GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, like my colleague, Mr Van Orden, I am not persuaded of the necessity or the efficacity of European defence. However, we must recognise one fact: sooner or later Joe Public in the United States is going to wake up one morning and ask why it is that 3.2 cents of every dollar he pays to Uncle Sam goes to European defence. It is a good question. If I were an elected representative in Washington I would find it hard to answer. It seems we are all agreed that we have to take greater responsibility for our defence, whether as independent nation states, or under the banner of Europe, or as partners in NATO - which I favour. Whatever the route, we will have to increase defence spending. If we were to continue procurement as we do now, we would have to increase tax by between 3% and 4%. As an elected politician, I would prefer not to have to tell that to my voters. It comes down to more bang for our buck. In order to do that we must rationalise our defence spending, as Mr Queiró's report has pointed out. However, we must face two realities: first, the best and biggest bang may involve buying outside the EU. For example, the A 400 military transport may be a worthy successor to the Hercules, with a greater capability, when it flies, but the only long-range heavy lift aircraft in Europe today are the Boeing/McDonnell Douglas C17s leased, not owned, by the Royal Air Force. I am sure that all the various attack helicopters have their good points, but spending money on developing four of them wholly or in part is folly. And the list goes on: communications equipment, next generation missiles, remotely piloted vehicles, etc. But the worst example of duplication is the next generation fighter. The Eurofighter Typhoon is a superb aircraft. Millions of euros have been invested by four European countries and the weapons systems built around it. But it is not the only European fighter on offer. Dassault is selling the Rafale. Why am I not surprised that it is the Rafale that meets the requirements of the Armée de l'Air? I am sure that it has nothing to do with supplying the many air forces of the world that have purchased Dassault Mirages with the next generation fighter, at a price that would not be so low were it not for the purchase by the French Air Force. We must be honest. We must have a proper evaluation of the role and requirements of our armed forces before we can develop a capability to meet them. It is only under NATO that this honesty and lack of national partiality can be achieved. Of course cooperation and economics go hand in hand, but we know that for our troops the equipment and the training are what count. Hard training makes for easy battles. We must give our troops the best, both in equipment and training. We owe them nothing less.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I would like to congratulate Mr Costa on his handling of this difficult dossier. It is an intractable subject and the fact that there are 126 amendments shows how divided opinion is, but at least it has led to a more realistic position. Broadly speaking, I would, in theory, agree with the report that we need to have a more accurate idea of the marginal social costs of transport. However, in practice, it would appear that such measures would be attended by unexpected and unintended effects. That is why a great deal more research will need to be done before the prices can be calculated correctly. I do not see eye to eye with Mr Bouwman on that score. One of the undesirable effects is that the cost to roads will rise by a relatively small amount, around 10 to 15%. This contrasts with the 100% rise in the cost to rail, and the 50% rise in the cost to internal navigation. The desired modal shift will come under review again then. My second concern is that the cost to transport will rise by a substantial amount. That would be to the detriment of Europe’s economic position. Finally, I do not go along with the rapporteur’s proposal to depart from the ‘user pays’ principle, in that he wants to grant extra assistance to remote regions, for example. Firstly we must consider in real terms whether this would lead to distortion of competition and an increase in the total costs. I am against cross-subsidies for the same reason.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, the European Parliament could have insisted that the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol complied with what is called the assent procedure, whereby this legal instrument could not have been brought into force in the Community without the approval of the European Parliament. Against certain legal advice, we are now, however, satisfied that our opinion on this matter is being heard, and this is because we have said how important it is to have the Protocol ratified at long last. Parliament is really doing its utmost now to see that the Kyoto Protocol will be in force when the meeting on sustainable development is held in Johannesburg in September. That is very important. I would like to add my thanks to those expressed here both to the rapporteur and the Commissioner. It is certainly true that this process, which has now ended with the acceptance of the Kyoto Protocol by the Community, will not be the last indication that the European Union can demonstrate a real capacity for global leadership, and can also show its citizens, as the rapporteur stated, that globalisation can also be controlled if proper rules are applied to it. There has also been talk of the economy in this debate. It is important to realise that a good number of companies have already become aware of just how much potential there is for business in policies on climate. We must also have confidence in this and include the United States in the process. As my colleague, Mr de Roo said in his speech, a large number of companies in the USA wish the United States would become involved in this process. It may actually be, as my country’s Minister of the Environment has said in this connection, that the USA will become the last open-air museum of the old technology unless it joins in these efforts. Now we have before us the task of implementing the Kyoto Agreement in practice in the Community. Thanks go to the Commission for the swiftness with which it proposed a directive on emissions trading as well as a large-scale climate programme just before the Marrakesh Conference. This spring the European Parliament can now participate with determination in drafting the rules of this directive on emissions trading. I believe that in this we will be acting with the express purpose of seeing to it that the companies that have already played their part will also receive a reward of some sort, and that all the other companies will also be tempted to join in.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I congratulate Mr Harbour on the excellent report he has drafted on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: 2002 Review of the Internal Market Strategy. Delivering the promise, which I fully support, in particular with regard to the need to establish measures and initiatives that encourage the full completion of an internal market for services, particularly measures intended to improve the transposal of measures for the internal market and to eliminate overly complex transposals. In this context, I wish to highlight the importance of cooperation between Parliament and the Commission in organising a second Internal Market Forum that will enable citizens and industry, especially SMEs, to express their concerns and to study solutions to the completion of this internal market and to define this issue as a main priority of the 2003 Economic Summit.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on a point of order. I attend Question Time nearly every time and every time the first question or two are from our colleagues in the Greek Communists and, in particular, Mr Alavanos. You will notice that the date on this question is 30 March 2000, which was two weeks before the last part-session. Therefore, in my view, it should not have been number one on the list but should have been on the last part-session’s list of questions. There seems to be some system whereby Mr Alavanos and his colleagues always get the first and second questions, and they always attack Turkey. I should like you to investigate why this should be.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, rapprochement and cooperation will only be successful if we strive for mutual respect and partnership in the Asia process. We know how much effort Parliament has put into producing this report. I should like to point out a number of facts. Firstly, the history of the 20th Century has left deep wounds in Asia which have not yet healed. The bloody suppression of the Boxer Uprising in China, the occupation of Manchuria, the Korean War and the aggression against Vietnam are all inextricably linked with the names of states which belong to the exclusive club of the great countries of this world: the USA, Germany and Japan. The EU has a peculiar way of perceiving the role and responsibility of states if, given this historical background, it wishes for example to assign Japan a kind of policeman's role in Asia. It is equally disconcerting that the EU is not distancing itself more decisively from the confrontation course which the USA is adopting, for example with its spy planes, against China. I should like to make a second point. In Asia, the future depends largely on there being harmonious relations and a balance of interests between China, India and also Russia. Any attempts to play these countries off against each other would seem to me to be very dangerous, including and even in particular for Europe! A sustainable Asian policy must be directed at partnership and constructive dialogue, and not least with the People's Republic of China. Anyone who relies now on short-term interests and gaining a quick advantage will not in the long term be able to make a decisive political contribution to establishing peace, cooperation and partnership between Europe and Asia.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I should like to know whether a dress code has been introduced here in Parliament. I am thinking of something that happened yesterday during a hearing concerning the Takeover Directive. The Chairman of the hearing, Mr Gargani, asked the officers to ensure that all the men put jackets on out of respect for the experts present, as he put it. Since my assistant had no jacket or tie on, he was asked to leave the hearing and was therefore unable to do his work, a fact I am very unhappy about. I should like to know if there is a new practice in Parliament. For your information, I can point out that I am wearing neither a tie, shirt nor jacket. As a matter of fact, I am wearing jeans, so I would ask you: do I have permission to be here as an MEP? (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, of course we too endorse the opinion expressed in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market on this request for waiver of immunity; that is, we support the rapporteur's proposal. However, I would like to take this opportunity to remind the previous speaker – not the rapporteur, the Member who spoke before him – that the immunity is Parliamentary immunity, not immunity of the individual Members, that the European Parliament expresses its self-protection through its Members and that the will of the Members who find that they are the subject of a request for waiver of immunity has no bearing on the situation, because each one of us represents the entire Parliament, not himself or herself. A Member's wish to relinquish immunity therefore has no effect: this is the custom and this is the written rule, and political expressions or, in any case, political activity – I repeat it is the custom – cannot be subjected to any type of judgment. Therefore, the Committee on Legal Affairs has expressed a clear opinion in these three cases: it has already expressed this opinion in the past and I am sure that it will do so again in the future, simply because it is now consolidated practice. Outside this Chamber, certainly no one could think or maintain that Parliament could be condemned for performing activities which are clearly and explicitly political. The refusal to uphold immunity in this case, and therefore the committee's proposal to waive immunity for something which has nothing to do with politics, is proof of consistency.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, just a quick correction. Commissioner, the point of departure for forwarding information to the European Parliament is the EC Treaty and not the Interinstitutional Agreement. I just wanted that made clear.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the waste from end-of-life vehicles is one of our really major environmental problems in terms both of the quantity of waste and of emissions of environmentally hazardous substances. We in the Confederal Group of the therefore want as comprehensive and consistent a set of regulations as is humanly possible in this area. With this directive, we have the chance to take a big step forward, but this presupposes that the Council’s position is not torn to shreds and weakened in Parliament’s reading of it. If they were adopted, many of the amendments which have been tabled would considerably weaken the directive. This applies, above all, to amendments from the Group of the European People’s Party but also, unfortunately, to some of the amendments from Mr Lange, as I see it. It is easy to see that the car industry in certain countries, for example in Germany, went in for some pretty tough lobbying before the present directive was adopted. For ourselves, it is crucial that the following principles should apply. The polluter should pay. This means that it is the manufacturer which should take full responsibility, financial as well as otherwise, for recycling vehicles. There must be rules governing existing vehicles too. Where this aspect is concerned, we cannot accept any weakening of the Council’s position regarding the date from which the regulations are to come into force. There should be no falling-off in the percentages concerned or in the requirements for recycling vehicles from particular years, and it is important to limit the use of dangerous substances such as lead. We shall vote against any amendments which run counter to these considerations. If those amendments were adopted which would considerably weaken the directive, this would be very detrimental, not only from an environmental point of view but also for the European Parliament’s credibility on environmental issues. Reference was made earlier on in the debate to the fact that some thought should be given to the millions of people who work in the car industry in various countries and to those countries which have large car industries, for example my own country, Sweden. I was myself a car worker before I was elected. I believe I am one of the few members of this Parliament to have stood beside a production line and assembled cars. I think that very tough demands should be made of the car industry. These would, of course, be to the advantage of modern, progressive car manufacturers who think in environmentally friendly terms. It is precisely this type of car industry which we should be encouraging in the European Union.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the effective new medicines have brought about a major revolution in healthcare. They have been a great help to many patients. One example is the modern medicines to combat heart failure, which have not only increased survival rates but have also radically increased the quality of life for sufferers. When, twenty years ago, I was a newly-qualified general practitioner, the information available to me on medicines used to be locked away to prevent unauthorised access. Much has happened since then. Today, everyone with access to the Internet and with sufficient linguistic ability can find out about treatment principles and information on medicines. This trend is good for healthcare as well as being a requirement from patient organisations. The trend certainly places higher demands on doctors, but a doctor will achieve the best relationship with a patient who is well informed. Mr President, trying to block or limit information to patients ties in very poorly with the principles of transparency in modern healthcare. Finally, a comment on Mr Rod and the Group of the : Your proposal for double testing of medicines is not just poor but could even be dangerous. Reviews of approved new medicines should not take place after five years, but must be carried out on an ongoing basis.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, would you, as President of our Parliament, consider sending a message of congratulations to Ellen MacArthur, my constituent from Derbyshire who came second in the round the world yacht race? I know that the race was won by a compatriot of yours – a Frenchman. He was gallant and kind in his congratulations. If you, on our behalf, could congratulate them both, I and many others would be very grateful.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, alongside enlargement and foreign policy, agriculture and structural policy are the essential priorities for the budget. That is only right and proper, as the European Budget was originally agricultural in character. That has to be borne in mind when considering large areas of the Council's policy. There is something dubious about constantly burdening the European Budget with new Community tasks without stating where the money for these tasks is to come from. As I understand these things, it certainly is not going to be from the agriculture budget! I do not see that it has to be our function to keep national budgets sound by dividing up the work in this way. To that extent, it follows that the amendments taken up by the Council from Parliament's first reading are double-edged. On the one hand, I am glad that the Council has withdrawn 25% of the across-the-board cuts in the lines under heading 1A. On the other, this means, when compared with the draft budget, that we are giving out EUR 200 million, even though the estimated upper limit has a margin of EUR 2.6 billion. This money is not being used where it is needed – as aid that actually generates income. Money has been taken away even from the strengthening of the second pillar that has been called for on all sides. I am on record as favouring the support and development of rural areas, if it gives the people there a long-term home and the money is not wasted on local status symbols or allowed to drain away into national projects with ideological trimmings. As regards the Commission's letter of amendment, I welcome the fact that the Commission has adopted some of Parliament's proposals from the first reading and, in particular that it is not making further cuts to export refunds. It is important for me to again emphasise, in conclusion, that the agriculture budget faces attack on two fronts. On one, the Council is attempting to use the agriculture sector to finance ever more new expenditure, and on the other, redeployment of funds to a second pillar yet to be defined means that farmers are losing out on payments from the first pillar that generate income. Both of these things I regard as unfair and would like to take this opportunity to make this abundantly clear.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, at a more mundane level, I should like to support those who are complaining about the change in time of voting in one regard. When the bell rang – and I did hear it in my office – I looked to the screen to see what was happening. And what did I see, but my esteemed colleague, Mr Harbour, speaking with great authority on the issue in hand with no indication that the votes were to follow next. For all I knew, it could have been a fire alarm or something else. Perhaps the screens could have given us better information about what was coming?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too wish to associate myself with the words of my colleague, Mr Herbert Bösch, congratulating Mrs Langenhagen on the content of her report, and say that the issue of simplifying these programmes and making them more transparent – and this is discussed in the report by the Court of Auditors – is by far the most important and decisive issue for their success. I think that when we embark on a process of creating new agencies – and I believe that several dozen agencies are now being thought of to create programmes on a similar scale – I think that before embarking on this process, we ought to think very carefully about the problems we want to resolve, if an agency is indeed to be different and will resolve issues that these scientific and technical offices have not been able to resolve. I think that what is more important than thinking about the agencies is considering how to make this entire matter more straightforward, accessible and uniform in all the Member States so that everything can be processed more rapidly, both in terms of payments, as expounded on by Mr Bösch, and also in terms of the concept of the programme itself. And this invitation to consider the matter is particularly what I wanted to convey to the Commission.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, allow me a final remark on Ireland. Is it not strange that those Members of Parliament who speak most about national independence are the same ones who lead massive foreign intervention in elections in other countries? I look forward to asking them on Wednesday what it is they want. Do they want to weaken Ireland the same way they weakened Denmark ten years ago? I warn against that. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Thank you very much, Commissioner, for that comprehensive answer. Can I assume from your answer that the Commission still believes that constructive engagement has any value? After the catalogue of terrible events that you have just given us, it seems to me that constructive engagement has seen its day. Do you not think that we should now be exploring other ways of tackling the problem of our relations in Burma? Should we not be looking at investment issues as the French Government are doing? Should we not be challenging the whole tourism issue as the British Government has been doing? If the European Union is not prepared to call for economic sanctions then why not, for instance, suggest that the SPDC should be challenged in the UN and its legitimacy as the Government of Burma challenged in the UN General Assembly? I wonder if you consider that a viable option for the Commission and the Council at this time?

Political group: PSE
We have had a lengthy debate in this house on the patenting of biotechnology. I myself, together with other Green deputies, warned of the consequences at the time. Specifically, I warned that to make patents on human genes or part of human genes would jeopardise the freedom of research and impede the progress of medicine. Genetic information can only be discovered, it cannot be invented. Commercialisation of the knowledge of the human genome, which has been accumulated by research in many parts of the world, would jeopardise the medical application of this important scientific knowledge about the human body and its functions. The human genome and its sequences should not be patentable. The granting of this patent by the European Patent Office is deeply shocking and must be revoked.

Political group: Verts-ALE