GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I would like to start by thanking the Commission and congratulating it on its initiative, as other Members have done. I would also like to thank the rapporteurs and the Parliamentary bodies and congratulate them on their work on this very complex subject, with regard to which I feel it is right to apply the principle of flexibility we cite so often. I must also thank the Commissioner and Commission Vice-President because, in this case, making a minimal, formal change to procedure, she has anticipated the line the Commission will take at the end of the debate on the amendments too. This has given us the opportunity, the subject being so complex, to specify some of the reasons for the importance we attach to the amendments and, precisely, to bring out crucial, sensitive points of the debate. The Single Sky initiative is positive, for the reasons already mentioned by all the speakers, which I will not go over again so as not to waste time or space. The guiding principles are safety, efficiency and punctuality, to quote the Commissioner herself. For this very reason, although we have chosen not to make an explicit, isolated reference to the economic side of things in some amendments, that does not mean that we do not realise its importance but that we want to avoid playing into the hands of those who have viewed this process in a negative light right from the very beginning. We often say that we must not throw the baby out with the bath water but, in this case, there are some people who have been trying, right from the beginning, to make the bath water dirty precisely so that the baby will then be thrown out, and we would like to avoid this. The same applies to the issue of cooperation between civil and military authorities. The solutions we are proposing will not resolve the problem but, if there is one way of ensuring that it is never resolved, it is not even to address the issue. The problem will arise again with regard to relations with Eurocontrol and respect for national sovereignty when we come to redefine functional airspaces too, and there are potential solutions which can enhance the positive work already achieved hitherto.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I must, all the same, ask Mr Bolkestein whether or not he supports the amendments that we tabled. What is this all about? Either we follow the s and all those that did not understand the interests of those they claim to protect and we purely and simply reject the Commission proposal, or we follow the route that I was proposing, but that I did not have enough speaking time to explain. I was calling on all those who want to purely and simply reject the Commission proposal to think about it. If they adopt the amendments, tabled by Mr Schmidt and myself on behalf of our groups, then we are giving the go ahead for a rational directive, which will not cause prices to rise. Could Mr Bolkestein indicate whether or not he supports our amendments?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to thank the rapporteur for his interesting stories, but we will let him stay in his own little world. AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria are diseases connected with poverty, and in fact, as has here been said, five million people a year die of them, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. It is a vicious circle. Poverty is a barrier to the development of a viable system of medical treatment, while at the same time the diseases prevent development and overcoming poverty. We need swift action, adequate resources and a comprehensive system of cooperation to break this vicious circle. A new kind of cooperation is needed. When would we get 300 000 people to attack disease in the poor countries? Instead of bullets we should be using medicine. This project of ours is unparalleled in terms of its objectives and scope, and all the better for that. A lack of cooperation and a lack of clinical trial facilities and trained staff in the developing countries have been a barrier to investment up till now. We need to obtain a critical mass by combining expertise with resources. We also need a situation where no one makes money from medicines, which are literally a matter of life and death, destined for poor countries. AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria betray the presence of a crisis in society, as they are responsible for the deaths of so many. My question to the Commission is this: could we in the Union develop teams responsible for social crisis management, for example groups of one hundred thousand people consisting of doctors, nurses, engineers and teachers? Might this not be what we in the European Union need to help others?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to respond briefly to Mrs Jackson's comments. I think Amendment No 4 is entirely justified, for what we want is a re-evaluation of aspartame, especially as regards its effects on risk groups, particularly pregnant women. We know far too little, for example, about the effects of heavy consumption of sweeteners during pregnancy or on the health of infants and children. The same applies to sucralose and cyclamic acid, about which Mr Lannoye has already spoken. Let me say a few brief words about cyclamic acid. Although Mrs Jackson, with reference to aspartame, has just mentioned the FDA in the USA, she does not want to heed the FDA's warnings about cyclamic acid. As Mr Lannoye has quite rightly pointed out, a far lower maximum usable dose of that is permitted. I think we must all take note of this. We really should adopt the proposal put forward by my colleague, namely to cut it as low as 100 mg/l. We must try to reduce the high levels of sugar use. We are finding that our children, for example, can no longer taste the sweetness in fruit, that sugar is no longer perceived as a seasoning, and that foods are oversweetened to such an extent that at some point, we get used to these sweeteners, with the result that more and more sweeteners are being used in order to reduce the massive consumption of sugar. We are in a vicious circle. For this reason, I fully support the proposal put forward by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. I think we must follow this debate very closely, for there is one thing that we must not permit, and that is the use of carcinogenic substances such as sweeteners. The precautionary principle applies here, and as long as potential threats cannot be ruled out, we cannot run any risks.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I witnessed the violence at Göteborg. To me it symbolised the growing distance between the leaders and the led. I regret that the summit came to the conclusion that it should set aside the Irish referendum result and proceed with business as usual. The referendum in Ireland gave us an opportunity to sit back and think about the way in which Europe develops. The purpose, apparently, of the Nice Treaty was to provide for the enlargement of the European Union to include the new democracies. It is the paramount duty of all politicians in Europe to achieve that as soon as possible. However, I disagree with the President of the Commission, who wrote in The Wall Street Journal last week that Nice was essential for enlargement. Nice is not essential for enlargement. We could, within the accession treaties, make the necessary adjustment to QMV, voting rights, the number of MEPs and so on, for each country which accedes to the European Union. We should take this chance now of providing for the peoples of Europe, represented by their national MPs and by their Members of the European Parliament, by establishing not a Convention, but a parliamentary conference. That parliamentary conference should prepare the ground for the next Intergovernmental Conference. Above all, it should begin to identify the sort of choices that Europe needs to make for the future in the economy, social policy, the environment, transport, and the budget – the sort of Europe that the two great political families, the centre left and centre right of politics in Europe, actually look for. That would provide, at the European elections of 2004, a real choice between the proposals of the centre left and the proposals of the centre right. That would make the European elections meaningful and would actually accord with the views of most people in this House that the business-as-usual approach, the top-down approach, cannot be sustained any longer.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I think the question was quite specific. The Member in question, that is yours truly, did attempt to approach the Commission, which informally provided him with information regarding a situation which could be described as a deadlock. This directive dates from 1992. The problem is well-known – common knowledge in fact – and it is part of the more serious issue of tax evasion, to which we are all extremely sensitive, but it is also extremely damaging to the firms which have no way of coordinating or monitoring it at all. This is why I have had to approach the Council. I now take note of the fact that you have spoken of an undertaking. As a supplementary question, I would like to ask whether you are in any way able to forecast your action, seeing as the Commission appears to be ready and willing whereas, if I am not mistaken, there seems to be some reticence or disagreement within the Council. I would be extremely happy if you could dispel this doubt, for I am sure that all will then proceed very quickly.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it now seems that the regeneration of Angola and its people has taken on a positive and long-lasting character – in the same way that the tragedy caused by this conflict was appalling and endless. Three decades of hatred and barbarity have devastated an extraordinarily rich territory and natural environment, ruined Angola’s national infrastructure and annihilated, physically and psychologically, an entire population. Given the virtually unprecedented extent of the tragedy suffered by a country situated on a continent that has already seen so much bloodshed, and in the light of the renewed optimism emerging in Angola, the European Union has more than a role to play – it has a real duty, a historic duty, that it must perform. The EU has an extremely urgent humanitarian duty, first and foremost, to increase security in a country that has been deeply scarred at every level by bullets, famine and mines. But the EU also has a moral and political duty over the long term, which it must assume immediately in order to strengthen the fragile civil and religious peace that is being restored in Angola. It also has a duty to resurrect a still liberated economy and to restore a transparent democratic system within the institutions. On the scorched earth of Angola, which has such abundant mineral resources, the European Union, with its experience, its technical and financial resources, can assist in the emergence of a new model in Africa, that of a model of national recovery which needs to be based primarily on the education of its citizens, achieved through knowledge gained from schooling, from the respect of civilian values and citizenship and the requirement for democracy. This period also marks a turning point in terms of the economy. We should rethink and relaunch a development model that is based on the fundamental resources and sustainable and renewable potential. It is on these conditions and these alone that an economic development strategy will be credible and have a bright future. Oil and diamonds will not always be in demand in the economy, the authoritarian policy of colonialism cannot go on, nor can the industrial exploitation of Western businesses continue. Angola’s sudden and promising recovery has taught despairing Westerners an unexpected lesson. It is up to our Union, the European Union now to provide Angola with its experience and its support in writing new pages in its common and turbulent history.

Political group: Verts-ALE
And he should fit a turbo to the diesel engine. (Laughter)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to express surprise that in this plenary session we are not able to discuss the severe blackout that recently occurred in Italy. Citizens throughout the Union, and especially those affected by such an event, would expect the matter to be raised as a matter of urgency. We have now asked Mrs De Palacio to come and discuss this with us in committee, but that is no substitute for a statement from the Commission or, indeed, in the light of the trans-frontier nature of what happened, from the Council. We need to address the question of the security of electricity supplies and the single market as a matter of urgency. I just wanted to register extreme surprise that we were not able to discuss the matter in this plenary session. As a result we are not serving the citizens of the Union.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the Council of the European Union has stated three times in its summit meetings that in the future agriculture will also be able to be practised in those regions that have special problems. Earning one’s living from agriculture has considerable importance for those regions, as there is a desire to keep the countryside alive and habitable. It also has its own cultural and environmental value. I think it important that any reform in rural policy should take account of the criteria which apply to northern agricultural areas. In my report I propose that the Commission should lay down clear definitions and criteria, based on climate, the length of the growing season, low population density and outlying position, so as to ensure that the permanent handicaps of northern agricultural regions can be taken into account. My basic premise is that the range of measures under the common agricultural policy must be developed in a way that takes the special conditions prevailing in northern agricultural areas into greater consideration. One idea is to regionalise the CAP and make it more flexible, so that it can identify more effectively than at present the preconditions required to enable farms operating in different areas to compete on an equal footing in the single market. (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0471/2003) by Mrs Almeida Garrett, on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, on the communication from the Commission: 'The operating framework for the European regulatory agencies' (COM(2002) 718 – 2003/2089(INI)) (Parliament adopted the resolution) ***

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, it would, of course, have been good if we could have debated this urgent matter here today. I would like to remind you and the House that Mr Daniel Cohn-Bendit, and for part of the time, I myself have been in Turkey over the last few days as part of a very spontaneous action. Mr Cohn-Bendit is, of course, chair of the delegation that is to visit Turkey and its prisons in June. We have also had a meeting on this subject today. Mr Cohn-Bendit and I – to the extent that I was present – made the viewpoint of this House very clear to the Turkish Government, to the Minister for Justice and to the Minister for European Affairs, as we did to the organisations that are organising this hunger strike, to the human rights organisations and to the country's MPs. I particularly wanted to mention that. We have tried, by means of a very spontaneous action, and in view of the urgency of this matter, to make the views of this Parliament very clear to the Turkish Government, Parliament and to the human rights organisations.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the substance of our oral amendment would mean that what we were asking for effectively is that the results of the earlier elections stand and be implemented. 'Without delay' changes the meaning of what we are attempting. We could not accept that, so I presume we will just have to vote. (Parliament approved the tabling of the oral amendment) (Parliament approved the joint resolution) *** Joint motion for a resolution, tabled by the and EDD Groups, on Zimbabwe (B5-0287/2003, B5-0299/2003, B5-0300/2003, B5-0304/2003, B5-0308/2003, B5-0309/2003) (Parliament approved the joint resolution) *** Report (A5-0157/2003) by Mrs Janelly Fourtou, on behalf of the Committee on Petitions, on the Commission communication to the European Parliament and the European Ombudsman on relations with the complainant in respect of infringements of Community law [COM(2002) 141 – C5-0288/2002 – 2002/2148(COS)] (Parliament approved the resolution)

Political group: Verts-ALE
On the occasion of the debate and the vote on the resumption of the peace process in the Middle East, I wish to congratulate the Israeli and Palestinian partners on their courage and their tenacity. I also wish to express my satisfaction at seeing Mr Ehud Barak keep his campaign promises and resume the path marked out by Mr Yitzak Rabin. I wish to assure my Israeli friends of our support on this course. I hope that Europe will be capable of demonstrating intelligence and tolerance, in letting the negotiators get on with negotiations, and refraining from “preaching” every time there are one or several more or less serious problems. The way forward has been marked out. It will not be easy. It is full of pitfalls. Nonetheless, there are no other roads possible and, at the end of the road, there will be two States which are each guaranteeing to respect the other. I have always had confidence in this. Now, of course, I have even more confidence and I support Israel in its attempts more than ever.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, this is a small amendment to the Minutes. In the modification of the agenda for Thursday the subject of the British submarine in Gibraltar was discussed and there were three speakers. The speeches by Mr Poettering and Mr Barón Crespo are faithfully recorded in the Minutes, showing that one requested and the other granted the political agreement from the Group of the Europe People’s Party for it to be included in the agenda for December. But there was a third speech, by Mr Galeote Quecedo, which does not feature in the Minutes. Only his name is given. Allow me to give an explanation. This omission reflects fears, which in our opinion are unjustified, about anyone objectively reading the motion for a resolution that we are tabling, and this makes us fear that there could be further concealment in December. But, this is just an explanation. What I am asking for, with all due respect, is for Mr Galeote Quecedo’s speech to feature in the minutes.

Political group: PSE
I am, up to a point, concerned about how the Council will fight for the principles contained in the Treaty of Amsterdam and whose purpose is to ensure that citizens have a better opportunity to participate in the decision-making process. How is this to be done when, at the same time, the Commission’s proposal – which has been leaked, so the general public is aware of it – says that employees’ freedom of thought comes before transparency and that it is not possible to have access to working documents, reports, drafts etc? Does not the Council’s representative think that this makes it difficult to participate in the democratic decision-making process?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I have no intention of digging over old ground a month before the next progress reports are due to be published. As shadow rapporteur for Lithuania, on behalf of my group, I would, however, like to congratulate Mrs Hoff on her report. Above all though, I would like to bring various expectations and reservations that I have, to the attention of the Council, which, I am sorry to say, is largely absent. Unfortunately, it seems to me, that for all the fine words and industrious opening and closing of chapters, the Council is not applying the political pressure needed to drive this enlargement process forward. There is a risk that the window of opportunity referred to by Commissioner Verheugen will simply be allowed to slam shut, because the first loyalty of the protagonists in the Council, in particular the Heads of Government, is to their national agendas, and sadly they do not have the ambition to raise their own profile for the sake of the whole of Europe. Since Helmut Kohl, Europe’s citizen of honour, stepped down from the European stage, Jean-Claude Junker is the only other Head of Government I can think of off the top of my head, for whom the European project is a matter truly dear to their heart. Nonetheless, I call upon the Council as a whole to demonstrate the political leadership we need to do justice to the size of task. Put aside any thoughts of replacing the principle of ‘Each according to his/her merits’ with that of ‘Each according to his/her merits, but not until my elections are over’. This applies both to the French Presidency and to the German Bundestag elections. There is no reason to delay the conclusion of negotiations until after these elections. Those who subordinate historic decisions to petty national, or even party political considerations, will not earn their place in the history books. I urge you to set a deadline in Nice by which you intend to conclude negotiations with those candidate countries – naming no names – that have made the most progress. Let us all stop asking them for things that do not fall within the scope of the acquis communautaire. Whilst there are certain honourable members here who should heed this, the message is intended primarily for the ears of the national Council delegations attending the negotiations. The way individual governments allow particular lobbyists to manipulate and take advantage of them to a certain extent, in the course of negotiations, is sometimes unworthy of them. Again I call upon the Council to show political leadership and give the candidate countries a specific deadline in Nice, which they can work towards. Incidentally, the French farmers and all their counterparts will still be there, before and after every election!

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I was very interested to hear the main findings of the second report by the Committee of Wisemen on Belgian radio this morning. But I think it is a bit of a shame that in this high temple of communication, it appears to have been easier for the report to find its way into the newspapers, even in a far and distant land such as Belgium, than onto the desks of the MEPs. My colleague Mr Staes raised this matter yesterday. I understand that he succeeded in getting hold of the report, on which I congratulate him, but to tell the truth, I had at least expected that all MEPs would receive this report yesterday.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, fortunately, we are holding a debate this afternoon on the basis of a consensus, and Mr Blak’s excellent report goes hand in hand with the resulting enthusiasm on the part of our committee, which we are all very pleased about. Commissioner, I intended to begin my speech with a question: does the Commission not have any self-criticism to make? Having heard you say that the Commission’s behaviour would not now be the same as on previous occasions and that we have to seek, for the sake of cooperation in relation to good financial management, an improvement of the regulatory and commitological legal basis, I agree with Mr Van Hulten, because I believe that we are seeing an inflexion in the behaviour and attitude of the Commission. I interpret your words as self-criticism on the part of the Commission. I have approached this report via the flax issue. The countless filtrations which have taken place lead me to request that this report be declassified, and as an MEP who has read it, I can assure you that there would not be any negative effect if it were declassified and made public. We want a serious, independent and effective investigation, whether or not members of the Commission are responsible, because in Mr Blak’s report there is a very element, and that is that is asks for money which has been inappropriately and fraudulently received to be returned, as well as severe penalties in this regard. We therefore have no problem whatsoever in arguing in favour of declassification.

Political group: PSE