GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. – Mr President, this report contains a number of contradictions. On the one hand there are some very good things in it, to the extent that it addresses the whole issue of aquaculture and sustainable development and in particular its impact on the environment. It is also positive in that it considers the very important issue of animal welfare and the question of overcrowding in fish farms, and calls for some sort of stocking densities to be set. However, other parts of the report criticise EU environmental and health and food safety requirements. It would appear to put business interests first, which is a very dangerous precedent because environmental and health and food safety requirements should come before any business interests. It also questions the precautionary principle, on the grounds that this principle would seem to make it more difficult for aquaculture ventures. The precautionary principle is something that we must adhere to within the European Union and it must be respected at all times. If it makes things more difficult, that is because it is a precautionary approach, it is the way we should approach aquaculture. The other questionable aspect of the report is the whole issue of wanting the Commission to promote aquaculture. I do not think that this is a good idea. There are many problems connected with aquaculture; it seems that people within the aquaculture industry think that it will solve the problems of wild stocks and also those relating to sea fishing and the reduction of sea stocks. But it will not. Aquaculture gives rise to many problems. GMOs are an issue that has been raised already. Introducing genetically modified fish into aquaculture is something that is extremely dangerous and should be avoided. We also have to address the use of industrial fishing to feed aquaculture. It is quite clear that if this industry keeps growing as it is, it will soon outstrip the supply of resources from industrial fishing. Whether we like it or not, that is what we are facing, plus the fact that aquaculture is an extremely dangerous industry in the impact it has on the environment. Finally, on the matter of consumer confidence, I am very wary of the notion in the report that the Commission should promote consumer confidence in aquaculture. The products of aquaculture speak for themselves, and it is wild fish stocks that we should be looking at and addressing here.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I do not want to oppose a debate on Iraq, but your proposal involves cancelling Question Time in order to have one, and I very much want to put my opposition to that on the record, taking as I do the view that every individual MEP's right to put questions – enshrined, indeed, in the treaties – is one of the most important parliamentary rights, second only to the right to vote on legislative texts. We are becoming accustomed to important matters – it is always important matters – ever more frequently reducing or doing away with the time available for questions. I ask you to put a stop to this practice. Questions to the Council used to be held at 9 p.m., or from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m., and for ten to fifteen years that worked perfectly, until the Council decided it was tired in the evenings and had to leave, so that Question Time was moved to the afternoon, and since then, Question Time has been cut back or moved, always to make room for other items of business. I ask you to take a long-term approach to this problem, and to sort it out.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I fully support our friend's request, given that if we put the amendment to the vote as it stands some Members may well abstain, and this is after all a very important matter. If then it is necessary actually to delete the second part we will do so. It is a pity, but that is the way it is. In any case, I should like to thank you for your proposal. *** Report (A5-0426/2001) by Pat the Cope Gallagher, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the proposal for a Council regulation on the conclusion of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for in the Agreement on cooperation in the sea fisheries sector between the European Community and the Islamic Republic of Mauritania for the period 1 August 2001 to 31 July 2006 (COM(2001) 590 – C5-0555/2001 – 2001/0246(CNS)). (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0405/2001) by Patricia McKenna, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the role of flags of convenience in the fisheries sector (2000/2302(INI)). (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0381/2001) by Mrs Lulling, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the Commission report on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1221/97 laying down general rules for the application of measures to improve the production and marketing of honey (COM(2001) 70 – C5-0398/2001 – 2001/2156(COS)). (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0375/2001) by Mauro Nobilia, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on the Commission communication on New European Labour Markets, Open to All, with Access for All (COM(2001) 116 – C5-0188/2001 – 2001/2084(COS). (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** President. – We now come to the vote on the joint resolution on linguistic diversity.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, once again we have an annual report, this time for 2001, which contains very serious criticism from the Court of Auditors on several points. As previously, there are very concrete cases in a number of areas where EU funds are being used entirely wrongly, especially within agricultural policy. The report also points to the enormous surplus of EUR 15 billion, in other words 16% of the budget. Without doubt, the most serious point in this annual report is, however, the general criticism of the reliability of the EU’s accounting system and of its financial management. This criticism was very clear both in the report and during its presentation to the committee. At the presentation, the representatives of the Court of Auditors told the committee that, because the system works the way it does, it can in fact only be guaranteed that 5% of the payments are correct. This in itself is unprecedented and something that must be taken incredibly seriously. In addition, the changes seem to be taking a long time. The Court of Auditors’ report states that, in May this year, the action plan which is to lead to improvements had not even begun to be implemented. Despite this serious criticism of the accounting system, the statement of assurance nevertheless states that the transactions have been carried out correctly. In my view, this is highly contradictory. In principle, it is impossible to claim both these things at the same time. One cannot both point to an accounting system which cannot be followed and be able to guarantee that everything has been managed correctly. I question whether this statement of assurance is actually justified. We all know about the vehement criticism of the accounts from former chief accountant Mrs Marta Andreasen. She also refused to sign off the accounts for 2001. I would like to ask the Court of Auditors whether they understand this, considering the criticism that the Court of Auditors itself has put forward. Is it not the case that not signing off the accounts is quite a reasonable position to adopt? Another interesting view from Mrs Marta Andreasen is that fast improvements can be implemented without new investment in the Commission. It would be interesting to hear the opinion of the Court of Auditors on this matter too. I am also a little surprised about this debate where the criticism made by Mrs Andreasen is being dismissed. It may be the case that it is incorrect but, if this is the case, why may we not hear this criticism? Why do the other political groups here in the European Parliament not want a hearing? Why is the Commission in practice gagging Mrs Andreasen when members of the European Parliament have invited her in to make our audit work easier? It is not a particularly attractive development.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Ferber, who indeed had a difficult task. Commissioner Bolkestein's proposals were regrettably a bridge too far. I certainly recognise that there is nothing wrong with the concept of liberalisation per se and that it can bring benefits to consumers. However, it also brings certain obligations – particularly the need to guarantee universality of services. This would not have been the case with the original proposals. While they would have worked in highly urbanised countries, they spelt disaster for rural countries like Ireland. In exposing somewhere between 46 and 48% of the revenue of An Post to competition, it would have created serious doubts for the long-term viability of the Irish postal service as we know it. The cherry-picking that would have ensued would have jeopardised the ability of An Post to deliver daily and universally at reasonable cost. Furthermore, the ability of our national postal service to cross-subsidise our rural post office infrastructure would have been put in serious doubt. I therefore welcome the amended report that has emerged from the committee. It is indeed a balanced compromise and I hope that it will be accepted by the Council. Let me say this to An Post: if this happens, you will have been given a valuable breathing space. Use it to develop and invest in Ireland's rural post office system. There are many possibilities apart from the one-stop shop where all government services are available to the local community, such as e-commerce and the Internet. Do not take the short-sighted easy option of allowing the rural post office system to die. It is a decision that you will regret.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I strongly support the resolutions that are on the table before us. I do so not only because of the importance of the hushkits issue itself, although no one should underestimate the huge disturbance and the very real and significant health impacts from noise, but also because it establishes the principle of Europe setting its own regional standards. The hushkits issue is also widely seen as a first case of how aviation issues will be dealt with in the future by the new Parliament and the new Commission. It is very clear that ICAO standards need to be seen as a floor, not as a ceiling. It should be quite possible and right to go beyond them. This is a critical case because it is about how we face hard decisions about how to begin to make a deeply unsustainable industry a little less damaging. It is about how we put into practice the Treaty of Amsterdam on integrating sustainability concerns into all policy areas, even the very difficult ones. I wonder if we can use this conflict and these negotiations with the US to enter into a broader discussion about a proactive global environmental policy on air transport more generally. Hushkits are important but noise pollution is only one aspect of the environmental damage from the airline industry. It is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions and we know that it is deeply unsustainable. We need to be looking towards a new policy architecture to deal with all these questions.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. I am indeed grateful for the support which the Christian-Democrats and, in fact, part of the , have lent to this one specific amendment to curb all aircraft noise. There is nothing stopping the Christian-Democrats, the Liberals or the Socialists from lending their support to this cause tomorrow by casting their vote. I fail to understand, actually, why, if the Christian-Democrats can support this cause in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, they cannot do the same again now. Should there be a minor technical hitch, we can rectify it in tandem with the Commission which is to issue a recommendation on these amendments. We can then iron out this minor inaccuracy. I am therefore in favour of holding a debate today and voting tomorrow, so that the Environmental Council can take a decision this coming Monday and Tuesday and that something can be done as soon as possible about noise, so that our citizens are subjected to less noise than is now the case. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, nobody wishes to play down the consequences of smoking on human health, but even if you want this measure and share the health policy objectives, the legal bases have to be right. The European Court of Justice recently handed down its judgment in the case of regulating tobacco advertising to protect human health and it is unambiguous: it is not the task of the Commission and the European Union to regulate these matters, but of the Member States. Only if the internal market is disrupted does the Union have regulatory powers. But the Commission has not submitted one single piece of evidence to show that the internal market is disrupted, not one. Quite the opposite. Where it actually is disrupted, with the different taxation rates and the special rules for Greece, everything is staying as it was. It is therefore ridiculous for people to act here, Commissioner, as though the ruling of the European Court of Justice had not changed anything. This ignorance really is staggering. I predict that this directive, too, will fall before the European Court of Justice, and Parliament and the Commission will make a fool of themselves just as they did the first time, if we are not prepared to examine the legal aspects. Commissioner, you are a Guardian of the Treaties and not someone who can overstep your competences here on your own initiative. If you enlist Article 133 for the export ban then the conclusion is obvious that it is not part of a common commercial policy to dictate to third countries what they should import. This legal basis, too, is completely worthless in my opinion, and that is why the unions, companies and colleagues here are right to refer to job losses. Ten thousand jobs because of the export ban alone, 8 000 of which are in the United Kingdom, are at stake. This does not help anyone to achieve their objectives because production is not reduced, it is just moved. We are seeking to dictate to others how they should live. This is presumptuous and it will not become law.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should first of all like to thank Mrs Jackson and the rapporteurs for the three reports we are debating today. Effective implementation of the EU’s environment directives in the Member States is naturally of great significance in two ways: firstly, in terms of environmental protection – which is, of course, the whole purpose of the directives – but also in terms of our not causing confidence to be lost in EU legislative work through the Member States’ being able for a long time to get away with not implementing the legislation which they themselves have helped bring about in the Council of Ministers. That is why I think that the three reports concerning the Member States’ failure to implement EU legislation are important. The Council has, of course, been rather irritated about the fact that Parliament is looking over its shoulders, but I think that the work on the reports has revealed how slack the majority of the Member States are about implementing EU legislation. They have also revealed how slow the Commission’s and the Court of Justice’s reactions are when it comes to inadequate implementation. We often, of course, hear fine speeches about grand European visions and the Europe of the future, sometimes from Members of this Parliament. We also hear this kind of thing from many governments, but it often, of course, disguises the fact that narrow national interests are being cultivated instead of the common interests we have worked for in the course of the legislative work. It is also interesting to note that those countries which are often regarded as rather reluctant and critical in relation to certain aspects of EU cooperation are in reality those countries which comply best with EU decisions. In all modesty, I am thinking, for example, of the Nordic countries. I was pleased to hear Mrs Wallström’s remarks on the reports. I am sure that Mrs Wallström has the will to ensure that the legislation is of a sufficiently high quality to be implemented and to ensure that it is effectively followed up. I think, at any rate, that Parliament ought to provide as much support as possible for this work.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr Scarbonchi’s report poses a series of good questions. For several years, we, the , have been fighting for parliamentary control and transparency, the guarantees of democracy. It is normal that the allocation and use of credits should be controlled by a body that is representative and democratic – characteristics that the EDF has not, it is true to say, manifested up to now. Inclusion in the budget is one of the ways in which control of this programme may be guaranteed. It gives rise, however, to new problems. How to prevent the risk of transferring one budget heading to another, if there is no provision for some sort of ring-fencing? How to combine the Parliament’s annual budgetary compartmentalisation with the EDF’s five-year budget? The report does not provide enough solutions; it is a pity, since the flaws will affect the quality of control. Furthermore, mention cannot be made of the EDF without referring to other risks of misinterpretation. How do we prevent this programme, controlled exclusively by European institutions, from favouring, for example, European enterprises in the ACP countries? How do we prevent the development of large projects favouring powerful states being preferred to the initiatives of less influential states or micro-projects closer to the needs of the population? Worse still, how are we to ensure that it will not be used as a roundabout means of financing armies on the pretext of keeping the peace? All this would divert the EDF from its purpose, which is development. Quite to the contrary, it would make more sense to use the EDF for actions aimed at improving public health or environmental protection policies, for example. To work for development, in fact, it would be more logical to delegate control to the joint ACP/EU Parliamentary Assembly. This would give us a real advance, guaranteeing real democratic control. In fact, who is better placed to rule on the allocation and use of credits than the joint Parliamentary Assembly, in terms of both political legitimacy and capability? It still needs to be given the means and the responsibilities. All those Members who have spoken have said how dear democratic principles are to them. It is for the sake of their defence and their effectiveness that we cannot content ourselves with simple control by Parliament. We shall, however, support this report as the symbol of a first step, one that is decisive, but doubtless insufficient.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the communication from the Commission shows that they are giving thought to how to put into practice the requirements of the water framework directive, and Mrs Flemming's report makes valuable additional suggestions. Average household water consumption varies, per person per day, between 120 litres in Belgium and 213 litres in Italy. Germany, with DM 7.72 per cubic metre for the supply of drinking water and for wastewater drainage, is, with Denmark, far and away at the top of the world league, but, as regards consumption, is third from the bottom. Adequate high-quality water supply and appropriate drainage are part, of course, of services of general interest in the broadest sense, such as we have been discussing this morning. We must not, though, make the mistake of lumping deregulation and privatisation together. Privatisation can, in conjunction with other means, be perfectly adequate in achieving the objectives set by Article 9 of the water framework directive. I would, though, at this point, like – in the context of the discussion on the subject-matter for the new Inter-Governmental Conference – to give a clear reminder of the topic of the demarcation of competencies. We should not be making the sensitive area of water supply and drainage even more unstable while this issue has not been satisfactorily resolved. The various aspects of water and the price paid for it are among the most politically sensitive issues in some Member States, not only the southern ones, but also for Ireland and Austria, for example. I would wish to emphatically warn against mentioning or even attacking individual Member States. This applies all the more in view of the attempt, for example in item 28 for obvious reasons of party politics, to realise demands at a European level which would not be feasible in terms of domestic policy. Additionally in this case, the issues addressed are, then, only very marginally concerned, if at all, with the subject of the report. We would be creating a precedent with unforeseeable consequences, and I urge the adoption of Amendments Nos 3 and 6, for otherwise we would have to vote against an otherwise very good report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Thank you for your answer. I am pleased that the Commission really has taken note of the problem and intends doing what it can to ensure that the payments are made more quickly. Commissioner Patten pointed out a while ago in the Committee on Budgets that, within category 4, there are eight and a half year-old commitments which have still not been paid out. This state of affairs indicates either that we have major problems in implementing the budget efficiently or that we ought, in fact, to have some kind of deadline or time limit which would be much tougher when it came to writing off old commitments. Perhaps both these matters are problems which the Commission ought, in that case, to do something about.

Political group: PSE