of the financial provisions relating to agriculture and fisheries. I welcome the appreciable increase in allocations, especially for rural development, although that increase is mainly directed at the candidate countries. Also to be welcomed are the budgetary efforts dedicated to health protection, consumers and food safety, not forgetting the environmental criteria needed for high-quality agriculture. I give my full support to the creation of a special budgetary heading for farmers affected by emergencies and calamities such as foot-and-mouth disease, swine fever and other diseases. Like the common agricultural policy, this budget provides a relative increase in the amounts allocated to fisheries. I can only disagree, however, with the appreciable cuts made in the research budget and the structural funds linked to this sector. Strengthening the control and implementation of each Member State’s quotas is, therefore, desirable. This will avoid penalising those who comply while offenders get off scot-free. - Report Färm (A5-0233/2003)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is a shame that Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi has already left. However, I should like to speak in favour of the Committee on Petitions’ conclusions. Out of respect for my colleagues, in my previous intervention I made reference to what I termed the ‘gremlins’ that sometimes appear in Parliament, but it is not these poor gremlins’ fault. Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi made it very clear that the Committee on Legal Affairs and Citizens’ Rights had no intention of incorporating the Committee on Petitions’ conclusions. Proof that these conclusions were unanimously adopted lies in the fact that they were signed by the chairman of the Committee on Petitions, another member of the Committee on Petitions from the European People’s Party, two members of the Socialist Group and I myself as draftsman of the opinion. I am of the view that it is imperative for any report on the application of Community law to incorporate the Committee on Petitions’ conclusions, as this committee plays such a key role in ensuring Member States apply Community law. This is why I urge you to vote in favour of Amendments Nos 2 and 3.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, a large proportion of the world population, especially in the Third World, will soon need boots to protect their feet from rising water levels. But recently, in Italy too, the dramatic effects made themselves felt. The exact relationship between CO2 emissions and global warming is not yet entirely clear, but that should not prevent us from taking drastic measures now. The precautionary principle is applicable here. According to experts, we need to reduce current CO2 emission levels by 60% in order to halt climate change. We are now working towards an 8% reduction, which is already quite a task. Although we are rightly investing in more sustainable energy and greater efficiency, our intentions are not new. Yet, we need to establish that our dependence on fossil fuels has hardly fallen since the 70s. We therefore need to employ all possible means and use them to the full. That translates into an unqualified ‘yes’ to the trade in emission rights, provided it is thought through properly. We still need to find solutions to major economic and political problems. Emissions trading could lead to a new form of colonialism. It is easier for rich countries to buy reductions in developing countries and thus acquit themselves of their responsibilities without giving the matter another thought. Technological innovation will be curtailed as a result. The success of emissions trading will therefore depend on the price. If the price is too low, the purchase of emission rights will be very attractive indeed. Its success will also depend on support. The trade in emissions must be fair and must be able to rely on a level playing field in the sectors involved. The market must be deployed in a bid to promote sustained growth as well as fair distribution. This requires clear political choices. The Climate Conference at The Hague presents an opportunity to take global steps, an opportunity which we should not let slip. We must not hide behind the unwillingness of the United States. Sound cooperation between rich and poor countries is needed to achieve climate objectives. We must lay down equitable points of departure. Equal emission rights for all global citizens is not only an equitable step, it is also effective. It is a means of involving developing countries and of promoting technological efforts. The Hague must also set an agenda for the future, of which equal emission rights for all the citizens of the world must certainly form a part. I would like to conclude by thanking the rapporteur for his work and wish the Commission every success.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I believe that the motion for a resolution on which we are going to vote on the future of the European Union and the assessment of Nice is a positive and balanced text which maintains the European Parliament’s important role in the construction of Europe. It therefore deserves full support in this House, I hope by a majority. As Chairman of the Industry Committee, I have presented an opinion which I would sum up by means of four points. The first refers to paragraph 3 of Article 157 on support measures for industry. The second is the financial consequences of the expiry of the ECSC Treaty in 2002. The third relates to Article 181 A on relations with third countries, above all in the field of financial and technical cooperation. Finally, the fourth aspect relates to the unsatisfactory amendments of Article 133 on the common trade policy. All of them have the same defect, and that is that they do not resolve the clear democratic deficit which exists in these areas, where the role of the European Parliament, in some cases, is completely absent and, in others, is restricted to a mere consultation when it should have gone further. I trust that this opinion which is appended to the motion for a resolution will soon be included in a new European Parliament document, and I also trust that these issues will be included in the agenda for the coming convention which will lead to an Intergovernmental Conference. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it should be a day for rejoicing when the European Parliament votes on EU rules on transparency and access to documents, but there are also too many flies in the ointment. The reason for this lies in the wording concerning documents of a sensitive nature. This makes it possible in future to classify not only sensitive military documents as secret, but also more general documents concerning security and perhaps other policy areas too. The wording concerning sensitive documents is too general and too vague. When, subsequently, it is a matter of which documents are to be classified as secret in a Member State such as Sweden, is it not the Commission which will in future decide this? In that case, it is a substantial infringement of the Swedish constitution. What is more, I agree with what has been said about the procedure itself, namely that it is extremely difficult to understand how, as part of an informal process I would characterise as very dubious, the negotiations concerning such a sensitive and important subject could have taken place between the committee, the Council and the Commission but not been subject to scrutiny by ordinary Members of Parliament and the general public.

Political group: Verts-ALE