GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I must congratulate Mrs Redondo on the modification she has made in relation to forests. My group and I are going to support her, and I would also like to congratulate Mrs Wallström on her speech. She is always so concerned and sensitive in relation to all environmental problems, as she has demonstrated in her speeches on the Spanish state and its distribution of water. I agree with the whole of the report. I believe that the increase by millions of euros for the reconstruction of forests struck by disasters is extremely sensitive, but I believe that there must be democratic control in all the countries of the Mediterranean so that the investments of this Parliament in relation to information, prevention and repopulation are properly complied with, because otherwise we may find in a few years’ time that we have not moved forward, and that we are still affected by the atmospheric situation, by global warming and by bad management on the part of the Member States. We have been talking about diversity of forests throughout the whole of the European Union and we therefore believe that we must create a common forest policy for the whole of Europe.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we are talking about a directive which attempts to harmonise marketing, manufacture, the different ingredients of tobacco (nicotine and tar content etc.), as well as their presentation to potential consumers. I believe that nobody can rationally oppose this. This harmonisation directive is necessary, and it is necessary that we carry out this harmonisation in all respects, without leaving significant gaps, with regard to the possible use or non-use of certain terms, such as “light” or “ultra-light”, to the discretion of the Member States. If we are going to harmonise, let us harmonise and not be fainthearted about it, within the technological possibilities which may be available to us. However, to ask in passing for the removal of aid to tobacco growers is to hijack a different debate: that attitude is, ‘while we are on the subject of tobacco, let us ask for the removal of aid to the growers’. I believe that it is truly hypocritical to ask, within this harmonisation directive, for the removal of aid to tobacco growers. Why not simply talk about the processing of tobacco? Why not talk about the multinationals established in some Member States who tear their hair out when we discuss the production and consumption of tobacco? Why not talk about this processing? There is no way that I can accept this request for the removal of aid to tobacco. When the proposed amendment of the COM in tobacco is presented to us, then we will either discuss it or not and we will reach an appropriate agreement. However, this harmonisation directive should be restricted to harmonising. Commissioner, you have the responsibility for harmonising, and harmonising in the real sense, and to this end I believe you have the support of the majority of this House.

Political group: PPE-DE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. – Mr President, it is a pleasure to speak on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, substantially in support of what my colleague, Mrs Attwooll, from the Committee on Fisheries, has said. The Committee on Legal Affairs looks at this issue through legal spectacles, as you would expect. From our point of view, it is not just important that the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy be achieved, though that is indeed important. We have to remember that the means through which the Community does this are means of the law, and therefore the principles of the law have to be respected in what is done. The Committee on Legal Affairs thought that the Commission's proposals fell down on two important legal principles, at two important points. The first was the principle of proportionality, and in effect Mrs Attwooll has already spoken about that this afternoon. In recital 3 the Commission said: 'Measures to improve safety should not lead to an increase in fishing effort and such measures should therefore be applied within the existing capacity objectives for the fleet'. That is to say that improvements in safety can be ignored just if the capacity objectives are not being sustained, regardless of effort. But the aim we all have is to prevent over-fishing, and it is effort that catches fish, not capacity. Therefore proportionality requires deletion of that. Secondly, in relation to the effective provisions about vicarious penalties. To require all segments of a national fleet to have achieved the annual objectives, as the Commission suggests, before any public aid for fleet modernisation or renewal can be granted, would be unlawful. It is contrary to the most rudimentary principles of natural justice. It would permit one fisheries segment to be penalised for things done, or left undone, in another. It could result in fishermen being penalised for the acts or omissions of their government and would thus constitute vicarious punishment. As a Scottish Member, I insist that these issues matter vitally to all parts of the Scottish fleet. Those who meet their targets for reduction of capacity should not be punished for those who do not and should not carry the can for failures by the UK Government or the Scottish Government.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I am glad that the Commissioner sees the solution to a problem which concerns many European citizens and in particular the Spanish Ceramics Association in such simple and straightforward terms. I am actually delighted with the assessment you have made. With regard to the evolution of imports I agree completely, not so much in terms of fraud, because if you are saying that you have the appropriate mechanisms for combating it, I do not understand why you are waiting for the citizens of Europe to tell you what these fraudulent practices consist of, since I imagine that it is for you to take the initiative in this area. I do not believe, however, you have answered another part of the question on the measures the Commission would be prepared to take to promote the penetration by Community industry, by Community companies, into China. I believe that you agree with many European citizens and, amongst others, the ceramics industry, that the current situation is a fraud, causes harm and constitutes a threat for the future. My question is whether you agree with these citizens on the need to take measures to defend trade, to stimulate research and development and to promote penetration into the Chinese market.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, as the rapporteur alluded, this report has had something of a troubled life: it has been rather problematic and been back and forth to the Council. It is very important. Everyone recognises the significance of the EU Member States working together to combat the trade in drugs and to counter the damage done to lives, people and whole communities by the work and the trade of the traffickers. However, it is a very complex area. It is very important that we recognise regional differences. What works in one country in the EU may not work in another. What is appropriate in one European city may be totally inappropriate for another city in another country, because there are so many different attitudes, reactions and ways of life. As the rapporteur said, the Member States will not be obliged to change their internal laws. We are looking at the harmonisation of criminal provisions. The definitions of what amounts are involved and how serious these issues are will be very difficult and will doubtless be debated in the future. However, tonight we should recognise that this report – however difficult it has been – is just one piece in a very complex jigsaw in terms of countering drug trafficking and how we deal with those responsible in the future. I welcome this report and hope that it is used to move forward. However flawed it may be, we should welcome the progress we are making and continue the work in this area. IN THE CHAIR: MRS LALUMIÈREVice-President

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we know that our honourable friend, Mr Medina Ortega, has tremendous experience in this matter and, with his proposals to date, has helped a great deal with the job of simplifying and modernising the legislative work of the Community. We have the interinstitutional agreement which the Commissioner talked about. However, I should like to ask this question: despite what we have today, can we say that we have a simple action plan with a specific hierarchy of objectives, with a specific timetable, with a proposal for specific measures for each objective and with a clearly defined procedure for measuring objectives? What interests us is to see quantifiable results in the wake of the interinstitutional agreement. With reference to the question, I ask you: are we in fact satisfied with the improvement so far in the quality of the regulatory environment? I do not think that we should reply in the affirmative because pioneering measures are missing. In all events, and here I absolutely agree with Mr Medina, improving the regulatory environment means restricting the role of bureaucracy, for which the Commission is responsible. It also means rejecting the perception that efficiency or improvement go hand in glove with a reduction in democratic control. On these two issues, unfortunately, the Commission has not so far taken a clear stand. Having said that, I should like to emphasise that we, the European Parliament, have a huge problem. Here we have to combine the cultures of 15 – and soon 25 – states and, of course, the freedom of proposal from all sides. We face the phenomenon of an exponential rise in the number of amendments and how they can be coordinated and how they can result in a homogenous and clear text, no one knows. We therefore also have an endogenous problem which we need to address, and here I am of the opinion that, to date, we have been lacking clear-cut services to take care of the technical aspects of legislation and help developments. Nonetheless, the major problem remains the fourth stage in the overall regulatory framework, which is implementation. Unfortunately, even today, after so many reports on the implementation of law, a huge delay can be seen in control by the Commission of the method of implementation and the judicial and administrative authorities do not have assimilation mechanisms and have not assimilated Community law. So this problem needs to be addressed if we want proper implementation of Community law.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the members of the Communist Party of Greece do not intend to vote in favour of Mr Brok’s and the other reports; not only do they state that people in candidate countries have much to gain from integration, they also support the way in which they are preparing for integration, by assimilating the acquis communautaire and, more importantly, promoting wholesale privatisation, the reversal of everything society has fought for and much else besides. However, this form of preparation, as experienced at grass roots level, is having exactly the opposite effect. National sovereignty and independence are being eroded, multinationals are wading in and unemployment, poverty, wretchedness, corruption, pornography and trafficking in human beings are rising to new heights, while governments are generously offering up health, education, culture, industry and the agricultural economy in return for the support of the new, often Mafia-style master class of the USA, the European Union and ΝΑΤΟ. It is for these reasons and, more importantly, because of our own experience in Greece, that our opposition to the enlargement of the European Union is meant as an expression of brotherly solidarity to the workers and people in general in the candidate countries. We call on these people to join with the people of the European Union in fighting a European Union which exploits and interferes, including militarily, which fleeces the people of their wealth and the fruits of their labour and which abolishes the social rights for which they have fought so hard and sacrificed so much for so long. We call on them to fight for a different Europe of all the people, a Europe without this inhumane side, in which people will defend their destiny and live with each other in peace, freedom, comradeship and mutually beneficial cooperation. As far as Cyprus is concerned, despite the fact that the Poos report contains much that is true, we feel, in addition to the foregoing, that the process of integration into the European Union and the decisions taken at Helsinki will not only fail to resolve the problem of the occupation in accordance with UN resolutions; they will legitimise the occupation and the definitive partition of the island. And, for the record, we note that the question of the withdrawal of the occupying army was hardly even touched on when the occupying force was granted candidate status. Finally, because there has been much talk today of the tenth anniversary of the reunification of Germany, I should like to ask the Council and Mr Verheugen if they have any idea when this unified Germany intends, having occupied Greece, to pay the loan needed for war reparations.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should also like to congratulate the rapporteur on her very short and succinct report. It is very much to the point, and that point is that we need more transparency and commitment on the part of the Commission in its administration and towards the citizens of the Union – something that has already been mentioned. I believe that a time-limit of one year is not only appropriate, but is even very generous. We have Member States where commitment to schedules is the order of the day. We should try, together, to get rid of double-tracking when it comes to dealing with complaints. That has already been mentioned too. That is one of the objectives of this House, and especially of its Committee on Petitions. The Commission still has difficulties with administration that is transparent and people-friendly. It has happened to every one of us that at some time we have had to defend the relatively small number of officials – some seventeen or eighteen thousand – that the Commission employs, because most of the time they behave towards the public as if they had about a hundred thousand. I do not need to remind you of the game of hide-and-seek that the Commission is currently playing in connection with the EUROSTAT scandal, where one has the feeling that the Commission has not yet learned that modern administration has something to do with transparency. We only have to look at last year’s report by the Ombudsman, which shows that in the year 2002, Commissioner, 75% of complaints were about your institution. Of those complaints, there were many that could have been settled relatively easily and at little cost. In fact, 27% of the complaints by EU citizens were concerned with lack of transparency and refusal to provide information. Once again it boils down to transparency. Mr Prodi publicly promised something quite different when he took office three years ago. A further 15% of complaints were concerned with avoidable administrative delays. The issue of late payments has now become legendary in the Union. I believe that there is great potential here for improvement at little cost. We just need goodwill, and I think it would be a good idea if we could agree, Commissioner, that, in relation to the commitments that you have entered into, whereby everything will be dealt with within a year, Parliament could receive regular reports from you. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I voted for the Veltroni report also and above all because, as representative of the Pensioners’ Party to the European Parliament, I am aware that pensioners and elderly people spend a lot of time watching television. However, I would have liked this report to include a recommendation for the establishment, at last, of a European television programme. The citizens of Europe have the right to see that Europe exists, and we have the means to show them – easily – through European television programmes. Moreover, it would be appropriate to regulate the television companies of the States of the European Union in order to allow all the political bodies in the different States freedom of expression, for this is not always the case at the moment.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, the resolution being tabled in this House today on the situation in Central America is timely given the recent visit of a delegation from the Central American Parliament to Brussels. It is timely for three important reasons that affect this special American region, not to mention the importance and political appropriateness of strengthening the dialogue between the European Parliament and the Central American Parliament. The three reasons are as follows: firstly, because it promotes the process of the consolidation of democracy and the deepening of the demand for human rights to be respected, particularly in relation to indigenous populations. Secondly, because it coincides with the tenth Latin American Summit, which will take place shortly in Panama, and which will deal with commitments to children and young people on the basis of justice and equality in the new millennium. Thirdly, because it also coincides with the current philosophy of the European Commission in favour of redirecting Union external action towards the countries of Latin America with the potential impact that this may have. In this regard, we hope and trust that the necessary amounts will be allocated to provide impetus for the process of regional integration in Central America, where dialogue is becoming necessary and essential as a permanent political exercise. We are therefore pleased with this political declaration by our Parliament in relation to the Central American Parliament, because it recognises the role that this institution plays in the process of integrating the countries of this area, situated between the north and south of America.

Political group: ELDR
Commissioner, you said that 47 slaughterhouses meet certain Community requirements, while others can operate freely in Greece. The point is that we have 350 slaughterhouses, leaving a large number of slaughterhouses which obviously do not meet Community requirements. Is that correct? I should just like to clarify this. The second question I wish to ask you is if you have any news on spongiform encephalopathy. The Commission has conducted an investigation in Greece. What is going on? By which I mean as regards BSE. Then there is the serious question of the central meat market in Athens, where the Commission has ordered an investigation. Given that you are in contact with the Greek authorities, I should be obliged if you could tell me if you have any news on this matter.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is lamentable that the suffering of the people of Zimbabwe is turning into a never-ending story. There are no positive developments within it to speak of and few from outside it to report. The only positive aspect that comes to my mind is that the Commonwealth, at least, has not changed its stance on Zimbabwe. The Council, too, though, when the situation first got worse three or four years ago, took a very ambivalent approach for a very long time. As the main criticism in debates on matters of topical and urgent importance is often directed at the Council, I would like representatives from it not only to be present on such occasions, but also to make statements on the accusations levelled at it. Where the travel ban is concerned, the Council always hides behind what it claims to be obligations under international diplomatic agreements, when – as usually happens – ministers from Zimbabwe are again allowed in. Nowhere is it stated that a criminal regime must be accorded all diplomatic honours. Of course one can take diplomatic reprisals against those who fail to abide by any human rights convention. Of course you can also seize these people’s bank accounts and freeze the money until such time as circumstances change. Nor, in my view, has the Council really made plain to South Africa the seriousness of our insistence that it too should bring this necessary pressure to bear. I do not believe that we can sit by and wait for this problem to resolve itself. We can of course try to avert our gaze, but the situation will become ever more pressing. Other Members have already referred to the situation that people face, to the many millions of them who are already in South Africa illegally, and I see this as a situation in which pressure is needed, and must be brought to bear from every quarter. There is no reason why our own governments should look away when these things are going on.

Political group: PPE-DE
President-in-Office, I represent one of Europe's most ancient and longest surviving kingdoms – Scotland – which is a largely autonomous part of the United Kingdom, to which it belongs. Indeed, Scottish ministers sometimes attend and even represent the United Kingdom at Council meetings. However, my question refers to the Convention which is being set up to look at the future of Europe, at which no Scottish minister or Member of the Scottish Parliament will be present. Do you feel that it would be appropriate for regional assemblies, parliaments and governments to be represented at this very important Convention that is going to decide the future shape of the Europe, of which Scotland and your regions in Spain are very much a part?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets I would like to say that the Lisbon objectives must remain the priority of the Union’s economic and social policies, especially on the eve of enlargement, and that it is therefore essential that the Member States make available to the European Union’s budget the resources necessary for achieving those objectives. While we note that the execution of these budget lines is generally acceptable, quantitatively speaking – the rates of execution are perfect – the same cannot always be said of the quality of budget execution, especially as regards very small businesses and the craft trades. It seems to us – and you know we have already said so on a number of occasions – that the Commission is having difficulty in finding ways of channelling funds to this kind of business, be it funds from the European Investment Bank for normative and environmental investments and investments in new technologies, or the experimental funds, especially in the matter of employment law in the enterprise. We therefore consider it very important that this gap should be filled, because very small businesses and the craft trades make up more than 90% of European enterprises and they are both the creators of jobs and the sources of innovation you want to see. All such businesses are therefore actively involved in achieving the Lisbon objectives and in the spirit of those objectives. These entrepreneurs, both men and women, deserve the Commission’s special attention given their importance for the stability of the socio-economic fabric, the continuity of employment and the risks that they take. These initiatives are not simply the work of individuals who are prepared to take risks, they are also the fruit of a general environment that provides equality of opportunity. It is also up to us to encourage entrepreneurship by creating the conditions that are favourable to business creation. I hope that in the years ahead we will be able to provide the ad hoc means for achieving these objectives, which are essential for the fulfilment of our great dynamic vision for the Union’s economic development.

Political group: PSE