GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the European Liberal Democrats also reject the European Central Bank's proposal for a change in the way it takes decisions once the 10 candidate countries join the eurozone. The ECB proposal would create a third class of Member State with fewer chances of voting and, outrageously, only candidate countries would be in this inferior grouping. Tiny Luxembourg gets a special lift into the second group thanks to its financial markets, even though it has had a central bank for substantially fewer years than many of the candidate countries, including Poland and Hungary. This is a proposal designed to protect the vested interests of the eurozone's existing central bankers. They are just trying to pull the ladder up behind them. We support instead an Executive Board of nine members, as Mr Friedrich has mentioned, taking operational decisions, plus a wider Governing Council that would involve all Member States' central bank governors in strategic decisions, such as the definition of price stability, and the emphasis on other objectives, such as monetary reference values. As regards the proposal of the Groups that the Governing Council should decide by a double majority system, giving more weight to the members from the big Member States, we beg to differ. We support the principle of one member one vote when it comes to decision-taking, and a double majority system implies that a Governing Council member from a big Member State is representing that Member State, rather than voting for the eurozone as a whole. This would be retrogressive and would undermine the collegiate outlook of the Governing Council. However, there should be some checks and balances on the Executive Board, which is why we propose that the Governing Council should be able to overturn decisions of the Executive Board by a two-thirds majority. The Convention should look at this issue so that it can be discussed as openly as possible and with full consultation of all the interested parties.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the bee is a symbol of hard work and, in this respect, Mrs Lulling is the queen bee of the European Parliament in the truest sense of the word, because it is she who, for over a decade, has forced us not with carrots and sticks, but with honey and bee stings, by which I mean with sound arguments, to keep on debating this question, a question which many people tend to underestimate because, unlike me, they were not fortunate enough, back at the beginning of the 1980s, to meet the biggest group of visitors ever to visit this House in Strasbourg – a group of Bavarian beekeepers invited by the late Heinrich Aigner, who also fought long and hard for this cause. Several hundred Bavarian beekeepers came to the European Parliament, which just goes to show how committed these people are to their cause, which is also our cause. Beekeepers are not a large group of voters, they are people who look after bees which, as Mrs Lulling has already said, ensure that a balance is constantly restored to our ecosystem, at least to a certain extent. A cold winter is just beginning, but when it is over we know that spring will arrive, that the bees will again fly off to provide their pollination services and we shall again enjoy a blooming landscape. But there is a danger that one day winter will come and no such spring will follow because there will be no bees or too few bees to provide this ecological function. Many people believe that the EU is a country which flows with milk and honey. With milk we have tried to get the quotas into order. With bees, we have a self-supply rate of just below 50% in the European Union. Anyone who really wants to see a country which flows with milk and honey should fly to Argentina, as I did this summer. Argentina could supply the European Union with most or many of the products that we need, but in these times of global political crisis, we are aware of two new elements. First, we are aware of the need for quality following the BSE crisis and, secondly, we are aware of the need to be able to obtain healthy food from our own soil following the crisis on 11 September. I think that a functioning European farming industry and a functioning European ecosystem need suitable support for our beekeepers, which is why I ask the House to throw its full weight behind the Lulling report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, first I would like to congratulate the Ombudsman on the extremely competent work he has done, and especially his work in defence of the rights of all the citizens of the Union. A special thank you goes to Mrs Almeida Garrett, who has succeeded in putting her case with great ability, and has also been successful in conducting intelligent mediation. Society advances and the law always follows its progress. Sometimes that progress is rapid and the law seems slow compared with practice. That is why I think the Ombudsman is right to propose amending Article 3 of the statute, which dates from the 1990s. However, together with other members of the Committee on Petitions, I felt that the request to amend Article 3 went too far, in particular as regards the obligation to testify, even for members of the Community institutions. This is because there is a difficulty and confusion, including legal confusion, between control of the institutions’ administrative practices and control of political acts of members of those institutions. There was therefore a need to maintain greater balance, although there is no intention to slow down any investigation, for clarity and above all in defence of proximity and transparency, fundamental pillars contained in the Union’s Treaties. I think the solution adopted of partial revision, to which the Ombudsman has also contributed with his final letter accepting the positions of the rapporteur, Mrs Almeida Garrett, and the Commissioner, is the best way forward, and in the future appropriate steps can be taken to carry out a more systematic and juridical revision of this statute, respecting Community legislation and continuing to act in accordance with that principle of proximity and transparency which governs – and should continue to govern – the relationship between European citizens and Community institutions.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, on Monday, when the sitting opened, I asked for Members to be provided with a copy of the letters exchanged between Mr Bush and Mr Prodi. Mrs Fontaine assured us that she would do what was necessary. At Monday’s extraordinary meeting of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, I put the same request to the Commission representatives, who seemed surprised that Members had not seen this correspondence. We did in fact manage to find Mr Bush’s letter to Mr Prodi, sent a whole two months ago, on the Internet, but we still do not have a copy of the reply Mr Prodi sent at the end of November. Furthermore, it seemed that our Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms had agreed on the need to see this letter. I therefore ask you whether a copy can be provided.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I believe that what is being considered here will probably be the most serious international agreement ever. It is therefore all the more depressing for me that, so far, no comprehensive evaluation of the consequences of the Uruguay Round has been made. During our discussion on food safety yesterday, I wondered how we are really doing on the safety issue, as few of today’s consequences have stemmed from the deregulation which has already begun. The fact that the mandate for negotiation has barely been discussed in national parliaments I find all the more unacceptable. I think that it is shameful that we must accept that many developing countries who are contractually bound within the framework of this discussion to take part and above all who are directly concerned, for financial reasons cannot sit down at the negotiating table at all. It is also shameful that so little of the proceedings will be open to the public. If there is one thing then that I would call for, in the short time I have left, I would wish that this Parliament, across all Parties, guarantees this openness to the public, and that there is transparency and intensive discussion.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The decision to draw up an own-initiative report on promoting women’s participation in what is known as the ‘new information society’ was a good one. I welcome in particular: - its condemnation of the policy for the development of new ICT, which has largely been focused on economic aspects, and in which control is left mainly to the private sector, without any assessment of the social impact or proper incentives policies for equal rights of women and men. As the report states, this approach leads to the inappropriate perception of open participation to all. - its warning about the growing danger of social exclusion caused by the inability to use ICTs – so-called digital illiteracy – which mainly affects women. - the need to pay particular attention to women, particularly older women, unemployed and low-income women, migrant women, women belonging to ethnic minorities and women with disabilities. I do not agree, however, with the uncritical tone the report adopts towards the neoliberal policies advocated in the so-called ‘Lisbon Strategy’ and in the ‘guidelines for employment’, consequently sweeping under the carpet the main causes of inequality and social injustice, of which women are the main victims.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Thank you, Mr President-in-Office. I am satisfied with your answer and just hope that you will continue with your efforts to persuade the United States to join the Kyoto Protocol.

Political group: GUE-NGL
We need to give strength and value to the UN and give strength and value to the European Union, strength that should derive from the ability to be a point of reference in terms of political, moral, ethical, economic and social practice. The UN and the European Union emerged from the ashes of the devastation of the Second World War. At the time, it was said ‘never again’, and so rejecting war and eradicating poverty should be the cornerstones of the European Union and the UN. Commissioner Patten is right that what we need is not just peace, but peace combined with justice. I am sorry to say, however, that peace and justice are not such key issues. The European Constitution talks about promoting peace but it does not accept that rejecting war and negotiating solutions to conflicts are fundamental. In recent years, the UN has been devalued, partly at least by the military policy of a fundamentalist president of a country that still practices the death penalty in many of its states and that rejects international organisations, not least the International Criminal Court. War has become legitimate again; militarism is permeating hearts and minds. I do not underestimate the important commitment made by Mr Laschet and all the members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. Together with the message sent out by awarding the Sakharov prize to Kofi Annan, it is a clear message designed to restore value to the European Union and the United Nations and to once again give them a role. It is, however, essential that security for everyone, the reduction of poverty and the promotion of justice and peace are genuine practices and not just empty promises. The UN and the European Union, together with other countries, must re-establish trust and, above all, respect for international law.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, it was not only in this House that we experienced a very active, not to say pro-active, Council Presidency, but that is how it was perceived by the world at large. Now, inevitably, we are all the more surprised when, at the end of its term, the presidency answers questions relating to the future in such generalised and diplomatic terms that it almost calls to our minds another presidency, also from northern Europe, which was generally evaluated by this House as being far too diplomatic and general in its approach. Let me, as a Member of this House, call on the Council to make an unambiguous statement as to how the Danish Presidency assesses the Congress of the Peoples of Europe and whether or not the latter is, when it comes down to it, an expression of a new intergovernmentalism. In any case, Mr Haarder was himself once a Member of this House and can surely understand the extent to which that would reduce Parliament's role.

Political group: PSE
As a member of the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee, I am happy to be able to give my opinion on the report by Mr Gawronski. This is, in fact, an analysis of the state of progress of accession negotiations with Poland and to check that the Copenhagen criteria, the conditions to be fulfilled at both political and economic levels and in terms of the implementation of the acquis communautaire, are being respected. As far as Poland is concerned, the government has shown its willingness to implement the necessary reforms that will allow it to join the European Union as soon as possible. It appears that, on the face of it, Poland will be able to participate in the next European elections in 2004, which I am delighted about. There remain, however, several recurrent problems, notably in the area of agriculture. It is extremely important that a compromise agreement be reached between the Polish authorities and the Commission on Poland’s participation in the common agricultural policy and, on the basis of Commissioner Fischler’s proposals, to implement a phasing in of direct payments, which should gradually integrate the Polish agricultural sector into the Community system. It also seems necessary to return to a question that has not been mentioned in the report for it raises too many controversial issues. All the same, I would like to remind you of the painful problem of the restitution of property confiscated after the Second World War. I am, of course, aware that the Polish authorities are finding it particularly difficult to solve this problem for both financial and emotional reasons. However, the debate should be held in such a way that a balanced solution can be found which, hopefully, will deal carefully with all the sensibilities involved. Lastly, the efforts of the Polish parliament to adapt national law to the acquis communautaire must be highlighted. It is obvious that these could be seen as measures that simply complicate people’s daily lives. A policy of information and communication should therefore accompany such measures to convince the Polish people of the advantages of joining the European Union. Whatever happens, I would insist on the fact that, for citizens of both Member States and candidate countries, the cost of enlargement in every sense of the word is nothing when compared with the cost of non-enlargement. We all have a historical responsibility for this matter.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Agenda 2000 sets out the key indicators for the domains of agricultural, structural and finance policy in the EU for the period from 2000 to 2006. Its aim was to sever the link between aid and production levels in the relevant product markets while keeping the loss of income and jobs within reasonable bounds, an aim which was formulated at a time when the restructuring process seemed destined to run fairly smoothly. After the outbreaks of BSE and foot-and-mouth disease, the beef and veal markets collapsed with no sign of an early return to stability. Farmers are counting on the additional special funds being provided now rather than disappearing in an interminable bureaucratic labyrinth. The promises made in the initial weeks of the crisis regarding the special purchase scheme must first be honoured. Incorporating this scheme into long-term plans to alter the organisation of the market in beef and veal will exacerbate the financial situation of beef producers. The present draft amendment to the Regulation on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal essentially fulfils the Commission’s aim of reducing the oversupply of these products. Some of the proposals, however, have nothing at all to do with the consequences of BSE and foot-and-mouth disease. The quality of products is not automatically better if a farm is bigger or is managed in a particular way. Present market trends are unlikely to act as an incentive to invest in beef production. The fixing of any form of ceiling for the payment of support is therefore an unwarranted additional financial burden on those who have already made investments. Farmers depend on this income, and the 90-head limit will certainly be resisted.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I was one of the Members who attended the summit in Johannesburg and was fortunate enough to meet some of the thousands who went there from all over the world to focus attention on the need for people-centred policies. We heard over and over again that the summit had to change the lives of the poorest people in the world if it was to be a success. We did not expect dramatic changes and we did not get them, but there was some modest progress. For example we saw a move towards achieving better governance. I hope that this Parliament will actively support universal membership of the UNEP for environment ministers. This could be the starting point for a world environment organisation. This brings us to the central question of enforcement and monitoring. We know from experience since Rio that it is one thing to make agreements but another to ensure they are implemented. We welcome the possibility at last of bringing the Kyoto Protocol into force, but it has been a long and difficult process. How will progress from Johannesburg onwards be achieved? It is not clear. Although the Johannesburg Declaration includes a commitment to an inclusive process, which means involving the kinds of groups that met around the summit, how is this going to be done? Similarly the regional and local level are important. We know how the private sector is going to be involved, but how will different levels of government be involved? Finally, I welcome the fact that the efforts to include biotechnology as an intrinsic part of sustainability were resisted in Johannesburg, despite the efforts of the United States. At the very time when the summit was going on to use a human crisis to try and force GM food aid on some of the world's poorest countries. This takes away freedom of choice, undermines human dignity and works against sustainability. We must continue to resist it.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Bösch’s report is a critical but also a very constructive one, and I congratulate him on his intensive work. Of course, we could have voted on its outcomes and possible implementation at an earlier stage if the Commission had submitted its evaluation of OLAF’s three years of work on time, as envisaged in the Regulation, instead of over nine months late. Some of the mismanagement and irregularities could then have been addressed more effectively than is possible now, at the end of the parliamentary term and the Commission’s term in office. Eurostat is a case in point. We know the background to OLAF’s establishment: an interim structure was all that could be achieved because a Treaty amendment was not envisaged at that stage. As a result, OLAF was in a paradoxical position from the outset. In its work, it is independent – we insist on that – but it is subordinate to the Commission administration in organisational terms. Nonetheless, delays, cumbersome processes and inadequate application of the OLAF Regulation by both parties – the Commission and OLAF – have regrettably characterised this agency to date. Let me cite just a few examples: its protracted recruitment process, its excessively long investigations, its failure to inform the Supervisory Committee as required, and above all the poor training and the failure to adequately respect the defence rights of the individuals under investigation. I take the Supervisory Committee’s clear statement on this latter point especially seriously, as it directly highlights the need to create a European Public Prosecutor to protect the Union’s financial interests. This House has called for such an appointment for a very long time and the Commission has now added its voice to these calls in the Convention and at the Intergovernmental Conference. I am grateful to President Prodi for now having addressed this issue in his action plan. The fundamental rights of the individual can only be guaranteed within a judicial framework based on the rule of law. Until this objective is achieved, I fully support strengthening the Supervisory Committee, both as regards the Secretariat – we need to discuss its allocation to the European Parliament budget – and also, and especially, the appointment of highly qualified, independent persons as members of the Supervisory Committee. In sum, what we need is not a new regulation but a number of amendments, as the report makes clear. We need a strong OLAF. I ask the Commission to take our demands seriously so that we can move closer to a zero tolerance policy. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
The report confirms a fundamental principle that we have always argued for – the good governance of the common fisheries policy - which ‘requires proper involvement of all the fishing industry’s professionals in the decision-making process for framing and managing the policy’. Furthermore, ‘that involvement should occur as near as possible to the start of the process’. We have, therefore, always argued for the need to decentralise the CFP. For this reason, the Commission proposal makes a significant contribution by proposing the creation of regional advisory councils. We broadly agree with this report, which improves on the Commission’s original proposal. It highlights the importance of involving all actors in the sector, particularly share fishermen and small-scale fishermen, through their unions, and coastal fishermen operating in 12-mile territorial waters. Creating subcommittees is another interesting proposal, because it seeks to ensure closer cooperation in every area. Furthermore, the report proposes that the funding of the spending and workings of these Councils should be more effectively guaranteed. Nevertheless, we have reservations about the potential transformation of these regional (and, therefore, supranational) councils into councils with real management powers, which would undermine Member State sovereignty.

Political group: GUE-NGL
First of all, Mr President, can I thank the Commissioner for that very useful response. Clearly the Commission has given some consideration to this problem and I am pleased that these reports which have been produced so far have looked carefully at the issue. But I would like to point out that the concern with depleted uranium weapons is about the way in which they are used. This uranium becomes air-borne, is inhaled and could now be effectively carried by members of the population in Kosovo with rather more long-term effects than it has been possible to establish so far. This seems to be the pattern of events that has emerged after the use of depleted uranium weapons in the Gulf war. I would therefore ask the Commission if it would wish to consider continuation of monitoring and for what length of time they might consider monitoring in future to see the long-term effects, not just of depleted uranium weapons but of some of the other effects on the environment that we do know have occurred at least in a localised way within Kosovo? How long will you continue to monitor the effects of these weapons?

Political group: PSE