GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Fisheries. – Mr President, I wish to thank the general rapporteur and the lead committee for their work on this important proposal. It is essential for the sake of consumers and, indeed, producers and suppliers that we have a sensible regime for the protection of public health. In relation to fisheries and aquaculture products, there are some very particular challenges. It may not always be appropriate simply to transpose controls which are designed for farmed animals to fishing and aquaculture products. For example, some of the issues and challenges relating to fish diseases, dioxin levels and so forth are very specific and require regularly updated and verifiable scientific advice on which to base controls and toxin levels. Bivalve molluscs by their nature pose particular challenges and perhaps the testing regime for scallops, for example, ought not to be identical to that for mussels or other species. We have to look to species-specific controls in relation to bivalve molluscs. The current proposal in relation to toxin levels was based on studies carried out in Canada and Japan on mussels, and the effects on the scallop industry of the type of controls which have been envisaged could be very significant. We need to look very carefully at ensuring – for the sake of consumers but also those who depend on these industries for their livelihood – that risk-based measures are imposed which are reasonable in relation to the problems involved.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, a new resolution on Iraq cannot be more conciliatory than the resolution we adopted by a large majority a few weeks ago. That resolution was and still is in keeping both with the real problems in the world and the feelings and reactions of the citizens in our countries who, in their reactions to this illegal, immoral, pre-emptive and therefore subjugating war, expressed themselves as European citizens, and formulated the only serious and reliable basis on which we can continue to build Europe. Many of us here are concerned about the future of the world and of Europe. However, there are others here whose sole concern is to justify their governments, to sanction after the event decisions which will cause the modern world system and the international community – surely a misnomer now – to disappear. The Te Deum for the demise of the UN offered up in all sincerity by Mr Pearl doubtless also applied to the marginalisation of the European Union, both old and new, whatever some of the candidate countries may think. This humiliation will continue if we somehow sanction the invasion of Iraq after the event. There is no doubt as to who will gain the upper hand militarily and technologically: the invaders. But why should we turn their technical supremacy into political victory by feeling compelled to condone the war once it is over? The only thing we have a historical duty to do is to prepare our contribution to a more balance world, insofar as this is still possible; to make a quantum leap, as quickly as possible, on the road towards political unification, especially in the field of foreign policy and defence. Those of us who have no intention of letting Europe and the world change into a sort of Jurassic Park must move forward. Those here who are willing to achieve more must unravel the contradictions into which their selfish, divisive choices are forcing them on their own. A great British playwright, Harold Pinter said – and some members would do well to remember this – that unless Europe finds the solidarity, intelligence, courage and will to challenge and resist US power Europe itself will deserve Alexander Herzen's definition: ‘We are not the doctors. We are the disease’.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, with the approval of the Prodi Commission, the European Parliament will tomorrow draw a line under the scandal of the Santer Commission. I hope that in the process, we shall also overcome an understandable degree of mistrust on the part of Europe’s citizens and create a new confidence in the European Union. However, drawing a line under the matter does not mean just filing it away. The European Parliament will remain alert and keep a sharp eye on the Commission in future too. That is why we were elected by the peoples of Europe. We shall ensure that, if need be, individual Members of the Commission are removed if they are no longer acceptable for professional or personal reasons. I am convinced that, for example, Mr Bolkestein would fail the test tomorrow if, in appointing the Commission, we had the opportunity to vote on individual Commissioners. A Commissioner responsible for the internal market who, during the hearings, was forever mouthing the word “subsidiarity” has clearly not understood enough about the great common tasks facing Europe. The people of Europe expect to benefit from a leadership which focuses upon the common good and not upon the sum total of individual interests in the Member States. When Mr Bolkestein learns to understand this, then he may go on to share for a long time in the success which I wish Mr Prodi and his Commission. If he does not, then he is a candidate for the sack. Mr Prodi, since Mr Bolkestein is still not back yet, I trust you will pass the message on to him.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too should first like to extend warm thanks to the rapporteur of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, Mr Harbour. The report is excellent and, by tabling constructive proposals and also holding intensive negotiations with colleagues, Mr Harbour has really managed to strike a good compromise, which met with broad support in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Single Market and will – I am sure – also find favour tomorrow in the plenary. Much has already been said about the content of the directive and I only wish to focus on what I feel to be the essential points. The first is the scope of the universal service obligations. Firstly, the fact that the universal service is to include simple but not broadband Internet connections is to be welcomed. In some parts of the Community it will not be possible for the infrastructure required for broadband connections to be rolled out or upgraded to the necessary technical standard in the next few years. In addition, in some places there is still insufficient demand for these kinds of connections. It should in the first instance therefore be left to market forces to offer these connections without there being any regulatory pressure to do so. Competition on the local network and thus in providing Internet access has been made possible by the regulation on unbundling the local loop. It is now important to apply this directive consistently as quickly as possible so that a sufficient number of broadband connections can be made available quickly and at a reasonable price. The Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has tabled one amendment, Amendment No 9 on Article 4a), which unfortunately, in my view, takes us in the wrong direction, namely by including high-speed Internet access in the universal service obligations after all. It states that the Member States should prescribe particular data transfer rates based on the latest technology. For the reasons which I have stated I feel that this amendment goes too far. I welcome the inclusion in the directive of a future European regional code '3883'. I believe that this is an information measure which will also promote our internal market. I also welcome the provisions on number portability in the mobile sector. This too has already been mentioned by Mr van Velzen. I can only hope that Mr Harbour's report meets with broad support tomorrow. All in all it is a really good piece of work!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner Patten, I believe you have given us a good introduction and briefing on the issues and topics that we shall be discussing, and I believe the honourable Member, Mr Elles, was right to emphasise the need to establish precisely what we wish our transatlantic relationship to achieve in the year 2001 and beyond. The most important thing for us will be to consolidate, to examine very carefully the actual progress that has been made in the various programmes we have launched under the umbrella of the Transatlantic Agenda. These are the topics referred to by Mr Elles. But there is another area which is very important and which has come in for a great deal of criticism, namely the mutual-recognition agreements, which have given rise to very many problems on both sides of the Atlantic, especially the American side. I should be grateful if you would deal in detail with these agreements in the communication which is scheduled for the spring of next year and if, besides the analysis requested by the other side of the House, you would also make proposals as to how we can achieve new aims in future in all domains – in the various dialogues, in our cooperation in the fields of foreign policy and security policy and even in practical everyday areas such as the mutual-recognition agreements. That will be very, very important. Another area relates to the aforementioned EU educational centres, which I believe have been highly successful. Consolidation is important, but so, too, is the right perspective. I believe you touched on an important point there. Under the Clinton Administration, we have made great strides in the realm of political cooperation. However, we have also seen trade policy, and trade disputes in particular, playing an ever greater role as a determinant of general political relations and gaining absolutely unmerited prominence, in my opinion. It is essential that, at future summit meetings, you actually manage to focus attention on the major political issues and that matters such as the trade disputes which highlight differences between us are assigned to their proper place, that their importance is not exaggerated and that they are not allowed to become focal points of political discord between Europe and the United States. So it will be important to change tack here and write a real Transatlantic Agenda for the year 2001. I know that our Ambassador in Washington, Gunter Burghardt, has already spoken about this, and I should be delighted if his interesting proposals were actually incorporated into your communication. I wish you every success in this task. I also wish our Commissioner, Pascal Lamy, every success in his efforts to bring about the settlement of our trade disputes with the United States, and it would please me to see you present the communication at the earliest possible date.

Political group: PSE
The British Conservatives voted in favour of the Watson report in order to underline our continued ongoing support for the war against terrorism, and to confirm our determination to ensure that the European Union presents a united front against those who seek to undermine our values and our way of life. However, we do have some reservations about some of the details in this measure. In particular, we are concerned that by including some 22 offences in the scope of the Arrest Warrant, this measures goes further than is necessary in tackling the immediate terrorist threat.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the issues to be addressed at the forthcoming Feira Summit are predictable and have already been mentioned. However, the results which will be obtained from this summit are of doubtful and limited scope, or at least some of them are, as the respective debate has gone beyond the institutions and this presidency and all eyes are now turned to Nice. Even so, there is every reason for concern. The enlargement process is advancing and forms a specific argument for institutional change but its effects are being ignored and the measures needed in the various policies and in the budget are being swept under the carpet. As the debate advances within the IGC, this is taking an unacceptable shape. In the name of efficiency, attempts are being made to impose the new model of internal power and a markedly federalist option. Due to the illusory danger of the small and medium-sized countries blocking decisions, the idea of giving the large countries a real and exclusive right of veto is gaining ground. In the meantime, the essential need to involve the people in these debates is being forgotten, particularly those people who are most disadvantaged and distant from the decision-making centres. In addition, closer cooperation is being gambled on heavily but it is being forgotten that this would require the establishment of a multi-speed Europe which would inevitably have a hard core and an unacceptable political directorate. In terms of security and defence, with the fallacious argument of autonomy constantly being used and based on an effective concept of a politico-military block, dangerous routes are being taken towards the militarisation and reinforcement of the European power of NATO when this should be the time to definitively dismantle these blocks, to disarm and to cooperate in achieving lasting peace. Strangely, this Presidency, which has allowed itself to be overtaken by events, has ended up by accepting all these concepts and, even worse, has actually applauded some of their mentors, even in the knowledge that the acceptance of their proposals and discussion methods would, taken literally, lead to the inevitable closure of the IGC itself. The Presidency is insisting on the controversial Charter of Fundamental Rights, which it wants as a badge of achievement, but has forgotten the social issues. Finally, this Conference is at least producing a positive result on Timor given that something clearly needs to be done to rebuild this territory and re-establish its independence.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the Lisbon process was unclear and ambiguous right from the beginning. It contained two different strategies. The one strategy prioritised cutting-edge technologies, research-based innovations, e-commerce, the liberalisation of network markets and such like. The second strategy prioritised full employment, social integration and education for all, instead. In that way, all the groups could imagine they had won in Lisbon, and everyone could therefore applaud the decisions. Now, however, we see ever more clearly the gulf between the two ways: that which pinned its hopes on the élite and that which put its faith in the ordinary people, often the weaker groups. I think that, as rapporteur, Mr Bullmann has really endeavoured for as long as possible to preserve unity and the policy of compromise on socio-economic matters. We can nonetheless see how certain Member States and political parties have become increasingly impatient and wish to abandon the route of a compromise policy. We in the Confederal Group of the view many of the amendments that have come in with great concern. If they were to be adopted tomorrow, the majority of our group would feel compelled to vote against them in the final vote. We should not do that with any pleasure, but there are limits. One simply cannot just go on compromising. We shall therefore follow the vote, amendment by amendment, before we adopt a position. Finally, I wish to lodge a protest against the fact that almost no account at all has been taken of the candidate countries’ needs and interests in our discussion prior to the Barcelona Summit. There are only a few years left before enlargement, and it is high time that we began to face that reality head on. It is a shame that we have not taken a clearer and more comprehensive view of this state of affairs.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is rather strange not to have the rapporteur here but I should like to congratulate him, nonetheless, because the supports his report and will accept it as it stands. We also support the Commission communication, although we take the view that listing current obstacles and postponing legislative proposals is not good enough. We hope that the relevant proposals and an efficient action plan will be submitted to us at the spring summit. One criticism we have is that the skills shortages proposed or, rather, identified in the high-tech sector are of course not good enough. As Socialists, we want to give all employees the chance to benefit from mobility and to increase mobility on the European labour markets. But we have to offer them these chances. The new labour market should not be open just to small, special groups; it must be open to every employee in Europe. Hence we need creative ideas and solutions from the Commission, not just a list of the problems. We also need a detailed investigation of possible malfunctions on the labour market in border regions or in specific sectors, such as the building and transport industries. Last but not least, we also need an analysis and a debate of the results of the school system in Europe because, unfortunately, not every country in Europe has done as well as it should.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should begin by saying how much I appreciate the excellent work done by Mr Esteve on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy and how grateful I am for it. Mr Esteve has presented a well-balanced document which is certainly positive whilst also taking account of all the suggestions made by the various groups It is indeed vital for the European Union to give due consideration to the future role of the Euro-Mediterranean area as regards peace, economic development, democracy, energy provision and economic investment. This report and the meeting to be held in Valencia to deal with these matters are therefore crucial. It is nonetheless worth mentioning a number of issues giving rise to concern. Firstly, as has already been stated, we have to come up with a decisive response to the situation in the Middle East. I refer to the military invasion of Palestine, and would point out that there has been no military incursion into Israel by the Palestinians. If we fail to come up with such a response, I fear this conflict will dash all the hopes vested in European Union development in the area and put an end to it. We should also keep Western Sahara in mind. That conflict is only simmering at present, but could boil over at any moment. As we have always maintained, it is essential to recognise the decisions taken by the Security Council of the United Nations and hold the referendum on self-determination. It might then be possible to defuse a possible conflict in line with the conflict prevention strategy advocated by the European Union. As has already been stated, it is important to make it quite clear that respect for democracy and human rights must be re-established in several countries in the area. The future of the region as a whole is being compromised. Another worrying issue concerns the paradoxical situation whereby if investment in the area is made without preserving the necessary balance, undesirable consequences ensue. Unemployment increases unexpectedly and peasants flock to the cities. They then fail to find work. This in turn boosts emigration, illegal or otherwise. We ought therefore to take these important issues into account. I believe that the suggestion of setting up an Association Agreement for this area, along the lines of the one for the European Union, and allowing us to be involved is helpful. It should however be worked on more energetically and with a greater degree of urgency. I therefore also recognise the importance of the latest proposal by the Parliamentary Assembly, crucial to the development of the region.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I have to say that I was very surprised to find myself voting for this report, for it represents, perhaps, the surrender of the European Union to one of the original Communities out of which it grew, namely Euratom: the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. I remember how, when I was a child, one of the books which I found most interesting and which I will never forget bore the title: ‘My friend the atom’ by Walt Disney. This book explained clearly how our future would be improved by the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes. Sadly, today, we have to come to terms with the fact that someone has prevented this from coming about. And who was that? We should send the multibillion pound bill for decommissioning the nuclear industry to the person responsible, although I still do not know who that is. Maybe you can enlighten me, Mr President.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, you could say that there is something of a feeling of helplessness in standing here yet again and talking about the death penalty in the USA, since it is certainly not the first time we have discussed it, not even the first time during my short period in Parliament. Most recently, we discussed the Mumia Jamal case, and now it is the Juan Raul Garza case, among others. However, these men are just examples as there have been so many that you could say that the USA, in its legal policy, is almost waging war against its most destitute and most marginalised people. In this way the USA has brought itself into line with China, Congo and Iraq. You may well feel that it is strange to sit in a near half-empty chamber, apart from the visitors, and discuss such an important subject, but I think it is a subject which we must continue to take up, and I would ask the Member States to also respond to it here, to respond swiftly and in no uncertain terms to this so-called friendly state which repeatedly violates the most basic human rights.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Thank you, Minister, for your first response during your presidency. I am especially pleased that we are able to see Mr Richard here. It is extremely important that the growth of our European security and defence policy commands full public support and respect, and strong and credible parliamentary scrutiny is certainly the way forward.

Political group: ELDR
Animals are not products. They are living creatures whose well-being we must aim to protect. Given the many cases of abuse during the long-haul transport of animals for slaughter, this transport should be abolished. We have not got there yet, although the Commission measures are heading in the right direction, with the restriction on distance of 500 km and a maximum duration of 8 hours. This will also help reduce the risk of spreading animal diseases. That is why we have approved the report. To date, the Commission has actually promoted this long-haul transport with its subsidy policy. Similarly, the policy that has led to the disappearance of small slaughterhouses, including in remote areas, has had pernicious effects. This policy should therefore be reviewed as a matter of urgency. A great deal will depend on the policy of the Member States that have so far been very negligent, among other things by inadequately monitoring compliance with the animal welfare directives.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I should like to say the following to the President-in-Office of the Council: as you know, negotiations are continuing in Colombia. In other words, the two parties involved, the government and FARC, have pursued the negotiating process and FARC has made a considerable effort to find a solution to the problem. However, the solution clearly lies in disarming the paramilitary groups, the so-called ‘death squads’, which are still operating with impunity in Colombia. The solution also lies in guaranteeing the freedoms and the democratic rights of all citizens, in combating poverty, in moving ahead with agricultural reform and lastly, in guaranteeing the social rights of the Colombian people Now that FARC is sitting at the negotiating table with the Colombian Government, why does it appear that the countries of the European Union are not making an effort to ensure that these negotiations are successfully concluded and provide members of FARC with the necessary visas so that they can, as they must, maintain contact with countries involved in the peace process, and we know that some countries in the European Union are interested in seeing a positive outcome to this peace process. This, then, is my question to you, Mr President-in-Office.

Political group: GUE-NGL