GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, there is a moral obligation for the European Union and the individual Member States to make every effort to combat AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. Twenty thousand deaths per day or more than seven million deaths per year are horrific figures. We are reminded of the Black Death that raged here in Europe during the Middle Ages. The Black Death is back. Forty-one per cent of the world’s population is in danger of being infected with malaria. In the light of, for example, the UN’s millennium objectives and the G8 Summit in Evian on sustainable development, I want to say to Mr Nielson that no effort should be spared in helping people hit by malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS, and in preventing these diseases. We are in actual fact concerned here with rearming the whole of civilisation on this earth. Women must no longer be exploited, sexually degraded and exposed to a form of slavery that is completely unworthy of a society that is both modern and civilised. Throughout the world, men need to begin recognising the dignity of women. What is needed is a society marked by a new and more potent dispensation in which men show respect for women and for human dignity. I want to call upon Commissioner Nielson to get involved in lifestyle issues, especially when it comes to the male lifestyle that, especially where the spread of HIV/AIDS is concerned, degrades women and contributes to the completely immoral spread of this disease.

Political group: PPE-DE
This proposal puts economic growth above equality for all. America is taken as a case in point, worshipping as it does at the shrine of venture capital and profits. It pins its hope on the model-function of multinationals in the fields of biotechnology and health care. Opting for direct government aid when acquiring risk-bearing starting capital for innovative companies means that this aid must mainly be funded by those paying taxes and pension premiums. This proposal sees companies first and foremost as benefactors, which have the welfare of society as a whole in mind and must be remunerated for it accordingly. In reality, they often have more in common with gamblers who hope to tap into goldmines. It is only natural then that they should carry the entrepreneurial risk themselves, rather than passing some of it on to the community. My colleague Mrs Armonie Bordes cuttingly pointed out yesterday that only a minority benefit from deploying community capital and pension premiums for entrepreneurial risks. Those on the lowest incomes suffer the most. As I see it, that is a good reason not to vote in favour of the agreement. - Resolution 'Charter on Fundamental Rights' (B5-0767/2000)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the question actually referred to illegal immigration but, in this context, I should like to ask the Commissioner whether he sees that immigration is the other side of the coin of development and whether he understands that we are talking about many illegal immigrants who come from Morocco and from throughout northern Africa. How can we accept the contradiction that the MEDA Programme has been shrinking in the current three-year period and that the reduction in the preliminary draft budget for 2003 is quite drastic – 470% less in real terms? Does the Commissioner not see that this is crazy and that in order to combat this illegal immigration we have to undertake development programmes on the other side of the Mediterranean?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr Izquierdo Collado is quite right to recall the obligation of transport policy to contribute to balanced development and to economic and social cohesion. In fact, when thinking about and outlining a transport policy it must be realised that this is a sector of strategic importance and a service of public interest that must serve basic objectives. No less importantly, account must be taken of people’s right to mobility that is safe, affordable and of high quality. Giving priority to modes of transport that are compatible with the environment also warrants our agreement although we must immediately highlight the contradiction between this statement of principle and the way in which the report favours roads. Nevertheless, I also wish to state that on some fundamental aspects, we are moving far away from the Commission White Paper and also from the report by Mr Izquierdo Collado because the report does not distance itself sufficiently from the White Paper on these aspects. In particular, we do not agree with and even reject the leap forwards represented by the constant support for liberalisation, for opening up the markets in the transport sector, as if this were a panacea that could resolve all the difficult situations that have been building up over the years and which have led to the subordination of public transport to private transport and to the degradation of that service. To date no study has been produced and no one has been able to prove that opening up transport to competition can resolve the sector’s problems. On the contrary, where liberalisation has taken place, the results prove that exactly the opposite is true. This is why we have these railway and aviation accidents, which are basically caused by the lack of investment in equipment and in safety, or because of redundancies and the deterioration of employees’ social conditions. Furthermore, the idea that guaranteeing the existence of various operators of these lines or routes leads to an initial situation of apparent openness systematically ends up creating real monopolies. The current discussion with regard to the air transport sector is enlightening on this matter. Finally, I do not think it is acceptable, in the aim of ensuring high-quality and safe transport, for States only to have infra-structures in which they have to invest heavily and that the same States still subsidise – using money from the public purse – companies that will provide services and that these ultimately collect the profits from operating these services. This is certainly a profitable business for these companies. The same is not true, however, for public operators.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, we Socialists welcome Mr Maat’s report, on which I would like to make the following comments. As young people’s health is always of very great importance to us, we should be building up the school milk programme, rather than virtually freezing its current funding in the way that the Council has decided. Existing funds will not be enough for ten new Member States, and adequate funding for rural areas and their development, along with assuring the quality of food production, are equally indispensable. This is another area in which money must flow, and it is also important that it should be possible to move from measures to regulate the market to support for rural areas, which, at present a fragile sapling, may thus be enabled to put down strong roots and to flourish. As rapporteur of the temporary committee on foot and mouth disease, I can see that the enlargement of the European Union means that there must be significantly more investment in the prevention of epizootics. I am glad to hear Commissioner Fischler tell Mr Byrne that more money should find its way into research, as a calamity such as the one we have witnessed in Great Britain must not be allowed to happen again. What I would say in general terms to the Council is that trimming budgets as if you were mowing the lawn serves no useful purpose whatever, for the agricultural budget is not a quarry to be worked for the benefit of this or that other project. The right road ahead does not go by way of across-the-board cuts, and this House wants what was provided for in the Convention’s draft constitution – full powers of codecision and the abolition of the clear-cut dividing line between compulsory and non-compulsory expenditure. You can be certain that expert decision-making in both the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee on Budgets would then be guaranteed beyond doubt. Thank you for your attention. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I cannot deny that this issue is extremely tricky for the . The problem of phthalates in children’s toys is receiving wide public attention and the campaign which focuses on this problem, largely in the hands of Greenpeace, can be termed extremely successful. This is only natural and right, of course, because children are helpless and are entitled to protection. We know that phthalates in animal trials – in itself not a very pleasant thought – proved harmful, and we can therefore assume that they will be harmful to people, too. But we do not know to what extent they would be harmful, or in what dosage. Neither do we know for which application they are harmful or whether there are alternatives, and how harmful these would be and in what form. As there is no usable test, the question arises as to the basis on which we pursue our policy? As far as this is concerned, we cannot shake off the impression that this decision is premature in a way. But anyway, it is now before us. Phthalates are intended to soften PVC toys, but the substances leach out, certainly if the toys are chewed, as they in fact are by small children, of course. As far as we know, not many alternatives appear viable either. We value the assertive course which our rapporteur has taken and we therefore back the thrust of his proposal, that is to say we endorse a ban on this type of toy for children under the age of three, provided it is extensive. If we go for this option, then we should at least be consistent. In our view, therefore, this ban should apply to all toys, not just those intended for sucking and chewing. We also believe that we should look into toys for older children, although we should still have this option available once the test methods are there. I am interested to see what the European Commission’s opinion would be on this. What do you think of these test methods and what is your view on revising these regulations once they are there? We are in favour of a ban on the six tested phthalates, but are as yet unable to ban all the other phthalates and softeners, which may indeed be harmful. This may well be possible at the time when we have more data available that demonstrates that they are actually harmful. We have insufficient data available at this stage to establish this. On a final note, how far do we take the precautionary principle at the end of the day? As far as we are concerned, the principle should not mean that we simply reject everything we are not completely sure about at the moment.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, strengthening consumer confidence is indeed essential to the development of the internal market, as you, Commissioner, have pointed out. Yet that confidence is based on consumers’ ability to conclude, without incurring any legal or economic risk, all kinds of commercial transactions, in particular by means of new electronic trading procedures. The systems for preventing and penalising infringements of consumer laws currently in force in Member States generally function in the context of national markets, but are unsuitable for use at Community level. This deficiency obviously works to the advantage of unscrupulous operators, to the detriment of consumers and honest traders. We can, therefore, only welcome the Commission’s initiative, which consists in setting up a network of authorities which are able to cooperate with one another in order to rid the internal market of dubious practices, although I, for one, would have preferred us to opt for a network that would be completely public in nature, along the lines of the committee’s original proposal. Bearing in mind the need to take into account the diversity of Community practices and the urgent need to make this instrument available, however, I believe it is reasonable to adopt the compromise which has been achieved, in particular thanks to the work of our rapporteur. I would therefore like to express the hope that a real spirit of mutual assistance will prevail in the cooperation between Member States.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, first of all, I too congratulate Mrs Figueireido on her work, which was approved unanimously, moreover, in committee, and on the innovative nature of her report on the establishment of a Community programme to combat social exclusion. I therefore support the rapporteur in stressing that the programme, or rather the programme's role, will facilitate greater social cohesion where the poor and the marginalised are concerned. As is stated in the amendments which I tabled in committee and which were subsequently adopted, I am convinced that an effective, practical fight against poverty must take place according to a timetable of events and targets. In fact, a programme with in-built deadlines and checks is easier to assess in terms of quantity and quality. It must be taken into consideration that over 65 million people in the European Union – 7.5 million of which live in my country, Italy – live on a low income, and a low income in Italy, Commissioner, means a family living on an income of EUR 750. These figures suggest that the budget made available for the programme will be totally insufficient. I therefore call for it to be increased. Mr President, I will end by stressing once again that mutual support between States must be the reference point upon which we base a fresh fight against poverty and social exclusion, but we must take into account the fact that the economic progress of the Member States, and therefore an improvement in their welfare due to the implementation of a social economy of scale, will certainly facilitate the achievement of a greater, better system of social justice.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the resolution by the Green Group was tabled first. It is perfectly correct that we should vote on that text first as we reached a compromise with a number of other groups. Indeed, Members throughout this House have supported it. I hope they will do so during the vote – even some Members of political groups who have not supported that compromise – because the situation at Sellafield is serious.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, we are dealing with the first report sent to us by OLAF and I would like to thank Mr Bösch for the excellent work he has presented to us. The most interesting parts of his work are surely those which refer to the subject of the report, that is to say 1998, and OLAF, the body which is presenting its first piece of work. I agree that this report perhaps prejudges certain aspects which should be subject to further debates in the Committee on Budgetary Control and in this House, but I would like to highlight the positive aspects of its contribution. With reference to 1998, I believe that we should recognise that, after having intensified the task of control, which should be initiated by Parliament and which OLAF carries out, the number of cases of fraud and irregularities has stabilised. Without relaxing our efforts to control expenditure – of which we have shown signs in the past – we can see that this stabilisation has been the result of an increase in control. We should therefore be pleased about this and hope that this work continues, so that cases of fraud can be reduced rather than merely stabilised. It is clear that, in fundamental fraud, there are discrepancies between what the Court of Auditors says and what OLAF says. In OLAF’s judgement, it appears that it is not in the Structural Funds that fraud and bad management prevail. It is other expenditure that we should be concerned about. In any event, returning to OLAF, by means of this report, we should, in my view, ask for OLAF to be provided as soon as possible with the officials which have been allocated to it. However, I think it is very important that, in this first stage – precisely because we are interested in control – we do not increase OLAF’s scope of activity so soon after it has begun its work. I understand that there are and there will be – although we hope that this is not the case – great problems with the counterfeiting of currency, trademarks or VAT. It is essential that we allow OLAF to continue to pursue its scope of activity little by little and that we expand its role at a later date. Finally, we should not duplicate responsibilities. In order to use resources correctly, one body should be responsible for each issue and we should not have a situation where everybody is responsible for everything. I therefore believe that we should clearly separate objectives and not allow confusion to reign. At the end of the day 'he that too much embraceth, holds little', as we say in Spain, so if we want to manage control, we cannot all have the same objective.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, there is a fundamental requirement that should always be made of a constitution, irrespective of whether it is a national constitution or the constitution of the European Union. That requirement is clarity: clarity when it comes both to the distribution of power and to well-defined competences. As a Swede, I have an unhappy experience of the devising of constitutions. When the Swedish constitution – our fundamental law – was adopted, far too many questions were left unanswered. The Swedish Parliament – the Riksdag – was given more or less unlimited power to take decisions on just about every issue on the basis of a simple majority. Thanks to a unique Swedish tradition, freedom of expression and freedom of the press retained their strong position, but the political authorities were given the go-ahead to put their fingers into every pie. This mistake of Sweden’s must not be repeated in a constitution for the European Union. The most important thing must be to devise a clear catalogue of competences explaining which tasks are to be carried out by the EU and which are to be carried out at national, or some other, level. There are proposals to make social issues with shared competence matters for the EU. As I see it, that would be an historic mistake. Such issues are best dealt with by each individual Member State. Moreover, I see no other way of proceeding in an enlarged EU with a huge range of economic conditions from one country to the next. In the same way, all essential aspects of economic policy must remain the responsibility of the Member States. The euro is the Member States’ common responsibility, implying budgetary discipline. Taxes and decisions on expenditure must, however, remain the responsibility of the individual nations. There are large differences between one country and another, and flexibility is required. Low taxes will be the new Member States’ only chance of gradually catching up economically with the current Member States. On the issue of the distribution of power, it is important for us not to provide the EU with several presidents or institutional chairmen. That would scarcely contribute to a more effective EU. The rotating Presidency of the Council is also important if the Member States are to be able to feel they belong together. It is also a unique opportunity for small Member States too to influence the work of the EU. I therefore want to urge the Convention and the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference to be very careful in establishing the shape of the future EU and the way in which it is to operate.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to congratulate the Belgian Presidency, as I think that the excellent way in which the Ghent European Council fulfilled its duties and its responsibilities is a positive and hopeful sign that our institutions are working well. I believe that this European Council was worthwhile, and was acting perfectly within its powers, in other words, in the role of providing guidance. I would like to make three points in relation to this. The first point concerns the issues that are called JHA in our jargon. These issues involve a great deal of intense and difficult work, and the Ministers for Home Affairs and Ministers for Justice of each of our Member States will not be able to make progress on these, unless they have before them bold proposals such as those that Commissioner Vitorino made, and unless they are constantly reminded of the political direction favoured by the European Council. These are difficult subjects, which require will and political determination in order to make progress. Thank you, Mr President, for giving these conclusions. As for the economic situation, I think that the European Council worked hard to point out where the room for discussion between the economic and monetary authorities must be. If we really want to put in place a policy to support growth, and this is, without doubt, necessary for the European Union, we need everyone to shoulder their responsibilities, to fully utilise the room for manoeuvre in the Stability and Growth Pact and in the monetary policy, to mobilise the European Investment Bank, so that we finally get across the idea that this is a major undertaking, even if it means going back to square one. This is also the direction that you described, in relation to the launch of the WTO negotiations. We must not, however, forget our responsibilities, the contribution we can make, for example, to a subject as important as that of cancelling the debts of developing countries. The third area on which you gave some guidelines, and I would like to thank you for doing so, is that of cross-border payments. Mr President, I would like to draw your attention to the delicate issue of cheques. At a time when we are changing over to the euro, we know that these cheques are used primarily by vulnerable sectors of society. So, let us stop creating obstacles and let things take their course, as, for once, we are not in a great rush. Lastly, Mr President, you stated that you hope the question of Europe’s position on the world stage will be discussed openly at Laeken. And Mr Prodi, you asked if Europe was absent from the world stage. No, Europe is not absent! Europe did everything it could do and everything it should have done. The only difficulty is that Europe is not always heard that is the problem. At Durban, we made ourselves heard, but when it comes to having a real influence on the political, diplomatic and military situation, we still lack the support from the European Union. We are expecting a great deal from the Convention in this respect.

Political group: PSE