GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the issue of European governance is such a complex problem, and one that our fellow citizens have difficulty in understanding, which is, in itself, a paradox. We all know that Europe is suffering from a serious democratic deficit, and that is why there is obviously a need to radically reform the way in which powers are exercised at European level. We must do so and bear in mind three objectives, namely to clarify the decision-making process, to improve the efficiency and transparency of this process, and to encourage the involvement of citizens. That is why I support the guidelines contained in the White Paper and the Kaufmann report. We must, of course, ensure there is greater transparency in the Council’s work, we must encourage the European Parliament and the national parliaments to play a greater role in the legislative process. We must simplify Community legislation and make it possible to undertake genuine consultation with civil society. Furthermore, I think it is worthwhile, as the Committee on Constitutional Affairs stressed, to draw up an inter-institutional agreement on co-legislation, to guarantee that the European Parliament plays an effective role and fulfils its political responsibility. The reform of governance is therefore a step in the right direction. However, it will obviously not be a substitute for the radical reform that our institutions need so badly. We must provide ourselves, as soon as possible, with a simple and understandable constitution, clearly defining the division of competences, clarifying everyone’s role so that citizens finally understand who does what, and so that they can know who is responsible. Lastly, as everyone in this House knows, we cannot have democratic power without democratic legitimacy. That is why the President of the European executive must one day, and one day soon, I hope, be elected by universal suffrage.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is truly wonderful to know that enlargement is so well on track and that common agricultural policy reform will not hold up the entry of the fast track ten. The European Commission's regular report marks a critically important step for Romania, and, I would guess, for Bulgaria as well. Yet Romania has concerns that her own entry date may somehow be held up by the energy and commitment that we are putting into the first ten. From Parliament, we can send a clear signal of our intent by endorsing Romania's chosen target date of 1 January 2007. Yesterday, in the Foreign Affairs Committee, we agreed to do just that. I hope that this will be passed by Plenary too. After all, we in Parliament thought of the date of 2004 in the beginning, and the same date is appropriate for Bulgaria. Turning to Turkey, the EU is a secular group of institutions and therefore religion is no barrier to membership. I believe it would be a right and proper endorsement if we were able to send a signal to the new Turkish Government that if it fulfils the Copenhagen criteria of democratic values deeply entrenched and implemented in law, then perhaps the date of June 2004 would be appropriate for negotiations. My congratulations go to all of those concerned in the work to date.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the report of Mr Purvis on biotechnology comes at just the right moment. Europe is lagging behind the rest of the world and threatens to miss opportunities. The causes are mainly a fairly weak strategic vision, laborious approval procedures and non-transparent coordination between European and national legislation. The great value of this report is that it clearly describes where additional guarantees are required for producers, consumers, environment and health care. In that respect the report stands in a number of areas in glaring contrast to the letter addressed by the British and Dutch prime ministers Blair and Kok to the European Council. This letter is too bogged down in rather hollow rhetoric on opportunities, whereas Purvis rightly speaks up for the small and medium-sized business that is so important to Europe. In that respect, the government of my country has depressing examples of a zigzag policy, as was shown, for example, only last year in relation to the use of GM potatoes for non-food production. Mr President, the FAO has calculated that world food production will have to increase by two-and-a-half times in twenty years, and that there is insufficient scope for opening up new agricultural areas in the world. And those who, like the present Minister for Agriculture in Germany, Mrs Künast, retreat into small-scale production and organic farming, are in fact turning their backs on international society. A good balance between new techniques such as biotechnology, sustainability and their accommodation within a strategic food policy is indispensable. As far as that is concerned, a strong European food authority with supervisory and monitoring powers is in fact also indispensable for such policy. Mr President, I must say that with his report the honourable Member has taken an excellent first step towards a new discussion in Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to repudiate in the strongest possible terms, the accusation levelled at me by Mr Dell'Alba that I used my role as rapporteur for the discharge of the budget for the 1998 financial year for personal ends – I repeat, for personal ends – and his comment that as a German, I, or rather, we Germans, if I understood the translation correctly, would do well to put our own house in order. It went beyond personal insult and such verbal attacks are unworthy of our Parliament. I urge you to take suitable steps towards ensuring that Mr Dell'Alba avails himself of democratic manners like everyone else, even if – as I readily grant him – he obviously finds it difficult! (Applause) IN THE CHAIR: MRS FONTAINEPresident President. – We shall now adjourn the debate, which will be resumed this afternoon.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, if there had been any doubt that this proposal for a directive were also about men and money, there was, in any case, no longer any such doubt when a number of jacket-clad men appeared on the rows furthest to the back during the discussion of this subject by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities. It was quite legitimate that they should be there, but also very instructive because, when it boils down to it, the proposal is about rectifying a situation in which women pay more, and obtain less, than men when it comes to life assurance, pensions etc. When they came to my office with views opposed to the proposal, a number of insurance people said that they just wanted to see a fair system. It set me thinking about what is really meant by fairness. Their conception of fairness was obvious. It was quite fair that there should be solidarity among women and solidarity among men. This means, for example, that women who cannot have children have to pay for those who can, while, from this insurance point of view, the children’s fathers do not participate in any form of financial solidarity at all. I am of course in complete disagreement with the insurance industry. Equality is a fundamental principle in the EU. It is there in the existing Treaty and occurs again in the new draft constitutional treaty. It is also stated that the EU must take initiatives to remedy situations in which these principles are not being complied with. I should therefore like to thank the former Commissioner for the work she has done in this area, and I now hope that it will get through the European Parliament and, subsequently, the Council. I should like to say that, in my view, there is much more at stake than just this proposal, for it is in reality the future of the EU that is at issue. The proposal demonstrates whether there is a link between words and action. When women now look at the ‘family photo’, it is difficult for them to identify with the EU they see there. If – and this can perhaps be excused – we in the Commission, the Council and Parliament show that we cannot even remedy an area such as this, there is no chance of getting women also to vote in favour of the future EU.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I should like to thank Mr Lamy for his interesting and helpful remarks this afternoon and to reiterate on behalf of the Group our gratitude to him and his staff for the close cooperation which we successfully established in Seattle. One general remark if I may. Much has been said since Seattle about the procedural and organisational shortcomings of the WTO. Whilst all proposals to improve WTO procedures are naturally welcome, there is a danger that we might be embarking on the reinvention of the wheel. The WTO is an intergovernmental organisation with over 130 members, so it will remain, by definition, a somewhat cumbersome decision-making forum. That is, unfortunately, the unavoidable nature of the beast. A concentration on procedural and organisational issues should not blind us to one simple fact: if the political will had existed in Seattle, particularly within the US Administration, the procedural flaws of the system would have been overcome. Thus our primary task remains a political, not a technical one, namely to rehabilitate the public case for further trade liberalisation, not only for the benefit of European businesses and consumers, but most particularly because open trade offers the only viable long-term solution to poverty in a developing world. That is why the Group hopes that the Commission, the Council and this Parliament will embark on a proactive attempt to remake the political case for further trade liberalisation in general and for a new comprehensive round, rather than an intermediate round, in particular. The EU/US Summit which takes place the day after tomorrow is exactly the right place to start since it is the US which has been found to be most politically wanting in recent weeks and months. The need for EU political leadership which was amply on display in Seattle in international trade affairs is now more acute than ever. Whilst to focus on procedural details is essential, no amount of organisational improvements will compensate for the biggest loss at Seattle, a loss of political conviction in the merits of open, multilateral rules-based trade liberalisation.

Political group: ELDR
That would be in my interest as well. (Laughter) (Parliament indicated its agreement with the tabling of the oral amendment) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0307/2001) by Mrs Berès, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the Commission Communication on strengthening economic policy coordination within the euro area (COM(2001) 82 – C5-0173/2001 – 2083/2001(COS)) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0306/2001) by Mrs Peijs, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on the Commission Communication on the contribution of public finances to growth and employment: improving quality and sustainability (COM(2000) 846 – C5-0172/2001 – 2001/2082(COS)) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0299/2001) by Mr Agag Longo, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the Commission’s XXXth report on competition policy (2000) (SEC(2001)694 – C5-0312/2001 – 2001/2130(COS)) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0301/2001) by Mr Huhne, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the Commission Communication to the Council and the European Parliament on E-commerce and financial services (COM(2001) 66 – C5-0257/2001 – 2001/2119(COS)) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0310/2001) by Mrs Berger, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, on the Commission Communication : “An Internal Market Strategy for Services” (COM(2000) 888 – C5-0103/2001 – 2001/2052(COS)) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0290/2001) by Mr Radwan, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the Commission recommendation on pre-contractual information to be given to consumers by lenders offering home loans (C5–0256/2001 – 2001/2121(COS)) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0263/2001) by Mr Khanbhai, on behalf of the Committee on Development and Cooperation, on the Commission Communications to the Council and the European Parliament on: - accelerated action targeted at major communicable diseases within the context of poverty reduction (COM(2000) 585 – C5-0014/2001 – 2001/2006(COS)) and - a Programme for action: Accelerated action on HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis in the context of poverty reduction (COM(2001) 96 – C5-0112/2001 – 2001/2006(COS)) – Before the start of the vote

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I asked a very specific question on the subject of this referendum that was still hanging over us in the Netherlands and what the effects of a possible negative outcome will be, compared to those in the candidate member states.

Political group: PPE-DE
It is now 20 years since it became compulsory in Britain for car drivers and front-seat passengers to wear seat belts. That law has saved an average of 7 lives every day. Yet lives are still being needlessly lost because those rules do not apply to coach passengers. Too often the European Parliament becomes bogged down with regulations which do little to help our constituents. This directive is our chance to make a real difference - to reduce the tragic waste of lives lost on our roads. That is why the British Conservatives welcome this report and congratulate all of those who have helped to bring forward these long-overdue measures. However, we are disappointed that the proposals do not go further. It is time that the safety of children on school buses was given the consideration that it so urgently needs. It is unacceptable that children are being taken to school on buses without seatbelts and that many children are forced to stand due to there being too few seats.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the report presented to us today seeks to complete the free movement of financial investments in Europe, including the most sophisticated forms of investment. We do not, in principle, oppose this industry. However, unlike Mr Christopher Huhne, we feel that a continent which has proved incapable of controlling its oil industry properly should not overly deregulate an industry which may, in time, provoke the same type of crisis. We shall therefore vote cautiously on all amendments limiting recourse to excessively derivative instruments and we shall vote in favour of all amendments which limit the excessive concentration of assets within a single financial group. But we make no bones about the fact that we shall vote against the text as a whole. We shall also vote in the future against any proposals to deregulate the financial markets and we call on all the other political groups to do likewise until such time as taxation on investment income is finally harmonised. For years certain countries, including Great Britain, have been blocking harmonisation and turning their financial centres into tax havens. They even reject the strict minimum, i.e. the Monti package proposed by the Commission in Brussels. This attitude is turning Europe into a machine which exempts investment income from tax and shifts the whole tax burden to commercial income, with all the social and even moral consequences which that implies. We must put an end to this. By blocking the demands of the financial industry, the European Parliament has the means to ensure that countries which have been turned into tax havens end up with their back against the wall.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, this is not exactly a point of order but concerns a communication we have before us today, namely that the Conference of Presidents open to Members, which was scheduled for 23 February, has now been cancelled. We should consider on principle whether there is any point at all in holding these kinds of meetings. I have the feeling they are just another compulsory exercise we have to perform. We can just as easily find out what happened from the newspapers. That would be more productive and I do not like seeing the various committee agendas that are already overloaded being cut again and again because of this kind of show-piece. So I think we should consider simply abolishing these meetings once and for all.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr Duhamel’s report, which we are discussing today, is a very important one to my mind. After all, it concerns the all-important question of how the process of European unification is to be further developed. It is about the future of the European Union. As is well known, opinion on this differs widely in the various Member States and amongst the various forces of society. This is also replicated in my own group. As I see it, this diversity of opinion is indispensable, and also enriches the process, because if we want to build a common European house, we must keep a close eye on whether everyone is keen to live there and also accepts it as their own. The previous round of European elections showed us just how far the Union still has to go to achieve this goal: low election turn-out, prejudice, justifiable frustration at the lack of democracy and transparency, over-regulation, bureaucracy and opaque decision-making processes. Unfortunately, none of this has changed yet. But there is an extremely urgent need for radical change. Our Parliament, as the only institution of the Union to have democratic legitimacy, has a big responsibility to lead the way in this respect. Which is precisely why I welcome this report. We need to simplify and reorganise the Treaties as a matter of urgency. The text of the Treaties must be comprehensible, above all from the point of view of the citizens. We need to instigate a constitutional process. The Nice Summit must pave the way for this by granting the necessary mandate, initiating a procedure and setting a timetable. Having said that, Mr President, I am more than sceptical about one particular aspect. Firstly, I do not think we will be able, realistically speaking, to adopt the constitution called for in the report in time for next elections in 2004, and secondly, nor should we in my opinion. After all, it is unacceptable for the fifteen Member States alone to discuss and decide on a constitution, when we all know full well that by the end of this decade the European Union will have 27 members. As I see it, there are three key points: firstly, we need a truly wide-ranging public debate in all the Member States. Secondly, the candidate countries must be directly, and fully, involved. Thirdly, I am absolutely convinced that a constitution could only have democratic legitimacy if it were to be made the subject of a Union-wide referendum, because what this in fact amounts to is something akin to the re-establishment of the Union by its citizens. Should we do otherwise, then I do not think a Europe of the citizens will be within our reach.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, after today’s debate, I understand why Turkey is calling upon the forthcoming December Council to set a date for the start of the negotiations. I support Turkey’s request, for what is happening here is a farce, started by Mr Giscard d’Estaing and continuing today in this Chamber. Here, we are not discussing whether Turkey is fulfilling the conditions it needs to fulfil in order to become a member of the Union in the near future – and we can be rigorous in demanding that it does fulfil them – we are opening a debate on whether or not Turkey is to be allowed to join the Union in the future and wondering whether a different sort of association might be appropriate. We are going back on decisions already made and reopening the debate on the opening of a line of credit for a major country – a country which is essential to Europe and the West – which has applied to become a full member of the Union. Personally, I support the line taken by Mr Brok in his report and his resolution, where he calls for greater pre-accession cooperation from the Commission and for the Council to adopt a position which is more in line with that expressed on occasions by Parliament, but I do not support the Ferber amendment – which I will vote against tomorrow – in that if it were to be adopted, the whole approach of the Brok report and resolution would be turned upside down and they would make no sense. There are good reasons for what I am saying: we have a duty to be unambiguous towards a major country which practises moderate Islam, is pro the West, which could have great cultural significance on our borders and could give substance to a Union foreign and security policy. I hope that, tomorrow, we will reject the Ferber amendment – as a member of the European People’s Party I will do so – and we will thus be able to take a step in that direction.

Political group: PPE-DE
I have a similar question. I think the answer was given adequately.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am going to comment on paragraph 3 of this motion for a resolution and, specifically, on the species with the scientific name of Dissostichus, which is known as the Patagonian or Antarctic toothfish. The Dissostichus is of great commercial value (it is known as ‘black gold’) and its balance is very delicate. The Committee on Fisheries, of which I am a member, has produced three reports on this resource and I am rapporteur for the one which relates to the creation of a system for documenting catches. Today I would like to argue to the House that it should not be included on the CIT list, for the following reasons: we cannot forget that there is already an international organisation – the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, which from now on I will refer to by its initials, CAMELAR – which, for twenty years, has been successfully dealing with the preservation of this and other species in the Antarctic Ocean. The Community is a contracting party to this Convention. The proposal to include Dissostichus in the CIT Convention did not come from us but from Australia. Neither we nor – as far as I know – the Commission oppose this; we simply believe that it would be more useful for CAMELAR itself to take this decision at its annual assembly, which is taking place this week and next week in Chile, and in which the European Parliament will be represented by Mr Stevenson, the chairman of the Committee on Fisheries. Following tough negotiations, CAMELAR has now incorporated Canada and Mauritius with the status of associate members. Together with the United States, Canada is the main commercial destination of the species Dissostichus and Mauritius, a significant place of transit. Their entry into CAMELAR gives this international organisation control of 98% of the world trade in Dissostichus. For us, CIT would be useful as a complement to CAMELAR. But we must be cautious, because – if our decision-making moves faster than the natural course of events – we could unintentionally cause unwanted contrary effects, weakening an organisation that, during its long life, has done a great amount of good work with regard to the Antarctic marine environment, which is extremely delicate. We must concentrate our efforts, not disperse them, and we must increase our presence in multilateral fisheries organisations, which is the only way to respond to the challenges that the preservation of fish species confront us with on a world scale.

Political group: PSE