GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Water quality in seas and rivers throughout Europe and all over the world is crucial to people’s welfare. Political decision-making should not be faltering, fragile or equivocal. The Council, the Commission and Parliament should assume a united, clear and unbending stance to ensure that cases like the Prestige disaster do not happen again. Never again! We cannot and must not underestimate the value of strengthening vessels’ hulls, monitoring their routes (shipping lanes), a high degree of professionalism among their crews, moving shipping lanes further out to sea, and of using corridors correctly.

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, I am grateful for your reply, but I still require some information. Am I right in thinking that right now there is not a single official or agent of the Commission dealing with the operation of this programme?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner Verheugen, the regulation on accession aid is not exactly an advertisement for coherent work on the part of the Commission. Rather, the way in which these aid measures have been cobbled together smacks of amateurism to me. This applies both in terms of the substance and the financial aspect. In my view, it will hardly enable us to present the accession activities conducted by the Union to the citizens of Cyprus and Malta as evidence of the fact that it is worth their while joining. As Vaclav Havel rightly said today, the European Union will be judged on its political qualities according to what it can do for the individual. As far as the citizens are concerned, it is what a regulation can do for them that matters. We will not exactly win any awards with this regulation as far as that is concerned. It is makeshift and contains heteronomous paragraphs, which is no way to set a shining example. The quality of an aid package is assessed according to the following criteria: is it decentralised, is it transparent, is it accessible to the citizens and does it work? Nonetheless, as far as the divided island of Cyprus is concerned, overall, this pre-accession strategy is bound up with a major political challenge. In my view, it is the task of the European Union to employ all instruments, including this one, so as to contribute towards resolving the conflict on the island by political means. I must take this opportunity to say that it is precisely the amendment submitted by the European Parliament that is so important to me in this respect. Both the Commission and the Council have been making very optimistic speeches here today as well. I am delighted that we are all heading in the same direction in this respect. I believe it would truly be preferable to secure a peaceful resolution to the problems in Cyprus before admitting this country to the European Union.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, at the beginning of this discussion, I was reminded by Mr Dupuis of the moral depths to which I had sunk with my report on Russia. I harbour no hard feelings towards him for saying that, and I remain faithful to this dual-track policy, also politically speaking. With regard to the Russian Federation, it is, in my opinion, very judicious always to talk in no uncertain terms, even if this involves Chechnya. We therefore regret that the presidency in Stockholm failed immediately to refute the statements by Mr Putin, who draws parallels between the conflict in Macedonia and that in Chechnya, and did not substantiate our stance. I believe that our Russian colleagues respond better to tough talking than evasive behaviour. Furthermore, it appears to me to be of the utmost importance, with regard to Russia, to underline how important matters such as the northern dimension are – no need to convince Sweden of this – but also how important Kaliningrad is becoming, especially as it will form an enclave in the European Union where the rules for the inhabitants will need to be adapted in such a way that they, for example, will benefit from the Schengen acquis. In this day and age, in which Schengen is becoming increasingly computerised, this should be child's play, and it should also be possible for the citizens of Kaliningrad to benefit from the regulation on obtaining visas. With regard to the Balkans, I am delighted that the Serbian police had the courage to arrest Milosevic. I hope the SFOR stabilisation force will pluck up the same courage to arrest Karadzic, for now that Belgrade has been able to take this step, we cannot afford to lag behind in Bosnia. The Council must therefore exert pressure on all those who are responsible for SFOR to arrest Karadzic. It is also clear that the Serbian Head of State cannot be treated differently from any other Head of State in this respect, simply because his actions have been more evil. I believe it is absolutely vital that he should be brought to The Hague, and that Serbia should certainly not form an exception in this respect.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, by means of this report presented by Mrs Theato, Parliament is calling on the Convention to include a modification in Article 280 allowing for the creation of a European Prosecutor. At the heart of this issue lies the concern to protect the financial interests of European taxpayers. For some time the European Parliament has been calling for the creation of a European Prosecutor with competences relating to the Union’s interests. It is important to point out the existing differences between the Member States, which result in a lack of efficiency. We must ensure greater European cooperation and move forward with the creation of a European judicial area. The role of the European Prosecutor would be to tackle cross-border fraud by means of the adoption of specific rules making it possible to combat that fraud, including the definition of crimes. The new Constitutional Treaty must make the basis for this European Prosecutor clear, and it should be based on the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, resolving the problems caused by the fragmentation of the current European judicial system. We must achieve a transparent system which preserves the balance between efficiency and the investigation procedure, in the event of cross-border crime, and respect for fundamental rights, with coherence and cooperation between the existing structures: OLAF, Eurojust, Europol. The Group of the European People’s Party has presented certain amendments aimed at taking this clarification further, and I would therefore ask the other groups to support them. I would finally like to stress this report’s aim of contributing to the constitutional process under way so that we might clarify this issue of the European Prosecutor, which is enormously important for the future of the Union. I must congratulate Mrs Theato, who has done an enormous amount of work, which has not been easy, and I hope she will achieve the proposed objective.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, if I am right in my understanding of this, it says here that we are allocating EUR 8.4 million to the political parties. It now appears from what the House has resolved that the line being marked ‘p.m.’, is a token entry. Voting on that now would go against what the plenary has already voted, and so I now ask whether that is actually the case. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I feel that it is perfectly legitimate for the European Union to equip itself with common rules whenever we introduce competition into local public services. I feel that it is infinitely less legitimate to seek to withdraw a method of management and to introduce competition within the field of transport and to use case law to extend this to all the other fields in the future, through a regulation which is not transposed by the national parliaments. I have several reasons for this view. The first is that the private sector has not always performed better and I urge my fellow Members to come and see what is happening in France, in the water industry, which has been largely opened up to the private sector. Cartels have sprung up, which are no longer controlled by the local authorities and which currently supply water at higher prices than the local authorities, which remain under direct management. On the other hand, we must not consider direct management to be a better method, but simply that the two methods of management must co-exist. Secondly, this goes against the principle of subsidiarity. If subsidiarity means anything at all, then it most certainly means the freedom of administrative choice of local authoridies and the constitutional provisions of most Member States, under which decentralisation now gives freedom of choice to the mayors, regional leaders and heads of local authorities. There is therefore a genuine political problem posed by this regulation. I do not think anyone can deny this. Lastly, we must also be very clear on this question. Whenever a mayor chooses direct management, he cannot turn to external markets. Who knows of a school bus service, in a rural area, managed by the local authority, that has to rely upon external markets? This is not a problem that exists in reality. On the other hand, whenever public services are delegated or an exclusive choice is made by a business, which is, itself, competitive, this company can turn to the external markets. That is why I believe that we must impose the principle of reciprocity. In any case, however, we cannot give up direct rule as a method of management.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, in an answer to me on Burma in the October session Commissioner Patten said that if things deteriorate in Burma, then holding the EU-ASEAN meeting planned for 11 and 12 December would be reconsidered. How bad do things have to get? Aung San Suu Kyi is held incommunicado. There are 3,000 political prisoners, 23% of the population live below the poverty line and 40% of the children in Burma are malnourished. Burma is now the world's second largest producer of heroin and opium after Afghanistan. They are conducting a major offensive against the Shan people and the Karen people and, as the UN rapporteur has said, there is no sign of any dialogue between the SDPC and the NLD. Today in Geneva the ILO are meeting as we speak and it looks very likely that they are going to support sanctions against Burma in protest about the use of forced labour. It is my understanding that the French representative in Geneva has supported that view. Now is the time to actually impose strict conditions on that meeting in December. Aung San Suu Kyi must be released and allowed to travel freely and a troika must be allowed to go to Burma and to go anywhere and meet anyone they like. Also today, Thailand, an ASEAN member, has said that Burma must allow a permanent ILO presence in that country, that there must be a mechanism to monitor forced labour and that ILO sanctions should not be lifted on their fellow ASEAN member until real results have been achieved. How will the EU respond to these strong voices from across Europe and indeed from the region for the first time? It is surely indefensible for the Commission and the Council to continue with any idea of holding this meeting. It will clearly be interpreted as a softening of Europe's approach at this time. Aung San Suu Kyi has reiterated recently that constructive engagement with Rangoon is not working and she and the NLD have asked for the meeting to be postponed. If the EU goes ahead, the junta would be encouraged and heartened by the decision to sit our foreign ministers from democratic European governments around a table which includes the military junta of Burma. We should be ashamed of such treachery. ASEAN would also continue to feel that it is not necessary to do anything about the pariah in their midst. Do we intend to collude with this or will we make a decision now to pull out? By standing by our own principles and the values that we cherish, we will also be cherishing the values of the people of Burma who are being so systematically persecuted by the military regime in their country. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I was one of the five Members of Parliament who went to Monterrey and I want to put it on record that what Mr. Nielson did before the Monterrey Conference was extremely good. He persuaded the 15 Member States of the European Union to make a commitment that by 2006 their contribution for development finance will be 0.33% of GDP. Many Member States are currently contributing much less than this. This achievement embarrassed the United States, because it realised that its contribution is very small indeed. The European Union gives USD 25 billion: it is the largest donor in the world. The United States gives USD 10 billion. This is a very small sum when you think that the United States has given its military establishment USD 100 billion since September last year, and that is why President Bush promised a further USD 5 billion in development finance by 2006. That would bring the US contribution up to USD 15 billion, which is still very low indeed when you think that people like Bill Gates give USD 1 billion as personal donations. Because Mr Fischler is here, I would like to say that EU agricultural subsidies are killing the poor farmers in the Third World. He knows this and I know he is in favour of persuading Member States to do something about the food mountains that we create. This was widely discussed in Monterrey with the International Fund for Agricultural Development. I and my colleagues met with the President of IFAD. It was made very clear that unless we invest this development finance in the rural economies of poor countries and boost their agricultural production, we will have a breeding ground for deprivation, terrorism and internal conflicts. This is because these are the people, the majority of them living in rural areas, who are too poor to grow their own food and too poor to buy the EU's surplus food. I would like to make one other point about HIV, AIDS, TB and malaria. The Monterrey conference did not discuss these issues at great length, and did not commit itself to allocating funding to them in a special category.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I will comment briefly on five points. Firstly, at this point in the debate the facts have been well established. The history of the tempestuous relations between Parliament, the Council and the Commission have been well described and if, as Lenin said, only fools discuss the facts, I do not want to fall into that temptation and I will say no more on this point. Secondly, if you will allow me to speak autobiographically, I belong to the generation of Spaniards who well recognise the importance of parliament in a democracy. What is more, I was part of the Spanish Parliament that created the Constitution. I therefore have great sympathy for Mrs Randzio-Plath’s defence of the rights of Parliament. Thirdly, to continue in an autobiographical vein, I am also a committed European and I am absolutely sure that, just as the euro was essential yesterday, today structural reforms are absolutely necessary and, amongst them, we must place special emphasis on the reform of financial services if we want the European economy to be competitive. My fourth point is the reconciliation of these two objectives: doing things well and doing them quickly, speeding up the process and respecting the rights of Parliament, must be carried out, as Mr Huhne said, within strict limits, the limits laid down in Article 202, which are badly worded and whose reform we advocate. Finally, the solution to this dilemma has been discovered by the new Knight of the Order of the Legion of Honour, Karl von Wogau, and supported by this Parliament. I hope that the Commission appreciates this vote of confidence from Parliament in the Commission and the Council, and that it will never fall into the temptation – since Mr Bolkestein likes Latin – to alter the par conditio, because the reaction of a spurned lover is unpredictable. Parliament has the powers to try to go into the maximum detail within level 1, which would delay the process. Parliament could, like a spurned lover, delay discussing the proposals and that would mean doing the opposite to what we should be doing. I believe that today is a great day for all of us. I congratulate Karl von Wogau, the Commission and the Council and I hope that in Barcelona we will be able to reap the harvest which we have begun to sow today.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, admittedly, we owe this report to the determination of Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries but also to the tenacity of Mrs Miguélez Ramos who has been able to convince everyone on this subject, because the Committee on Fisheries is often, if not always, obsessed with protecting fishery resources; we should not forget about the lives of our fishermen. I would reiterate that, according to the International Labour Organisation, 24 000 sea fishermen die every year throughout the world – we do not, admittedly, have a global responsibility – as a result of accidents at sea. As a result of this report and also because of the timetable set out by the new fishing policy, we now have the opportunity to include this point in the Green Paper and we will later be able to include it in the common fisheries policy. This has been mentioned by numerous speakers and I think and hope that the Commission will include it. Since we obviously have no commitment to achieve specific results, we cannot do this, but we do have a commitment to resources in this matter, and we can make use of many of them. For example, I am thinking of direct legislation in the area of fishermen’s safety and safety at work, ship and equipment design or introducing rules for managing resources, which may have, and can have, implications for fishermen’s safety. We must also urge ship-owners to make use of technological developments. We must always be at hand to help Member States and the fisheries sector to include these requirements in both initial and in on-going vocational training. Lastly, I shall conclude by repeating the simple terms that Mrs Miguélez Ramos suggested, that is, the safety culture – it should be used to the maximum. In this sector, there is a tradition of fatalism, which is related to the natural elements. We must fight against this tradition, in the name of the safety culture, because there is no reason why, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, we cannot reduce the number of accidents at sea and the number of deaths amongst our fishermen.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Katiforis report is no more than a mundane vindication of the broad guidelines for the economic policies of the Member States. Of its 29 paragraphs, 8 go in for approval and then 4 indulge in self-congratulation. As far as the working population of the countries of the European Union is concerned, there really is not much to be pleased about. What use is the economic growth that the report boasts about, if it is only going to recommend – addressing employees of course – adopting a reasonable attitude in wage negotiations, going so far as to claim that the pension system must be radically revised with a view to protecting their financial position? This is one way of admitting that there is no place in this growth for employed workers or for retired workers. Once again, the Council and the Commission are acting as spokespersons for big business, asking Parliament to sanction it. For our part, we have not been elected to offer congratulations to governments that come to the assistance of big business and major financial groups in order to enable them to accrue even greater wealth by exacerbating inequalities, leaving 18 million women and men unemployed, making flexibility at work and job instability more widespread, by making swingeing cuts in the total wage bill in order to ensure the continued growth of income from capital, including its most parasitic speculative forms. If it is true, as the report states, that we have seen a return to growth, then it is all the more appalling that, throughout Europe, only a tiny minority benefits from it. We shall therefore be voting against this report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, there are two principal issues here: one is an adequate supply and the second is a safe supply. For the hundreds and thousands of haemophiliacs and all those patients with the whole range of immunodeficiency diseases, these are life threatening issues which they are faced with on a daily basis. While I agree – and no one disagrees in this House – that we must foster a culture of voluntary donations as the norm, as the ethos, in all our Member States, I plead with this House not to specifically exclude paid donations. Let us not exclude them for the rare blood groups and for the very scarce plasma and plasma products if they are needed to pay to ensure adequacy of supply. It is not a question of ‘if there is a shortage of supply’. There is one already. Today 40-50% of plasma products used each year by European patients come from plasma donors who are compensated for their time and inconvenience for this lengthy process. These plasma products, particularly in the UK and Ireland, are largely imported from the US from paid donors. The amendments to this directive, which were voted and passed by the Environment Committee, will have a major impact on public health. They will prevent the remuneration of donors in any circumstances and preclude importation of plasma and plasma products from paid donors. There is no longer any public health justification for imposing an absolute requirement for all donations to be non-remunerated. This was the case in the seventies and eighties but it is no longer with our screening and sterilisation process. Commissioner Byrne, I would like to put a question specifically to you and maybe you could answer it in your reply: do the amendments which were passed in the Environment Committee violate EU law, particularly various sections of Article 152? I draw your attention to Article 152(5) which prevents Community action from affecting national provisions on the donation of blood. Do the amendments actually violate EU law? The doctors’ organisations, the patients’ organisations throughout Europe are pleading with us not to specifically exclude paid donations. I congratulate Mr Nisticò on his excellent work and I commend Amendment No 75 which gets the balance right.

Political group: PPE-DE