GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by expressing my confidence in the people of Zimbabwe. These people have, over the last few years, shown that they deserve our confidence. Zimbabwe is a country which, since independence in 1980, has steadily chosen the path of peaceful development under the leadership of President Mugabe. Not only in the economic sphere, but also politically, with a degree of press freedom in which the leadership of the country has also not been spared from criticism. As one of the leading SADEC countries it was at the forefront of the battle against apartheid in South Africa. It would be particularly sad if this country of all countries became the victim of war, racism and civil strife. Zimbabwe does, of course, still have considerable problems, but the European countries and the Union will continue to assume their responsibilities as partners of Zimbabwe in jointly tackling the problems of poverty, ill health and under-development. These problems will not be resolved by letting the Zimbabwean army fight in the Congo. The country cannot afford such a drain on its resources, as is evident from the economic situation. Neither will the occupation of the land of white farmers resolve the problems. Land reforms can be introduced through legal channels by a lawful government, and a lawful government comes to power after normal elections. These have been announced for June at the very latest. I hope that nobody will use the current problems as a pretext – by exaggerating and increasing these problems, for example – to postpone the elections and heavily influence the spontaneous development of this movement. In my view, Zimbabwe deserves our confidence. The population has chosen the path of development. I hope that nothing whatsoever is done to put an abrupt end to this. With this in mind, we support the resolution.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, the report we have before us is certainly excellent. As I already said within the Committee on Budgetary Control, I can but support it. Crafted with meticulous attention to detail, it consists of two clearly differentiated parts and has two distinct aims. Firstly, there is a critical and rigorous assessment of the reform. Constructive criticism is applied to the deficiencies of the latter. These include the division of the clearance procedure, the structure and activities of the Conciliation Body and the financial corrections applied. The shortcomings are detailed in a constructive manner however, and solutions are proposed. Secondly, the rapporteur expresses rational and legitimate concern about the immediate impact of enlargement, which is nearly upon us. This concern relates especially to the consolidation of the Integrated Administration and Control System in all Member States. Everything should also be in place for this system to be implemented in the candidate countries as soon as enlargement takes place. The lessons learnt about the SAPARD programme are also cause for concern. In my view, the critical assessment and concern detailed in this report constitute a timely warning. We should heed it. I therefore welcome the report wholeheartedly. I would also like to congratulate the rapporteur on the flexibility he displayed during the proceedings in the Committee on Budgetary Control. His approach ensured that the report was adopted unopposed. This represents a considerable achievement.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too would like to thank Mr Napolitano for his excellent work and focus on what has been the most controversial point of his report, paragraph 8(I). I believe that, as a clear, natural consequence of the European Union changing from a system based on an international Treaty negotiated by diplomats to a political Union which is of a federal nature, that is a Union based on a Constitution, the instruments of constitutional control will have to be overhauled and consolidated. The argument that giving some regions with constitutionally recognised powers – legislative powers – direct access would result in congestion at the Court of Justice would appear to be really very weak, for, if this were the case, then we would have to find a way to strengthen the Court of Justice and make the system more robust and better able to cope with the demand. Moreover, as Mr Duff has already said, it would appear necessary to make it easier for the citizens to approach the constitutional court and to identify the channels open to them, and not just where the regions are concerned but in cases of violations of the citizens’ fundamental rights too. I feel that this is an important aspect of the future European Constitution, and it is why I believe that it is, quite frankly, going too far to paint such a negative picture of the opportunity presented by this report, which I see as the more innovative, original part, treating it as some kind of impending disaster which we will not subsequently be able to control. Moreover, I feel that the compromise put forward has two major shortcomings, for it proposes two filters, two filters which are themselves inadequate. The state cannot act as a filter for the regions because, in many cases, it is in a position of opposition to a region and its powers, and the Committee of the Regions, which was created to be weak on purpose, cannot be another filter for the powers of the regions because, not least, that would introduce and preserve the idea of a false neutrality, as Commissioner Barnier said, and a false equality between the regions. This equality cannot exist because the regions have different powers, and that is just as it should be.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, the summit on internal policy in Tampere is a historic milestone in the development of the European Union. Only a few years ago, the governments of Member States were not prepared to co-operate with the European Parliament on important matters such as collaboration between police forces, migration or common asylum policy. The time has come for the European Union to lay foundations after Amsterdam. The results of Tampere will determine how democratic and how just the Union will be, if it is really to be an area of freedom, security and justice for all citizens, male and female. As yet I have not seen any documents from the Finnish Presidency. Even in the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, the Ministers for Justice and Home Affairs remain too vague. We have not seen much sign of great Nordic transparency. I must therefore refer to documents from Germany about Tampere. I regret that once again we have to have a debate on internal politics in this Parliament without having the documents of the Council Presidency on the table. In this connection, I would like to make it clear that my group is very concerned particularly if, in Tampere, the areas of collaboration between police forces, the fight against drugs, data protection and the democratic control of Europol and the Schengen information system are discussed, because we are again afraid, that it is exactly these important points, which have really great significance for European democracy, which will come off badly and that the citizens in general will find in the end that, as far as their rights are concerned, they are the real losers. I am still hopeful, but previous experience has made me pessimistic. I hope that the Finnish Presidency of the Council will take our reservations seriously. IN THE CHAIR: MRS LIENEMANNVice-President

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, firstly, I would like, on behalf of my Group, to thank Mr Beysen, our vice-chairman in the Legal Affairs Committee, for having drafted the report so rapidly and for recommending that we adopt the common position in its unamended form. One of the reasons we should take this advice is that it was hard enough to reach this modest compromise in the Council as it was, and we would not wish to jeopardise it. That does not mean, however, that we can actually be satisfied with this compromise; it is only the first step along the way. If you ask companies what they think of the EU internal market, more often than not you hear people say that they are positive about everything on the whole, that it is an OK thing as far as they are concerned. There are two problem areas. One concerns the disparities in VAT levels and the other relates to the statistics and numerous forms that have to be filled out. We are well aware that business people like to whinge; it goes with the territory. But when you hear these comments in Austria, of all places, a country that is more than a little resourceful when it comes to forms and bureaucratic requirements, and which found itself to be even more snowed under after joining the European Union, it really makes you think. I can cite examples of companies that have to report the official registration number of lorries they are expecting to collect goods as much as three to four weeks prior to their anticipated arrival. The next important step is to raise the simplification threshold to a minimum of EUR 200 000. The Commission was asked to examine this step via the Council Decision. We also know from past experience that, in principle, the Commission is very much in favour of taking this step. Therefore, might I ask Commissioner Solbes Mira what initiatives we can expect the Commission to come up with and will there be another proposal to this effect? Likewise, more simplification measures are called for within the framework of the SLIM 2 project.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, first of all, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur warmly on the conclusion in his explanatory statement. He states, namely, that proactive water policy has a positive impact on the well-being of recreational water users, and I could not agree with him more. He also ties this in with a better provision of information for the recreational water users. I think that the directive should definitely be revised in this area. Casting my mind back, however, I notice that we still have problems with the old bathing water directive. I still remember the nightly debates in the Dutch Lower Chamber, when we discussed the introduction of the then directive. It has to be said that, at present, infringement proceedings are still pending against the Netherlands by the European Commission, because the quality of our inland bathing waters is not up to standard. There are also major discrepancies in Europe. In the Netherlands, there are 557 designated inland bathing waters, in Great Britain only eleven; there are nine in Ireland and four in Greece. Stricter quality is now being enforced – I have nothing against stricter quality – and Parliament would like to extend the directive's scope to include all forms of recreation. However, if we want to protect all recreational water users who ingest water at European level, then I think we are going one step too far, even if I would want to give these tourists, these recreational water users, these bathers nothing but the best quality. With these higher standards, I think that many of our bathing waters will no longer receive the 'bathing water' label, at any rate not in the Netherlands. I think, then, that we should all take another good look at the amendments and ask ourselves how much we would exactly stand to gain from them. Things have to improve, we need better information and more streamlined legislation, but I think that the introduction of higher standards at this moment in time, given the proceedings that are still pending, is taking matters too far.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, when you consider what happened under the former Commission, it might be said that there is not much to lose with this proposed decentralisation, and it is in any case crucial that something be done. If, however, decentralisation is not accompanied by the necessary powers, it might well turn out to be a two-edged sword. The delegations must have the right powers but so too, of course, must the headquarters itself, in the form of both knowledge and a talent for coordination. In my view, that combination is just a touch difficult to detect at the present moment. I am not actually too bothered about diplomatic schools and other such facilities, whatever they are called. I am, in fact, more concerned about more substantive and practical subjects, for example women’s issues and issues relating to ICT, and I should like to illustrate what I mean about the problems in the light of these two subjects. We most certainly have no guarantee, of course, that the delegations have any special knowledge of women’s issues and any special knowledge at all of women’s issues in relation to the developing countries. It might be said that the Commission used not perhaps to have any such knowledge either, but Parliament did, at any rate, then have the opportunity to exercise closer supervision, and that supervisory function declines somewhat when it is farmed out to the various countries. Nor is there any guarantee whatsoever that the delegations have any special knowledge of information technology. Certainly, they know how to send e-mails, but information and communications technology is certainly about rather more than just sending e-mails, and when, at the same time, the Commission says that there is absolutely no necessity for any unit in the Commission with specific knowledge of this area but that it is just a question of mainstreaming and general knowledge, then one might well be anxious about how those skills are to be acquired, including in the delegations. I would therefore hope that, in connection with the proposal to be produced by the Commission, the latter will be able to illustrate – for instance, with the help of the two examples I have quoted: women and ICT – how it is imagined that the development will take place. IN THE CHAIR: MR PROVANVice-President

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Peru has had quite a troubled constitutional life with frequent incursions by the military into civilian life. After democracy was restored, as a result – certainly – of the activities of the Shining Path terrorist organisation, the democratically-elected President of Peru, Mr Fujimori, carried out a government coup by dissolving Parliament and drawing up a constitution made-to-measure for himself as President. The European Parliament has already had occasion to condemn this type of action by President Fujimori. President Fujimori has obviously re-established a degree of calm, if one can call it that, in Peru. But he has continued to keep himself in power by authoritarian means. In fact I would say that, for many, President Fujimori is no more than the civilian representative of military power exercised indirectly. Yes, there are still elections in Peru, there are political parties, there are means of communication and there are certain guarantees. But the guarantees are not complete. The proof is that three judges from the Constitutional Court were removed for opposing his re-election plans. That means the guarantees are not complete. There is no independence of the judiciary or of the legislature. Secondly, Peru recently withdrew from the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court for Human Rights, and I think that is a very bad sign for a country. I think we should ask the Government of Peru to review that decision. And thirdly, there is still military action going on inside Peru at this moment, frequently creating difficulties for democracy. Remember that, as a member of the Andean Pact, Peru is bound to the European Union by a democracy clause and the European Community, or more specifically the Community institutions, has a certain responsibility by virtue of that democracy clause to call for the electoral process in Peru to be adapted, as far as possible, to certain essential democratic requirements.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr Posselt may have plenty of time, but I have to leave as I am booked on a flight departing from Frankfurt at 3.30 p.m. Tomorrow I shall be speaking at a conference in Greece on this very subject. I apologise in advance to the Commissioner, and I will be much briefer than the chairman of our committee might have been, had he been here. Normally our colleague Mrs Junker would have replaced him, but she has been unwell and in hospital. I am sure the House would wish her well and a speedy recovery. (Applause) I must declare an interest as a director of a television company that will certainly be involved in digital broadcasting and the broadband communication field – though probably long after I have ceased to have any connection with it. Would the Commissioner like me to repeat Mr Rocard's question? And will the Commissioner be replying to the debate as a whole at the end?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, in the context of the foot-and-mouth crisis, millions of animals, including hundreds of thousands of vaccinated animals, were killed in the EU as a precautionary measure, despite loud protests from farmers, citizens and country people. This was due to European directives which, in principle, prescribe a slaughter policy without vaccination. Ring vaccinations are permitted in exceptional cases but with such far-reaching implications for the exports of the Member States involved that, in practice, that also involves removal. The European Commission recently decided to allow exports of meat from Uruguay back into the EU without guarantees as to whether the meat concerned originated from animals vaccinated against foot-and-mouth. It must be the ultimate in bureaucracy for meat from animals vaccinated against foot-and-mouth from outside the EU to be allowed on the internal market, but for that from within the EU not to be permitted. Now is also a good time for the Council to make drastic changes to legislation on controlling foot-and-mouth, also in the light of unnecessary animal suffering. With the imports from Uruguay, the market argument not to vaccinate against foot-and-mouth has been laid to rest for ever. If the Council takes European farmers and citizens as seriously as the farmers from South America, now is the time for action. I should like to persuade the Commissioner and the Council to repeal the non-vaccination policy. I should also like to mention a second point, namely the large discrepancies in terms of animal welfare among the Member States. I would concur with the remark made by my colleague, Mrs Keppelhoff, on that point. Animal welfare is still too often an element in the distortion of competition among the Member States. What is also striking is that, in these matters, the Commission’s and Council’s ambition certainly leaves something to be desired. For that reason, Parliament is very likely this week to make the directive on the welfare of pigs stricter but, at the same time, to present an initiative proposal on animal transport in September. It is crucial, in this connection, to consider the role of consumers and the possibility of introducing a green tax system.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, may I congratulate Mr Purvis on his report on the future of the biotechnology industry. As Mr Purvis makes clear, it is a vital industry for the future of the European Union. It will provide jobs and opportunities for innovation with new products and new processes in such fields as agriculture, medicine and pharmaceuticals. In the Fifth Framework Programme we are already putting EUR 2 billion into the biotechnology industry and I hope that in the Sixth Framework Programme that will increase. But despite all that we are behind the United States, which dominates the biotechnology market in terms of revenue, R and D expenditure and even number of employees. It is between three and four times bigger than the industry in the European Union. If we are going to benefit from the biotechnology industry, we need to nurture the industry. We need to invest through the Sixth Framework Programme and other R and D funds. Balanced regulation is important. It is clear there has been a public loss of confidence in science and technology, scientists and engineers. The BSE and foot-and-mouth crises indicate a lack of confidence. It is also clear that there is an ethical dimension. We need public accountability and clear guidelines that command public support. In terms of research and genetic manipulation, many of us would support somatic cell repair but might have doubts about somatic cell enhancement or germ cell repair and certainly there will be grave concerns about germ-cell enhancement. It is not acceptable for insurance companies to refuse cover on the basis of genetic profiling or for manufacturing companies to recruit those with a low propensity to cancer for dirty jobs. We need to strike a balance between introducing regulations that will allow the biotechnology industry to thrive in the future and maintaining public confidence. Otherwise public concerns may well drive economic activity across the Atlantic.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to confine myself to three points. There is much which needs to be said, but my colleagues have already contributed a great deal to the debate on fixed book prices. As far as I am concerned, the first point is that we need to stress the importance of the specialist book trade, we need to build on quality, not quantity, we are in immediate need of a specialist trade, a supply of specialist literature, as far as the sciences and technical books are concerned, and of personal service and advice. I also believe that it is in the interests of the promotion of SMEs, the preservation of which is an important factor in the European Union, and which is practised in the case of the specialist book trade in a very positive and demonstrative manner. Secondly, I think it is very important to refer to the cross-border language area. We are always talking about the diversity of European culture and about the diversity of languages, which are growing together but which still need to retain their own identity. It is therefore imperative to be able to sell these books easily across borders. The most important point for me is the cultural aspect of books and society’s obligation towards literature and art; it is precisely now, in an era of new media, that books need to be specially promoted and supported. Art and culture are, as we know, a very important economic factor and so therefore are books. When we look at printers, publishers, translators, the trade and much more besides, then we know how important the book trade is, how important art is, including for employment. That should not mean, however, that we regard art and culture as purely economic factors. Art and culture need social support. They are a necessity, we have a responsibility towards them and we cannot deal with them in that respect under the normal rules of competition. I should therefore like to urge you, Commissioner, to put the interests of large undertakings after culture, cultural diversity and the specialist trade. Make your decision in the case of books in accordance with the principles of French law and allow the German and Austrian book trade sufficient time to adapt fixed book prices to these principles. I believe that this will fulfil a very important cultural brief, whereby the economy is perhaps only left standing temporarily. I think that this, too, is a gain.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on a point of order. I agree with those who say we should use the electronic system, as it is much quicker. However, I would suggest that the technicians and those responsible for this wonderful piece of equipment should modify it in such a way that would allow us to vote on all the candidates, plus and minus, which means that every single one of them will have a neutral symbol beside it. In that way, if people look at the screen to see how we voted, they will not know. That would make it much easier, because otherwise it is easy for people to see how each Member voted.

Political group: Verts-ALE