GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I think those of you who know me in this House, will know that I am not one to make a fuss. But this is a big public health issue and I want to speak firstly from personal experience. Last autumn, following the first session back after the summer, I was very ill for some four weeks, culminating in a week in hospital. Those who looked after me told me that as far as they were concerned it was legionella. I was in no doubt that I caught it when I came back to this Parliament after the summer recess. A number of other colleagues have told me that they had had similar, though not such severe, symptoms. The problem is that we all go back to our own doctors in our various home towns and therefore any links between our symptoms and this House are perhaps lost. I feel that we have to take this extremely seriously. It is not just our health, but the health of our staff and the many visitors in this House that is at risk. I am told we will not have hot water. If we do not have hot water, how can food be prepared safely and hygienically on these premises? I thought very carefully about coming this week. I decided that of course I should come. We have a democratic duty to be here and perform our duties. But if anyone going away from this House this week, Member, staff or visitor, has symptoms, then those that run this House will be guilty of having let us come here this week and it will be their responsibility.

Political group: ELDR
Commissioner, I have some very simple questions for you, which require just a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer in each case. Can you guarantee that the Commission will not seek, under any circumstances, to use qualified majority voting to impose the withholding tax? Can you give the same guarantee in relation to the proposed tax on aircraft fuel, which was discussed in ECOFIN this week, and can you give the same guarantee in relation to corporation tax in the European Union? Are there any circumstances where the Commission would seek to use qualified majority voting on any of those issues? Can you guarantee that the Commission will not use qualified majority voting on any of those issues?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mrs Ayuso has carried out an important piece of parliamentary work with this report. I, too, am in favour of the benefit to be gained through this measure by a fellow Member State as dear to me as Portugal. This is all positive. On the other hand, I am against and in fact I condemn the way in which the Council has proceeded. It is reprehensible that the Council of Ministers should have decided on these disgraceful advantages, aimed at softening the blow of Agenda 2000. I am not surprised that the Council is absent. It dare not show its face for it is ashamed by this grand finale, this final distribution of shameful perks, or should we say this muddle to end all muddles? For this is the way in which the Council of Ministers has proceeded with regard to the how, when and why of this measure. We said as much on 14 June when we told President Aznar that he was failing to defend the interests of Spain and that he was damaging Spain’s representation with this attitude. This is still true. As far as this House is concerned, these are facts confirmed by the vote in Council and we are left to point out that this measure has caused great concern among producers in the other Member States. We must also stress that this exceptional measure is not provided for in the Regulation and that other Member States have also suffered bad weather at times but they have not had the advantage which Portugal is now enjoying. This advantage amounts to an increase in the Portuguese concentrate quota of 83,468 tonnes for the marketing year 1999-2000, plus other benefits for the marketing year 2000-2001, including retroactive quota increases, for example those of 1997 and 1998, of 83,468 tonnes as supplementary amounts. An ad hoc budget is authorised for all this. For the year 2000 this will amount to over P 500 million – ESP 532 million to be exact – which is equivalent to EUR 3.2 million. So, congratulations to Portugal and shame on the Council. The rapporteur has been very explicit but has no understanding of why we have a regulation which is a tangle of incomprehensibilities and exceptions. The Council has worsened it instead of improving it.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on the evening of 12 August, my daughter bought a camera in my home town of Döbelin, population 28 000. Three hours later, the shop no longer existed. The same applies to 1 425 homes in the district and 711 businesses. And of course, schools, scientific establishments and, above all, public infrastructures were seriously affected and, to put it bluntly, agriculture is staring ruin in the face. As we have already heard, 220 000 hectares were flooded and the provisional estimates of flood damage to farming are enormous. Mrs Fiebiger has quoted the figures. Worst of all is the loss of animal fodder, mainly as the result of the grain lost. Governments and the European Union have already given a considerable sum of money in initial emergency aid. And quite apart from that, the Commissioner responsible, Franz Fischler, with whom I am in constant personal contact, and again may I express thanks to him for that, has ordered EUR 560 million to be paid in the form of direct payments to farmers, although the final figure will be higher because, according to my information, regions in Mecklenburg and Vorpommern have now been included. As you have already heard, set-aside areas have been provided, together with cheap grain for animal fodder. My request, or rather my question is this: have these EUR 560 million really been available since 1 September? To hear that from you in person, my dear Mr Fischler, would be music to the ears of the victims. Because make no mistake. This is a national emergency and, although the regions affected must make every effort to deal with it, they will be stretched beyond their financial limits. Dealing with this disaster in the short-, medium- and long-term is therefore the job of these regions, the national governments and the European Union. And action must be taken quickly because the people affected are in urgent need of financial support. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Thank you, Mr President. Giving concrete form to the equal rights of homosexual employees of the European institutions appears to be turning into a never-ending story. Nevertheless, this House wishes to see European institutions playing an exemplary role in equal treatment, with no distinction made as to the sexual orientation of staff. The European Parliament has twice pronounced in favour of establishing the same conditions of employment in the case of lasting relationships between people of the same sex as for married couples. Yet adequate arrangements for this have still not been made. My group cannot help feeling that within the hierarchy of the institutions, including those of this House, barriers are still being created against the introduction of equal conditions of employment for lesbians and gay men. We therefore eagerly await the wind of change brought by the reorganisation, now entering its final phase, which will need to clear out the old dust traps from this area too. My group is glad that, immediately after the Dutch Homosexual Marriage Act came into force, the responsible secretariat in the Commission recognised such marriages where civil servants employed by the Commission are concerned. Member States where Dutch officials may be posted who are married under Dutch law to a same-sex partner must not of course obstruct the issue of residence permits, not even if it involves subjects of third countries. My fellow MEP Mrs Buitenweg has asked questions on this matter. Your Commission should make sure that such obstruction does not occur. As yet we have had no answer from you. Can you, Commissioner, give us one today?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) recently awarded its World Press Freedom Prize to the Cuban journalist and writer Raúl Rivero. This incurred the usual wrath of the Cuban dictatorship and led to protests against UNESCO for giving this award to a writer and journalist who was sentenced to 20 years in prison, along with 74 other dissidents. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, after this House awarded the Sakharov Prize to Oswaldo Payá, and in so doing encouraged Cuban dissidents and the fight for freedom in Cuba, we cannot remain silent. We must make the point time and time again that Cuba must respect human rights and that the tyranny of the Cuban regime is outmoded and out of step. Mr President, I should like to ask you to communicate with the Cuban authorities and express our concern for the political prisoners’ health and at the fact that they are languishing in Cuban jails.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, you have heard the Commissioner’s request that the vote be delayed, that is, that it should not take place tomorrow. I must say that this situation disturbs me, because we are all working very quickly and the Commission seems to be saying that, since we are in a hurry, we must drive the car very slowly. On principle, I am always willing to discuss issues again. Firstly, I must thank the spokespeople of the different Groups for their support, although I believe that they are lending their support to a very modest position by the committee, almost a critical type of support, because the Committee on Development and Cooperation should have gone much further than it decided. I repeat: in principle, I would not be opposed, but I do not believe that Parliament is in favour of delaying the vote. I do not feel at the moment that Parliament wishes to delay the vote. That would mean inviting the Commissioner to the Committee on Development next week and postponing our decision until June. I would not be opposed to that and I do not reject that possibility. But I must say, Mr President, that it worries me profoundly that Parliament should have to take responsibility for prolonging something which, in fact, has been prolonged by all parties. Everyone has prolonged this process: the Council and the Commission. Now the pressure is on Parliament because we have been told that, if we do not accept the positions of the Council and of the Commission, the development programmes will come to a standstill, which would be terrible. I agree that it would be terrible if the cooperation programmes came to a standstill. However, Mr President, we should take note of who is being pressurised and who really bears the responsibility for prolonging this process and taking it to a third reading. Therefore, Mr President, I would ask you to examine whether it would be proper to consult Parliament tomorrow on whether or not to vote on our positions. If we do vote on them tomorrow, it will fall to the Council and the Commission to ensure that the situation is not prolonged, which would create serious difficulties for South Africa and our own dignity. We must ask ourselves whether we are here solely to accept, at any time and under any kind of pressure, what the Council or the Commission proposes. If that is the case, then Parliament is unnecessary and all our dignity as an institution has been lost. I am therefore not opposed to the vote being delayed for another month. I believe that it would be very dangerous to prolong this process, but, in any event, we must not take responsibility. The responsibility falls to those people who have dragged it out until now and who seem to want it to last even longer, perhaps because the issue of the designations of origin of wines and alcoholic drinks is being negotiated.

Political group: PSE
We voted for all the amendments which seek to extend protection and provide greater rights for refugees, and likewise for the report as amended. However, we protest against the passage which insists on States' 'prerogatives of immigration control and control of entry into their territory', thereby in fact restoring to them the right to impose restrictive measures.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I was the shadow rapporteur for the on this. What Mr Miranda says is correct, but it is misleading to say that is an amendment. As the notes in front of you say there was a mistake by the services and in fact the wording that was put in by both the and ourselves was not reflected in what was printed. Therefore Mr Miranda’s interpretation of what we should vote on is absolutely correct and I totally support him, but this is not a question of a further amendment. There was a genuine, technical error by the services. For absolute clarity, I have the wording here from the original. Missed off at the beginning of the amendment were the words “whereas Plan Colombia is not the process of dialogue amongst the various social partners and...” and then the rest remains.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, in the little time available I would like to give my personal impression, as representative of the Socialist Group at the Monterrey Conference – although I believe it is shared by all the parliamentary groups – of that Conference. This has been a Conference of contrasts. There are positive aspects which it would be unfair not to stress, but we must also recognise, as the Commissioner has done, that on certain aspects our expectations for this Conference have not been fulfilled and, of course, this Parliament’s expectations had been expressed by means of a resolution. On the one hand, to have a consensus document, drawn up previously in January in New York, has the positive effect of allowing the participants to dedicate their time to meetings and achieve very significant bilateral commitments, to participate in round tables. But, on the other hand, we also revealed what our weaknesses and limitations were and how far we were willing to go. We knew previously that certain issues might be put on the backburner, because for the sake of reaching a consensus, particularly with the United States, the European Union was going to give in. I believe that this has been a failing on the part of the Council: to demonstrate this weakness. Of course, it was not the European Union that was represented there; it was the European Commission, the delegation of the European Community, since the European Union does not yet have its own personality. The positive aspects include the commitment to a budgetary increase in development funds by Europe, as well as better coordination between the Member States, and the fact that the United States has also committed itself to increasing its contribution. Nevertheless, I believe we will have to continue working towards the next Johannesburg commitment, where we will have to define the issues relating to new sources of funding – which have not been discussed – to global resources – nothing has been agreed in this respect either – and also stress the need to listen more to developing countries and seek a solution to their foreign debt. We must commit ourselves to continuing to work towards Johannesburg, in order to fulfil the objectives of the Millennium Summit.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner De Palacio, I would also like to thank the rapporteur Mr Linkohr for an excellent report. Our group supports the main points of the report. The Union’s dependence on oil imports is increasing worryingly while, at the same time, the availability of oil is decreasing and its price rising. The goal of the Union’s overall strategy must be to seek to reduce Europe’s dependence on importing energy. At the same time effective dialogue is required with groupings of oil producing countries, exactly as stated in the report. In this context I would like to mention cooperation with Russia. Among other things the gas and oil resources of the Barents Sea area are an important reserve also in terms of European energy provision. The Union should also seek more decisively than previously to replace oil with other sources of energy. Renewable energy sources and biofuels in particular can replace part of oil consumption and at the same time promote the Kyoto objectives. This requires that the Union direct more of its resources than previously towards researching renewable energy and promoting its use. Nor should we overlook local renewable fuels whose renewability can be successfully proven, such as peat, cork waste and olive stones, for example, depending on the geographical area. An important means of reducing dependence on oil is also saving energy. One example is taking into account energy aspects to a greater extent in construction and transport. The simplest way of saving energy is to improve the energy efficiency of buildings by harmonising building regulations towards energy efficiency. At the same time, oil-based raw materials can be replaced by renewable materials such as wood, for example. In the transport sector, oil consumption can be reduced by better planning, new technology, environmentally-friendly means of transport and by investing in research into fuels to replace petrol.

Political group: ELDR
Money is earned from the production and sale of tobacco, but it shortens the lives of many people and makes them less healthy. Advertising that encourages people to start using tobacco products or to start using more of them is extremely damaging. In Directive 98/43/EC an attempt was rightly made to make advertising and sponsorship at European level impossible. According to the Court of Justice this is not allowed because Article 152(4) of the Treaty excludes the harmonisation of statutory and administrative provisions of the Member States for the protection and improvement of human health. Further proof that the EU is about free competition and economic growth, but not about the protection of human welfare. In the meantime the EU continues with its subsidies for Greek tobacco farmers. The solution now proposed of nothing more than the selective prohibition of tobacco advertising will lead to the companies concerned looking for the loopholes in the legislation to continue with their advertising. Lawyers and the courts will have their work cut out scanning the boundaries of these loopholes, in particular to decide what is or is not to be regarded as cross-border advertising. I therefore support the organisations that are objecting to this severely weakened proposal.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, it has, in fact, been possible once again to reach an agreement between all the political groups and to present a single motion for a resolution on Timor. This motion for a resolution is a clear signal to the international community that, in spite of the fact that news about Timor has disappeared from the major European newspapers and that it is no longer the leading item on the most important European television news broadcasts, the international community and the European Union must continue to be attentive to this problem. Firstly, because abuses of the human dignity and of the human rights of the Timorese who are refugees in other parts of Timor, particularly in West Timor, and who want to return to East Timor are still taking place. The Indonesian authorities must, as a matter of urgency, make humanitarian action possible, particularly on the part of non-governmental organisations. Secondly, there must be greater vigilance by the peacekeeping forces at the border so that those Timorese who do have the right to return to West Timor can do so safely. On the other hand, those responsible for the massacres and for the attacks on human life must be punished, not just to ensure that justice is done in Timor, but, indeed, to set an example for other parts of the world where, sadly, attacks on dignity and, above all, on life, which we feel is an inalienable right, still exist and continue to take place. Finally, Mr President, our intention is for the Commission and the Council to match the condemnations and political speeches with an appropriate expression of financial and technical support for the process of independence and the reconstruction of East Timor. This is why the Socialist Group supports this resolution and this was what I wanted to say.

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, I really do not envy you. Quite apart from the many compliments and congratulations you have received in this House, I do not envy you because, I regret to say, you have come here today to declare the failure of a policy. At least from the human point of view, therefore, you have my heartfelt sympathy. How have you declared the failure of the fisheries policy? In a nutshell, you said that we had spent money on reducing the fishing effort, and we see that these funds have, in actual fact, served to increase it; you said that we had spent money on preserving fish stocks, and – on the basis of the figures you have disclosed, although we were not able to see them – fish stocks have become completely impoverished; you said we had spent money on limiting the social impact on this sector in terms of employment, and today you have told us that 66 thousand jobs have been lost and 28 thousand are likely to be lost in the future. Well then, Commissioner, there is one initial question that has, in any case, to be asked: Why, if these were the results – and these results were plain for you to see – has the Commission so persistently defended this common fisheries policy for so long? This is a very pertinent question. I realise and I can see from the proposals you have put forward that an attempt is being made to change this approach, but I will not go into details as we are wont to do on specific proposals for there is no time for that now. I will just make one, very strong recommendation, that I would like the Commission to take into consideration: we must not repeat our past error; we must not see fishermen as the enemies of sustainable development, the enemies of the endeavour to preserve a balance. They are our main allies, they are your main allies. If we – if you, first and foremost – do not involve them in defining the goals and managing the rules we set in place, then no goal will be achievable. Regionalisation is one of the key requirements from this point of view, for our attempt to manage this policy through centralisation has failed. There is another subject I care deeply about: the Mediterranean. You have not presented to us today the proposals which had been announced as imminent. When you do so, I will endeavour to understand the situation and to express my opinion and the opinion of my country on that part of fisheries policy too.

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, obviously, I am still French and I am still in favour of the precautionary principle. I have already had the opportunity to ask you a number of questions, which have still not been answered, particularly regarding the varying assessments offered by scientists. Consequently, today, as a Member of the European Parliament, I find it hard to see the difference between your experts and the French experts. Professor Dormont’s work on prions has, I believe, met with international recognition. He is not a person who is working on behalf of a specific lobby or in opposition to a specific lobby. He is simply doing what the consumers, the voters and people of France asked him to, i.e. applying the precautionary principle for the sake of food safety. He is only doing his job. The French Government which set up this food agency is doing nothing more than acting on the requests of the citizens of France. We have not, then, had any response regarding the varying assessments of the scientists, and I would like to hear your answer to this.

Political group: Verts-ALE