GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, I should like to focus on two points which are not mentioned in your programme. To me, this Commission strategy paper for the next five years reads like a scientific paper on the European Union or a declaration of principle. Unfortunately, it does not give the impression of being a real political strategy on the part of the Commission. As the spokesperson for cultural and training policy for my group, I would have expected more in the way of agenda from an Italian President of the Commission. The Commission gives no soul to Europe. Culture and training simply do not exist in this paper, despite the fact that we need to create a real area of training and culture in Europe. Just a few main points. I am talking about the integration of the policies of the culture industry in this area of training and culture; they create jobs. I am talking about the introduction of cultural mainstreaming in all policy areas, about consolidating and improving the European dimension of training and education syllabuses and about networking training and education policies in Europe especially lifelong learning. Mr President of the Commission, it is the new millennium and you made no mention whatsoever of the audio-visual area of Europe. Nor was any mention made of information policy and communications catering to the needs of our citizens. It seems to me that something is missing from this programme. Truly European citizenship depends on our creating a real, visible area of training and culture. Declarations of principle are not enough. We need an agenda which can be translated into political action by the Commission on an ongoing basis in the way in which I have just described.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the European Parliament has produced a comic strip book, entitled Troubled Waters, to inform young people about the workings of the European Parliament. The heroine of this book is a raven-haired, stunningly good-looking Member of the European Parliament of indeterminate nationality who single-handedly takes on the evil chemical industry. Now, there has been much speculation in the European Parliament as to who might be the model for Irina Vega, with our rapporteur being the most widely mentioned. Now, of course, Troubled Waters is not set in the real world. I am afraid that having read Kathleen Van Brempt's report, I think she has lost touch with the realities of modern agriculture. No farmer uses pesticides for fun – after all, they are expensive. Setting a reduction target at 50% is too simplistic, as we should be targeting the most toxic products, not those with a higher dose rate, as the Commissioner rightly said at the beginning. Of course, the European Union has turned its back on the new GM technology which has dramatically reduced the reliance on pesticides by our friends and allies on the other side of the Atlantic. Levies on pesticides will fall heavily on the new expensive products, which by and large cause less ecological concern than some of the older, cheaper, off-patent products. We all want to reduce our reliance on chemicals in agriculture but I regret that this report does not give us the solutions we want. Incidentally, if Parliament is to do a sequel to Troubled Waters, maybe next time it should also feature our Commissioner.

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, it is certain that the 125 million euros that there were for chapter IV, obviously aimed at Morocco, are not going to be used as planned. But if this agreement were going to be for three years, those concerned would be expecting 375 million euros from the solidarity of the European Union. We are all aware of this and we hope that the Commission will be generous in paying attention to the petitions from the Governments of Spain and Portugal. We will continue to work towards this in Parliament. But my question has a different aim. I wanted to ask the Commissioner if he is aware of the information that is being published in the Moroccan press at the moment, specifically in the weekly Demain and the magazine Economy and Enterprise, where top military, political and diplomatic figures in Morocco are being accused of having blocked this agreement to protect their own personal interests. It is currently being said in the Moroccan press that they only declare 60% of their catches and that they are lining their own pockets. This, according to what is being said in Morocco at the moment, seems to be the real reason. They were not concerned about fishing resources, as they told us, or the Moroccan fisheries sector, or even the Moroccan people, but something else. Is the Commission aware of these reports that are being published? They give names. If so, is it aware of what is going on and are political, economic, financial and trade relations with Morocco going to be re-established in the light of what is happening, which is just what we suspected, and which was the real cause of the failure to cooperate with the European Union?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in this report, I propose rejection of the Italian initiative organising joint flights for the removal of illegal nationals, and I do so for two reasons. Firstly and fundamentally, the main point of my report is to emphasise that the European States cannot just extend the repressive aspect of the asylum and immigration policy, while, at the same time, neglecting whole sections of it regarding legal immigration and the integration of nationals from developing countries who have legally settled in our countries. Moreover, this initiative proposed by Italy does not at all constitute added value for European action in this area. I would like to say formally here that the mass returns are a lamentable practice ... (Applause) ... that should be used only exceptionally, while this initiative would tend to make more general, and therefore commonplace, this type of measure. Furthermore, it seems to me truly deplorable that the only elements constituting a guarantee for the preservation of the rights of the expelled persons are, in this resolution, placed in a non-binding appendix, which is particularly revealing of the Council’s intention to build a Europe that is nothing but a fortress. Finally, on its form, the Council may not, as it has done, disregard Parliament's opinion on a subject that touches on so many fundamental liberties. Parliament's consultative role, which is already only a formality in this area, would become totally superfluous for proposals of this sort, which proves – if there were still need to do so – the need for reform of our institutions, whose victims are, in the first place, the citizens whom we represent. It is for these reasons that I ask you, ladies and gentlemen, to reject this initiative. (Applause) (Parliament rejected the initiative)

Political group: PSE
With regard to hake, given the current relative level of exploitation, regardless of the reliability or the limitations of the basic information, the level of fishing is too high, and so temporary reductions in fishing would be beneficial and a reduction for the 2002-2006 period seems to be essential if we are to achieve an appropriate exploitation of these stocks. We can, therefore, accept the Commission’s concern to reduce fishing efforts, but under no circumstances can we accept that this reduction should be undertaken by reducing vessel numbers, entailing the definitive loss of fishing licences. There are other, equally effective means of managing fisheries so as to ensure appropriate fishing levels, such as, for example, reducing the amount of days per year on which fishing can take place until stocks recover to acceptable numbers. This would significantly reduce the socio-economic problems of businesses currently holding fishing rights. Where cod is concerned, the stock situation appears to be more serious, requiring rather more severe measures than those proposed for hake, although they could vary according to the species. In any event, these measures must also be temporary and must never involve vessel reductions or the definitive loss of fishing licences. We regret that the distinction between the two cases, hake and cod, should not have been accepted and this is another reason for our vote against the report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Chairman of the Committee on Budgets. – Mr President, to follow on from that, the figures that we have been given – the Copenhagen figures – are actually lower than the figures provided subsequently. Therefore, the Copenhagen figures could not have been maximum figures, since the figures that we have seen since are actually larger. I would like to have the Commissioner's view of what will happen if the Council puts the Copenhagen figures into the accession treaties. As you know, we will be discussing this next week with the Presidency in Athens. But as a Parliament, we face the dilemma that the Council may put in these figures to make sure that we vote for the accession treaties. If that is the case, what about Article 25 of the Interinstitutional Agreement and what role will Parliament have in renegotiating or reassessing the financial perspective? If the Council does that, how would the Commissioner assess the value of the financial perspective?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, first of all, on the question of the availability of its reports, perhaps the Commission could show courtesy to this House by providing advance copy to the rapporteurs of this House rather than to the media. I speak as rapporteur for Bulgaria, a country on course for joining the European Union in 2007. I hope that all possible steps are going to be taken to complete negotiations in 2004, ideally by May 2004. This would send a very powerful message to the people of Bulgaria. While the Commission correctly states that the accession process for Bulgaria is based on the ‘own merits’ principle, nevertheless it has also said that it is committed to a common accession treaty for Bulgaria and Romania together, by the end of 2005. Bulgaria should have no difficulty with that and I hope that Romania will meet that target as well, but I would not like to think that Bulgaria’s aspirations would in any way be held back by slower progress on the part of her northern neighbour. Finally, with regard to Cyprus, I agree there are strong possibilities for the two communities to reach a comprehensive settlement, but this requires goodwill and flexibility on both sides and indeed pressure from the Commission on both sides.

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner Byrne, thank you for the explanation, which can almost be seen as an extremely accurate description of the situation. My speech is, I am sorry to say, based on press information, information which – at least as regards Italy – is awakening considerable concerns since, for example, dead peregrine falcons and migratory ducks, two species of a very resistant nature, have been discovered. I would now like to make two simple and precise comments. The first concerns the health aspect. We are not being caught completely unawares by the H5N1 strain, because it was identified back in 1997 and it reappeared as H7N1 between 1999 and 2001. Now, because the strain is continually mutating, we would ask the Commission what it intends to do as regards prevention, because – as some Members rightly stated before me – we always spring into action after the emergency arises. Some Member States are equipped with their own national laboratories, but the European Centre for Infectious Diseases must set up a group to monitor the ways in which the health situation is monitored in the Member States. The second aspect concerns the Commission’s work. As Commissioner Lamy announced, there is an extremely serious option, within the talks to revive the WTO, aimed at increasing the number of countries involved in the EBA initiative. So then, what are the guarantees offered to our consumers as regards the globalisation of markets? Does the Commission not believe that, on this subject, a think-tank should be set up, within the actual context of the WTO, concerning the relationship between globalisation and health problems?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in paragraph 5, after “civil society”, the following paragraph should be added: “regrets that the opposition parties (UDP, FONUS, PALU and MNC/L), and the other parties and platforms representing civil society, have not signed the agreement of 19 April”. (Parliament accepted the oral amendment) Before the vote on the joint motion for a resolution on Equatorial Guinea President. – Before the vote on the joint motion for a resolution on Equatorial Guinea, may I point out that recital C should be deleted.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to say a few words, first of all thanks to Mr Piecyk, who had to finish this report in a very short space of time, and who burnt the midnight oil more than once in the process. The Green Group has a love-hate relationship with transport. After all, transport creates pollution but there are certain modes of transport which create more pollution than others. This means that we do not wholeheartedly endorse all elements of the TENs, but we do if they involve the development of the less polluting alternatives, for example the development of ports, the development and promotion of inland shipping and the use of intermodal terminals. With regard to that element of those ports, if you consider the Council’s viewpoint on ports – and this has been put in more than one way – the quantitative criterion used is, in my opinion, too sweeping and too vague, which results in a situation in which some ports in the German Wadden area and some in the Netherlands, such as the port of Scheveningen, which is a small fishing port, have now been elevated to the status of ports which would be required to play a role in the trans-European network. This is simply taking things too far, in my book. In this sense, I wholeheartedly support the rapporteur’s view, but I should add that, actually, if you look for something which is also lacking in the Council’s position, then I would say that the Council is underplaying the significance of intermodal terminals and, above all, the multimodal terminals, for they are much talked about in this Chamber. As a result, we are lacking the qualitatively sound arguments for incorporating ports, often located on the fringes – as was mentioned a moment ago – into this scheme. In addition to the quantitative criteria, a number of qualitative criteria will need to be developed. But we will soon be entering conciliation when we will need to consider this issue in depth. I am delighted that at least the rapporteur has put this intermodal transport – Mr Jarzembowski worded it very well – very much on the agenda. I believe that this will become one of the bones of contention which we will hopefully – with or without a conference – be able to bring to a successful conclusion. I am extremely pleased that, in addition to this, all of the reports on strategic effects have been included. I hope that they will not be the sacrificial lamb of the conciliation procedure. As for the superstructure and its funding, I can understand very well why we are not incorporating superstructure, the definition of which is, in fact, far from agreed, into a non-transparent and vague financing method for ports. The port structure and its correct definition is the first step, a superstructure the second. In my view, we should be looking at how we can add more detail in the meantime.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Mr Oostlander’s report has been quite substantially modified at the committee stage, as other honourable Members have already commented. It is now more balanced, and this is undoubtedly an improvement. It is to be expected that a report like this one should make mention of a certain number of deficiencies and lapses, especially relating to issues of human rights and public freedoms. On all these points, I believe one can only agree with the rapporteur. On the other hand, I cannot agree as fully with one of the rapporteur’s personal preferences, which, though concealed for the most part by the amendments, is nevertheless latent and sometimes explicit. I am referring to what I would term Mr Oostlander’s pathological aversion to secularism and the secular ideal. This aversion also made an appearance in the brief oral presentation during which he mentioned what he called Turkey’s political philosophy. Through a consideration of the historical context, he likened this philosophy to totalitarianism, one of the most monstrous forms of political oppression Europe has ever spawned. In point of fact, Mr Oostlander, Kemalism was by no means a totalitarian system, and did not follow totalitarian models. Kemalism, which was unquestionably a form of enlightened despotism, set out to modernise Turkey rapidly, drawing its inspiration to a not inconsiderable degree from Western European democratic models, most notably those of the separation of Church and State and secular republicanism. You see, Mr Oostlander, as Turkey applies to join the European Union (and it is natural for that application to give rise to discussion and even argument), any pride it can take today in its positive historical legacy is attributable to that very attempt to introduce our European secularism into a Muslim society. For that, as some of the honourable Members have said, is the challenge, or one of the challenges, of the twenty-first century. I do not think there is any justification for adopting the disgruntled attitude you have shown towards the secular ideal in recital G of your report. Today’s Europe is rooted in that ideal, which stands out with great clarity, to my mind, in the Charter of Fundamental Rights we have accepted. You ought to adopt the opposite stance, welcoming the secular ideal more warmly and valuing it more highly. Mr President, Turkey had the right to apply for membership. I believe that it will have the right to remain at the application stage for some time, for its progress is slow and must be monitored closely by us. That does not give us licence simply to parrot the phrase ‘some progress, but could do better if he tried’, so beloved of schoolteachers. We must not forget that application for membership of the European Union is akin, for Turkey, to the United States’ experience of the concept of the frontier at the end of the nineteenth century. That kind of stirring, pioneering front provides the impetus to move further on. From that perspective, we must encourage Turkey’s application. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I should just like to make a brief comment here. The fact of the matter is, we should be obliged to examine the financial impact of committee reports. Rule 159 refers at one point to legislative reports. We have already adopted the wording for that. Article 160 refers to non-legislative reports, but we should ensure that the same wording is used in both cases because, materially, it makes no difference if a financial statement is drawn up for a legislative or a non-legislative report. In this respect, having voted on Amendment No 88, there should in fact be no need to vote again here.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, as previous speakers have said, it has proved to be an extraordinarily controversial process to get this far, especially for the British who have only now agreed to bring in a fair voting system, without which, it must be said, I would unlikely to be speaking here this afternoon. The British also accept that they have a responsibility to ensure that the citizens of Gibraltar can be represented in this place. I trust that the participation of Gibraltar within the European political system will soften some of the nationalistic tensions we have seen in that part of the Union. Several States have quite properly conceded the end of the dual mandate. This practice is contrary to the constitutional principle of the separation of powers and impairs Parliament's efficiency. So I congratulate the rapporteur and the Belgian and Spanish presidencies for brokering the agreement. I look forward to a further review of the uniform electoral procedure, by which time I trust that the Convention will have established the argument for regional seats in the larger States as well as for some element of a transnational list.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner Bolkestein, ladies and gentlemen, we all agree that this directive is important because it is important for European motorists and victims of accidents. Why is it important? Firstly, because it will lead to the judicial protection of victims being updated and improved; secondly, it creates a better functioning internal market for motor vehicle liability insurance; thirdly, the minimum insurance sums for personal injuries and damage to property are increased; fourthly, because it will mean that it is easier to comply with insurance liability for imported motor vehicles until they reach their destination, and fifthly because it clarifies the responsibility of the guarantee fund in the country where the accident occurred for all accidents involving motor vehicles without registration plates or with false registration plates. During the debate I had three main requests. My first request was the minimum cover sum for personal injuries and damage to property and this was taken into account in the amendment and at the same time this amounted to a transition period of five years, which is exactly what I had in mind. My second request was for the removal of the insertion in Article 4(2) of the Commission proposal, because I, like many in this House, believe that a directive on insurance law should not deal with any issues that are the responsibility of national civil law. My third main request was directed against the unnecessary bureaucracy and unnecessary additional costs, which means that we advocated that, when a contractual relationship ends, the policyholder can ask for a statement relating to any claims to be forwarded, so that this is not sent automatically. This change was implemented by Mr Harbour’s amendment. I can, therefore, only welcome this directive.

Political group: PPE-DE