GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I experienced the storms of Christmas day 1999 in my home city of Paris and only managed with extreme difficulty to return on the same day to Germany, where the forests were unrecognisable. Further south-west, in France, my parents spent many days in the dim light of the petroleum lamp which I had given to them once as a present. We do not know when and in what form the next disaster will strike. Permit me, therefore, to say something about the current problems and to expand on one aspect of the comments of my fellow MEP and friend, Gilles Savary. It concerns point 8 of the joint motion for a resolution in which we ask the Commission to create instruments which make it possible to take rapid and effective action within the European Union if we are faced with a crisis situation as a result of accidents or natural disasters. We presently have neither the money nor the infrastructure for this. We should not in future rely on cross-border neighbourly aid as in the case of the storms at the end of the year. It was offered on a voluntary basis in an exemplary manner. It is also a healthy and important expression of solidarity. However, in itself it does not constitute a European solution. The European Union must take full responsibility for its citizens. The Commission must, therefore, quickly rack its brains to find instruments for rapid and effective emergency aid. We will expect proposals for solutions soon. We need have no qualms about making these proposals unconventional and bold. There will certainly be no lack of support from the European Parliament. The time has come to move on. But first we must sort out the current consequences of the Christmas storms. This involves three things in particular. Firstly: we must not let the timber market collapse and must, therefore, directly intervene on behalf of the many small and medium-sized enterprises. Secondly: we must, as an exception, also support necessary transportation and exports of valuable timber to third countries. The Commission must urgently discuss the approval of export subsidies with the WTO. Thirdly: we must do everything we can to counter the risks of fungus, pest and fire so that the damage does not become even worse. Commissioner, when you say that national aid is the important thing now, then I would say to you that this also means that, in this instance, you do not want to organise the common European market.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the violence between the different population groups in India cannot remain undiscussed. Needless to say, this is a very important matter that has to be considered in the light of the significance that India represents, not only in Asia, but also in the rest of the world. After all, we should not forget that India is not only a superpower that has great economic potential, it is also a country that has nuclear capacity. All credit to the common resolution for not having succumbed to radical opinions. After all, it should be clear to everyone that India is certainly not experiencing a clash of civilisations. It should be emphasised that Muslims have largely been integrated in Indian society. A concrete example of this so-called multicultural society is the fact that Muslims occupy high government offices. This, however, does not detract from the fact that I deeply regret what happened in Gujarat. I would, however, note that the incidents in Gujarat did not spread to the rest of India. This is, in my view, proof that the Hindu-Muslim coalition is still respecting democratic values. On the other hand, we need to be concerned about the increase in Muslim fundamentalism that is a daily occurrence in Kashmir. The day before yesterday, an attack on an Indian army camp claimed 9 victims. Extremist militia of Muslim activists who demand union with Pakistan are very active here. Last Tuesday, there were already 32 casualties in an Indian army camp too. This time, Indian women and children went into hiding. These incidents must, further to this resolution, also be brought to the attention of the international community. This tragic incident underlines once again the enormous threat which growing terrorism poses. I take the view that the European Union and the European Parliament have every interest in continuing the support India as a constitutional state, where Hindus and Muslims are treated equally, in their endeavours to respect the democratic principles.

Political group: ELDR
As rapporteur for the budget in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, I am well aware that the budget consultation procedure between Council, Commission and Parliament traditionally focuses on three specific areas, that is agriculture, fisheries and the common foreign and security policy. As regards the latter I can fully support the three positions that are underlined in the Mulder report. Since the budget for external policy is approximately EUR 5 billion and that for the common foreign and security policy EUR 40 million, our committee wanted to focus attention on a number of other points than common foreign and security policy. First of all the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy seeks further clarification from the European Commission on the financial framework for the southeastern Europe region for the period 2004-2006. Although the European Commission has recently promised an additional EUR 200 million, it is still very unclear precisely where this money is to come from. Secondly, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy is also seeking special attention for the EU police mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Although the mission is being conducted more than adequately, we are receiving various signals that necessary materiel is sometimes being supplied too late or not at all. Finally, our committee is seeking special attention for the additional financial needs of the wider Europe initiative. Provision must be made for adequate resources for the CARDS, MEDA and TACIS programmes and possibly also for a new neighbourliness tool. It gives me great pleasure that the Committee on Budgets has taken up this and other recommendations and I should like to compliment Mr Mulder on his clear and powerful report and wish him every success in the tripartite talks.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, like Mrs Malmström, I too would like to emphasise that transparency is the essential precondition for democratic control and participation of citizens in the decision-making process. Transparent procedures enable the administration to enjoy greater legitimacy and to be more effective and closer to the citizen. They also provide effective protection against the arbitrary use of and the abuse of power and against corruption. These are the considerations that led the Committee on Budgetary Control to deliver an opinion under this procedure. We are glad that the report repeats a crucial principle that we in the Committee on Budgetary Control also vehemently support. It is this: there can only be exceptions to the requirement of transparency in exceptional cases. That is why we cannot accept the long list of exceptions set out by the Commission. Here we are sending out the right signal to the citizens by radically cutting the list of these exceptions in our Amendment No 30, but, personally speaking, I find it most regrettable that we have only managed to simplify and clarify matters on this particular issue, however important it is, and not in the regulation as a whole. Unfortunately, the wish to anticipate any eventualities and to produce a regulation that is as complete and comprehensive as possible seems to have prevailed. Instead of a shorter text, we are therefore ending up with a longer one. I fear that will make it less legible or user-friendly. So it will become even more important for the citizen not to be left on his own with this regulation, but that each institution should establish contact points to which applicants can turn and where they can obtain practical assistance in their search for documents. If we really want to make it easier for the citizens to exercise their rights in practice, we will need specially trained staff in these contact points, who can, so to speak, take the citizen who is seeking information by the hand and guide him through the complex labyrinth of the institutions. The same applies to the use of languages. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
I voted in favour of the report. The reason for my position is the tragic fact that fraud against the EU amounts to approximately EUR 1 billion every year. What is more, that amount is rising every year. Legal proceedings are impeded by the fact that the national systems are so different from one another. Moreover, the Member States patently fail to take legal measures against fraud. Something must be done. Establishing a special prosecuting office for combating financial crime against the EU would therefore be a proper and necessary step to take. I have voted against Paragraph 1 on ‘... common provisions in the field of criminal law and criminal procedural law in the European Union’. The same applies to Paragraph 4, to the effect that the European Parliament believes that ‘... in addition to the European area of freedom, a European judicial area be set up’. In both these cases, the demands are too far-reaching and infringe the Member States’ administration of justice. Paragraph 21, clause 7 paves the way for the existing system’s ‘... being extended – if appropriate – to other crimes’. The wording would make it possible for a future European Prosecutor’s mandate to be extended to include new areas of responsibility, over and above financial crimes against the EU. Apart from the fact that this is, from the point of view of principle, a very dubious proposal, it needs to be analysed in depth before there is any presentation of it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the truth is that with this report and a few opinions something has occurred that reveals how complicated it can be to legislate or even just deal with reports in this Parliament. I drew up an opinion within the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs which in principle was linked to this report, but it ended up referring to a different report on the SLIM project. Regardless of the reasons that may have caused this mistake, it is certain that it is motivated by the constant initiatives, originating in the Commission, that are carried out with regard to legislation. The Commission is aware of the inadequacies of Community legislation and so continually issues documents saying that we have to legislate better or we have to simplify the legislation. I referred to this in the report on the SLIM project, because Community legislation – and Mr Medina has just proved it by reading out one of the articles of the Treaty – is difficult to understand, even for the experts. Mr President, any of the observations I made about the SLIM report could equally apply here. And I say this from within the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, which is the one most concerned about the proliferation of legislation and the lack of clarity in these texts. Yet the little confidence we may have in the improvement of legislation does not lead us to the same interpretation of the principle of subsidiarity that the People’s Party on the right of this House has reached. If we took this line of reasoning to the extreme, we could ask the Community not to do whatever the Member State can do. Coming down from this, we have just heard Mr Mauro support the idea that the family should do everything, that the municipalities should do everything, and any kind of administration should disappear. This would be anarchy, an idea that we, of course, do not share. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Parliament, the Council and the Commission are united in agreeing that efforts must be made to increase the safety of air travel. The discussions that have just begun show, too, that we are fundamentally in complete agreement with this. The events of 11 September have, of course, revealed additional deficiencies, which we have to consider in isolation from the structural problems already suffered by many airlines. The two must not be confused. We are of the opinion that there is room for improvement in all the areas relevant to security – the airports, the aprons, the registration and clearing of luggage, even on board the aircraft itself. My group and I also take the view that, since safety is in the public interest and must be guaranteed for every citizen who uses airlines, public funds must also bear their share of the costs that an increase in safety entails. This, of course, demands standardised European procedures, without which we will not solve the problem, and because competition would be distorted if the burden were to revert to the airports or the airlines. We are, of course, aware that we have a problem. There is, generally in Parliament, constant discussion of liberalisation, meaning that we now want to use public funds to improve safety in this liberalised sector. This, of course, means that we have to talk in general terms about what standards can and must be applied in order to use public money to intervene in liberalised markets.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters that we are examining today contains the minimum requirements for efficient and rapid cooperation between the various judicial or investigative bodies concerned. It pertains, among other things, to notifications, information exchanges, the temporary transfer of detainees, the restitution of property, testimonies via video conferences, investigative activities and ‘undercover’ activities, and the interception of telephone calls. This is the bare minimum on which an agreement can be reached, and it should immediately be said that if any amendments, such as Amendments Nos 32 or 81, or the revised Amendments Nos 70 or 71, were to be passed, the whole convention would be reduced to an exchange of notifications or information and at this point should simply be scrapped, and we would vote against it. I hope that the common sense of our fellow MEPs in the other groups will lead them to reject these amendments. The fact that the convention has not been turned into a framework agreement also constitutes a defeat for this Parliament. As Commissioner Vitorino will have noted in all the various speeches, the need has emerged to draw up a framework of common rules, which is to say that we cannot continue in this manner, with this disparate agenda, with these piecemeal agreements which relate to diverse sectors such as that of investigation. What is, on the other hand, absolutely necessary is to have a bare minimum of set rules that are valid within the Community, and which clearly provide as many additional safeguards as possible, and will also provide guarantees with a view to enlargement. My thoughts turn to what may become of this Community, of these conventions and judicial relations if, for example, a fascist country such as Turkey became a member of the Union. It would truly perplex me. We need a corpus iuris – as everyone has said – and common rules, especially procedural ones, which guarantee the rule of common law throughout the Community. It is clear that this is primarily an issue for the IGC and one that addresses an aspiration to which this Parliament can only make a limited contribution in as much as everything depends on the Council and the Commission. I believe that this first half of the year, in which we have a Commissioner from Portugal and Portuguese Presidency of the Council, provides an excellent opportunity to give an initial spur to this shared aspiration. It is precisely for this reason that we are in favour of adopting Amendments Nos 78 and 79, which already prefigure a minimum of set rules on interceptions and on video conferences. On the one hand, we eagerly await the successful outcome of this vote, precisely so that this convention – which, I repeat, already sets minimum rules – is not stripped of all meaning, while on the other hand we are also looking forward to any form of proposal that may arrive from the Commission with a view to definitively putting into effect this minimum Community law.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we in the Group of the have absolutely nothing against improving economic, cultural and other relations with Iran. As Commissioner Patten and Mr Gahler have said, positive moves are being made, but there is also much that is negative. Improved relations should not lead to criticism being weakened. This report raises the issue of whether criticism of a country with which general cooperation is improving needs to be toned down. I believe this is a wholly incorrect view but, unfortunately, it appears to be the view of those on the right in this House, who wish to water down Mr Gahler’s report. In contrast, we believe that the Gahler report has its merits, but that it is too weak and must be made bolder on a number of points. We have therefore submitted no fewer than ten amendments, of which I will mention only two. Amendment No 13 is based on the proposal submitted by the EU to the UN, in which the Council is stronger in its criticism than Mr Gahler is in his report. The amendment mentions issues such as stoning, which continues to occur. I heard Mr Gahler mention it orally just now, but it is not included in the resolution. I see this as watering down. It is an omission not to clearly state that we utterly condemn such a terrible form of punishment. There are a number of other matters which we believe should be included and which we have addressed in our Amendment No 13. Amendment No. 19 states that Iran is not a safe country for refugees. It is very important to point out, in these times of strong sentiment in favour of expelling people from within the EU in a quite haphazard manner, that Iran is a highly unsafe destination for refugees.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to raise a point before we commence the fisheries debate. Honourable Members may be aware of the appalling tragedy concerning the loss of a fishing vessel and all seven crew in Scotland. The Solway Harvester sank with all hands near the Isle of Man while fishing for scallops earlier this year. The seven-man crew came from the tiny village of Whithorn and neighbouring communities in Galloway, south-west Scotland. I know that I will be speaking for all eight MEPs from Scotland and all of the colleagues in this House when I ask you to send a letter of condolence on behalf of the European Parliament to the First Minister of the Scottish parliament, Donald Dewar. This tragedy is perhaps a timely and sad reminder to us all, as we commence another debate on the fishing industry, that every day brave men and women risk their lives in one of the most dangerous occupations in the world to bring fish to our tables. I trust that the President will support this request. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I could not believe my eyes when I looked at this week's agenda; as you said, tomorrow, we will be voting on a request for the application of urgent procedure with regard to the agreement with the United States on passenger data. That has, in fact, been done and dusted; after all, what did we all do in this very Chamber two weeks ago? This House decided then neither to approve nor to reject this agreement before the Court of Justice had ruled on it, because we want to respect the Court's verdict. It does appear, however, that the Council is unwilling to respect Parliament's verdict. COREPER is simply dissatisfied with the democratic vote we have held and wants us to do it again. Irrespective of what we decide, the Council itself will be rubberstamping the agreement as the first item on its agenda on Thursday morning and I have understood that our lawsuit may then be dropped. Although we in this House will need to deliberate on our subsequent plan of action, it seems evident that we will be unable to accept the Council's urgency declaration. We are not little children, and the decision previously taken by this House simply remains standing. Most of the coordinators of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs also share this opinion. I would therefore ask you, Mr President, to remove this item from the agenda and not make us look complete fools, because otherwise we will open the floodgates to repeats of each vote whose outcome is not to the Council's liking. It seems to me that we have more than enough to do without having to do everything twice. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I would like to endorse the point made by Mrs Lynne. Today is Human Rights Day and yet there are 12 European citizens in prison in Greece without trial. Members opposite have been raising the issue of the European arrest warrant – this incident shows precisely why Members on this side of the House have concerns about a European arrest warrant. British citizens engaged in the harmless pursuit of plane-spotting find themselves in prison in Greece without trial. I really look forward to seeing the reply you have received, which you described as unsatisfactory, and hope you will respond in very robust terms to the Greek Government. They must not be allowed to keep European citizens in prison without trial.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I share at least one certainty with the rapporteur, Mr Blokland: incineration may be a significant source of pollution but it is in fact necessary today, given the very low levels of waste recycling. The urgency of this subject is made more acutely felt by the problem of animal meal in feedingstuffs, which we are going to be debating later this afternoon, which are going to have to be destroyed. The objective of this proposal, which aims to replace three directives relating to waste incineration, is to improve air, water and soil quality and human health by reducing emissions of pollutants linked to incineration and co-incineration, notably dioxins, furans and heavy metals. This proposal also allows for the integration of the technical progress that has been achieved since the 1990s. Overall, the result of the conciliation process is very pleasing. The emission limit values for incineration and co-incineration plants have been brought into line, while taking account of the technical differences between these two activities. I have always been in agreement with the joint draft which regards these two systems as complementary and not competing. Today, we cannot do without either of these incineration methods. Yet one can only regret the fusion of these incineration processes in terms of hazardous and non-hazardous waste, which has considerably complicated the debate, and which I have always condemned. In my view, the working method is not good, and I believe it is undesirable that we behave in this manner on such issues. Nonetheless, we are satisfied with this third reading, because it reinforces the operation authorisation conditions. Our group, which wanted to avoid the confusion between hazardous and non-hazardous waste, recognises that the current text clearly provides for different recovery and treatment processes, which are adapted to the types of waste involved. Supplementary precautions will have to be taken as far as hazardous waste is concerned. Mr President, I would like to conclude by saying that the Group of the Europe People’s Party is satisfied by the work that has been carried out during the course of the third reading.

Political group: PPE-DE