GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, as has already been said, the reform presented to us by the Commission on 13 February 2001, as a package of seven measures to deal with the problems created in the beef market by the BSE crisis, clearly deserves critical consideration by our Group. Firstly because, while the Community cattle sector is hoping for measures to solve the crisis it is facing, only two of the measures in this package appear to be appropriate for resolving one particular crisis, that is, the Commission’s budgetary crisis in relation to solving it. Only the removal of the ceiling on public intervention of 350 000 tonnes for meat, with a view to preventing the implementation of the so-called safety network intervention system, seems to be a genuine crisis measure, as well as the measure – already approved by the management committee for meat on 16 March – of introducing a new intervention method for the sale and storage of animals of more than 30 months. Please allow me to say also, Commissioner, that this measure does little to improve consumer confidence and to resolve the market problems, since we are storing meat which will later have to enter the market, thereby creating significant imbalances within that market. The other five measures are really directed at the sector, but they are not urgent and they can enter into force and have their effects in the short and medium term. These measures should really have been proposed with the calmness required for a reform in a sector suffering such a deep crisis. However, I must be absolutely critical in relation to two of them. One is the removal of the national limit on premiums for male cattle by means of individual laws; I believe that this measure is wrong and would lead us to a market of quotas, which would be closed and narrow, and would do absolutely nothing for the transparency and simplification of the CAP nor a future reform of this sector. The other is the restriction of production, as intended, by means of the reduction in the premium for suckler cows. Commissioner, this proposal, which lays down that, in order to receive the premium for suckler cows, between 20 and 40% of the animals for which the premium is requested must be heifers, is intended to reduce the quantity of meat available on the market; but what it removes is quality meat which originates from herds of suckler cows bred within extensive systems. This measure therefore has the completely wrong objective and is clearly contrary to the often-repeated objective of Community agricultural policy promoting extensive agriculture.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commission and Council, the meeting in Bali was scarcely a source of great delight. In a way, every meeting prior to Johannesburg is the cause of ever increasing depression. It would have been better if the political leadership we are now beginning to talk about had been assumed in time. At five minutes to midnight, it is a little late to begin talking about political leadership. I do not wish to be wise after the event or to confront either the Commission or the Council but, before the Gothenburg Summit last year, we in the European Parliament said, ‘Make sure that external relations are included when we devise a sustainability strategy’, ‘Make sure that, when we adopt our own sustainability strategy, Johannesburg is a natural part of this’ and ‘Do not delay’. Rather than end up in the doldrums we are now experiencing, I should like in a way to have seen the banner kept flying a little higher en route from Gothenburg to Johannesburg. The Commission has done an excellent job and done as much as it could. On the other hand, the Council’s enthusiasm in the run-up to Johannesburg has been, to say the least, conspicuous by its absence. The European Parliament may be talked about as the advocate of good causes, but it is no use our standing here in the Chamber and pleading our own cause when we do not obtain the relationship we need, either with the Council or the Commission, on this issue. It seems a bit pointless simply to tag along to Johannesburg as a kind of icing on the cake. We must, in any event, have political influence. Now, more than ever, do we need political direction. We need clear timetables for the millennium objective, and we need a clear division of responsibilities. It is not enough to say that the people of the world need water. Instead, we must talk about who is to arrange for the water to be provided. It is not enough to say that people must have access to food if we do not say who is to ensure that the food reaches their tables. Obviously, trade and funding must be part of the picture. These are, in a way, the lynchpins. We know that they are a part of sustainable development. What, however, I am looking for, especially on the part of the Council, in the run-up to Johannesburg is commitment, conviction and an ability to see things in context. We must act as a bridge between the poorest countries and the G77 Group. That much is obvious. We must strike up a dialogue. That is not something we shall do in Johannesburg. It is something we must work on in the short time that remains before Johannesburg.

Political group: PSE
I voted for the Foster report, and congratulate Mr Foster on taking forward a set of proposals which provide timely quality control systems and higher standards in civil aviation security. Having put forward a thorough report, I would like to add that emphasis on airport security should not preclude measures from EU Member States from providing some form of redress for EU citizens who are unfairly searched, detained or harassed at airports without just cause. These are at present inadequate statutory forms of redress for such infringement at both ports and airports. This is often reflected in constituency cases. In the light of September 11, the Foster report is a strong contribution to the security of all EU citizens. Thorning-Schmidt report (A5-0401/2002)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as draftsperson of the opinion – on the Budget – of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, I should like to say that we have chosen not to issue an opinion on the 2003 Budget because our viewpoints are very well covered by the general observations in Mr Färm’s excellent report. I should nonetheless like, however, to highlight two points: first of all, the failure – already mentioned many times today – to implement the budget for the structural funds. The same problem exists in connection with the Social Fund and, because there is no long-term development of infrastructure in this area, I think this is a matter that should be viewed very seriously. My second point concerns the agencies, of which we are acquiring an ever-greater number. We must ensure that there is no overlapping of tasks when we set up agencies, but we must also ensure that the agencies are able to carry out their tasks and that their budgets for 2003 put them in a position successfully to complete the preparations for enlargement in 2004. Finally, I should like to mention that the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs attaches importance to priority’s being given in the Budget to the new strategy relating to the working environment.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the words I am about to express are intended as a token of my friendship towards the Ukrainian people. I am aware of my responsibility as Chairman of the Interparliamentary delegation, but I also believe that it is important for us to be critical on occasions. The EU’s common strategy with regard to Ukraine is the practical expression of a clear, political stance, namely that Ukraine forms an integral part of our continent, that welfare and stability in Ukraine have a substantial impact on welfare and stability in the rest of Europe, and that, for that reason, the European Union is willing to assume part of the responsibility for the democratic, economic and social development in that country. That is the good news. However, let it be clear that the European Union cannot shoulder responsibility for building up the Ukrainian state and helping that country in its socio-economic development on its own, or even take the lead in doing so. With this common strategy, the European Union and its Member States have demonstrated their willingness to give the necessary technical and financial back-up, provided that the Ukrainian political leaders are willing, and have the courage, to take control of a process of far-reaching reform. That is a difficult, but not impossible task. If we are critical, we are so in the interest of Ukraine. Our demands of that country should be the government’s own. Part of the EU’s responsibility is also to express our concern about the issues which relate to the fundamental human rights and civil rights in that country. This includes, among other things, the investigation into the murder of journalist Gongadze. As Delegation Chairman and co-chairman of the EU-Ukraine cooperation committee, I have already called for further investigations, also with regard to the brutal and harsh manner in which demonstrations have been broken up in Ukraine. Governments are not formed on the streets, but democracy can be killed off on the streets if the right to the freedom of speech is taken away from the population by means of violence. That is the bad news. In the capacity of Chairman of the parliamentary cooperation committee, I will presently be joining my colleagues in a trip to Ukraine, in the hope that we, partly on the basis of the report which is being discussed today and adopted tomorrow, will enter into a fruitful discussion on the issues which concern us all and about which we need to be concerned as a group.

Political group: PSE
The Group of the abstained from the vote on this matter because, in the plenary debate of the previous day, Commissioner Bolkestein did not respond to any of my questions regarding EU accession to the WIPO Treaties. In institutional terms, there has been no clarification of what role the EP is to play in the further development of the WIPO Treaties. In addition, there is a clear tendency, in matters of international jurisdiction, more and more often to obtain a pure EU jurisdiction. When it is, then, still not clear to what extent the EP can participate in the decision-making processes, the question of legitimacy arises. Moreover, the concept of ‘author’ is not defined in the Treaties. In this regard, too, the Commission has not answered the question as to what definition it wishes to base its discussions on, and whether it wishes to settle foreseeable conflicts by imposing its own definition of the law on others. One of the trickiest aspects is the public interest: will ratifying and applying WIPO lead to the privatisation of culture? And, finally, the matter of the relationship between TRIPs and WIPO must be clarified. Regarding this, too, there has been only silence by way of a response from the Commission. If nothing helpful is forthcoming in the course of a parliamentary debate planned for clarification and orientation, then we must at least abstain from voting. – Graefe zu Baringdorf (A5-0015/2000)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would also like to welcome Mr Busquin's statement. Many of the ideas that we discussed in the report from the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy have been taken on board. There are two points that I would like Mr Busquin to explore a bit further with us this afternoon. The first is that he specifically mentioned in his statement EU participation in national programmes. Could he expand a little on what he envisages and say whether that will entail the EU partly funding national programmes and acting as a coordinator or will the JRC become one of the actors in a broader research network on an equal basis, for example, with other national research teams. I would also like to press Mr Busquin on a point that Mr Piétrasanta made, because I do not think he answered that and it was a point that I certainly supported. Can he confirm that he will be considering some pilot programmes in 2000-2001 in order to develop some of the networking concepts ahead of full implementation?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, thank you very much for your kind words. I have one simple question: does the President-in-Office of the Council intend to visit Galicia?

Political group: Verts-ALE
How can we fail to comment on the affirmation in this resolution which states that every human being has the right to have access to healthy and nutritional food and clean water and a fundamental right to be protected from famine? How can we fail to be horrified by the statistic that 815 million people in the world suffer from hunger? Our positive vote is solely inspired by this aspect of the document. Because how, at the same time, can we fail to be indignant at the hypocrisy of gaining unanimity across all the parties, which, for the most part, have supported each and every disgraceful policy conducted by the major imperial powers to support their corporations and financial groups which are directly or indirectly responsible for this situation? The material resources and accumulated wealth are more than enough to provide every human being with access to food and water. But this wealth is monopolised by a small number of large corporations which not only refuse to part with the slightest amount in order to help those members of the human race that are suffering, but continue to increase their wealth at its expense. The resolution stops short of the point where the problems begin. It is precisely because of its hypocritical condemnation and its cowardly proposals that all the parties were able to take a part in drafting it.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Council presidency has given itself a bit of a pat on the back by declaring that the Portuguese Presidency has done what it set out to do, no more and no less than that. That may be true, Prime Minister Guterres, for the routine tasks. The image people have of the Portuguese Presidency will not, however, be determined by whether or not routine tasks have been completed, but by two events: firstly, by the fact that as President-in-Office of the Council you have had a hand in imposing the sanctions on Austria, and secondly, by the complete lack of progress in the Intergovernmental Conference. Why does this matter? Posterity's opinion of us as a generation of European politicians will not be determined by the successes which you listed; it will be determined by whether we succeed in carrying out the historical duty of our time in the Union, which is enlargement towards the east, the reunification of Europe after a century of European civil wars. To make this possible we need to reform ourselves in the Intergovernmental Conference, and no progress has been made here at all so far. This must be noted. There is no doubt that this is a difficult business. The candidate countries themselves are having to make their contribution; we must of course be ready for enlargement and we cannot make enlargement conditional on the success of the Intergovernmental Conference. After all, it would be disastrous if our lack of ability to reform became a yardstick by which enlargement was judged. That is why we need to put more effort into making progress here. The fact that, for example, the French President has made a proposal to draft a European constitution enshrining the division of responsibilities is a major step forward, because dividing up responsibilities would create the confidence necessary for more majority voting in the Council, which is one of the most important preconditions for its ability to act. The example of Austria is harmful because you are painting a picture of a European Union which interferes in the internal affairs of a country. This is not the kind of European Union which the people of Europe want; neither is it what the candidate countries want. It is regrettable that this has happened under your presidency.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, many thanks for the answer given by the Commissioner, which stated that irregularities have indeed taken place. I would say that what we have seen are more than irregularities: the trial was a farce and should be declared null and void. As the Commissioner knows very well, thanks to the media and to the international observers, the witnesses arrived having been tortured the day before and the trial ended with the leaders of the democratic opposition being sentenced to twenty years in prison. By acting in this way, the Government of Equatorial Guinea has proven that it fails to meet the minimum requirements of democracy and good governance. The President of the European Council made a fine statement yesterday expressing his concern, but I do not think this will be enough. What is needed is for tangible measures to be taken; the President of that country cannot be allowed to continue travelling freely in Europe. I would, therefore, like the Commissioner to tell me what tangible actions the Commission foresees taking apart from those he has already mentioned.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I shall merely make the one observation, to the effect that I stand by every single word I said in my speech. I am very pleased that, with the position he and the Commission have adopted on the amendments, Commissioner Byrne has confirmed the agreement entered into with regard to Amendment No 19. I understand that it is an agreement by which Mr Nisticò still does not wish to stand.

Political group: PSE
I should like to concur with the comments made by Mr von Boetticher, which spawned a huge number of questions last year. Parliament made a host of recommendations to the Commission and the Council to which we have never actually received a response. I assume that other Members will also be expanding on this point. I should like to focus on one aspect of last year's debate. In the resolution we adopted last year on the worldwide interception of telecommunications, a great deal of attention was devoted to the political importance of international cooperation on the part of the intelligence services. An important point in that debate was that the vast majority of this Parliament is not opposed to interception per se and that intelligence services are necessary even in a democracy. In the report drawn up by the temporary committee, it was emphasised that effective intelligence services are necessary in our modern society. Not only in the fight against terrorism and international crime, but also as a key element in the development of our own European security policy. If we want to accomplish autonomous capacity in the area of defence and our own intervention force within the framework of the Petersberg tasks, then the ability and capacity to gather intelligence forms part of this. This is why the European Parliament has called for better European cooperation in this area and better democratic control over the functioning of intelligence services. According to our report, this aspect too leaves a great deal to be desired in a number of countries. Under pressure from international terrorism and the events of last year, cooperation between the intelligence services seems to have improved, not only within the European Union but also with the United States. With regard to democratic control, however, little appears to have changed. European citizens are entitled to know that the privacy enshrined in their national legislation is also protected in the event of international cooperation between the intelligence services. European citizens and companies must be able to rely on the confidentiality of their communications being guaranteed in the same way across the EU. They must be given the guarantee that European intelligence services are not misused to steal company secrets but to fight criminal activities effectively. Needless to say, we should like to thank Commissioner Liikanen for informing this House about the technical aspects of the worldwide interception of communications on behalf of the Commission. It is, however, regrettable, that Commissioner Patten is not here to inform us further about the international aspects I mentioned a moment ago. Without sufficient clarity on this score, EU policy is not only incomplete but also lacks credibility.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, I should first of all like to thank our rapporteur, because I believe that we have here a good proposal for the position of Parliament. I admit that we are only at the communication stage at present. This is a start, but the hard part will come later. Perhaps people’s positions will harden then. However, this is a good starting position, and gives us the green light for our negotiations on this subject. I agree with you, Commissioner, when you say that self-regulation has demonstrated its limitations. Self-regulation is not enough to define the new balance that is necessary in order to organise countervailing power within the undertaking, because it cannot be the shareholders themselves who organise that countervailing power. In order to organise real countervailing power, you need to take all the partners into account. That is the thinking behind the position which our rapporteur is proposing to Parliament and which the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs will support with great determination. It seems to me that the only difficulty here is first of all ensuring that there is a willingness to organise countervailing power by achieving a balance between the various partners, but there also has to be a willingness to preserve what could be a corporate model which corresponds to the balance that has been achieved as a result of our European experience, without necessarily copying other models. Finally, we are moving forward here, on legislation which will be very complicated to implement, at a time when these same issues are under discussion in every Member State. That, I believe, is the real difficulty on which you or your successor will have to take a decision. How can we make our rates of progress coincide, so that what is decided in Brussels is not immediately rendered obsolete by what the Member States themselves have implemented in the context of their national legislation?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I think Parliament has done its homework very well, in that it has done everything it can to get through second reading as quickly as possible. One reason why this is important is that the Council has taken such a stubborn attitude, essentially concentrating on the compromises it agreed at New Year without responding to any of Parliament’s suggestions. This means that only a conciliation procedure can resolve the problem, so, in the committee, we prepared the second reading and presented it to plenary in what really was record time, so that we would have enough time to conduct the negotiations, on a serious basis, before the year is over. I would not want to miss this opportunity to extend thanks to the Commission for now having commenced Treaty infringement proceedings against Austria in respect of the unilateral steps taken by the province of Tyrol, and I hope that this will yield results before 1 August, when these rules enter into force. I would also like to express my gratitude to the Commission for having, at its meeting this week, decided not to have recourse to the 108% rule. That, too, sends a clear signal that we are a community founded on the rule of law, where it is not open to all to do as they please, but in which all share in drafting and enacting the law, which must therefore also be obeyed by all. Quite simply, then, my plea to all the Members of this House – and also to the Council – is that we should all make good use of the summer recess and consider how we can each move closer to the other’s position. Here there is plenty of room for manoeuvre in the course of negotiations. Let us take the autumn negotiations seriously and complete them with a third reading by the end of this year. We will then be on the right track when it comes to bringing together, in the right way, the interests of the environment, the interests of the transport sector and the economic interests of the European Union as a whole.

Political group: PPE-DE