GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, within the space of a few weeks the BSE phenomenon has developed dramatically and is now a virtually universal problem in Europe. The situation has become alarming, given the fall in consumption and exports and the prospect of having to administer huge stocks of beef and veal. It is an extremely critical situation, since it has driven cattle breeders to the brink of ruin, while the amount allocated to the EU agricultural budget is almost bound to prove insufficient. In this context, Commissioner, the first imperative is that Member States show discipline and solidarity in implementing the adopted Community measures so as not to increase the size of the collective bill. Even though we shall have to await the February meeting of the Council, and probably other major European gatherings too, before all the consequences can be assessed, we can already highlight a few key issues. To that end, let me point out the primacy of food safety and consumer protection, and the consequent need for tighter controls to lend credibility to the decisions that are taken as well as the need for a European food agency to be set up quickly. Let me also emphasise the need to establish greater solidarity between the various sectors within the CAP in each Member State, particularly by applying the cross-sector rules enshrined in Agenda 2000. I might also mention Europe’s duty to comply with international provisions and to support the development of the production of vegetable proteins to replace meat and bone meal in animal feed. Finally, may I stress the need to take on board all the lessons we have learned from the development of agriculture which has resulted from our successive common agricultural policies and from our international commitments. Has not our past development, rooted in a quest for maximum competitiveness and a larger share of the global market, gone too far in the direction of industrialisation and profit-seeking? For my part, I believe it has reached its limits and that we shall have to rethink it, particularly in the context of the WTO talks and the framing of a new CAP. Be that as it may, how could agriculture be given the promise of a new dawn if BSE were to bring about the demise of its producers? This, Commissioner, is precisely why I also plead for genuine, serious consideration of the expectations of livestock breeders and all the other players in the agricultural production process, who must receive help to ride out this crisis.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I must express major reservations with regard to the Atkins report as it bears the stamp of commercial interests concealed behind the best of intentions. In actual fact, the airlines would like the air traffic control sector to be completely liberalised, not so much for reasons of safety, interoperability or reducing delays as to be able to access a market of air traffic control services that would enable the more powerful among them to purchase more expensive, secure slots and leave the problem of delays to other airlines and private aviation. Under cover of a single sky, such liberalisation would actually offer us a multispeed sky. I have no other way of explaining the witch hunt undertaken in this report with regard to civil air traffic control alone. We all know that this only represents 30% of delays, which admittedly are worth combating, but which essentially depend on military constraints. This is a political problem that depends first and foremost on politicians. We all know that the considerable increase in air traffic is the main underlying cause of overcrowded and saturated skies. We all know that the number of runways and landing platforms would have to be reduced in order to have any chance of a break, a simple break in the saturation. Finally, in my country, the airlines have chosen to set up shuttles that send a dozen low-capacity aircraft from each provincial French town every morning between 6.00 a.m. and 8.30 a.m. to Paris alone. Is it the fault of air traffic control if they refuse to allow all these flights to land simultaneously in Paris? These are the fundamental causes of air delays. Naturally, the single sky must be set up through a reformed Eurocontrol and harmonised control services at European level. However, personally I cannot imagine collective safety services that are dictated by profit alone, controlled by shareholders. In addition, I cannot imagine tomorrow’s single European sky becoming an sky shared unfairly between airlines. Commissioner, I hope that, in preparing the future directive on the single sky, the Commission will be able to handle this matter by taking a calmer and more impartial overall view.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, there are two amendments tabled to Mr Kuhne's report which propose to postpone discharge for Parliament. These amendments make reference to the Secretary-General. If either of these amendments is adopted, will you, as President of Parliament, assume full political responsibility for their content and take the consequences if the demands set out in them are not met by the deadlines.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the proposal for updating the priority trans-European transport network projects is important for Europe’s development. I hope that it will be swiftly implemented, and for that reason it would be wise if this Parliament showed moderation in the number of projects. The motorways of the sea is a new operational mode that I also hope will be realised with prompt decisions being taken. It will permit the development of a sustainable and more environmentally friendly mode in a way in which logistics can be developed to the full in terms of efficiency. I think the motorways of the sea concept should not be too limited. These projects must also be available on existing sea routes. With regard to the Nordic Triangle, in the vote there is a proposal to extend this to include the northern part of the Gulf of Bothnia. I support this small amendment, which, if implemented, would improve cross-border rail transport services between Finland and Sweden.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would like to add my congratulations and thanks to the Ombudsman for the report which he has presented this year and also to Mrs Thors and Mrs Lambert for their reports to the Parliament. All these reports, particularly that of the Ombudsman, show the very reliable, dependable work that has been done over the year. The European citizens undoubtedly need somebody to whom they can turn if they have problems with the administration and in Mr Söderman I know that we have an Ombudsman upon whom we can depend. I saw that at first hand when I attended the seminar in Paris. It was very good to see the respect in which the European Ombudsman is held by his colleagues, the national ombudsmen. On this side of the House we certainly believe the Ombudsman should have all the powers that he needs to discharge his responsibilities. On access to documents, we happen to think that the views of the Constitutional Affairs Committee are important, but that should not be taken to mean that we have any doubts at all about the principle that the Ombudsman must have access to documents. In that he has our full support. It is surprising that last year the Petitions Committee was at some risk and the report by Mrs Lambert shows the very good work that has been down by the Petitions Committee. With our chairman Mr Gemelli we are now looking at ways of making the Petitions Committee more effective and more efficient in the work it does on behalf of citizens. One of the important things that we will be bringing forward to the Parliament is a Code of Good Administrative Behaviour. It is important that citizens and the officials of the institutions know what is reasonable behaviour so that all have a standard to which they can refer. I would also like to thank the Commission for the support we have received in the Petitions Committee. That has been very good and very effective through the year. I hope under the French Presidency we will get the same support from the Council but that unfortunately has been lacking in the past.

Political group: PPE-DE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. – Mr President, I should like to congratulate Mr Busk on his excellent report. He has managed to incorporate most of the legislation that went through the Committee on the Environment, which is important. It is also important that we push this legislation forward so that the consumers can have a product which they know is perfectly safe, is reared in an environmentally-friendly manner and which they can eat with total safety, knowing that the animal has had an excellent life. It is up to farmers to follow the legislation through. Mr Busk touched on two or three important issues. I will reiterate them very quickly. One of them was transport of animals. We are well aware of the importance of that and I know Commissioner Byrne, is equally aware of it. Bringing that legislation into the WTO negotiations is vitally important, as is clear labelling. Let me add, speaking not just from the viewpoint of the Committee on the Environment but also as farmer, that what we must not do within the European Union – and here I plead with the Commissioner, knowing his views on the way we import and export our products – is to end up putting legislation in place which exports the very industries on which we are legislating now in the EU. If we do that, then we simply end up exporting animal welfare outside the European Union where we have no control over it. We must have equality, not just within the European Union, but also for products coming into the European Union. I plead with the Commissioner to make sure that sort of legislation is in place, so that we do not have products coming into the European Union which are not of the same standard that we set. I know it is very difficult for people to understand this, but I hope that the Commissioner will follow it through and keep that legislation in place.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I regard this a relatively important report, because it concerns a policy that accounts for a significant share of public expenditure, both at European Union level and at the level of its component Member States. Depending on the state concerned, it accounts for least 10%, approximately, of public expenditure. In addition, the report responds to what the EU Member States envisaged at the Lisbon Summit. Moreover, the text we will be voting on calls on the European Commission to draw up a Green Paper specifically on this question. So we should now be voting on this highly important text in the presence of only 171 MEPs, which is the number just counted. Perhaps that is established practice here in Parliament, but I think it is very chancy to give the impression that the European Parliament as an institution is committing itself on a subject such as this one and considering entrusting the Commission with this kind of task, given the very low attendance here. So I wonder whether Parliament could not consider postponing the vote on this document.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, thank you for your answer. It is very important that we ensure, for example, that double hulls are used with shipments of oil, but that is not enough in all situations. When it is a matter of the icy conditions to be found in the north still more is needed, and this has been made very apparent this year because it has been a very cold winter and there has been thick ice in the Baltic Sea and particularly in the Gulf of Finland, which is very vulnerable. It is approximately 30 metres deep on average and conditions are very difficult. I would therefore like to ask you, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, if you agree with the Finnish initiative proposing the amendment of the Regulation on double hulls so that in the future a Member State could insist that vessels coming into dock should be adequately strengthened to withstand the pressure of ice. In other words, what is adequate in such a situation would be determined by the Member State whose port the vessel is entering. Should this not also be extended to neighbouring regions, for example – as we are talking about the Gulf of Finland here – to vessels bound for or coming from Russia?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I apologise for the interruption but from the text, at least the Greek text, it appears the question has been written incorrectly. Something must have gone amiss between the text leaving my office and it arriving at the services department, and I would like to clarify the matter for the President. The question is this: although the citizens of the United States can enter all the countries of the European Union freely, there are some countries within the European Union whose citizens require a visa from the American embassy in order to enter the United States. I would like you, Mr President, to enlighten us on this political issue and tell us what you intend to do to put an end to this discrimination. I am saying all this because my question has been written incorrectly.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I simply wish to make a point of order. I do not wish to comment on the matter in detail, or on the nonsense I have been subjected to today. I call on you, as President and pursuant to Rule 111 of the Rules of Procedure, to put a proposal to the House, namely that the agenda be amended to allow this item to be reintroduced. If it is not possible to do so today, then it should be done tomorrow. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, with the report of my colleagues, Mr Dimitrakopoulos and Mr Leinen, Parliament is delivering a first opinion on the tasks of the next Intergovernmental Conference. Without going into all the details, the framework has now been outlined for the challenge which the Europe of the near future has to meet if it is to be better understood and accepted by its citizens. The biggest challenge is undoubtedly presented by the enlargement of the Union, which is something we affirm and want to see. This enlargement to include more than 20 Member States – perhaps 30 in a number of years’ time – could lead to a strengthening of the Union but also, instead, to its weakening; to its strengthening because Europe is reinforcing its identity on the basis of its political and cultural history. At the same time, however, such an increase in the number of actors on the European stage would throw up institutional problems and produce considerable operational weaknesses if relevant measures and radical reforms of the present system were not implemented in good time before enlargement. The danger of crippling the decision-making ability of the legislature – of the Council and Parliament – as well as of making the Commission unable to translate the laws into effect is a significant problem. A further problem lies in the difficulty of knowing how the Treaties are to be adapted to the ever more rapid development of Community realities. The two rapporteurs have quite correctly set out these problems and linked them to specific areas of policy. By means of the opinion it has delivered, the Committee on Budgetary Control wishes to answer the question of whether a further development of supervision, together with effective protection of Community finances, should be approached through the creation of a European public prosecution service, established on the basis of corpus juris but according to the spirit of subsidiarity, as also explained and clarified for us last week by Commissioner Barnier at the part-session in Brussels. Overall, the draft presented here points in the right direction, and I should like to acknowledge my gratitude to both rapporteurs.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in giving Europe the text of a Constitution, which will contribute effectively to constructing our future, the Convention has accomplished an important task. This work must be protected from slanderers and opponents but it must also be further improved upon – it is not true that there is no scope to do this – and we must reject the theories of those who do not want to change anything, or else all the work that has been achieved will come to nothing. I share and support, therefore, the proactive view taken by Mr Prodi, who sees the value of the texts but is also aware of the limits and risks that could arise from it. More specifically, I will indicate corrections that I feel are necessary and possible. I am not referring to the inadequate content and inadequate social rights, which, as we know, are the result of the specific balance of powers today. It is no coincidence, for example, that the Constituent Assembly which wrote the marvellous Italian Constitution in the post-war period, had as its President the communist, Umberto Terracini, while our Convention is chaired by the extremely respectable but extremely moderate Mr Giscard d'Estaing. I am, therefore, referring to issues that are purely institutional. Firstly, a full-time President of the Council who is in office for a long period of time, instead of a rotating presidency, would end up overlapping with the President of the Commission and their work would conflict, causing paralysis and crisis in the institutions. Secondly, unanimity voting must be abolished in all areas because the right to veto can, at any time, block any innovative process. Thirdly, there must be a single common foreign policy and it must be accompanied by a European military capacity superseding NATO which would give us not only an independent role but also a stabilising role in the face of the one-sided, imperialist power that is currently present in and threatening the world.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, Commissioner, the results of conciliation overall are good and worthy of our support. The aim of the directive is to harmonise Community legislation with the Århus Convention. It has already been said here that the directive will fully entitle the public to participate in the decision-making process right from the start, especially as regards planning and the implementation of programmes, the environmental impact evaluation process, the prevention of pollution, and the reduction in pollutants in general. It will also allow the decision-makers to take the views and concerns of the public into account when making decisions. This will obviously and quite properly increase the transparency of the decision-making process and help to increase public interest in, and knowledge about, environmental issues. The requirements concerning public participation in line with the Århus Convention are to be included in future in relevant Community legislation from the outset. It is also important that authorities should also inform the public about the reasons for their decisions to a much greater extent. It is important in general too that on many points it is required that the information given is supplied in language that is clear and that the authorities help the public to understand the information that is available. It is also good that public participation is to increase in the most important areas of all, that the public right of access to information about the reasons for granting or refusing a permit is being endorsed, and, once again, that authorities will be required to provide correct, clear and explicit information. On this basis I believe we can expect the public’s inclination to have an influence on environmental issues to grow.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, with the Dimitrakopoulos – Leinen report under discussion, the European Parliament is declaring its great vision for the European Union of the future. This is a truly historic moment, as has been stressed. Our fellow-citizens are waiting to be told what we are going to demand from the Intergovernmental Conference for that future. Institutional proposals on particular issues without prior clarification of the basic philosophy of tomorrow’s Union of 27 are not convincing. The draft resolution is therefore quite right to define that basic view in the form of three principles. According to the draft, the European Union is, first and foremost, a Union of peoples and a Union of states. Its citizens therefore have both a European and a national identity. Secondly, it is based on an institutional equilibrium between large and small states. That must not be just on paper. Thirdly, the way the Union functions must be made more effective, so that it can cope with the major enlargement. The above philosophical principles, to which the draft resolution remains faithful, are not metaphysical inventions of the European Parliament but arise from the history and from the political reality which we call the area of Europe. Anyone who ignores that is building a Europe founded on sand. The Intergovernmental Conference of 2000 is taking place to make the Union as effective as is required in view of the major enlargement that has been decided. In this process Parliament’s responsibility is very great indeed. For that reason, Parliament’s approval of enlargement cannot but depend on the adequacy of the institutional changes that will be decided. That is not a threat, it is a declaration of responsible attitude. In good faith, all sides are trying, by means of amendments, to make the way in which European Union functions more effective. But is it enough for procedures to be simplified and speeded up for them to be described as effective? The effectiveness of a police service, which indeed demands both simplicity and speed, is quite different from the effectiveness of the fundamental institutions of a democratic public regime. The effectiveness of democratic institutions is not measured either with a stopwatch, or according to the number of decisions taken. It is measured by the degree of legitimacy. The dual legitimacy of the European Union by its European but also its national citizens, by its peoples but also its states, makes the European Union institutionally complex by its very nature. For that reason the extent to which these procedures can be simplified and speeded up is restricted by the whole complex system of dual legitimacy. We must bear that in mind tomorrow, when we come to vote on the amendments and the text.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we cannot but condemn the disdainful attitude of the US Secretary of State towards his European partners in ΝΑΤΟ and the European Union in refusing to descend from his throne and receiving the European Union troika and his other counterparts at ΝΑΤΟ headquarters as the new sovereign. Mr Powell called for the dirty imperialist war to be sanctioned by the United Nations Organisation after the event and for the central role of the USA in sharing out the booty of the Iraqi people to be ratified. In exchange, he offered the countries of the European Union and ΝΑΤΟ a few crumbs from the bloodstained spoils of Iraq, provided they fund so-called humanitarian aid. The Council owes us an explanation as to why no one in the meeting with Mr Powell uttered a single word in condemnation of the war. What is this new role for the United Nations Organisation to which the Greek Presidency is already referring? It must explain to us if, despite the constant, mass demonstrations by the people of Europe, the European Union is prepared to play the role of undertaker and follow the instructions of the USA to the letter, as leading government officials have given us to understand from their public statements. This sort of political stand, which directly serves the interests of big business, will provoke even greater grass-roots reaction.

Political group: GUE-NGL