GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, France has suffered serious flooding for several months now. First it was Brittany, now other départements have been affected, but it is the département of the Somme, and the town of Abbeville and the surrounding communes in particular, which have been hardest hit. Hundreds of residents have been forced to leave their homes, have lost all their possessions and are destitute. Every economic and social sector has been hit: road and rail infrastructures have sustained tremendous damage, shops and businesses have closed and farms are in serious trouble. There is much uncertainty as to whether they will be able to regain their original production levels. The persons hit hardest are those who were already the worst off and who have no family to give them financial or moral support. And just as we thought that things were quickly getting better, another disaster has struck and may last for several more weeks. The financial consequences are unquantifiable as yet. There is a great deal of solidarity between the local residents and a great deal of intervention on the part of the government and the French administration, the local authorities, the police, the army, rescue organisations and the community, but it is unable to absorb the effects of this disaster. That is why I think that Europe needs to do more than just offer words of support and compassion; we need to send out a strong message of our desire to stand by the people suffering the physical and psychological effects of this disaster. In order to do so, the European Union needs to provide one-off financial aid so that infrastructures can be quickly restored and economic activity can resume. It is also important for us to reaffirm our concern at the rise in the number of serious natural disasters over recent years both in Europe and across the planet as a whole. The European Union owes it to itself to do everything to respect and ensure that others respect the Kyoto commitments by the stated deadlines and to implement a policy of sustainable development.

Political group: PSE
Madam President we do not know if Tampere will be a success or not. We feel though, after the speech that we have heard here this morning, that it may be because that item in the Treaty of Amsterdam which was, of necessity, destined to be almost a dead letter or just hot air, is now gaining a certain visibility, creating greater consensus and asserting itself naturally, thereby making the path towards a common area of freedom, security and justice seem much more credible. Both in your speech today, Madam President of the Council, and two weeks ago, during the hearings of Commissioner Vitorino, we MEPs, used to the waffle of the Council and the Commission, found some philosophically rigorous elements concerning the fundamental assumptions about this real internal market of freedom and justice; that is, the market of values, no longer the market of goods and services – which have caused us to be quietly optimistic about Tampere and its consequences. Why should this be? Of course, because the basis for legal measures which we can implement is found within the framework of a Charter of Freedom and Fundamental rights. This is also because the Community method is favoured over traditional intergovernmental co-operation which will bring about a new European institutional or legal system, which, in turn, will be more efficient, modern, and closer to the problems still festering today. These are still unsolved and caught up in the web of sovereignty and of obsession with laws and nationalism. Finally, why not make the visibility of this new European area the benchmark of citizens’ trust, not by reducing the problem to the age-old argument of “freedom versus security”, but instead by taking on the whole range of new challenges and concerns for which European citizens hope Europe will actually find solutions?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we are unable to support the submitted resolution. I was in favour of discussing the topic of hooliganism but this resolution can at best be described as agenda pollution. This Parliament should not be discussing safety during one particular Euro 2000 match under pressure from what I assume is a portion of British public opinion. It is also an insult to – in this case – the Belgian organisers of this game and the international authorities involved. This is a great pity because extensive discussions can be held about the fight against hooliganism itself. In addition, we continue to learn important lessons, such as for example, how we should really guide the fans? How can we better educate club managers and organisers of games? Attention should also be given to the so-called ‘second opinion’ which is now being applied, by means of which a group outside the organisation analyses the measures taken and suggests improvements. Mr President, hooligans have managed to spoil the fun of the real fans too often. It will be different at Euro 2000, as this will be a football party for everyone.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner Bolkestein, I am of course delighted that the Commission is looking into these problems and that these three infringement proceedings are now under way. We are all waiting for an answer. But I would ask you to consider in this connection that we should perhaps take this opportunity to provide for dovetailing the Commission services responsible for transport and the services responsible for competition if we are to make progress with transport policy decisions in Europe in general. We must and we want to shift heavy traffic onto the railways. The positive example here of the award of the Brenner motorway concession for the purpose of investing in a basic Brenner tunnel could perhaps be used as an example throughout Europe. I would like to digress briefly to point out that the Brenner motorway concession is to be awarded, but has not yet been awarded on condition or with the promise that money from the motorway will be transferred to the basic Brenner tunnel, i.e. to the railways. If the Commission services responsible for transport and competition were to work together, we could take an important step forward in a policy to shift heavy traffic from the roads to the railways.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, as draftsman, at first reading, of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market on this report, I intend to concentrate on the environmental issues and the issue of sustainable development. Commissioner Bolkenstein thought we could look forward to a happy ending to the long journey towards sound legislation when it came to public procurement. Yes, we can agree upon the fact that the process is coming to an end, but how happy it will be is, I think, something that will be decided in the vote. The Council too has a big influence in this area, of course. I am concerned about the amendments tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, because they run directly counter to what we said at first reading. We are all agreed that public procurement is a major economic factor in the EU, accounting for 14-16% of gross national income. When account is taken of the economy, account should not, however, only be taken of the financially most advantageous tender. What is needed is a broader economic definition, also embracing the conservation of natural resources, clean water, clean air and biodiversity. That is precisely what the Commission and the EU in general have said, for example in Johannesburg, namely that public procurement must contribute to sustainable development. It is odd that this has passed certain people in this Chamber by. I heard Mr Lehne say that environment issues must be handled in their own terms and economic issues likewise, but that is to miss the whole point. Public procurement, in which our common resources and common tax money are used, must contribute to sustainable development. It is therefore of the very greatest importance that we amend the proposal before us from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market and remedy the ways in which it has deteriorated since the first reading. The Council’s common position contained incompatible elements and was unacceptable at least where Articles 53 and 55 were concerned. Together with MEPs from other groups, we have tabled amendments concerning the environmental criteria, production methods and the whole life-cycle perspective upon products, environmental labelling and certification. I think that the European Parliament should be ashamed if we did not adapt our view of public procurement to the prevailing view of sustainable development in the EU as a whole. This must become a natural part of public procurement.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, in his introduction Mr Schwaiger says that the goal of the World Trade Organisation is free trade. But trade is not an end in itself. It is a means to an end. That end must be sustainable development. So even if the volume of world trade has increased 17-fold, what use is that unless it benefits poor people and promotes sustainable development? The uncomfortable truth is that there are losers as well as winners from international trade. Many of the losers are poor people who find their land taken away from them by large commercial firms or their livelihoods destroyed by new and often unfair competition from cheaper imports. That is why our Group believes that before we rush headlong into yet more trade rounds in Seattle we first need a comprehensive impact assessment of the social and environmental effects of the liberalisation that has already taken place as a result of the last Uruguay Round of trade negotiations. We also need much bolder action to ensure poor people genuinely benefit from world trade. Frankly, that is where this report is still inadequate. We need tariff-free access for least-developed countries, not only for virtually all products – that is a phrase that leaves a giant loophole for the EU to continue protecting its own agriculture – but for all products from those countries. We need an end to the hugely damaging dumping of subsidised agricultural exports on developing country markets. We need industrialised countries to make legally binding their commitments to give special and differential treatment to poorer countries. But, above all, when we see evidence that world trade rules are destroying poor people’s livelihoods or damaging the environment we need to change the rules. Let me say very clearly that free trade is not the same as fair trade. Nothing demonstrates that more clearly than the case of the Caribbean banana farmers, some of the most vulnerable producers in the world, whose access to the EU markets has now been ruled against WTO rules, as a result of which they face a devastation of their livelihoods. So, I repeat, if world trade rules are destroying people’s livelihoods and damaging the environment or animal welfare we need to change the rules.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, as I rise to speak in this debate I cannot, of course, help thinking about the situation which the Spanish public is currently facing as regards the serious issue of immigration. Spain's national government, supported by its majority in parliament and despite opposition from the remaining political parties, has forced through a law on immigrants, which denies ‘illegal’ immigrants basic human rights including those of freedom of association and freedom to join unions. Meanwhile, dead bodies are appearing on the beaches of the south of the Iberian Peninsula, many of them women and children who have perished in an attempt to reach land in search of work and opportunities for earning a living lacking in their home countries. The sight of these corpses is a dramatic reminder that we are faced with a humanitarian problem that cannot be dealt with by adopting a faint-hearted or xenophobic approach. It needs to be approached in a rational, generous and forward-looking way, as the rapporteurs have done. I share the views of the Committee on Petitions on the Nassauer report on the initiative of the French Republic, namely that this vital issue needs to be resolved by making the European Union, when faced with the realities of immigration, an area of freedom, security and justice and not a society based on exclusion and expulsion, as so tragically personified by the young people found dead on the beaches that separate us from Africa. Parliament and the Commission need to prioritise work on an overall approach to immigration taking account of its humanitarian, economic, cultural and political aspects. We should not, on the other hand, forget that the eastward enlargement of the Union will inevitably lead to extraordinary internal migration flows creating a new social framework which we will not be able to address properly unless we solve the serious problem of immigration from third countries.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I should like to congratulate Mr van den Bos on his very balanced report, which is in keeping with the human rights reports of the past few years and gives very thoughtful consideration to such delicate topics as freedom of religion. I fully subscribe to his appeal for more consistency and coherency in human rights policy. After all, the European Union is at risk of losing all credibility if it does not succeed in speaking with one voice, even if strategically or economically important countries, such as China or Russia, are involved. Mr van den Bos is right in condemning the most important human rights forum, the UN Commission on Human Rights, for becoming highly politicised. I myself have had the opportunity of attending this UN Commission on two occasions and I could never shake off the impression that the governments systematically conspired to exonerate one another. The motto appears to be: if we spare others, we do not run the risk of being condemned ourselves. During the latest sessions in Geneva, it transpired once more that it is the foxes that have to watch the hen's eggs. It is highly worrying that countries such as Libya, Sudan, Zimbabwe and Cuba should play a leading role in the UN Commission on Human Rights and that the European Union, the key sponsor, should hardly have any impact left. It therefore delights me that the rapporteur has adopted my amendments on this matter. On the one hand, conditions should be prescribed for membership of the UN Commission, such as the signing, ratification and observation of human rights conventions and the admission of special UN human rights rapporteurs. On the other hand, the decision-making process must be reviewed and the unanimity rule should make way for a two-thirds majority rule. If these conditions are not met, the European Union should seriously consider withdrawing from the human rights circus. It will otherwise run the risk of legitimising, rather than condemning, human rights violations, and surely that can never be the intention.

Political group: ELDR
Once again, ladies and gentlemen, the increase from 10 to 20% is a thoroughly complicated issue which cannot be tabled just before we are about to vote. I think, however, that the compromise amendment submitted to Mr Radwan at 5 p.m., which he approved without hesitation, should certainly be taken before Amendment No 48. I could play the imbecile and say that since Mr Radwan is using tactics that discredit the House, I shall call upon my friends to join forces to reject his oral amendment. As for myself, in the interests of the stability of the financial markets in Europe, I think his amendment is fine. Therefore, I approve it and I ask you to agree to vote on it, and then to adopt it. But I would point out to you that Mr Radwan’s thoroughly devious tactics have also caused amendments approved by the Council and the Commission, as well as many Members, to lapse and I think that devious tactics of this type are a discredit to Parliament. (Applause) (Parliament agreed to table the oral amendment) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0069/2002) by Mr Goebbels, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse) [COM(2001) 281 – C5-0262/2001 – 2001/0118(COD)] - Regarding Amendment No 79

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Mr President of the European Central Bank, the first thirty months of operations of the European Central Bank can be considered a success. The bank has achieved stability in monetary policy in the mid-term despite the sudden rise in oil prices, the great uncertainty on the currency markets and heightened tension on the money markets. The faith of citizens in the European Central Bank is primarily based on price stability. It is important to citizens that the currency is stable and that the real level of earnings and purchasing power remain unchanged. However, trust can also be increased by increasing openness and transparency in the work of the ECB. Transparency goes without saying for national central banks, and should also be the case for the European Central Bank. The changeover to the euro is a unique event in economic history for which there is no precedent in terms of magnitude. Adopting a single currency is a concrete indication of how far European integration has come. Our citizens expect us to do all we can to ensure a smooth transition to the euro. It is important that we prepare carefully to avoid unnecessary problems and thus giving rise to a negative image among citizens. However, we must remember the fundamentals. The euro will not fail due to practical problems encountered during a transitional period of two or three weeks. If it fails due to anything, it will fail because the currency is not sufficiently stable or strong. Our single currency is as strong as the economy behind it. A strong economy, healthy business structures and a functioning internal market are vital prerequisites for the trust of citizens and the global competitiveness of the Union. In this context I would also like to mention my concern regarding the fate of the Directive on Takeovers to be addressed tomorrow. The directive has taken twelve years to draw up. After much wrangling, the European Parliament and the Council have managed to reach an agreement through the conciliation procedure. If the directive fails tomorrow we will be able to say that while many fine words were heard in Lisbon, here we need action. The value of our single currency depends considerably on these actions on the part of Parliament, the Council and all the institutions of the Union.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I voted as representative of the Pensioners’ Party for the measure on energy efficiency requirements for ballasts for fluorescent lighting, although I did vote for some amendments that were not adopted by the House. I am certainly in favour of saving energy and, in fact, for some time now, I have been reading the reports I am to debate in the European Parliament in the evenings by candlelight in order to make my humble contribution to saving energy. Yes, we do need to save energy, but we also need to have enough common sense to realise that this must not entail the total curtailment of the activities which provide employment for Europe’s citizens.

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, a moment ago, we failed to see eye to eye because I felt you were not answering my questions. This time, however, I have to give you my unqualified support and say to Mr McCartin, who is usually such a congenial man who I work with very well, that the Commission does carry out very serious work in this area. Following on from the dispute in the World Trade Organisation, the Commission has commissioned scientists to carry out sound work. Seventeen studies have been submitted, and it is now beyond scientific doubt that the mutagen 17-beta-ostradiol is genotoxic and carcinogenic. This is an argument in our dispute in the World Trade Organisation. I would ask Mr McCartin not to cast any doubt, not even among farmers. It is clear that the six hormones used in the United States are not as healthy as is claimed, and very much harm public health. I would like to ask the Commissioner whether you believe, based on the scientific information at your disposal, you now have sufficient arguments in order to finally settle the WTO dispute in favour of the European Union?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is proposing by a very large majority that this Commission proposal should be rejected, and this is therefore the committee’s proposal for a legislative resolution. I would hope that we can vote first on this proposal to reject before we go on to the amendments tabled for the plenary session. I would hope we can proceed in this way because, as I understand it, both my own group and a clear majority in Parliament are in favour of this proposal to reject, so there is no point in our voting first on the amendments and only finally on this rejection, as this Commission proposal will very probably be rejected.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, first I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Swoboda, for an excellent report, and the same goes to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, and Common Security and Defence Policy for their realistic presentation of the matter. The regulation under discussion concerns pre-accession aid to Turkey. Turkey was accepted as a candidate country at the Helsinki Summit. For this reason, it would be appropriate if we treated it as we do the other candidate countries. The EU Financial Perspective includes a Heading 7 covering pre-accession aid. Every year around three billion euros are set aside there – rather more than that, in fact. In the EU budget, however, pre-accession aid to Turkey, as with Cyprus and Malta also, has been placed under Heading 4, “External Action”. These countries are therefore actually accorded a different status from the other candidate countries. In addition, the same objective, that is to say, pre-accession aid, is being financed now from two different headings, which is blurring the transparency of the budget. Heading 7, 'Pre-accession Aid', has not been used correctly. Payment appropriations are lagging far behind committed appropriations, and this is thus clearly a case of over-budgeting, which is realised as unspent resources that are returning to the Member States. However, Heading 4, “External Action” has become over-burdened. For two years in succession now – at 200 million euros per year – a flexibility instrument has had to be used to finance it, something which in fact is Parliament’s own disposable fund for unforeseen expenses. Parliament has thus borne a greater responsibility for EU foreign policy than the Council. Budgeting for pre-accession aid for Turkey, Cyprus and Malta in Heading 4 has increased the over-burdening further and jeopardised the ready availability of these funds. For that reason I support the proposals in the report to switch these funds to Heading 7.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, on a point of order. I have asked the President-in-Office of the Council if she would address the second part of my question, and she has not done so either in her first or second replies.

Political group: PSE