GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I have here before me a newspaper interview, from which I should like to read you an extract. It reads ‘I do not agree with the Anti-Slavery Conference in Durban. It promotes a sense of victimisation in people who already feel like victims.’ It goes on to say: ‘I am not happy with the whole Conference in Durban, quite apart from the way in which the Middle East was discussed and the fact that someone like Castro was applauded. These are indicators that this was an anti-western meeting’. These are not my words, but those of a European Commissioner, namely Mr Bolkestein. Last night in my group, our group chairman told me that Mr Nielson, on account of unfortunate statements he made concerning anti-American imperialism, will have to justify himself before the Conference of Presidents. Would it not be fair, therefore, if you, in your capacity as President of the Conference of Presidents, were also to invite Mr Bolkestein, giving him the opportunity to explain before the Conference of Presidents these very unfortunate, extremely dangerous statements at a time when we, as the Western world, must join forces with the Islamic world to combat terrorism.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I too would like to express my satisfaction at the fact that this report emphasises, once again, that it is in the European Union’s interests to proceed with all the policies which are useful and necessary to achieve integration of the countries of the Western Balkans into the European structures. I too believe that we must proceed with a policy which has yielded good fruit in recent years in terms of reconstruction and, in addition, consider the next step, which is the issue of democracy and legislation in those places. These countries lie at the heart of Mediterranean Europe, and it is therefore in the common interest of all the Community institutions, as well as our duty to the peoples living in the area, to provide the aid, decisions and related measures necessary to help these countries address what we feel are the current fundamental problems: problems in the field of education and training, combating organised crime, and, in particular, the endeavours to achieve democracy. The report highlights these problems clearly. It underscores them and emphasises the role of the European Union. It also highlights the attempts – hesitant but clearly being made – to establish greater legal protection, particularly where women are concerned – which I welcome – but that is not enough. This report displays the European Union’s interest: it must be followed by more practical measures than those hitherto provided for.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I want to begin by thanking Mr Maat for his excellent cooperation in connection with this report. Partly in conjunction with Mr Kindermann, we have prepared quite a few amendments, and this has, in my view, turned out to be an excellent report. I should also like to thank the Commission which, without hiding anything, has clearly described how the Member States have implemented or, more to the point, failed at all to implement, the many decisions taken in 1991 and 1995. It is really frightening to see how European ministers sit and take joint decisions about something as important as animal welfare and the transport of animals under satisfactory conditions. They then travel home and totally forget what they have been involved in deciding, that is to say they do not transpose any of these decisions into national legislation. We could have well done without the huge number of hideous television pictures we have seen of animals suffering in a wide range of appalling situations. Lorries have been opened, to reveal dead animals inside, with other animals trampling upon them. That situation is simply unacceptable, and it must be brought to an end now. It is therefore time to put a stop to our traditional practices of many years in the EU whereby animals are transported from north to south and from east to west. There is no good reason for doing this. Animals suffer as a result, and the call must now go out for animals to be slaughtered at the nearest abattoir. Obviously, we are also obliged to transport animals for breeding purposes from areas which excel in producing such animals to areas which have a need for new animals of this kind. I therefore look forward to the Commission’s now tabling proposals for common regulations governing the transport of animals, and I repeat: these must not be minimum regulations, but common regulations governing the transport of animals.

Political group: ELDR
The Danish Social Democrats in the European Parliament welcome the initiative concerning common rules for family reunification, although we have nonetheless voted against a number of points, including the one-year rule. As a result of this and in view of the Danish reservation in the legal sphere, the Danish Social Democrats have declined to vote in favour of the final proposal.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I raised a point of order some time ago. According to the original agenda, the competition reports should now follow. The order of this agenda was specifically amended by the Conference of Presidents in order to give Commissioner Byrne the opportunity to attend. That was why the original agenda was amended on Monday. As he is not yet here, I urge the House to deal with the competition reports. Commissioner Monti has been here for some time. He can deal with Mr Byrne’s reports in this regard. I therefore support the motion.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, you have already partially answered the first question on samples. I have a second question for you. I am convinced that, with regard to the consumer, we would be taken more seriously by producers if we were also to do away with the slaughter of animals at risk and if we were to have the same legislation throughout the entire Community. My second point, Commissioner, regards application in 2001. I feel it is necessary, in addition, to include the elimination of the emergency slaughter of diseased animals, so that only actual casualties are subject to emergency slaughter. Control would then be much tighter in the production sector, thus benefiting the consumer.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I can only support the Commission in not presenting a Community regulation on blood alcohol content. My colleagues are holding a sham debate, a totally sham debate. The s and our group decided jointly a year ago, when the proposals from the previous period were taken up again, that we do not want Community legislation here. The point we make is this: we want checks. That is the crucial question, not what the law says. It is crucial to have on-the-spot checks. Here I can only reply to my UK colleague: if your police carried out checks over Christmas, it would take these people off the roads and prevent the accidents. So I can only repeat that the crucial factor is to check the blood alcohol level rather than to issue a Community regulation. That is why we will reject the first part of Amendment No 4. If it is nevertheless carried, my group will reject Mrs Petersen's entire resolution, because it is hypocritical to call for Community legislation when there is no need whatsoever for it. Talk to your countries. Most countries agree with the common view of this House that 0.5 parts per thousand is quite adequate, as the Commission rightly said. That is what we recommended to all these countries. The people you should talk to, Mr Watts, are those who do not apply that. So it is not a question of a sham debate or of what the law says; the police must carry out-on-the spot checks and pick out all the drunken drivers. That will give us the greatest road safety. Secondly, we will not accept Amendment No 6 either, with which the are once again trying to start another sham debate, namely on a general speed limit of 120 km/h. We already have speed limits on most European roads. In my country we have speed limits on 95% of all roads. Where do the accidents happen? On the 95% of roads, because there are not enough speed checks there either. So, fewer laws and more checks will do more for road safety.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, there are three points I wish to address. The first is the inclusion of a legal base in the Treaty. This is something I favour, but currently as part of a minority in my own Group. We are all fully conscious of the importance of tourism, both to local economies and as a factor of European integration. The problem for some of us, however, is the lack of specification of the extent of the legal base and of just how it would relate to considerations of subsidiarity. Second, there are similar issues related to the establishment of a multiannual programme for tourism. The resolution contains many excellent ideas for the promotion of different types of tourism and for its increasing professionalism. At the same time the Commission is currently concerned about confining itself to core tasks. The question has to be asked whether some of the activities suggested in the resolution might not put more pressure on its resources than is desirable. Third, there are several references in the resolution to permanent employment. Of course the promotion of this is desirable and permanent employment need not necessarily mean full-time employment. But there will always be people who are looking for seasonal employment. Students are an obvious example. We have some concern that the resolution does not give enough consideration to them and to ways in which their interests could receive specific protection. Thus, while complimenting Mr Viceconte on his report and finding a great deal in the resolution to commend, we shall be asking for a number of split votes to allow these concerns to be addressed.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I wish to begin by reiterating my solidarity with the Galician people and with all the communities who might be affected by this tragedy, in Spain, in France and, of course, in my own country. As time passes, the true scale of this disaster is becoming ever clearer. I hope that the investigation requested by Parliament will be undertaken in a thorough and timely manner. And, as I have already said in this Chamber, we must also clear up the mysterious change of direction taken by the ship which, after moving westwards, turned suddenly towards the South, until it sank, thirty miles outside Portuguese waters. What we need to do now, however, is to talk more about the future and this is why I would like to address four issues. Firstly, the European Union must provide funds to compensate, as much as possible, for the damage caused by the oil slick. In this context, I believe we would be justified in mobilising the EU Solidarity Fund, which has not yet been done. The second aspect is that since this has clearly had a terrible effect on fishing and shellfish farming, we must consider a more integrated and far-reaching package of measures that will provide practical responses for the communities that have been affected. The third aspect is that a technically and scientifically justified decision must be taken on what to do with the ship, which is now lying on the ocean floor with its 60 000 tonnes of oil. Unless this is resolved, we will be condemned not only to an oil slick but to a succession of oil slicks for months and years to come. Lastly, I wish to emphasise that it is now time to properly establish the European Maritime Safety Agency, which means that the Council must agree on where it should be based. To conclude, I wish to say that we want there to be a rigorous inquiry, as Parliament has already called for. What we do not want is for Parliament to be used to debate a country’s domestic problems.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, personally, I have never smoked and I am well aware of the dangers of smoking for the health of both the individual and of the public at large. I am therefore against smoking. Nevertheless, I voted against certain amendments that I would describe as excessive, and I abstained many times, because I feel that what we are witnessing here is a typical example of European over-regulation. Some of my fellow Members clearly do not properly understand the legislator’s role. A legislator can prohibit or authorise, but should not make sermons in legislative texts, which is what we do here all the time. That kind of thing is fine for an explanatory statement, but not for legislative texts. I come from a country where tobacco is not grown and I can therefore speak freely on the issue of producers. I think that removing subsidies for tobacco producers will not stop smokers from smoking. What it will do is open the door for tobacco imports from outside the European Community.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, with your permission I too will comment on the criticism made of the Austrian Commissioner Fischler. Mrs Berger has, of course, already addressed this matter. To my knowledge, Commissioner Fischler has so far visited all nine of the Austrian Provinces' liaison offices in Brussels. You should be aware that Mr Fischler is a Tyrolean farmer: he goes where he sees fit to go and when he is there he says what he sees fit to say! (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, openness and public scrutiny of the basis of a democratic form of government are the prerequisites for citizens being able to follow the public decision-making process and to participate in this process. The opportunity of gaining access to public documents creates greater confidence and legitimacy, something the EU has precious little of at present. International research also shows a clear connection between open administration and a low level of corruption. The Cashman report is, therefore, not just any old report. This report establishes the essence of what will become a European principle of public access to official documents, that is to say, the principle that all documents must be publicly available. There will be few exceptions and these will be clearly regulated. All documents must be registered. The documents must be examined on a case-by-case basis. If access is refused, a reason for this must be provided. The Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy objects to the idea that documents relating to foreign affairs and security issues will automatically and collectively be excluded from public inspection. This would be unacceptable. In this sphere, too, every document must be examined individually. We have therefore proposed, as a democratic safety valve, that those documents which – after examination – cannot be made public, could be communicated to a small group of Members of Parliament. However, it is important that this in no way replaces the desire for as many documents as possible to be made available to the public at large: journalists, interest groups and individual citizens. Article 255 of the EC Treaty concerns citizens' access to documents. The rights of the institutions ought to be developed further in separate provisions. The Cashman report is the first step on a long road towards increased openness, democracy and confidence on the part of our citizens. A common directive is necessary and important. Much work will also be needed in order to change the attitudes and the culture within the different institutions and progressively replace them with an understanding that openness is necessary, natural, effective and democratic. We now await the Council's move.

Political group: ELDR
You may be certain, Commissioner Patten, that this report is of the greatest importance to Parliament. In the Committee on Development and Cooperation we have dedicated a great deal of time to humanitarian aid policies and you know that on this issue, in general, you will always have our support. Firstly, I must today express my gratitude to the officials in ECHO and the staff of the NGOs who, in extremely precarious circumstances, when everything is failing on the ground, are the first, the most self-sacrificing, and often the only ones to provide essential humanitarian aid. I must remind you that in Rwanda, in Kosovo, in Mozambique, in Central America, the sacrifices, sometimes of their lives, of those working in cooperation with us, have been some of the most inspiring stories in the history of the European Union. In the small amount of time I have for this intervention I must add that I agree with the Imbeni report and, in particular, I would like to highlight the following issues. As has been said, we must clarify the so-called dilemma of the ‘grey area’. We must clarify the procedures and, in some cases, the legal basis and the responsibility of each party, in order to make the management of ECHO more efficient. I have already referred to the problem of human resources, as well as the problem of visibility, and the objectives must be clarified. In certain cases, in Cuba for example – as you know, Commissioner – in the guise of humanitarian aid, programmes are implemented which are no such thing, but simply a form of concealed cooperation, sometimes for reasons of ‘ideological solidarity’ with the Castro regime. For the future, it is necessary to improve management, increase cooperation with our partners, improve complementarity with the actions carried out through the efforts of Member States and, in short, frame the humanitarian aid actions of the European Union within the global strategy of our cooperation policies.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I voted for the report with some reluctance because I feel there should be more urgency for reform than is actually contained within it. There are, in fact, some elements of protectionism and suggestions that would turn the CAP simply into an income policy for farmers. These are not welcome. The real challenge faced by the farming industry is to become more competitive and closer to the consumer. I do not think indefinite subsidy is a solution. ***

Political group: PSE
Mr President, nearly ten years ago, in the early 1990s, I travelled through the Khyber Pass, a trip I can strongly recommend to all colleagues – though perhaps not at this moment. At the top there is a small village where you can buy food, water and 'souvenirs'. The 'souvenirs' are drugs, home-made Kalashnikovs and home-made surface-to-air rocket launchers. With the money I had on me I calculated that I could buy ten Kalashnikovs or three rocket launchers. The only problem was how to get them home through customs, so I did not buy them! Coming forward to 10 October this year, at the United Nations in New York there was a speech by the American Assistant Secretary for Arms Control. He used wonderful sounding sentences, such as 'we must redouble our non-proliferation and arms control efforts', 'the entire globe faces a security challenge!' But he had no proposals at all for controlling small arms. Why? Because the extremely powerful and wealthy organisation called The National Rifle Association – the NRA – helped to elect the present administration, which will therefore not stand up to the Association. With the events of 11 September and the high murder rate inside the United States of America, I wonder just what it will take for America to cooperate with the rest of the world on this problem. My Group supports the motion because it is a small step in the right direction.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, we are all aware of the existing congestion on European roads and the significant external costs of goods transport by road, such as accidents, noise, pollution, climatic effects, the provision and maintenance of infrastructures etc. But this is nothing compared to the bleak predictions of what the future may hold if we do not implement measures to deal with these threats. It is calculated that goods transport by road in the Union will increase by 50% by 2010 at a rate – as the Commissioner has said quite rightly – of 12 000 million tonnes per kilometre per year, and it is clear that neither the Trans-European Networks nor our environment can endure the brutal impact of this increase. We therefore need to adopt measures which, far from affecting our economic growth and progress, guarantee its sustainability. The Marco Polo programme is an absolutely essential instrument, but we must ensure that it moves in the right direction. Given the limits on the resources available for this financial instrument, its aid must be focussed strictly towards the transfer of the greatest possible amount of the goods currently transported by road to other forms of transport which are more respectful of the environment and which produce fewer external costs, such as short sea shipping, railways and inland waterways. We have no choice but to sacrifice the intermodality between these latter two alternatives if we do not achieve our priority: to reduce the congestion of the roads. At the same time, as well as a common political will on cross-border projects, we must promote the prevention and reduction of transport needs. We must revise the systems of packaging, industrial logistics, the organisation of production chains, etc., with a view to preventing raw materials, intermediate goods and end products from having to be moved further than is essential. To this end, in business economies we must take account not only of the expenditure generated by transport services but also their external costs properly assessed. Only in that way can we achieve a general awareness which leads to an organisational transformation and a reduction in transport needs.

Political group: Verts-ALE