GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
May I say to my fellow Member that only Hans Peter Martin, and no one else, can verify signatures. That is the one thing, but I seriously wanted ... (Uproar) (FR) Seriously, I should first like to say something about the motion of censure. Mr Barón Crespo’s question relating to the legal basis is quite apposite. A motion of censure must be supported by 10% of Members. Does this mean 10% of MEPs today, or 10% of the MEPs after 1 May? Because if it is 10% of Parliament after 1 May, that means a greater number of Members than if it is 10% of Parliament today. If the vote is taken on 5 May with the Members of 1 May, voting cannot be allowed on the basis of a figure of 10% of the MEPs today. That is illogical and legally untenable. It has, therefore, got to be one thing or the other; either the vote is taken with Parliament as it is today – although you have rightly said that this is not possible – or Mr Bonde must be told that, for his vote of censure to be valid, he must get together 10% of the Members of this House as it is constituted on 5 May and not today’s Parliament. That is the first thing. (Applause) I am sorry, Mr Bonde, but I am censuring you, who wish to censure everyone, for your lack of knowledge of the Treaties. (Applause) Secondly, Mr Bonde – and in saying this I am also addressing the members of my group who have signed this motion of censure – I consider it the responsibility of this Parliament not to appear completely foolish by having us believe that a motion of censure tabled at the end of a legislative period is a political act. It is a hypocritical act in the face of electors who are completely baffled by it. (Applause) I am, therefore, appealing publicly to the sense of responsibility of the members of my group and asking them to withdraw their signatures from a completely foolish political document. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the opinion of the Committee on Budgets and that of the more or less coincide. This is purely accidental. I will therefore not repeat what I said in the first two minutes. All these points which I mentioned are also backed by the . I would like to add a few more points, however. We are living in an era in which the agricultural budget is extremely tight. The slightest movement in the dollar and euro rates would get us into great difficulty. This being the case, the Commission will have to make a choice as to what to do with the money that is available. Potentially, however, there is another very large gap. Over the past few years, we have been faced with outbreaks of epidemics of infectious animal diseases. We had the BSE crisis in Europe and several European countries suffered from swine fever outbreaks. These combined outbreaks have cost the European budget billions. It has so far been possible to finance them from categories other than the agricultural budget. It was agreed in Berlin that this can no longer be the case. If I am not mistaken, the agricultural budget only comprises one item of approximately EUR 100 million for the control of animal diseases. This is peanuts compared to what was needed in the past to control outbreaks of infectious diseases. This is why the is expressly asking the Commission to produce proposals as soon as possible for coping with any disasters. One of the options is possibly to set up an insurance system throughout Europe, which would also promote fair competition. In anticipation of the budgetary discussions in September, we would like the Commission to provide us with the necessary data so that we can take this into consideration in the discussions of the budgets for the year 2001.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Mrs Peijs, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission’s communication on the development of short sea shipping in Europe and the very good report on it by Mrs Peijs give a realistic picture of the development of this environmentally-friendly mode of transport in Europe over the past two years. The development and promotion of short sea shipping are a particularly important step on the way to developing a system of multimodal transport for the European Union and bordering regions. Efficiency, cost-effectiveness, environmental compatibility and sustainability distinguish this form of transport from road transport and can offer a serious alternative in coastal regions. However, it is also most important to improve the cooordination between the various modes of transport so as to bring out the specific strengths of each of them most effectively. That is why the public and private sector must adopt a range of European, national and regional aid measures to adapt and develop the ports, which are the nerve centre of the transport chain, and target these measures at the specific requirements. Furthermore; it is important to adapt the related technical and organisational aspects, such as administrative formalities and documents, customs and embarkation procedures, to ensure the rapid and smooth change from one mode of transport to another and from one country to another. Other support measures should include special incentives for the development of innovative technologies, special pre-embarkation terminals for short sea shipping and integrating the ports in the development strategy for the coastal regions. This is an important means of strengthening economic and social cohesion and the links between the centres and the peripheral areas in the European Union. The integration of short sea shipping in the logistics chain of door-to-door delivery can be an effective means of sustaining the growing economic cooperation between the EU and its neighbouring states and satisfying the growing need for transport that accompanies it.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I have a very brief point to make, Mr President, which is that I have not received an answer to my questions regarding depleted uranium weapons and munitions. Could the President-in-Office of the Council confirm whether or not he is able to give me an answer?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the President-in-Office mentioned a forthcoming decision about putting some documents of the Council in the public domain on the Internet. Does the Council intend to respect fully the decision of the Ombudsman whereby, if I understand it correctly, all Council documents have to be made available to the public and not just some?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the Kirkhope report is not a contribution towards a progressive common policy on asylum and refugees. The obligation laid down in the Schengen Convention to return passengers, a practice that has failed and has quite rightly been condemned by church and human rights organisations, is to be extended and tightened. Airline staff are already being forced into the role of auxiliary police as a result of it. The Member States are simply creating the conditions that guarantee the profits of the gangs that engage in human trafficking. If carriers who fail to meet their so-called obligations will in future be expected to pay a fine of up to EUR 5 000, one can imagine where this will lead. The EU will become even more of a community of closed doors. This is surely not the way in which we want to deal with refugees and immigrants in future. More than 2 000 people lost their lives last year on the external borders of the Union, according to the estimates of the anti-racist human rights organisation UNITED. This is a situation that is intolerable in the extreme. If we want to go down the road of common European framework legislation in matters relating to asylum, then we must also see to it that asylum-seekers are able to come to us. Otherwise, any directive, even one that is formally based on the Geneva Convention on refugees, is not worth the paper it is written on and fundamentally violates the spirit of the Convention. Please allow me to conclude with a remark about my own country. Unfortunately, the German Interior Minister today is one of the most important protagonists for a European policy of closed doors. (Applause) Germany is blocking efforts in almost all areas to make refugee and immigration policy more humane. Every proposal from the Commission that moves in this direction is rejected by the German Interior Minister. A proposal like the one we have before us on the table today would undoubtedly be supported without reservation by Mr Schily, since he breathes the spirit of defensive measures and tightened controls. I call upon all of you here not to allow the spirit of a Europe of closed doors and defences against people who seek our help to win the day. Vote against the Kirkhope report!

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur. If we try to complicate the work of the open-source community, software houses, those toiling away on their own and small associations by extending patentability, we shall be destroying the whole basis of the information society. Innovations that benefit all of us, such as Linux, show just how big an issue this is: it is about narrowing the digital divide. Of course, copyright already protects software codes. Software patents have their downside in that designers can by no means always know they are infringing patents and may indeed become liable for damages on a huge scale. The limits of patentability must be defined in such a way that programs, algorithms and business methods are, as such, precluded from patentability, and so that patents may not be used to hinder competition. We support small-scale entrepreneurship in this sector.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, a while ago, I received a serious meniscus injury. I turned to the health service and was told that I had to wait three weeks for an examination and then at least a further month for a crucial operation. I said, 'I can hardly walk! I need help straight away. Can I not be admitted as an emergency patient?' I received the answer, 'Everyone in the queue is an emergency case'. It then appeared that there was in fact a way of getting in. I was suddenly informed that, if I had private health insurance or if I could pay the whole cost myself, then I could be examined immediately and be treated by the same doctor I should otherwise be forced to wait two months to be treated by. I am rather ashamed to admit it, but I chose that solution. I was operated on immediately, and that is why I am able to be here today. Otherwise, I should have been at home with my leg in plaster. It nonetheless leaves a bad taste in the mouth, because each time a private patient jumps the queue, as I did, other people have to wait longer with their problems. It is, of course, the same doctor, the same nurses, the same hospitals and the same resources in the health care sector which are to be used, irrespective of whether it is ordinary or private patients who are being treated. This means that the bigger the health insurance sector becomes, the fewer resources there are left for general health care. I think it is completely wrong that it should be money which decides who goes to the front of the queue. If we acquire an extended system of supplementary insurance for those who can pay, or who have employers who can pay, then we get what the report talks about, namely a distinction between basic care for 'ordinary people' and high-quality care for those who can pay. My group believes that this class-determined type of organisation must be objected to. We want to see common arrangements which are based on the principle of solidarity and are the same for everyone. It is, of course, good that, as Mr Rocard proposes, the attempt should be made to supervise existing schemes, but what is most important of all is that private systems should not be allowed to expand at the expense of public systems.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we are here today to debate the first of two reports on modifying the statute and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman’s duties. I apologise to the House for being tempted at the end of the afternoon at the end of this part-session to take some of my longings for home as my inspiration for the debate on this report. If we think about it, as in relations with children, there comes a point in the process of the birth and growth of institutions that develop within others when we have to show, through our actions, that we acknowledge their independence. The time has now come to acknowledge that the institution of the ‘European Ombudsman’ is sufficiently grown up and has shown sufficient signs of maturity to have its own budget. Although, in the early stages, it seemed right and proper to have the independence of the Ombudsman’s mandate and actions coexist with a dependency on the financial resources of the European Parliament budget, today this no longer makes sense. What we are now proposing is precisely that this separation should be acknowledged, as in the Council regulation of December 1999, approving the creation of a specific section for the Ombudsman in the general budget of the European Communities. This was a fundamental step forwards, as the Ombudsman was considered to be an independent institution in terms of the application of the Financial Regulation. This step was nothing more than the acknowledgement that the growing visibility of an institution which was born and which grew out of the need to bring European citizens closer to the life of the Community institutions also needs financial independence in order to take full responsibility for the budgetary provisions it makes and considers appropriate for the material and human resources necessary to ensure the proper discharge of its worthy duties. We therefore now need to adapt its statute to the Financial Regulation and propose that two articles be deleted – Article 12 and Article 16 of Parliament’s 1994 decision – which, as we all know, approved the general conditions of the performance of the European Ombudsman’s duties. These rules stopped reflecting the budgetary situation after the last amendment to the Community Financial Regulation. We therefore need to recognise that this does not correspond to the real situation and approve its deletion. Given that we will soon have to apply ourselves in this Parliament to fundamental changes to the statute of the European Ombudsman, which are still being discussed in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, to whose report I have been given access and which addresses the issue of extending the Ombudsman’s powers of investigation, we will wait until then for a complete, qualitative revision of the text of that statute. Before I finish, Mr President, I wish to take this opportunity to welcome the rapporteur, Mr Söderman, and congratulate him on his work on fighting maladministration and thereby also bringing European citizens closer to the life of the Community institutions.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, just now you had to announce some extremely sad news. Here, however, is a happier piece of news, and I believe I can speak for us all in expressing our relief and joy at the release, at long last, of the French journalist, Brice Fleutiaux, after more than eight months of being held captive by Chechen kidnappers. I should like to pay tribute to his courage, but also to his clear-sightedness, because, even in his initial statements, he drew a clear distinction between his kidnappers and the Chechen people as a whole. Many of us had some concerns for developments over the next few weeks, since the forthcoming summer recess appeared likely to lead to a decline in the competent political authorities’ interest in the matter, and a consequent decline in the efforts undertaken. We therefore planned to invite Brice Fleutiaux’s brother to visit the European Parliament, and he was happy to do so, as well as the journalists’ unions, who were, likewise, ready to do so, and indeed, Madam President, you gave your personal endorsement to ensure the success of this initiative. I should like to thank you for that. Fortunately we have no further need for this initiative, but I think we would be happy to welcome Brice Fleutiaux, should he wish to visit the European Parliament, this time as a free man and a man of honour. ***

Political group: GUE-NGL
May I welcome the reform of the Council itself and especially the agreed programme designed to improve the performance and coordinating role of the General Affairs Council. The extension of European Union competence into the defence field accentuates the need for improvements of the working of the Council. It also requires the European Parliament to extend its own scope to the defence field, especially when the Western European Union Assembly is closed down, so that proper democratic scrutiny of this sensitive and controversial field will be provided. What plans does the Presidency have to start a dialogue with Parliament upon security and defence questions, and when will the Presidency's Minister of Defence make a statement upon the development of a common policy for European security and defence? I should be extremely grateful for a response from the Presidency upon these questions.

Political group: ELDR
The draft legislative resolution presented in the report renders meaningless the agreement reached at the Santa Maria de Feira European Council in June 2000. This agreement makes the entry into force of the directive dependent upon the application of equivalent measures by Switzerland as well as by a number of other countries and dependent territories. Since this condition has not been fulfilled, I voted against the resolution.

Political group: PSE
My understanding from the interpretation was that the incineration of dead animals is not covered by this directive under the terms of Article 2(2). I am looking at Article 2(2) and I cannot see that exclusion set out there. It talks about vegetable waste and vegetable waste does not cover dead animals. However, I will get clarification from the Commissioner personally.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on a point of order, I wish to ask whether you can confirm whether the reindeer were on the ground or in the air at the time. (Laughter)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, once again I wish to contradict the previous speaker. He needs to get a sense of proportion. Germany's airlines and those of other countries are informing the public about the new situation, and telling them that if they wish to fly to the USA, they need to agree that this data should be passed on. Nothing is being hushed up here, the public is being told about this. Yes, it is evident that that is not enough, but you are acting as if the public were being deceived by the airlines, and that is simply not the case. I shall try to look at this whole issue from the standpoint of the airlines and their passengers for once. Because of the general recession, Europe's airlines were already in trouble before 11 September. The events of 11 September and the period that followed caused enormous problems not only for all European airlines but also for airlines in the US. As you will have read over the last few days, even American Airlines may have to file for Chapter 11 protection. So the airlines find themselves in an extremely difficult situation. This will also have an impact on airports and on employment. It therefore has to be said that there is no point in disrupting air traffic between the USA and Europe over the next few weeks because of arguments of principle. We need to ensure that we can find a constitutional and practical solution to this problem. Nor can I allow to go unchallenged the insinuation made by some Members that the US authorities will willingly misuse data on European and other citizens that comes into their possession. You need to bear in mind that before data protection was introduced in Europe, the Americans already had far more stringent data protection arrangements than we have, combined with strict rules about passing on data to third parties. So to that extent the allegation that the Americans would regularly misuse data passed to them is quite simply mistaken. What we do of course need, Mr Bolkestein, is clear answers from you. How do you intend to achieve legal certainty that the US authorities will only receive data needed to fight terrorism and no other data? How do you intend to ensure that the Americans – and this also applies to company data – are only given the data they need, as opposed to data they can use to outmanoeuvre our businesses, our airlines and so on? You need to guarantee that by means of unambiguous agreements with the Americans. That is the reason for my two other questions about the extent to which you are prepared to negotiate with the Americans. Which of the two possible legal solutions you have identified do you actually intend to pursue now, and how long will that take? I believe that in the present difficult situation faced by the airlines we cannot afford effectively to provoke an interruption of air traffic between the US and Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
In the first four years of MAGP IV (1997-2001) the Community fleet was reduced by 2.5% in terms of tonnage and 5.9% in terms of power. Despite the fact, however, that the targets set in MAGP IV are already relatively modest, some Member States have not managed to achieve them and others have even increased their capacity. In other words, this report demonstrates the perennial problem: some Member States, such as my own, have met the targets that were set, whilst others have not. Worse still, these countries have not been penalised in any way for failing to meet their targets. At a time when we will very shortly be seeing the European Commission’s proposals for the future of the common fisheries policy, it is becoming crucial to rethink the MAGPs, because the issue of stock conservation will continue to be one of the fundamental aspects of the CFP, since without fish, there can be no future for fishermen. It must be stated, however, that all Member States – and not just some of them – will have to contribute to achieving this objective. This is why the MAGPs – or other measures that have a similar effect – still have a role to play in the common fisheries policy, as long as they contain a minimally effective system of sanctions. Unless this happens, this or any other system seeking to match the size of the fleet to existing resources will be condemned to failure.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I voted for the motion of censure because it was fully in accordance with the manifesto on which I was elected to this House. The European Commission has taken no effective action on fraud and maladministration beyond persecuting the journalist who exposed the whole affair and the whistleblowers. Unfortunately, many Members have succumbed to the bullying of the Commission and therefore did not back the motion, which is to their shame. Nevertheless, I hope the Commission will take note of the sentiment and clean up its act. My constituents in Northumberland, Tyne and Wear, Durham and Cleveland demand that the Commission put an end to the culture of casual misappropriation of taxpayers' money that exists in so many of our European institutions.

Political group: PPE-DE
I would like to table an oral amendment to Amendment No 16, tabled by Mr Pronk and Mrs Lulling, which reads: ‘considers that the Member States must shoulder their responsibility to guarantee pensions which will enable every pensioner to lead a dignified and independent life and to participate in social and cultural life’. As an oral amendment, I would like to add the words ‘with the support of the European Union and with due regard for subsidiarity’. Amendment No 12:

Political group: PPE-DE