GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the legislation on European agencies, our opinion on which is contained in the report by Mrs Almeida Garrett, is a subject that goes to the heart of the debate on the future of Europe, that is to say, the fight against European bureaucracy. Now, of all times, when Europe finds itself in a crisis from which we have to extricate ourselves together, it is important that we ask ourselves how the various European institutions, including the existing and future agencies, can be embedded in the democratic structure of Europe: a democratic, transparent and efficient Europe. I should just like to reiterate that 2004 is a decisive year for Europe. It is a year in which it is vitally important to win back the confidence of the European electorate. This electorate looks at us and sees the European system as unwieldy and bureaucratic. Incidentally, the Heads of State or Government, who are fairly often found wanting, bear a large part of the responsibility for this. Citizens, who mainly see quarrelling between Heads of State or Government over the distribution of power and money, are naturally increasingly unable to grasp what this European cooperation actually means. It is not for nothing that we speak of a democratic deficit in the European Union that has to be filled. Europe is too slow-moving, frequently inefficient and incomprehensible to its citizens, and is thus achieving too little. This has to change, particularly with a view to the enlargement of the EU by ten new Member States on 1 May. That is why we must make Europe more efficient, more democratic. We must root out sluggish bureaucracy. In the first instance, this will of course be carried out by means of proposals in the European Constitution, which will hopefully become reality very soon. However, it will also take place in the case of subjects such as today’s – the creation of a framework for European agencies – which are not dealt with in the European Constitution. The focus is on the performance of essential tasks that are financed with European funds. I should like to mention a number of things that I believe to be essential within this framework. Firstly, direct scrutiny by the European Commission and political accountability to the Council and Parliament must be guaranteed when the European agencies are set up, and it goes without saying that those agencies must have a management that, on pain of dismissal, presents all problems of a genuinely political nature directly to the politically accountable Commissioner. I am sure we all remember the Eurostat case. Secondly, the confusing situation we find ourselves in at the moment, where we have no less than twelve different structures, must be replaced by a uniform structure that can be monitored and is comprehensible to all. Thirdly, the seat of an agency must be subject to criteria such as efficiency and cost-benefit analyses. That means no quarrelling over Parma ham and Swedish models. This approach applies not only to new, but also to existing agencies. Only then will we tackle bureaucracy seriously. We give our full support to the report by Mrs Almeida Garrett.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Minister, I would like to ask if any decisions of principle have been taken regarding whether there should be a mandate from the UN or any other international organisation in discharging such tasks as these, as, under international law, a mandate from an international organisation is needed before any country’s territory can legally be attacked in this way. Furthermore, I would ask what sort of legal definition has been presented or made in the Council regarding tasks connected with the deployment of crisis management troops?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, to begin with, I should like to join in thanking the rapporteurs for their efforts towards bringing this important dossier to a successful conclusion. I am very happy that this Parliament, together with the Council, has succeeded in refining the Commission’s proposals substantially, which were indeed very sweeping and liberal at first. What is being served up is of course a compromise, with some elements that are good and some that are not so good. In any case, it is a good thing that all medicinal products falling under EU regulations will have to comply with the same criteria of quality, safety and efficacy. Another thing of great importance is that commercial advertising is still outlawed. Do you recall the original Commission proposals, which, as a pilot project, sought to permit advertising of medicinal products for AIDS, asthma and diabetes? In my view, patient information must be guaranteed to be reliable and objective. It is logical, therefore, that this flow of information be organised and coordinated by the public sector in the first instance. I am pleased that the Commission is now being given the task of putting forward proposals, based on an overview of the current situation, to bring about improved, objective information provision, which, in my opinion, will have to include information and sales via the Internet. The duration of data protection, however, is less positive, in my opinion. After all, in comparison with the United States or Japan, for example, the period of protection for medicinal products in Europe is extremely long. Admittedly, it is a good thing that, from the eighth year, the generic pharmaceuticals industry will be able to start some preparatory work in order that it may place generic medicinal products on the market from the tenth year. In my opinion, however, there are too many possibilities for an extra year’s protection to be added, for example when a new indication can be proved. In my view, this was entirely unnecessary. I sincerely hope, therefore, that the Commission will monitor the situation closely to ensure that these possibilities are not abused. Finally, I also regret the absence of an amendment on Doha.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, most members here in this House – with the exception of the member who has just spoken – are concerned about developments in friendly, neighbouring Tunisia. Tunisia is our neighbour, because the Mediterranean does not divide, it unites us. These concerns, as expressed here today, are not born of a colonial or neo-colonial attitude. We are not talking about unacceptable interference in the internal affairs of a third country. No, we are talking, as Commissioner Patten has stressed again and again, about critical dialogue based on the agreements which we have signed with Tunisia. It would therefore make no sense to cancel these agreements. On the contrary, we must use them to shape this critical dialogue. We are talking about creating a common area of security, stability and peace, and that includes democracy, that includes respect for human rights, that includes freedom of the press. When Tunisia keeps insisting that we are also talking about fighting extremism and terrorism and preventing extremist views, attitudes and organisations, then I agree with it wholeheartedly. But how else is this fight best fought, if not through democracy? This is also being demonstrated by Tunisia’s neighbours. Which is why we cannot do without it. Tunisia keeps saying that it is a question of economic and social development. But this totally positive economic and social development in Tunisia is precisely the best basis for developing democracy still further and fighting the fight against extremism on democratic soil. One last comment: we want to help Tunisia, about that there can be no doubt. We must help Tunisia, just as we must help the whole area, the whole region. The Balkans are not our only priority. The enlargement of the European Union is not our only priority. The Mediterranean is not in the third division, it has equal status and importance. When Commissioner Patten states, for example, that we are talking about reforms, about closing the gap between commitments and payments, then that deserves our full support. But we must do that all together and sensitively. We must do it in a way which does not repulse our Mediterranean partners but which invites them back into the fold.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, would you please ensure that the German version of Amendment No 9 is corrected? It should not read ‘Demokratiekomittee’. That is an incorrect translation. It is not intended to have a formalised character, but to remain an informal matter. Therefore please amend the German text; the English is the correct text.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, first of all I welcome the report. I think it is very timely, and it will certainly be welcomed by everyone, because most people would welcome a reduction in inspection. However, that does not mean in any way actively encouraging lesser controls. I happen to believe that if you are going to have real control of the finances of the European Union, it can only be best carried out at Member State level, because the Member States also have the ability to follow such controls through. I would agree totally with the previous speaker, that the vast majority of people in the agricultural industry, be they in the manufacturing side, the factory side or indeed at the farm level, are not involved in fraud. There will, however, always be a small number of people in any country who are prepared to abuse a system. I think that in Europe we must be more specialised in what we try to do, we must be clearer and more specific in our targeting of inspections as regards the areas we inspect, because in many Member States there is no doubt that some European money is not spent very wisely, and could be much better spent. I welcome the fact that the threshold is to be increased. I think it is timely and I return to my point – I still believe that the majority of contacts should be left to the Member States and that we in Europe should be more specific and more targeted in the areas that we want to see inspected. No one, I repeat, wants to encourage fraud; certainly we in this Parliament would not in any way want to encourage fraudulent acts and where they are found they must be dealt with very severely. So, we must have good control but it must be targeted, it must be specific, it must be to the point, and it must be in areas where abuse has been found. I certainly believe we can improve the situation, I believe this can be achieved, and I believe it can be done by targeting particular areas which we consider to be the most vulnerable.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, European Union fisheries policy is a vast subject. I would like to tackle it from the point of view of globalisation and in relation to the specific problem of Guinea-Bissau. As far as the Group of the is concerned, I would remind you that we are in favour of a fisheries policy that respects the natural balance, in favour of developing offshore and inshore fishing, which creates jobs, and in favour of selective fishing, which takes account of available stocks. This is a question of achieving economic growth to satisfy businesses as well as protecting social aspects. We are against granting subsidies that encourage excessive industrial fishing, which catches everything indiscriminately, to the point of wiping out species and harming food safety and biodiversity, a fisheries policy which allows fleets to grow out of all proportion, and so forth. Because of this, we consider that untrammelled market forces represent one of the factors leading to such over-investment and that these issues should be taken into consideration in the next round of WTO trade negotiations on liberalisation. We therefore request that the Commission present appropriate proposals, both on the issue of the future direction of the subsidised sectors and on social aspects to the other members of the WTO. Furthermore, we are, generally, not particularly in favour of the bilateral fishing agreements between the European Union and third countries, often small countries, whose entire budgets are occasionally no larger than the subsidies granted them. It is essential that we remain as integrated as possible. However, we accept that a reserve of EUR 6.5 million was allocated to Guinea-Bissau, given that it is assigned to an action programme which will support the local fishing industry, infrastructure and controls and that a detailed report on how these funds are being used will be submitted to Parliament.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, what I want to say is that the events of 11 September have, I think, made us all much wiser. The human cost was tremendous but they made us all much wiser, both us and Iran, I think, and we understand the need for new bridges, dialogue, discussion and cooperation between the European Union and Iran to get under way in such an extended, important and dangerous area of instability. I think that both the troika and Commissioner Patten have done interesting work and I think that the report and the motion for a resolution are generally on the right tack. However, I must say that there is a little schizophrenia going on. I am worried that the report contains a double message. It is like saying to a neighbour with whom you are on bad terms, for whom you have little respect left, 'Let us sit at the same table, but just remember that I think you a vulgar, good-for-nothing thief'. That is more or less what our report says. In paragraph 19, for example, we are, I think, directly intervening in Iran's internal affairs, given the past pattern, the lack of faith in even in the most straightforward people in Iran, who look at the United States, Great Britain and the European Union and suspect that they are about to come and impose their control again. This being so, I think that we should tread very carefully. We need to be in favour of the reforms. Not for the reformists or against the conservatives. As with any other country, we only have the right to insist on our own terms, based on the principles of the European Union and European culture, as the basis for meetings and discussion, but not for intervention if Khatami behaves or the clerics do not. Because we shall be the ones opening up an opposition front in the European Union. I think that the logic behind our past and present approach to Turkey, which is now a candidate for integration into the European Union, should also inform our relations with Iran. This does not mean, I repeat, that we should underestimate the importance either of basic questions of human democratic rights, women's rights, prisoners' rights or the rights of religious minorities. If we are careful, I think that these steps, which are important to both sides, can be taken.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased to hear that both the President-in-Office and the Commissioner have taken stock of the first four months and have come to the conclusion that the climate surrounding relations between the Union and Turkey and the potential for discussion have improved. We MEPs are particularly pleased because most of us – and this cut across all Groups in the House – expressed our scepticism as to whether the Helsinki resolution was the right resolution at the time. The European Council in Helsinki did what it was entitled to do and passed a resolution which, when it was passed in Helsinki, incorporated certain expectations of the Turkish side and here the European Parliament is in agreement with the European Council. Commissioner Verheugen has just recapitulated these expectations. He has spoken of democracy, the rule of law and the protection of minorities as three basic elements in the expectations which the European Union, the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament have of Turkey and which they have formulated. Four months after Helsinki, Commissioner, I can say on behalf of the Group of the that we fully subscribe to your view that the climate surrounding relations has improved but no progress has been made on the three points which you listed. It is difficult to discern any further democratic developments during these first four months. Even progress with the protection of minorities leaves much to be desired and we are somewhat sceptical about the question of the rule of law. You mentioned the example of Akin Birdal and Turkey must look at this example and ask itself how it intends to make us believe that progress is being made in the areas referred to when incidents occur within the country which, in my opinion, are typified by the example of Mr Birdal. Mr Birdal advocates peace. Mr Birdal advocates solving the problem of minorities without violence. Mr Birdal’s reputation as a human rights activist extends well beyond the borders of Turkey. The way in which the Turkish Government has dealt with Mr Birdal, the way in which the Turkish judicial system has dealt with this man seems to be typical of the manner in which Turkey proposes to deal with people who stand for exactly what the European Union is demanding of Turkey. If politics contains symbolic messages then, in my opinion, the Turkish judicial system has committed a serious error four months on from Helsinki in treating Mr Birdal this way. We in the European Parliament expect far greater efforts than those made so far and we are assuming that what we are saying in this debate here will not go unheeded. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I believe it to be clear in the aftermath of this terrorist attack that we need a far more integrated policy, not only as regards its European scope but also in respect of its content. We must combine foreign and home affairs policy so as to take into account the worldwide nature of the enemy and their presence in our towns and cities. Mrs Carlsson is quite right; we must not do it at the expense of abandoning the liberal state under the rule of law. Another issue is that of how the causes of terrorism around the world are to be fought. We know very well that none of these three aspects can any longer be coped with by the Nation State. Rather, it is only as a European community that we can get to grips with them and, to some extent, only together with the Atlantic Alliance and with our friends in North America. I believe that we cannot be content with mere slogans, but, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, that we must, through the post-Nice process and by pressing on, in Ghent and Laeken, with enlargement and so extending the zone of stability, create the practicalities, instruments and preconditions for, in time, casting what would have been mere slogans into durable forms enabling us to comply with these requirements. It is for this reason that the preparation for Laeken, with a rationally conceived Convention, is of such decisive significance. We must see clearly that in these fields too, technology is extraordinarily important. We must ensure – and I am sure that you will take the right direction in your role as Belgian Presidency – a Convention that is workable and represents the necessary legitimisation, on the basis of which to present to the Heads of State and Government a document that will facilitate the really great reform of the European Union over and above the agenda laid down in Nice. Please permit me a final word to the chairman of the Group. There is a difference between a person who is a Prime Minister and one who, like Mr Nielson, is a Commissioner and thereby subject to the European Parliament's immediate right of control. If someone is directly subject to the European Parliament, it must be possible to express clear criticism of him here in this House and to call him to account if he talks nonsense, as he has done. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, I would like to start by saying that the debate in committee was lengthy and in-depth, and so the amendments accepted were not random but were the fruit of lengthy discussion. I too would like to thank the three rapporteurs, who have done an excellent job, and I think I can say that Parliament’s support for the Single Sky was confirmed both in the discussion in committee and in today’s debate, which have proved a constructive contribution to the creation of the Single Sky. However, if we want 2004 to remain the date for the introduction of this new airspace model, we will need, in my opinion, to pursue dialogue within the Council, particularly with those countries which are still sceptical – some of them are downright against the idea – and with the countries whose internal systems are in most need of modernisation, and here I am thinking of the problems which are clearly going to arise with enlargement, which is now imminent. I have noticed a political theme emerging during the course of the debate: the perpetuation of the myth that the Single Sky is an attack on the sovereignty of the individual States. It was even said in committee that it is an attack on the physical sovereignty of States over their territory. I feel it is important to make it clear that this myth is completely unfounded and that it is, of course, contrary to the spirit of the Treaties, but I fear that it is even becoming an issue in high-level negotiations.

Political group: ELDR
Taking this action aimed at ensuring the transparency of diplomas and qualifications by means of appropriate instruments falls within the same process, designed to promote mobility, as the ECTS system, certificate supplements, the European CV and the Erasmus and Erasmus Mundus programmes. The Europass, allocated rational resources and adequate information networks at European level, and with which the social partners will be associated, will be an effective tool for helping people communicate their qualifications and competences. The two objectives of this decision, ‘to rationalise and to coordinate’, will only be achieved if all the Member States increase their efforts to implement these ‘Europass’-labelled documents quickly and effectively. The Europass will make it possible to give European citizens the means for their mobility and should become the essential and ubiquitous document for all young Europeans. In the light of the ambitions at stake, the meagre budget allocated to this project by the Commission may be cause for surprise. Without impairing other programmes, we must nevertheless allocate ourselves the resources to match our ambition to ‘make Europe’s education and training systems a world quality reference by 2010’.

Political group: PPE-DE