GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Commissioner, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, winter will soon be here and our citizens’ pleas to the European Union must not go unheeded. Throughout Europe, the men and women who have suffered the terrible tragedy of flooding, in particularly severe conditions, are waiting for a sign of hope from Parliament, but most of all they are awaiting clear, immediate, practical action. In my region, in the Belgian Hainault or in less well-publicised areas, the public would not understand a refusal to help them or that there are two kinds of help according to the area in which one lives or the scale of the damage, as all these people have sadly been affected by the disaster, some more than others, or even twice as much as others – I am thinking in particular of those who are part of the economic fabric, such as farmers and small and medium-sized enterprises. They should, therefore, all be compensated equally and swiftly, and not be hindered by the excessive bureaucracy for which we are often known. What can we learn from this situation? Let us prove our effectiveness and usefulness; let us also fulfil our responsibilities by immediately implementing a concerted, coordinated and binding European policy with regard to land use planning. We must remain firm over the Kyoto requirements, whatever some may say. We can create a permanent aid Fund, but we must look to the future and work on long-term preventative measures. Commissioner, you spoke of 'political courage', but I would say to you that what this Parliament needs to demonstrate is 'joint political responsibility' in order to guarantee the safety of our citizens. Our future is at stake.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, LIFE is the European Union’s most important instrument and indeed its only financial instrument dedicated exclusively to the environment. That explains why this instrument must live up to our ambitions, ambitions for which, of course, there is a price. Obviously, the basic item for discussion with the Council will be the allocation for LIFE III. The common position stipulates a total appropriation of EUR 613 million for the period 2000-2004. This is not enough. The Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party is in favour of increasing this amount to EUR 850 million. We therefore support Mrs Lienemann’s amendment which observes that the allocation for LIFE was not increased when the Union was last enlarged, without even mentioning the next batch of new arrivals. The amount that we are asking for is no great mountain of useless expenditure. Quite the opposite, it is still fairly modest in relation to the requirements to be funded. A drop in the ocean, I might say, in comparison with Europe’s structural policies. The environment is still the poor relation in the European budget, even though it is primarily an investment. An investment in natural resources, of course, but also in employment, since it has been demonstrated that an active environmental policy generated new jobs, as shown particularly by the great success of LIFE, a success with NGOs, businesses, local authorities and third countries. More than one third of the 8,500 requests received meet the required conditions and it has been possible to cofinance approximately 1,300 projects between 1992 and 1998. A success which Parliament wishes and intends to see perpetuated, and this is why we also support amendment 14 outlining the fourth phase of the LIFE project. In matters of the environment, investment and ambition come in a variety of forms, and indeed must come in a variety of forms in the long term. This is the price of the future of generations to come.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, Commissioners, in my view, this strategy paper has two clear weaknesses. There is no point in drawing up a new economic and social agenda if you have not even finished the old one. I am thinking of transport policy and regional policy. You have excellent Commissioners for both issues in Mrs Palacio and Mr Barnier, yet still you attach too little importance to these areas. And do you know why? Just look at transport policy; clearly it is crucial for this policy to be drawn up as a economically and ecologically sensible policy before the accession of other countries. I would be grateful if the President of the Commission would listen to what I have to say, although of course he has no obligation to do so. Let me give you three examples. First: we need reasonable deregulation of the railway sector because we want to shift freight from the roads to the railways. That makes sense from an economic and an ecological point of view. Without deregulation we will not make any headway with a reasonable transport policy. The same applies to European air traffic control. Our citizens cannot understand that we are deregulating air traffic, but leaving 15 different sectors in the skies which are under national control, which have an adverse economic impact on the airlines and which pollute the environment. You still have not finished that agenda. Commissioner, far too little is said in your paper about regional policy. Economic and social cohesion in the EU is a fundamental task of this Community. If we fail to complete it, citizens in less favoured regions will dread enlargement. We must show them that we intend to use the next five years to help them join the rich regions by promoting the less favoured regions using reasonable means. Then they too will be prepared to really support enlargement and help to achieve it. Mr President of the Commission, if we do not manage to create true solidarity between the rich and the poor regions, then this Union will be all the poorer and it will not meet with the approval of the people.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to congratulate Mr Adam, who has worked very hard on this report. From our initial Committee discussions it was evident that these proposals had been drafted with little, if any, appreciation or understanding of the sheep farming industry. Many of the Members who have visited sheep farms, or who are indeed farmers themselves, have become increasingly exasperated by the Commission's blind approach in this regard. I have been visited in Strasbourg this week by a group of farmers from Wales who would be happy, if they were allowed, to bring sheep with ear-tags into the Chamber to give the officials an idea of the impracticality of what is being proposed. Like me, they want to improve traceability in this sector to avoid any future spread of disease, but this must be achieved in a realistic way. In Wales, which has the highest concentration of sheep in the EU, you could not realistically at present expect to convince a traditional hill farmer, with an average age of 58 and an average annual income of EUR 10 000, of the benefits of investing in new and complicated technology, the set-up costs for which have been estimated at EUR 15 000. I urge the Commission to take on board the report's major recommendations, to come back with a comprehensive cost analysis for these proposals and to acknowledge the effectiveness of recording batch movements of sheep until such time as electronic identification becomes a viable and practical proposition.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, as the rapporteur for the European Parliament discharge for 2002, I was pleased to see that the Court of Auditors has dealt with some of the issues of concern raised in Parliament. It is clear from the report that there are still problems. The secretarial allowance rules still contain loopholes, which mean that the money is not always spent on staff, as it should be. Despite earlier warnings from the Court of Justice, the rules on the funding of political groups still show shortcomings. There was evidence of that this week when an OLAF report showed that a former political group in this Parliament had misused funds. Finally, the pension fund still lacks a proper legal basis and does not even have sufficient funds to cover all its liabilities. The European Parliament, as we all know, is always very good at criticising other institutions – we have done so today, but we also have to put our own House in order. Yesterday, a coalition of the selfish, the naïve and the greedy once again blocked a proposal to reform the system of pay and expenses for MEPs, which would have solved this problem once and for all. Opposition to this was led by Mr Schulz and Mr Nassauer. They are the same people who wrote to you, Mr President, asking for reform of the system of travel expenses because a German newspaper published their pictures and shamed them into action. The Bureau, as I understand it, postponed that debate. I hope that the German proposal will be taken up even though the SPD, the CDU and the CSU – not the – have made it clear, privately, that they hope it will not be taken up. The best evidence of this hypocrisy came last night, when the Bureau discussed reform of the secretarial allowance as mandated by the Court of Auditors. I am told that Mr Friedrich’s first reaction was to ask whether MEPs could still employ their relatives if the new rules were adopted! I am not against MEPs employing relatives per se if it is done in an honest and transparent manner, even though I personally do not think it is a wise move. However, Mr Friedrich’s reaction demonstrates that, unfortunately, for some MEPs on both sides of the House, the only purpose of their membership of this Parliament is self-enrichment and deceit. Fortunately, there are many MEPs, including colleagues such as Mr Kuhne, who want to reform our system of expenses. This question will be at the heart of my report on the discharge for the European Parliament for the 2002 financial year. 2004 is an election year; we cannot afford to embark upon this election with the current system, which is morally corrupt. If necessary, we must publicly shame our House into action. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I get the impression that too many speakers in this Chamber are referring to the road map without having read it, and that, because of their unfamiliarity with the actual document, they are interpreting it in an ambiguous way. The road map is a plan in three phases. The whole thing is summed up in the title of Phase I – Ending terror and violence, normalising Palestinian life, building Palestinian institutions – and its aim is to bring about an immediate and unconditional end to violence on the Palestinian side. This is the vital point, and if it cannot be achieved everything else will become ambiguous, uncertain and vaguely sermonising in tone. Frankly, it does not make sense to call on Israel to take further or different initiatives in addition to those it has adopted thus far, if acts of terrorism on the part of the Palestinians are not halted. No European state confronted with a series of terrorist attacks, especially against unarmed civilians, would agree not to react using force and legal means of suppressing violence. Nor am I convinced by the exhortations to keep Mr Arafat in place on the grounds that he is the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, given that everyone recognises that there are still no democratic institutions within the Palestinian community. Yasser Arafat is responsible for the failure of the Camp David agreement and for Abu Mazen’s failure. I believe that we in Europe should adopt a more severe approach towards his behaviour if we are to secure a change in attitude.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, this proposal for a directive seeks to introduce safety and quality standards to regulate therapeutic activities based on the use of human-derived tissues and cells, which are carried out in Europe every year and now concern hundreds of thousands of patients. The sector is also certain to expand, not only in the traditional field of transplants – for example, corneal and skin grafts and heart valves – but also, as a result of advances in biotechnology, in those of reconstructive surgery, reproductive medicine and the treatment of disorders such as cancer, diabetes and Parkinson’s disease. It is therefore undoubtedly of interest to research centres and European firms and must be allowed to develop. Nevertheless, respect for ethical imperatives is vital in the use of tissues and cells of human origin. The proposal for a directive in question therefore lays down high safety and quality standards relating to substances of human origin, in order to protect health. However, these ethical imperatives need to be still better defined. The first issue concerns the need to ensure complete safety from the point of view of health, in order to prevent or reduce the risk of disease transmission in the case of human tissues and cells from third countries too. Secondly, respect for the human body must be assured with regard to removal from both living and deceased donors. In this connection, the requirement for informed consent on the part of the donor, supplied in a specific form either by the donor or by next of kin is particularly important, as is the prohibition of the removal of cells or tissues from foetuses originating from the voluntary interruption of pregnancy or from cloned human cells. The third issue concerns respect for privacy and protection of the confidentiality of the information collected when tissues are removed. Donation must be anonymous as regards both the donor and the recipient (except for the requirements regarding traceability). Personal and family data may not be disclosed to third parties (for example, employers or insurance companies); this is also to avoid the risk of unjustified discrimination. The fourth principle concerns the fact that donation is unpaid. This represents a voluntary act of human solidarity which may, however, be appropriately encouraged by specific measures and by proper information on the part of the Member States. This requirement must be retained, not least with regard to imports from third countries. On the basis of these considerations, I believe that, over all, the directive can be said to represent a step forwards in the harmonisation of Member States’ legislation, allowing Member States to provide greater protection for the health of the European citizens.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this morning we had a three-hour debate on sustainable development. At the World Summit in Johannesburg, the European Union advocated a global water initiative. This should make it possible to realise the aims of the World Summit on Sustainable Development – access to clean drinking water and basic sanitation. So what are we doing, we who want to achieve such ambitious targets at international level, here in our own countries in Europe? We are making a law on abating water pollution that will reinforce the use of yesterday's technology for tomorrow's developments. That, at any rate, will be the result if the opponents of the amendments tabled by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy succeed in defeating them in plenary. Regrettably they include our rapporteur, who actually ought to represent the opinion of the majority of the committee. Unfortunately, amongst these opponents of advanced technology are also colleagues from groups and countries which are usually in the vanguard of any initiatives to protect water and the environment and cannot go far enough. Go and stand sometime at a filling station in a large harbour for recreational craft; you will see the quantities of fuel, diesel, petrol and oil that are pumped into the tanks of these boats. A considerable proportion of this fuel, although it depends on the design, is discharged directly into the water – without undergoing combustion – along with the exhaust emissions, because the exhaust pipe is under the surface of the water. The pollutants accumulate in inland waters and lakes, which are frequently used for the abstraction of drinking water. Nowhere else is the exchange of pollutants so great. It is precisely on lakes that the density of boats is often particularly high. That is why we want more stringent requirements for these waters, that is, stricter limit values for recreational craft. The technology, Mr Callanan, is available. As an engineer you ought actually to be aware of this. Since existing craft will enjoy absolute protection and be able to be used until the end of their life, the argument of our Nordic colleagues does not hold water either. The limit values laid down now will only have to be complied with by boats newly brought onto the market from 2005. An individual who buys a new recreational craft after 2005 will be able to use it on all waters. That is why I would urgently request your support for Amendments Nos 1, 11 and 13. By adopting these amendments we Europeans would be putting our words in Johannesburg into action. Mr Callanan, I have already heard your arguments almost word for word here in plenary; it was nearly 20 years ago in the mid-eighties, in the last century, when we were debating limit values for cars and the introduction of new technology. Then, as now, your country was the first to slam on the brakes. It is quite astonishing that in two decades you have not learnt any better. I believe that water is also the life of the future. We must do all we can to prevent our waters from becoming even more polluted.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what is the point of turning a technical report into a potential oenological disaster. The determination to amend the directive on the marketing of material for the vegetative propagation of the vine may look like a laudable initiative to update a rather technical text, which is 32 years old. Personally, I find the ’68 vintage rather a fine one, but apparently the Commission has decided to modernise. The very first lines of the Klass report clearly stress the value, not just the economic value but also the cultural value, of grape and wine production. Everything, then, could be for the best in the best of all possible European wine-growing worlds. Well, as it turns out, that is not the case. The Commission has taken the opportunity of updating matters to open a Pandora’s box, even though this was something that not one European producer was looking for. While the Commission appears to be overcome with combined GMO and cloning fever, Mrs Klass goes further and goes into convulsions, compounding the GMO issue with all the genotypes she sees all around her. It must be said loud and clear, there was absolutely no need to stuff the articles of this directive with references to directive 90/220, which is currently being revised, unless the intention was to promote genetic manipulation in vines at all costs. And please do not tell me that this was done to anticipate this directive’s being revised or because GM vines do not exist except in laboratory experiments! Commissioner, Mrs Klass, listen to the opinions of the experts from the Institut national des appellations d'origine, the French National Appellations Institute. The INAO has, on the basis of the information currently available, issued a blanket ban on the use of GMOs in any area whatsoever, which would therefore include, and I quote, genetically modified wine varieties and rootstocks. Would you care to read the Beaune declaration presented by the winegrowers of the Burgundy region? Do you wish to show the industry that Europe is working for better quality and respects the precautionary principle? Commissioner, withdraw the recitals and the articles incorporating GMOs and cloning into this draft. Mrs Klass, take out your amendments and let the relationship between GMOs and genotypes be clarified by the scientists. There is a second problem area, Mrs Klass. You restrict the practice of grafting to herbaceous cuttings alone. In so doing, you protect what goes on in your own region, but rule out the grafting of hardwood cuttings in the winter period, even though this is the grafting technique that is the most widely used in Europe. This amendment should, therefore, be withdrawn. In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, in order to respect the precautionary principle in both spirit and letter, should the articles and amendments which I have just mentioned not be withdrawn, then, as the wine growers themselves demand, we would have to fall in with the opinion of Marianne Isler Béguin, and the Committee on the Environment, and vote against them.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The Moderate Party delegation has opted to abstain from voting on the above matter. The fight against terrorism and the protection of privacy are not opposed to each other. A far-reaching, effective fight against terrorism requires respect for fundamental rights. The United States’ requirements have put airlines in an impossible situation, as the requirements infringe EU privacy protection, or obstruct air transport. The Commission has tried in an exemplary way to find a solution. We do not, therefore, support the resolution’s call for the Commission to withdraw the draft. The draft improves the present situation, but still has serious shortcomings. The data-protection commissioners in the Member States and the EU, the Article 29 Committee, point out the worrying lack of data protection. The draft necessitates a thorough legal revision, and consequently we support an examination by the Court of Justice of the European Communities. A prompt changeover from the ‘pull’ to the ‘push’ system is necessary in order to remedy the lack of data protection. Preconditions for a satisfactory agreement are that passengers be guaranteed information on which data is transferred to the US authorities, and that passengers have the option in practice of giving voluntary consent to such a transfer of personal and economic data, and to inspect the data recorded.

Political group: PPE-DE