GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I also wish to congratulate the rapporteur on this important piece of work. Forests are an important natural resource, and their sustainable management is vital, not only for natural diversity and ecological balance but also for our economy and prosperity. It is important to establish a common database regarding the condition of the forests and the environmental pollution from which they are under threat. This way we would be in a better position to ward off the threats and create a policy which will also safeguard our top quality forest resources in the future. During Parliament’s debate the prevention of forest fires was added to the group of activities to be funded out of the programme in the Commission proposal. At the same time, Parliament has also been prepared to increase programme funding as part of the intergroup compromise. The Council in its common position was strongly opposed to both these points: both the inclusion of fire prevention activities and an increase in funding. The debates, however, have seen a clear convergence of opinion. Parliament, and the Commission too, have worked hard to bring the Council closer to Parliament’s position. Now we have to see to it that there is consensus right to the end. If Parliament’s intergroup compromise is jeopardised in any way in tomorrow’s vote, the implementation of the entire plan will also be jeopardised, so I hope that the spiritual powers the rapporteur called upon will be present tomorrow in the vote. As part of the compromise, too, the programme will cease at the end of 2006. The Commission should put forward a proposal to continue with action to protect forests from atmospheric pollution and other phenomena that weaken them. We nevertheless have to bear in mind how diverse the European forests are. Fire prevention activities must be carried out by means of regional programmes in order to be able to address the most outstanding problems of each region and so that the activities involved are suited to forest types and climate. It is also important that the people in a region can become involved in these programmes. For this reason, when this programme work is undertaken in the future, these matters I think should be highlighted very clearly, and I believe that the Member States will supply valuable information before the Commission then puts forward its own proposal for after 2006.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the communication we are debating in favour of a uniform and effective application of the common fisheries policy is thought-provoking and leads us to consider issues which go beyond the CFP itself. The objective pursued – the coherent application of the common fisheries policy – should be extended to all Community policies and, furthermore, to European Union policies and Member States’ policies. We call for coherence, not contradiction, between the various Community policies and also between the various aspects of the CFP. We must direct all actions of the common fisheries policy towards a common objective, that of sustainable fishing, which is the only way to make fishing a lasting activity. But the Union’s other policies, such as industrial policy or environmental policy, must also contribute to the preservation of resources. The Community institutions have become, as a result of the principle of subsidiarity, a form of legislative machinery which depends for its execution on the Member States, which means that this uniform and effective implementation depends on the goodwill of those States. By the same token, infringements and compliance or non-compliance also depend on them. Violations of Community legislation are increasing, and this is undermining it and making it less and less effective. At the same time, calls for the renationalisation or regionalisation of Community policies such as the CFP are also increasing. Nevertheless, I would like to remind you that the draft European Constitution lays down four exclusive competences for the Union and that one of them is precisely the management of fisheries sources. The parliamentary Group of the is therefore pleased that the Commission is proposing the creation of a common inspection structure. We have called for this common structure in numerous resolutions, such as the one adopted in relation to the Green Paper on the reform of the CFP. The Commission, therefore, has the support of Parliament. In Spain, the Count of Romanones, who was a minister during the era of the Restoration, at the beginning of the twentieth century, said: ‘laws are for Parliament, but leave the regulations to me’. Well, the objective of sustainable fishing will not be achieved on the basis of laws or on the basis of regulations, which are necessary but insufficient. It is essential to involve, on the one hand, the Member States and, on the other, all the agents who participate in the sector, in the broadest sense, including marketing, so that we can achieve this objective. Moreover, action cannot be restricted to the Community framework – as we see in every meeting of the Committee on Fisheries – since the causes of many of the problems facing our fishing arise at international level, and it is at that level that solutions can be found. Cooperation between the various administrations is therefore essential if we want the CFP to be successful. Furthermore, the regional and local administrations, which often, as in the case of marketing, are responsible for applying Community rules, must also feel that they are participating in decision-making.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it surprises me that some MEPs are once again on the attack, with the same argument that they have used before, because the previous point also related to the admissibility of paragraph 6. I believe that the great majority of Members have made it clear that we are in favour of this paragraph, and we have already voted on it. If you like, I will repeat the same arguments. Paragraph 6 does not undercut the principle of relative stability because it respects that principle and the key points on distribution. The previous speaker said that there are doubts. We would have to be sure, if we wanted to reject paragraph 6. If you have any doubts, clarify them first. I have no doubts, Mr President, and this Parliament has already expressed its opinion.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I feel we can congratulate ourselves on the fact that 55 States have signed the Statute. However, some European States have still not done so. It is therefore crucial that we encourage them to sign up. Since 1995, this Parliament has been working towards the creation of this criminal court, and subsequently, in 1998, the Rome Conference very clearly stated the work that needed to be done to set it up. We are at the end of this process, but, perhaps, at this point, an effort must be made to get 60 signatories to the Statute. However, Mr President, I would also like to say to the Spanish Presidency that all this effort is only worth it if the end result is significant. In order for this to be an instrument of fundamental importance, we need a whole series of working and operating mechanisms. I would ask the Spanish Presidency, during whose term of office the Statute for the International Criminal Court will in all likelihood be approved, to put all its efforts into ensuring that the court will have the sufficient means to be able to function as it should. This has been Parliament’s concern since 1995: that this struggle for a future that is more just will be successful and that this International Criminal Court will take on the crucially important role that it should have in the future.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Lamassoure, if he is listening, may perhaps take it as special praise when I tell him that rarely has a report been discussed as long or as vehemently as his, to the chagrin of our co-ordinator Richard Corbett, to whom we have given much to do. Let me, though, make just two comments on it. The first has to do with the subsidiarity issue and the relationship with the regions. I was a member of a provincial government in Austria. I know about the many advantages, and also about the problems, associated with the regions and with subsidiarity. I would simply plead for us not to forget the political cohesion that the EU needs when we are taking all these steps towards a better relationship with the regions, and for us to look carefully when taking these steps. That strikes me as being of absolute importance. The second is that today's debate is not taking place in a sanitised vacuum, and what is happening in politics, especially the elections taking place today in the Netherlands, insofar as we have any information about them, shows that a certain segment of the population has a growing tendency to vote and act by reference to European policy. I nonetheless am of the opinion, with reference to item 20, that the rapporteur and, I assume, we Members of this House ourselves when we vote tomorrow, will be quite right to stipulate that external and internal security in particular are among the EU's own powers. For the Members who, when speaking here, use the fears and criticisms expressed in these elections in order to argue against the strengthening of the European Union in these areas, are not speaking in the citizens' interest. It is they, the citizens, who have an interest in greater security at home and abroad. If we were to ask them and perhaps explain this to them better, we would gain greater consent and support for the European Union having these powers. So I would like to say loud and clear that the EU's own powers, to which Mr Lamassoure clearly holds fast in his report, meet with our support, because we need more activities by the European Union, and better reasoning behind them, in the interests of our citizens' security both in terms of foreign policy and of the area of freedom and security.

Political group: PSE
With regard to the calendar for part-sessions in 2001, I must say quite clearly, as someone who has only ever been absent once since the new term on 12 June 1999, that I have always opposed and will always oppose any decision which seeks to make our part-session in Strasbourg meaningless, with the more or less open aim of disputing Strasbourg as the seat of the European Parliament. Such a decision would not only threaten the institutional balance that has nonetheless been accepted by all Member States, but, even more seriously, it would threaten the ‘certain concept of Europe’ that Strasbourg symbolises: that of a political Europe that is reconciled and peaceful. For who can deny that the creation of a single capital for a federal Europe, which will have more than 500 million inhabitants in 10 years’ time, would be an aberration? This would be a disaster in terms of town planning, in terms of the environment and therefore in human terms! Being modern in the 21st century means having a multipolar capital, at the heart of which Strasbourg will always have a special place. For all of these reasons, I condemn the ideological and mercenary machinations of the anti-Strasbourg faction, which never misses an opportunity to cause trouble!

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would firstly like to congratulate Parliament and the Commission for having brought the conciliation to a successful conclusion. I do not, however, wish to congratulate the Council because I feel that there has been no response from the Council in terms of the generosity needed for future programmes. Therefore, I would like to congratulate the two main protagonists though because they have furthermore ensured that everything will function normally in January and the budgets are ready for the start of the meetings. In this context however, I would like to say a few words which should be included in the Minutes rather than disappear into thin air. I would like to talk about a problem that I observed throughout the negotiation: that of the difficult, complex and rather vague concept of culture and education that most of the European Union’s institutions seem to hold. I shall highlight some of the contradictions. Strangely, the educational and cultural programmes tend to be fully agreed on, to be voted for most enthusiastically by all parties, and yet, these are, nevertheless, the programmes that receive the worst treatment in budgetary terms. This is the first contradiction. On the other hand, the cultural programmes, and specifically “Socrates”, are the ones that benefit the most people and, moreover, involve few intermediaries. “Socrates” directly reaches those who gain from it. We are not talking about lobbies here, but about people who are benefiting from something that is by no means a subsidy, but a life-long investment. On the other hand, this is a budget that accumulates and attracts broad cooperation from all countries. For the “Socrates” programme for example, the European Union only pays 10% in my country, Spain. The rest is made up by the institutions, the Spanish State and the families themselves. We can see then that there is an 80% increase in all educational programmes in general. What do I mean by this? Simply that we have wasted a great deal of money on education. If the Council had been more generous, many institutions and individuals would have put money on the table. I would like to say something else that I think is important: education cannot be guided by the principle of subsidiarity alone. Does the exchange of educational methods affect the principle of subsidiarity? Can getting to know another country, understanding it and experiencing it be considered an attack on the principle of subsidiarity? Countries will never be able to implement the Socrates programme on their own. This is a programme that transcends and surpasses the stature of individual nations. That is its greatness, its power and its strength, and that is why everyone believes in it to the extent that we can speak of thousands of good results. Above all though, there is one result that must never be forgotten: the capability for cohesion and unity that this programme gives us.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President–in–Office of the Council, Commissioner, I would like to endorse the sentiments expressed by previous speakers in that I too am very pleased at the holding of the latest EU–Russia Summit and its outcome. As regards the case of Kaliningrad, it is pleasing that a solution acceptable to the European Union and to Russia has been reached. I hope the Lithuanians will also find the agreement satisfactory. Clearly, without their support, the agreement will be meaningless. I would like to focus on the economic, social and political future of Kaliningrad. The agreement includes a commitment by the European Union to provide technical and financial aid to the Russians to promote the economic development of the enclave. This is a very important commitment. The destabilising effects for the whole region of the under–development of the enclave would be frightening. Kaliningrad’s naval shipyards and all the maritime activities there are currently suffering from a severe economic downturn. As a result, the enclave is likely to remain a good location for all types of trafficking, and dissent among its population may develop. Commissioner, I implore the European Union to do everything possible to help the region recover from this stagnant state which is also threatening to engulf Poland and the Baltic States. On the other issues, I fully support our partnership with Russia. But clearly this commitment should not make us deaf and dumb on the question of Chechnya. Candour is a mark of friendship and Europe takes a strong stance of talking about Mr Sakharov in the Kremlin. Alongside this difficult and tragic issue, there is clearly an enormous amount of work to be done with Russia. This includes work on Foreign Affairs, and the Common Security and Defence Policy. Unlike Mr Marchiani, I do not envisage Russia’s accession to the European Union. This is not the problem. As regards security and defence however, though we are working hard on the relationship between Russian and NATO, we should also start to reflect on the relationship between European Security and Defence Policy and Russia. We will discuss this matter on another occasion.

Political group: PSE
I would like to table an oral amendment, inserting the word ‘compulsory’ before the words ‘pensions system’ in the clause ‘calls in particular on the Member States to maintain a well-functioning pensions system’ in the last line of Amendment No 12 tabled by Mr Pronk and Mrs Lulling. The last two lines will therefore read as follows: ‘calls in particular on the Member States to maintain a well-functioning compulsory pensions system’. (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0020/2002) by Peter William Skinner, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the Commission communication to the Council and the Parliament on implementation of the risk capital action plan (RCAP) (COM(2001) 605 – C5-0015/2002 – 2001/2213(COS)) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0037/2002) by Christopher Beazley, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, on the evaluation report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the application of the Council Recommendation of 24 September 1998 concerning the protection of minors and human dignity (COM(2001) 106 – C5-0191/2001 – 2001/2087(COS)) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0035/2002) by Marielle de Sarnez, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on strengthening cooperation with third countries in the field of higher education (COM(2001) 385 – C5-0538/2001 – 2001/2217(COS)) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Joint motion for a resolution(1) on the Second United Nations World Assembly on Ageing (Madrid, 8-12 April 2002) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** President. – That concludes the vote. EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE - International terrorism (C5-0132/2002)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, our group has decided against supporting the present resolution. In our opinion, sexual abuse of women is too serious to be used for political ends and for placing religious communities, in this case the Catholic Church, in a bad light. We consider rape and sexual abuse to be violations of fundamental human rights and of human dignity. We reject any form of aggression against women and are of the opinion that offenders need to be punished, irrespective of their profession. We are united in solidarity with the victims. Our group is expressing grave concern with regard to the sexual abuse committed by priests, medical doctors, politicians and others in positions of trust and moral authority. The Catholic community of faith and the Holy See have always rejected violence and sexual abuse, both on the basis of Christian values and of international treaties and obligations. Via its official representatives, the Holy See has acknowledged and condemned the actions, and has, in cooperation with the responsible bishops, superiors of religious orders and communities and other competent authorities, taken measures against the priests in question. This was done to support the victims and to prevent these eruptions of violence from being repeated. Sexual abuse by priests must be condemned and penalised without delay. However, we should not generalise. There are more than 404 000 priests and nearly 820 000 nuns worldwide. The fact that irresponsible members of the clergy have committed these acts of abuse, especially in developing countries where women often play a subordinate role culturally compared to men, does not mean that the majority of nuns and priests in the world are not dedicated: they are often the first to be self-effacing in the fight for peace and justice and against poverty. Our group welcomes the open debate in this matter and we regret that the response to sexual abuse has hitherto been inadequate. We want an effective response to all incidents and expect churches and other responsible organisations to step up their efforts to do everything in their power to prevent this from happening in future.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Schmitt is indeed right to say that today marks the first anniversary of the calamity at Überlingen, when two aircraft collided, resulting in many deaths. The public see the Single Sky project as the European response to the situation in the skies above Europe, which is, to say the least, unsatisfactory. So how do matters stand? We have three times as many control centres as an area of comparable size in the USA, with a patchwork carpet – a product of the Sixties – in the skies above us. If you fly from Brussels to Rome, you have to pass through nine different control sectors; during a flight from Brussels to Geneva, the radio frequency has to be changed five times. With the number of journeys by air continuing to mount over the coming years, the whole thing is more and more a safety hazard, and, at the same time, highly inefficient; one in every four flights is delayed, and 350 000 flying hours are wasted every year. All that costs the airlines some two thousand million euros per annum. The Commission, with its regulatory package, and Parliament, at first reading stage, faced up to this challenge, but the Member States’ Common Position does not do it justice in terms of what is expected and required. Why is this so? The first reason for this is that, at the heart of the single sky, there are the functional airspace blocks. How are these to become reality? What is the added value of a regulation if its implementation is to continue to be dependent on the whims of the Member States? They can already set up airspace blocks on a bilateral basis. We take the view that nothing will change here unless we get a normative proposal from Eurocontrol and the Commission. My second point is that, in the Common Position, we have made hardly any real progress away from the status quo in terms of civil/military cooperation either. I know this is a highly sensitive issue, but we cannot wait a few decades more for people to be able to fly within Europe by a direct route from A to B. Thirdly, it is a cause of anguish that there has been no European response to the desperate lack of air traffic controllers. This must be included in the regulatory package and – not least for safety reasons – should be tackled as soon as possible. My group endorses the reintroduction of the amendments adopted by Parliament at first reading stage. No doubt we will have to have frank discussions with the Council in the Conciliation Committee. Thanks are due not least to the rapporteurs for their good and cooperative approach to our work together.

Political group: PSE