GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I would firstly like to thank the rapporteur for the enormous amount of work he has put into this document and for the information that is in it. However, I am disappointed that he is so pessimistic, both looking back to the past and forward to the future. Of course I support some of his criticisms: too much paperwork, a lack of decision-making, slow delivery times and a lack of capacity in developing countries. This has given rise to frustration, but Commissioner Nielson is tackling these problems with some vigour. I am much more optimistic than the rapporteur. I believe the Cotonou Accord is the right path. Lomé had its faults. But it was a unique concept and much good work was done. The new Partnership Agreement is based on the right principles, enhancing the old Lomé Convention. The theme of poverty alleviation must be right. The only question is how best to implement it. There is much discussion on project finance versus budget support. Should we be using multilateral aid or bilateral aid? I strongly support multilateral aid backed up by bilateral aid where it can complement a project. I do not believe that project aid has failed. The problem has been the under-capacity of countries to continue projects once they were completed by the European Union. I am equally not yet convinced that budget support can be controlled tightly enough in many developing countries and fear that it will open the door to corruption. I believe it is the new factors in the Cotonou Accord that will have the most influence: the political dimension, the emphasis on good governance, conflict prevention and resolution, the interaction with civil society, the regional approach to strengthen trade and the Parliamentary element of the Joint Assembly. All these are elements that should strengthen the partnership. All this has changed my role as co-president in the last year. I certainly have played a more political role in the past year, discussing, for instance, conflict resolution and good governance with President Taylor in Liberia, or having discussions on the Zimbabwe situation with the Presidents of Botswana, Malawi and Mozambique, and hearing and seeing the effects on their countries. All this depends on an effective Commission, with properly funded and staffed delegations. Most of the ones I have seen are extremely badly serviced at the moment for lack of funds and the petty paperwork they have to handle. This is Parliament's fault. We must urge all countries to ratify the agreement, as Mrs Dybkjær has said, to allow the ninth EDF to come into force. This partnership has to work. If we really wish to see an end to economic migration and terrorism in the world, we must provide a standard of living in developing countries which persuades people to stay and work there.

Political group: PPE-DE
The recommendation on a code for medicinal products is extremely important in an area to which European citizens are highly sensitive but which is ruled by the profiteering interests of the large companies. On this basis, I voted in favour of all the amendments which aim to: - supervise the market independently of the pharmaceutical industry; - protect the public from medicinal products which have expired; - reduce the period of commercial secrecy demanded by the large pharmaceutical companies, the result of which is to prevent cheaper drugs from being marketed; - limit advertising of medicinal products; - set up databases independently of the pharmaceutical companies.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, globalisation is a growing phenomenon which will entail innovations and will bring substantial change to all sectors of the economy. I fully agree with Mr Varela when he describes globalisation as a phenomenon whose repercussions vary according to specific cases. Although, for many, it is a challenge which generates wealth and opportunities, for others, those who have difficulty in adapting to change or are unable to do so, it is a source of problems and discontent. Adaptation to a global economy has had varying effects on the fisheries sector. In fact, in situations such as that of Sicily or Sardinia, some of the traditional coastal fleets, which have grown up and survived in a local context thus far, feel threatened by the impact of globalisation. The work of such fleets is frequently the lifeblood of local communities. Therefore, when we talk of negotiations underway within the World Trade Organisation on the liberalisation of trade, we must take into account the different specific circumstances in order to avoid bringing about total liberalisation of customs duties which could lead to irreparable damage and the destruction of the entire sector. We must, therefore, uphold a tariff policy based on reciprocal trade, taking into account the fact that, in many countries, imports from Europe are subject to non-tariff barriers which hamper the smooth functioning of the free market. Moreover, we must prevent the fishing of certain migratory species which, in Europe, are subject to tying-up periods but which, in other countries, can be fished and then sold on the Community market. It would also be appropriate to revise the system of existing trade preferences, for sometimes the level of development of third countries no longer justifies the granting of these preferences. Finally, we must uphold the European Union policy which makes access to the Community market for products coming from third countries dependent upon access for the European fleet to the fishing waters of the countries with which we are negotiating.

Political group: PPE-DE
I wish to explain my reasons for voting in favour of this report as amended. First of all, I feel that it adopts a balanced position, which will improve environmental protection and public health on the one hand and which maintains the competitiveness of the chemical industry on the other, in line with the strategy for sustainable development adopted in Göteborg. We must understand the fact that only a tiny minority of the more than 100 000 chemical substances in existence have to date been tested and that, furthermore, they are being produced in greater numbers each year. Consequently, only 14% of chemical substances produced in a quantity of more than one tonne are given a classification under the current system. The tragic events in Toulouse recently demonstrated the urgent need to close this gap in our knowledge. At the same time, we need to create a system of registration, assessment and authorisation that is ‘manageable’ for public authorities and that the industry can, in due course, supplement with the necessary data. The report’s approach seems to be equally balanced because, apart from purely environmental considerations, it takes account of various socio-economic aspects of prospective legislation, not least the fact that workers in the chemical industry are more exposed, and the specific constraints affecting small and medium-sized enterprises. Similarly, the report favours transparency whilst respecting data protection and industrial secrecy, which I think is to be welcomed. Clear references to the precautionary principle and the substitution principle have, furthermore, been added to the Commission text. Lastly, one of the most important points, to my mind, is still the requirement for all substances to be registered, even if some of them are only registered in a simplified form. It is often the substances produced in smaller quantities that are the most dangerous for health or for the environment. I also feel that the timetables put forward in the report are appropriate because they are realistic. I am very pleased that the White Paper will be followed up with a range of legislative proposals by the Commission and I look forward with great interest to seeing them.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr de Miguel, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, having provisionally closed 22 chapters in the negotiation statistics – although this cannot be taken as the sole criterion – Malta has lost a little of its dynamism. Like all the other accession candidates, not only are specific chapters open, so too, of course, are the major areas of agricultural, regional and budgetary policy. However, economic development has been positive, and the budget deficit has been substantially reduced. In terms of Malta's alignment with and implementation of Community law, Malta has made substantial progress as regards labour legislation and health and safety in the workplace. In the area of competition, further efforts are needed to strengthen administrative capacity. However, Malta is not alone in this respect. What is also positive is that Malta has created a suitable legal framework for the development of investments and the restructuring of SMEs. There are still shortcomings in the environmental field and in preparing the structures needed to implement the EU's regional and agricultural policies. However, here too, the European Commission is called upon to respond to Malta's specific agricultural structure, which is based on small farms, its traditional taxation system, or the specific trade conditions resulting from its island status. We should also support Malta's claim to six seats in the European Parliament. I hope that Malta's accession process will speed up again in the coming months, and that when the Commission's report is presented on 16 October 2002, Malta will be included as one of the candidates for the first round of accessions. Finally, as the Chairman of the Delegation to the EU-Czech Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee, I should like to comment on the highly sensitive issue of the Beneš decrees. I welcome the fact that the European Parliament is pointing out that discriminatory provisions which conflict with the acquis communautaire must be abolished before accession to the European Union, and I hope that after the elections in the Czech Republic, this issue can be resolved in an objective way. As regards the issue of nuclear safety, I would like to emphasise in particular that the European Parliament should maintain adherence to the closure dates for dangerous and non-upgradable power stations – not only Ignalina, but also Kosloduj and Bohunice.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I refuse to be considered to be Saddam Hussein’s friend – for he is and will always be a criminal – just because I am in favour of peace. I am opposed to this war because it is taking place outside the context of the UN, and if we reject the grace of God there remain only the law of the jungle and the law of the strongest; there remain only moral, legal and political illegitimacy. In this context, the decision of certain governments to allow US troops to use their airbases and air space, as even the renegade Italian Government has done, is in contrast with the general principles of international law enshrined in the United Nations Charter. Therefore, I and my party – l’Italia dei valori – which immediately opposed this conflict vehemently, are now taking a stand against the wily tricks of the governments which claim not to be warmongers but which are helping those who are warmongers: a role which is usually reserved for those abetting criminal acts. Hitherto, these governments have assured us that they would respect the will of the UN, but now that the UN has refused to authorise the attack they have already broken their promise. Clearly, Mr President, they were thinking, as they are thinking now, about the future distribution of the spoils of war and they hope, like all puppies begging at their master’s table, that some crumbs will fall from the United States’ table.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the first thing I want to specify is that I shall be referring in particular to the second of the Corbett reports, in other words, the Corbett report on balanced rights between individual Members and groups. This, however, is no reason not to thank him for the huge amount of work he has done on the general report and reiterate the comments made earlier by my Group Coordinator, Mr Wuemerling. As time is short, I would like to specify that the second Corbett report discusses the fact that Parliament will continue to operate on the basis of political groups, or, where appropriate, these political groups will be supplemented by purely functional parliamentary groups composed of Non-attached Members. The position of the Group of the European People’s Party has been extremely clear from the start. We would like a parliament composed of political groups, which were the embryos that became the European political parties and will continue to be their driving force. The European Parliament is not a technical body, but rather a political assembly in which political decisions are taken, and the citizens have the right to know the political positions of the people making those decisions. Choosing political groups over technical groups is the most transparent option. This does not mean reducing the rights of Members who do not want to join a group due to their political affinities. Individual MEPs, whether or not they are part of a group, have the same rights as Members. It would be something else altogether to give groups special rights which will not, of course, be granted to those who are not part of the existing groups, but the difference between the rights of a group and the rights of a Member must be made very clear. The Corbett report has two objectives: first, to clarify that when MEPs decide to form a group, Parliament accepts their political affinity as a given, unless it is expressly denied; secondly, to increase the participation of Non-attached Members in the Conference of Presidents and the preparatory meetings. It thereby reinforces the rights of Non-attached Members without needing to introduce an artificial mixed group that would be a group only in name. I am therefore calling for the Corbett report to be adopted, with the exception of the second point of the Resolution, which refers to the Sessional Service, as I do not think it fair to impose a responsibility on this Service that, in any case, should be that of the political groups.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office, Commissioner, transatlantic relations seem to have drifted into quite a difficult situation. In my opinion, we could even speak of a sort of crisis. I welcomed Mrs Lindh’s suggestion that we can also express criticism when there is cause to do so. We can undoubtedly learn from the United States some other time, when there is occasion to do so, so this is not a question of anti-Americanism, but one of factual discussion. It would seem to me that what unites the European Union and the United States above all is the fact that together we are responsible, to a considerable extent, for global development, as together we make up the world’s largest trading blocs. I believe that in future, transatlantic relations should ensure that solutions to problems that are caused by the social inequality in the world are evolved and that together we seek the right tools to promote sustainable development. In this regard the Council and the Commission are also to be praised for the fact that during the Stockholm Summit Prime Minister Persson and President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, sent a letter to the President of the United States that emphasised the importance of the Kyoto Protocol and stated in particular that its policy on climate is an essential ingredient in our understanding of transatlantic relations, and no minor issue. This is my free interpretation of the matter at least. The Commissioner’s excellent comparison with a super-tanker is something I would like to take up on more or less the same lines. I might imagine that this tanker of ours ought to have the world’s best environmentally friendly technology, and, as Mr Cox said, it should at least have a double bottom, its engine should be very powerful and its fuel as clean as possible – preferably solar energy, if possible, Commissioner. I would also like to say that if the United States wishes to become the world’s last open-air museum of old technology – and I stress the word ‘old’- as it is refusing to start developing climate-friendly solutions, something we cannot do anything about, the European Union must, despite that, become the world’s leading region in this regard, and we can nevertheless invite the United States to join us in implementing this climate policy, which is one that also makes for good business. I would finally like to say a few words about security policy. My group is very concerned that in the United States there is an intention to use global resources for a missile defence system. We think that is likely to increase the threat to peace worldwide and that the European Union should have no part in it. Instead, try and convince the USA that security in the world is to be furthered by means of solutions based on the worldwide promotion of socially and ecologically sustainable development.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Thank you, Mr President; Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to thank the rapporteur for the work she has done and also the willingness to engage in dialogue that she has constantly demonstrated while dealing with a portfolio that certainly was not an easy one. It is of course tempting to talk about tolls as if they were quite self-explanatory, for there are so many aspects to them. The regulation they provide can benefit the environment; they can promote safety; they also produce income, and one can of course have exciting discussions about what is to be done with it. I believe, though, that we would be ill-advised to confuse the two issues, as we will have the opportunity to discuss the first of them later on, so let us concentrate on the technology. Past experience has taught us that discussing this is extremely useful. We have ourselves seen the chaos that can result if each country insists on using its own recipe for technology, and Toll Collect in Germany was a good example of that. I do not believe that monopolies provide the answer in this area; we should simply aim to have good technology, and I believe that the Commission proposal and what the rapporteur has suggested are going the right way about achieving this. The ‘one contract per user’ principle is, I believe, desirable and will remain so. Unlike Mrs Honeyball and Mr Watts, I do not live in London, but at a distance of seven kilometres from two countries, and I can tell you that it would be a nightmare for HGV drivers among others if they had to reckon on needing to install in their vehicles a different monitoring system for each country. That is not on, and I believe that we should, in future, outlaw it. Secondly, the technology should not be too precisely specified, but should, quite simply, be reliable, efficient and compatible; in other words, its interoperability must be guaranteed. Past experience has shown us what we have coming to us if these criteria are not met. In conclusion, then, I hope that, whatever system is introduced, we will not repeat the experience we have had only recently. Haulage operators sacrificed thousands of working hours in installing systems, only for a country and a region to then decide to do without them. There is neither point nor purpose to such an exercise, which, I believe, completely fails to achieve something that I regard as a very good thing.

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, you have given me such a complete answer that I have few remaining doubts to ask you about. Nevertheless, I would like to insist that the measures he says are going to be adopted, above all in relation to the simplification of the regulations, be genuinely implemented and applied as quickly as possible. Great declarations, great words and great policies are all very well for existing undertakings, but it is essential that those who – inspired by the entrepreneurial spirit which we are so keen to promote – decide to create a new undertaking, are not faced with obstacles and difficulties which prevent them from going ahead. Furthermore, and in order that this policy may be truly effective, information on actions implemented by the Commission must reach the smaller entrepreneurs, a sector which very much needs it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, first of all, we do not want to force Sweden to change its postal system, but please do not force us to follow its example. In Sweden the Post Office went from profit to loss. Swedish Post lost jobs. Sub-post offices closed down. Prices for posting a letter in Sweden are 30% higher than they are in the United Kingdom. And if I may now turn to the United Kingdom, privatisation of the Post Office in the UK was blocked because public opinion simply would not tolerate it. What I find outrageous is for the Commission to propose privatisation through the back door. But what is really inexcusable is for the British Conservatives to support the European Commission's plans to decimate our postal system in the United Kingdom. It will be a triple blow to Britain and a triple blow in particular to rural Britain: an end to the daily delivery and collection; an end to the uniform price – people in rural areas will pay more for their post; and third and finally, an end to our extensive and excellent network of rural sub-post offices. I appeal directly to the British Conservatives. Maybe do not listen to us, but listen to the Women's Institute in the United Kingdom, listen to the Council for the Protection of Rural England, listen even to the Countryside Alliance. All of them are backing Mr Simpson and opposing your party's views on this matter. I hope that you and your friends can join with Labour in standing up for rural Britain by opposing the European Commission's plans.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in view of the lack of speaking time available to me I would not wish to repeat anything that has already been said. I can only lend wholehearted support to what the previous speakers and Mrs Maij-Weggen have had to say. However I would like to add to the debt of gratitude we owe Mr Schori a word of thanks to the embassies of our Member States, who assisted us in the accreditation process, because we were faced with a rather chaotic situation at the time. We have them to thank for the fact that we were able to take action over there. If there is one thing that should be emphasised when forming an assessment of the situation in Zimbabwe it is that the farm occupations have nothing to do with the land or race issues. It is no more than a despicable means of holding onto power. That is not without its tragic side because President Mugabe and his party definitely rendered outstanding service to the land once. The terror perpetrated by the so-called war veterans is intended to divert attention from the shortcomings of the political leadership of the country, which has pitched Zimbabwe into a deep crisis. The country has been brought to the brink of ruin, tourism is at a standstill, investors have pulled out, and to make matters worse, there is an oil crisis and a lack of foreign exchange. Tobacco production and tourism used to be the main sources of revenue and both these sectors have taken a real knock. This cannot be made good overnight. This is where support from the European Union comes in. All in all, Zimbabwe has the right conditions in place for this, in that the population is educated to a comparatively high standard, the jurisdiction is incorruptible, and the infrastructure is relatively sound. But we are already hearing about fresh occupations of farms and violent attacks. President Mugabe must be left in no doubt as to the fact that the violence and terror must be stopped, but it will take more than that to restore peace to this country. The political opposition will have to prove that it is politically viable. The fact that it was possible for observers to be present meant that in the end, despite the terror, the opposition was able to express its opinion freely on voting day. That being the case, the opposition now has a job to do which it must see through. We must help to see that the rule of law is restored in this way.

Political group: PSE