GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I welcomed the report as it was presented to us and I also appreciated the work of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on the position to be assumed by Parliament with regard to both the approach taken by past regulations and the current approach adopted by the Commission and the Council. Clearly, this does not take away the fact that there may be – and in fact are – diverging positions, as there will be tomorrow when the vote reflects this, just as there may be approaches which comprise or support calling for amendments. It would appear that the Commission and the Council's line takes little account of the methods used to grow certain products with specific characteristics in a specific social environment – as one of the Members who has just spoken also pointed out – with regard to certain sectors: I refer to tomatoes for the processing industry, citrus fruit and also nuts. I therefore feel that certain subsidies have been particularly depleted, not only by the general fall in the euro which we have witnessed recently – in which regard it would be appropriate to take action before the situation degenerates into a dispute with the European establishment as a whole – but also with regard to the attitude to be adopted in respect of Mediterranean products. Totally justified protests and accusations have been made recently but, at Parliamentary level, there have been some proposals as well: proposals relating to the ceiling on financial assistance, proposals to standardise the benefits due to all producers' associations irrespective of the legal basis, a proposal – which, I feel, must be supported – to continue support for production for longer than the current three year period, and lastly, for specific products, in particular nuts, the proposal for a particularly fair assessment of the aid or subsidies to be allocated. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioner, I would like to begin my statement on the Commission proposal with a word of congratulations to Commissioner Barnier and his colleagues on the way that the presentation of the proposal for a regulation on the setting up of the Solidarity Fund has actually been very quick. By doing this, the Commission has in fact done its bit to meet the expectations of the citizens in the European Union's disaster areas for prompt aid. At the same time, I of course want to give my support to the discussion here in Parliament being a matter of urgency, and I expect the Council to go ahead with its project of direct dialogue to deal with Parliament's amendments to the Commission's draft. This would make it possible to actually make a start on allocating resources from the Fund with effect from 1 November, following adoption by the General Council on 21 October. I think this is virtually a world record for these three European institutions to get something from conception to realisation in such a short time. This is unmistakeably and tangibly symbolic of European solidarity. My group gives its support to the extension of the applicability of the Fund's resources to major disasters in accordance with the amendment brought in by the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism and is in consequence opposed to the Council's preference for concentrating on natural disasters. In the same way, as my fellow Members have already said, we are also, as a group, in favour of applying them to damage in excess of EUR 1 billion or 0.5% of GDP, 50% to be paid out at once, a three-month deadline for submission of applications, and the possibility of derogations for regions that are particularly severely affected. I would, though like to express my regret that, as the Fund is to be what one might term a fund with virtual money, it is not to be possible to transfer resources unused in one year to the following year and thus to accumulate them. To do so would have given us a more flexible instrument for giving as much help as possible to citizens, businesses and institutions affected even by major disasters.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, on behalf of the Group I would like to congratulate the Commission, and Commissioner Bolkestein in particular, on his efforts to try to reach agreement with the United States on such a difficult matter. My Group regrets that he has not been more successful in persuading the United States to respect our concerns about data privacy. My Group cannot agree on the choice of legal basis. While, as Mr Bolkestein says, the agreement does not formally amend our data protection directive, it clearly amends the law as it applies to European Community citizens by making us subject to US law in this area, and the absence of protection in US law is precisely our concern. There is a huge democratic deficit when the Commission comes forward with a proposal like this and does not give either the European Parliament or national parliaments the chance to say yes or no. Now, as Mr Bolkestein informs us, that the information being passed to the United States' authorities may be passed on to third country authorities, we should be seriously concerned. There have been three debates and votes in this House on the matter. Three committees have examined it and all recommended a referral to the Court of Justice. My Group does not seek a dispute with the Commission. We have asked the Commission to withdraw this proposal and to try to negotiate with the Americans and present to us and the US Congress a full-blown international agreement to cover these issues so that we can effectively fight terrorism together while respecting our commitments to data privacy. We would prefer the Commission to do that, but if the Commission cannot do it, perhaps at least at its meeting tomorrow the Commission could agree to take the initiative in referring the matter to the Court of Justice to decide whether there is adequacy.

Political group: ELDR
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. – Mr President, I should like to say, as draftsperson of an opinion, what a very great pleasure it has been to work alongside such a distinguished parliamentarian as Mr Napolitano, the author of this excellent report. There are few differences between the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and his report. In particular we want to endorse firmly the point in his conclusion that the so-called second chamber of the European legislature would be an unworkable third chamber and we are very glad that the suggestion has been so carefully refuted from inside one of the countries from which it emerged, namely the United Kingdom. On the report itself, the recommendations of the Committee on Legal Affairs were largely adopted by the rapporteur in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. Our paragraph 1, dealing with collaboration among the parliaments of the Union, is well covered in his paragraph 10; our paragraph 2, on the importance of participation of representatives of the European Parliament and national parliaments in the future Convention, has been adopted by Mr Napolitano. This is very important because it speaks of the need for vigorous debate in the Convention to see whether we can produce a consensus. Some rumours emanating from the direction of Mr Giscard d'Estaing suggest that his idea is that there need not be a debate because all will be clear from the presidency. If that is so, we must disabuse him of that notion. This has to be a Convention that will debate. In paragraph 4, that reappears as paragraph 12 in the Napolitano report. Finally, the one point of difference between the Committee on Legal Affairs and Mr Napolitano was whether there ought to be articulate and express mention of the role of regional parliaments with legislative power in this report. I think strongly there ought to be. The Committee on Legal Affairs voted for it clearly and my own group has tabled some amendments. Mr Napolitano said to me privately that he thinks this could be taken up on a different occasion through the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. If he were able to make an assurance to that effect tomorrow, it might be possible for us to reconsider things. I shall speak to him privately about that. It would be good if we could go forward with maximum agreement. I ask, in the mean time, that Parliament concentrate on this paragraph 3 and the parallel amendments tabled by myself and colleagues.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, on a point of order, I have it on excellent authority that overnight an updated text has been published by the Commission on this most important and key horizontal regulation. It deals with changes in set-aside, WTO proofing, changes in leasing of land and a whole range of other issues. We have yet to see this document. I would like Commissioner Fischler to tell us whether it will affect the outcome of what we are about to vote on today As our Permanent Representatives and agricultural attachés have just received this document this morning, we have had no chance to consider it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, on behalf of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, I shall support Mr Barón Crespo’s proposal.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, in my country, too, there is a group of people that is very concerned about these practices, and they want to put an end to them. They take it to the extent that they adopt these dogs and pay EUR 150 to do so. In Spain, there is a refuge as an intermediate point. The Council must ultimately go knocking on the door of the Member State that is accused of this, however, because we are indeed talking about mistreatment; it is not just a case of the transportation of these dogs. I think that the Council must take a position on this and make clear that animal rights apply throughout the EU. These dogs, which later become pets in my country, deserve a fair chance, respect and good treatment.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, there are many endangered stocks world–wide. We in Scotland know how painful it is for the fishing industry when crisis conditions are reached, but we cannot solve problems in the EU by exporting them. We must seek responsible and sustainable fisheries everywhere. The would like to thank Mrs Miguélez Ramos for her hard work on the dossier; we find particularly valuable the stress that is placed on the need to secure greater compliance with international law and for improved measures against illegal and unreported fishing. In this context we agree that the Commission must be resourced in a way that allows it to play a fuller role in regional fisheries organisation. We have, however, regularly expressed our concern on two issues. First, our fisheries activity at international level, and in particular any agreements reached directly with third countries, must be made compatible with our development policy. Secondly, the cost of the external dimension of the CFP is already approaching a third of its total budget. This cost is likely to increase if we are serious about fuller participation in regional fisheries organisations and about securing greater compliance with international law. It has already been said that each euro invested from public funds generates another three in business terms. In these circumstances it seems only appropriate that those vessel owners who benefit from third–country agreements should take on a fairer share of the financial burden involved. The amendments address these developmental and financial concerns. We hope that the House will support them and that such issues will be given much fuller consideration in the debate on the recent Commission communication on fisheries agreements with third countries.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the initiative by Belgium and Sweden on the development of a second generation SIS system is underpinned by two legal bases: the decision laid down in the Treaty on European Union and the regulation laid down in the EC Treaty. This initiative addresses the objectives of the system, which serves both judicial and police cooperation in criminal matters under the third pillar and the fields of visas, asylum and immigration and others concerning the free movement of people under the first pillar. These initiatives are the real premises of the preliminary work that must be undertaken in order to create the new SIS II system. They have come into being, as has already been stated, as a result of the rejection of intergovernmental funding by some Member States and are based on the Commission’s willingness to take the risk and the political responsibility for going ahead with the development of this new information system in the years to come. The SIS, which, as we know, has only been a Community instrument since 1999, has matured very quickly. Although it was designed for twelve Member States, it now serves thirteen plus Iceland and Norway and we now have the United Kingdom and Ireland knocking on the door. As we know, in the current historical circumstances, it provides a vital European source of information on citizens of third countries and assets that have disappeared or been stolen, given the immensity of the task of controlling our external borders or movement within any part of Community territory. With the imminence of the new round of enlargement and given the challenges of adapting the new technologies and the new requirements, of which we are all aware, it is crucial that we develop the current system by providing Community funding for its modernisation. The requirement for its development towards the so-called second generation SIS is, today, crucial to detecting threats arising from the situation of third-country nationals, in order to provisionally arrest criminals who qualify for extradition, to help to locate people who have disappeared or been kidnapped, to monitor dangerous individuals and to retrieve stolen goods and assets. I am delighted to have the support of Mr von Boetticher, who has done an excellent job. I also believe that tomorrow’s final vote on this report will produce a text on which it will be much easier for Parliament to agree on an opinion. Mr President, only budgetary funding can give coherence to the new Community nature of the Schengen acquis, of which the current and future information systems are a part. Furthermore, the new requirements for online and in tempo judicial information and cooperation should be able to guarantee the security of Europe’s citizens. I therefore feel, Mr President, that we must not get bogged down in the minutiae of accounting procedures or of the law. The important thing is that the SIS moves ahead, to the benefit of the citizens of Europe.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as a democrat, I have to take on board decisions even if I do not like them. Yesterday, however, in connection with my report, a decision was taken which points in two directions. After we had already discussed the legal basis for this decision, and also raised appropriate objections to it, to which we received no response from the Commission, this House decided yesterday to agree to the Commission's legislative proposal and then passed a resolution rejecting the Commission's proposal. This is recorded under item 11 of the Minutes. I would now like to propose that the resolution passed by this Parliament yesterday be referred to the Committee on Constitutional Affairs for the purposes of clarification under Article 148(3). There are two specific reasons for this: Firstly, we need clarification as to which of the two resolutions in this instance is actually valid. Secondly, we need, for the future too, clarification in the Rules of Procedure as to what is to happen in cases such as this. For if, as appears to me, votes are being, as it were, immediately corrected by the authorities, I find that not exactly in order. I believe that a correction should in principle be made if the Committee on Constitutional Affairs so decides. I therefore base my objection on Article 148(3). I request this House's Committee on Constitutional Affairs to clarify the situation and set down a ruling in the Rules of Procedure as to how we should proceed in future cases of this sort.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as others have already suggested, the facts speak for themselves. Most of the 640 million people who live in the Least Developed Countries, just over one-tenth of the world's entire population, are struggling to survive on less than two dollars a day. Their average life expectancy is 50 years. Half of them are illiterate and two-thirds of the world's children, most of them little girls, are not in any kind of primary education. LDCs have seen a severe drop in capital flows, down 45% since 1990; and official development assistance continues to go down, having fallen by 30% since 1990. As the President-in-Office has said, the HIPC initiative is yielding very slow results and coming in too late. Too many LDCs have totally unsustainable debt burdens. Many LDCs, such as Zambia for example, where I was recently, are still spending twice as much on debt servicing as they are on health and education. This UN Conference therefore has to be about a new deal for LDCs; one that promotes pro-poor economic growth, poverty reduction and sustainable development. There will be, as Mr Lamy knows, a thematic session on trade, which I know he will expect to be used by the LDCs as a platform in preparation for the Qatar ministerial meeting. I am sure they will give ample evidence of the fall in commodity prices – which have fallen by 30% from 1998 to 1999 – and we will need to acknowledge that globalisation and liberalisation have had very mixed results. Everything but arms represents significant progress. I wonder whether Commissioner Lamy would be able to predict that other countries such as the US or Japan might be prepared to follow his excellent lead. I think I see him smile, and this might present us with some difficulties. At this point it would be interesting to hear from Commissioner Lamy which LDC countries in particular are likely to export arms, as the title of this initiative is a bit perplexing. Finally, this Conference is about analysing what we can do that is deliverable for the least developed countries when millions of people are unable to treat pneumonia, diarrhoea, TB or AIDS; when you have no medicines to give to your sick child or your dying wife; when your child is at school under a tree trying to learn to write its name with a twig. IN THE CHAIR: MR PROVANVice-President

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we have a new Commission for a five-year term, and I would like to clarify somewhat my group’s attitude towards it. Many of us believe that we are creating a new relationship with the Commission, and that really does mean that Parliament and the Commission will, in future, work in very close co-operation with one another. Some of us therefore decided to grant the Commission a vote of confidence, as we consider that we have made a remarkable start in this relationship. We also value the broad co-operation among the political groups in the adoption of the resolution calling for the Commission to take seriously the responsibility of individual Members of the Commission. We are most satisfied that Parliament as a whole stresses the importance of public access to documents and information. We have also emphasised that Parliament and Europe’s civil society must in future be more seriously involved in amendment procedures relating to the Treaties and Intergovernmental Conferences. Some of us, however, have said that they do not expect very much in the way of green policies from the new Commission, and our whole group will, in future, also see to it that the Commission gives sufficient weight to the principles of the creation of a social Europe and sustainable development, so that they have a serious part to play in all decision-making. Nevertheless, we are sure that the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, has listened to Parliament, and we are now embarking on a process of co-operation with the new Commission.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I wish to take the opportunity of the President-in-Office’s presence in this debate to ask him whether he is aware that the Spanish public company, Santa Barbara, has just been sold to the U.S. company, General Dynamics, having refused an alternative offer from a German company, despite the fact that Santa Barbara actually has a contract to build hundreds of ‘Leopard’ tanks that are patented in Germany. The Spanish government’s decision is in clear breach of existing agreements to develop the European defence industry, which are the subject of this question. I should like to know whether you agree with this action by the Spanish government, which has sold a publicly owned company to a company from the United States?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to express my warm thanks to Mr Jorge Moreira as rapporteur. He has fought with much energy, determination and expertise for a good and practical system of greenhouse gas emissions trading. I would also like to thank the Commission for its strong support for such a system, but I have to be perfectly honest and say that I am disappointed with the Council. I think we would have achieved more and could have got a better system if the Council and my own government in particular had been more constructive. Unfortunately, some Member States, Germany among them, tried for a long time to torpedo the whole system and weaken it. The upshot is that the compromise we now have is not as good as it might have been if everyone had sought a constructive solution from the outset. I think some problems are inevitable unless great care is now taken with national implementation and monitoring by the Commission. The aim of the system is to cut the costs of compliance with the Kyoto Protocol and – much more important – to create an incentive for undertakings to develop new ways of saving energy and greenhouse gases. Market economics is a powerful system; it is capable of opening up potential, if only we set the right conditions. Market economics should also therefore be brought to bear on environmental protection, which is what this system seeks to do. As I said, the Commission and the Member States now carry a heavy responsibility for implementation because the compromise is not as precise as Jorge Moreira and Parliament as a whole would have liked, but was watered down somewhat by the Council. Now, some risk of over-allocation still remains and the Commission will have to watch things very carefully; there is also still a risk of allocations being made that have no regard for the technical possibilities. We all know that coal can very easily be replaced by gas or other energy sources, but it is not so easy to cut CO2 emissions for lime, cement and steel. That must be taken into account when allowances are allocated, otherwise it will not be fair.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, that is not the problem. If the leader of the second largest grouping deems it necessary to use the other system, we should not discuss the matter and do so. If that is their wish and they feel more comfortable doing so, we should give them that possibility.

Political group: Verts-ALE