GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Supposedly on the grounds of environmental protection, the Commission is proposing reducing the fishing fleet and encouraging the use of more powerful fishing gear, over and above the use of less powerful gear. This will reduce the number of artisanal fishermen. We should ask ourselves whether it is really necessary to place limits on catches and therefore on fishing in order to safeguard the marine environment. The proposed measures will in no way affect industrial fishing that plunders the sea. There is nothing preventing us protecting and even improving the revenues of small fishermen and those who live off the sea and have no other means of support. The rapporteur does not contemplate this in any way. The only way we can protect both the environment and workers is to protect the revenue of small fishermen. The report however offers no such protection. One of the options presented to fishermen in the report is for them to become cleaners of the sea and to use their boats in dealing with oil slicks. The worst aspect of this is that unfortunately there is likely to be a continuing need for this clean–up work, due to the actions of the big oil conglomerates, together with ship–owners and their shareholders. The inability of European and national authorities to put the collective interest above the destructive selfishness of capitalists also contributes to this problem. While we will vote in favour of certain aspects of the report which would benefit fishermen and the environment, we will abstain on the report as a whole.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are social policy as well as financial, economic and employment policy aspects to the pension issue. All these areas must be addressed together if pensions are to be secured in the long term. I would also add that we have economic policy guidelines and the stability and growth pact on the question of employment and growth policy. When it comes to the question of demographic change as one of the causes of the problem of pensions, there are several problems: one is the unfortunate fall in the birth rate, another is early retirement in numerous countries and a third is longer life expectancy, for which we, of course, thank God. As far as birth rates are concerned, we must help to create a stronger awareness of what mothers and fathers contribute from a social policy point of view and ensure that family and work can be smoothly combined. As far as early retirement is concerned, we must ensure that the retirement age can be brought up to the statutory retirement age in all countries. A variety of measures is needed for this. Without doubt, the question of life expectancy has repercussions on the actual retirement age as well as on the statutory retirement age in many countries. I trust that we can help to strengthen the second and third pillars as well as the first pillar in Europe. We have countries today in which 80% of people in employment have a company pension. In my country it is just 9%, while the European average is 25%. We are currently debating a directive here in Parliament, and I call on the Council to stop blocking a European regulation on company pensions at long last. I call on the Commission to set up a European pension forum to discuss the different fiscal and employment and social regulations and to help harmonise these issues throughout Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Thank you, Mr President. I would also thank the President-in-Office of the Council for this response, but you will appreciate, Mr President-in-Office, that this cannot, of course, give us MEPs any satisfaction. We set great store by the employment strategy. The open method of co-ordination can be very effective, provided that it is democratic and transparent. As it happens, it is not democratic, for the national parliaments and the European Parliament are not sufficiently involved. Neither is it transparent, because even the evaluations that are made of national action plans, paid for with European money, and the studies carried out by the Committee on Social Policy and Employment Policy are not accessible to the players, who, in fact, are required to guarantee the democratic legitimacy of this employment strategy. What does the Council Presidency intend to do about this? Are you not of the opinion that the democracy and transparency of this employment strategy and the open method of co-ordination should be enhanced? Funded with European money, no less!

Political group: PSE
Mr President, last summer I went on holiday to Guinea-Bissau, and, as is my wont, I exchanged a few words with one of the local elderly pensioners, or rather with a fisherman from Guinea-Bissau would have dearly loved to have become a pensioner. Having been told that I am the representative of the Italian Pensioners' Party, he complained to me: 'I go out to sea to fish, I work whenever it is possible and I would like to work many days so that I can have a pension as well. However, unfortunately, because our sea is fished by European Union fishing boats, I cannot find enough work to contribute to a pension, and I do not see anything of the European Union financing allocated to the Government of Guinea-Bissau for the Government does not give me anything at all'. I therefore voted for the report, but on condition that things improve in future.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I only wanted to ask whether we all agree that the order of the paragraphs should be changed – I refer to the first vote – as the Socialist Group requested. You did not take a vote on that.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Söderman, it may be well to remember that just a year and a half ago there was a debate in this Chamber over whether we needed a Committee on Petitions in general. I am very pleased to be able to say that the Committee on Petitions has again shown its indispensability, especially at a time like this, when we wish to enhance the status of the ordinary citizen in the European Union. I genuinely hope that the Commission on Petitions succeeds in establishing good levels of co-operation with the other committees in the coming year. I believe that we will be able to draft joint reports on the most important problem areas. With regard to the Ombudsman, he has truly established his position and independence. The growing number of grievances is an indication that the public have found him, and we members of the European Parliament have often been able to guide people in his direction to have their problems solved. Public access to documents is an issue that will occupy us in the future, and we have already had some valuable advice on the matter from the Ombudsman.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, in the capacity of draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Development and Cooperation on the granting of discharge for 1998, I would briefly like to mention that, last night, a partly joint committee meeting was held, involving the Committee on Budgetary Control and the Committee on Development and Cooperation, about the Rühle report. During that meeting, agreement was reached, in principle, to adopt a compromise approach which was subsequently refined. In practice, this means that the existing text will be replaced by a new joint compromise proposal, which will, in effect, lead to a delay in the proceedings and a reconsideration in June. The political groups will undoubtedly submit this text some time this morning and the debate will be able to take place as normal, but it is useful for the Members to know that this debate actually took place last night and that, in actual fact, a new political situation has arisen in which the Members of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the Members of the Committee on Development and Cooperation once again agreed on what we consider to be a more positive approach.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, poor compliance with environmental legislation is a huge problem. As co-legislator, it is important for us to speak our minds, but we should not pass the blame to the Member States too readily. We must also consider the quality and nature of the legislation we produce. The Union is growing ever bigger and more diverse. We must therefore lay down rules which can thrive in the different national cultures. That is why I think we should prescribe less detail. We must be very precise in the results we want, but not in the way in which the results must be achieved. For that reason, I believe we should stand by the result, a maximum of 50 milligrams, in the nitrates directive. We do accept a certain degree of flexibility with regard to the method by which the result is achieved. An example of sound legislation is the habitats directive. The environment is a common legacy; environmental protection a common task. It makes no sense to protect birds in one country if they are being shot down across the border in another country. The habitats directive prescribes a clear goal. The way in which it is to be achieved is quite flexible. The directive is not detailed, but provides a framework which allows latitude for weighing up local or regional interests, and that is exactly how we need to move forward. As long as the result – caring for the protected species and their habitats – remains paramount. Needless to say, there are many conflicts in villages and provinces with regard to the directive’s application. There are instances of incorrect application. It would be useful and necessary to provide clear information, but I am taken aback by the large number of MEPs who have requested a review of the bird and habitats directive in order to work out in further detail certain concepts in the habitats directive. The significant implications of this would then be compensation and major public interest. The very strength of the habitats directive lies in its flexibility. The directive stands for a modern way of protecting the environment. It is not about putting up fences around the environment, but about dealing with the species and natural resources in a conscientious manner. Accordingly, I regret that some MEPs are adding to the chaos by suggesting in an amendment that the existing infrastructure should disappear, or that major new projects are not viable.

Political group: PSE
I am grateful for the reply given by the President-in-Office of the Council. However, his role is to some extent that of a messenger and he must know as well as I do that women’s rights will be disregarded unless there is an explicit reference to their recognition in the association agreement. We are discussing a country where Algerian Berbers were killed as a result of police charges on 29 April of this year. We are actually talking about an association agreement with that country. I do not think that an explicit reference to the rights of women and Berbers is too much to ask. This association agreement should also provide for the respect of the civil, cultural and linguistic rights of Algerian Berbers. Is the President-in-Office of the Council prepared to pass on this request?

Political group: PSE
I join Mrs Flesch in complaining about the quality of translation. The English version of this amendment is completely different to the French original and largely incomprehensible. I do not want English-speaking people who look at this amendment to think for one second that I voted for that. I am prepared to vote for the French version and could I ask that you investigate the quality of translation on this report.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, ladies and gentlemen, I concur with all the previous speakers who have said that the debate on the future financing of the Union is still in its infancy, and indeed we may stand on the threshold of some rather hard bargaining. It is therefore, as my fellow Member Mr Böge said, far too soon to talk about figures, ceilings and minimum allocations, but what do we actually think of the Commission’s basic approach? Let me begin with what we perceive to be good points. The Commission is proposing a different set of budget headings from those to which we are so accustomed. It is also proposing a somewhat different aggregation structure for the individual EU policies. One of the new categories is to be sustainable growth, and another will be conservation and management of natural resources. This is the result of the Commission having paid very careful heed to Parliament’s frequent discussion of budgetary priorities. We want to become the most competitive economic area, and we want to preserve a decent world for our children and grandchildren. About four fifths of our budget is to be devoted to this aim. ‘Wonderful’ is all I can say to that! A German saying, however, tells us that there is no light without shadow. The main shadows are in those areas where the Commission has kept its own counsel. I cannot find any reference to its ideas and proposals as to how the European budget is supposed to acquire the funds we intend to devote to the pursuit of our policies. It would have been better if the Commission had accompanied the financial perspective with its ideas on how to reform the Union’s own resources. That would have forestalled several squalid discussions about Member States’ contributions, but perhaps the Commission can still plug these gaps. I hope it does.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner Lamy has not responded yet to what happened to the resolution we submitted in early October regarding the area north of Timor. There were a few questions regarding this area too. I would like to know when we will receive a reaction because people are in fact waiting for this. The situation there is not as serious as it is in Timor but it is getting increasingly worse.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, just a few words on the support measures: to be sure, past decades have seen a lot of money poured into the promotion of nuclear energy, just, incidentally, as it is today into renewable energies. I think that is right. If you put that in terms of kilowatt-hours, in the case of nuclear power, the amount is down in the one-thousandths, whilst, with renewable energy, we are talking about tens of cents. I am not saying that I am against it; I just want to make the proportions clear. Tomorrow, the issue of the Euratom loans will probably boil down to the question of whether we should support nuclear power stations in the course of construction or those that are being used, on which subject the only thing I have to say is that we are indirectly supporting nuclear energy in Russia by buying more and more gas from the Russians. Russia will be unable to supply much of this gas in future unless it cuts back on gas at home, which will be replaced by electricity from coal-fired power stations and from nuclear power stations that are being built. Perhaps we should give some thought to that when we talk about a European energy strategy. Our increased use of gas does, it is true, mean that we are improving our record on CO2-emissions, but elsewhere, more CO2 is being produced from coal-burning power stations, or nuclear power is being promoted. That is something else we should bear in mind; it shows that our own energy strategy is not always consistent. I believe that we should vote in favour of these Euratom loans, quite simply because of the improvement in safety. It was for this reason that the Council of Ministers, after Chernobyl, increased the funding for Euratom loans. I believe that the argument still holds water today.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on a point of order, I wondered whether Mrs Schreyer would say that it is realistic to expect the introduction of a full accrual accounting system by 2005. We obviously hope that will be the case, but the World Bank took four years. Could the Commissioner explain how she is going to meet a very tight timetable?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, have you enough vaccine for this special strain, should the worst case scenario in fact occur? And secondly, according to today's front page headline in a widely-read German newspaper which carries several large colour photographs, foot-and-mouth disease can infect humans. Your views on this please.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by congratulating Mrs Korhola and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy for the improvements they have proposed to the text presented to us. And I would also like to congratulate them on having accepted the majority of contributions that we approved in the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, whose draftsperson was Baroness Ludford. Parliament has, quite rightly, been in the vanguard of the movement to create greater openness and transparency in the activities of public authorities, including access to documents. Access to environmental information should be regarded as one of the essential pillars of an effective environmental policy, because it helps to make the public more aware of environmental issues, thus improving environmental protection and the quality of the environment. It does this by facilitating more effective checks on whether Community environmental legislation is being fully and properly implemented, and, lastly, because it allows the public to play a greater part in environmental decision-making likely to affect their own lives. This proposal for a directive is intended to replace the 1990 directive. In doing so, the most important objective is to adapt the directive to developments in information technology, thus creating a second-generation directive that reflects changes in the way information is now generated in our society. By way of conclusion, I would like to emphasise two aspects: the first is the issue of the deadlines within which public authorities are obliged to provide information requested. This has to be done as quickly as possible and at the latest within one month. The second issue is the fact that we have limited the scope for exceptions. Whilst it may be acceptable, in order to protect legitimate interests, for there to be arrangements exempting certain information from the disclosure requirements, it is nevertheless fundamentally important for these exceptions to be rigorously defined and strictly interpreted so as not to undermine the general principle of access so that the directive can indeed fulfil its objective.

Political group: PPE-DE
Excuse me, Mr President, but I thought that you had received an official request to postpone my report to a later part-session.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, what are Europe's tasks in these times? First, Europe must support the victim against the aggressor. We hold to our treaty commitments. We salute the firm and considered attitude of the United States government. We also welcome the European Council's expression of solidarity with the USA. All of you must make it your concern that Europe is not divided into doves and hawks! Secondly, the European Union must play its part in forging a worldwide political alliance against terrorism. We appreciate what you, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, with Mr Solana and Mr Patten, have undertaken not only in the Arab countries but also in Russia. We ask that you continue your efforts as intermediaries in the Middle East, above all between Israel and the Palestinians. They are in the best interests of us all. Thirdly, we must, join together in reinforcing our internal security. Mr President-in-Office of the Council, it is regrettable that the European Council, and the Council of Interior and Justice Ministers as well, have only now got around to partially implementing plans that already existed and had been thoroughly worked out. We expect action against terrorism, not reactions to terrorist attacks. In doing this, Europe must continue to be an example of how to maintain the balance between the right to individual liberty and the security of all. Fourthly, we want Europeans not to be distracted from their common commitment to a more just world order, in which law for all replaces force exerted by the few. We are not making this effort for a more just world order solely out of a belief that we will thereby be depriving terrorism of its breeding ground. On the contrary, we seek a more just world order because that reflects our values and our dignity as Europeans – a dignity we share with all the peoples of the earth! Fifthly, if it is true to say that the world is no longer what it was before 11 September, then the European Union cannot stay as it is. Mr President-in-Office of the Council, we welcome your intentions for Ghent and Laeken. We hope they do not remain only as intentions but that what you have put before us will indeed become the opinion of the Fifteen and a basis for our further work. Europe could be broken by the crisis now facing the world. It could, though, equally, emerge stronger from it. It is at this crossroads that you and all of us will be standing in Ghent and Laeken. In this crisis, Europe can – and I would add – must show its citizens what the European Union is really worth. By this yardstick you and all of us will be judged. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as a new Member of the European Parliament I had not anticipated coming here and beginning by saying thank you. However, I do want to thank the group of Experts for the work they have carried out. It has, in fact, led us straight into matters relating to the EU’s legitimacy and credibility, straight into the core questions affecting the EU citizen: questions of accountability, openness, supervision and efficient use of the EU’s resources. I would also say that all this may possibly already have been discussed in Parliament (in fact, I am certain it has been), but a firm push from outside is perhaps what is needed to speed up the process. I would also take the opportunity to thank Paul van Buitenen. Secondly, I would like to thank Neil Kinnock who has given a major political response today. I am very pleased to be able to say that I have no important questions to ask him in this connection. Instead, I will say only this: with what he is promising, with the pledges he is making, we can return to our fellow citizens, our voters, and say that the process is under way. We are on the way to concluding a pact for radical reforms of the EU, just as our voters and all citizens of the Union expect of us. So thank you.

Political group: PSE