GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, while fully acknowledging the right of all the Members to speak, I would like, once again, to call upon the House to avoid antagonistic statements, confusing tragic situations such as those just mentioned – immigration tragedies taking place in Italy – with situations and decisions made by the Italian Government relating to matters of infrastructure. I believe that, with due regard for Parliament’s role, when we choose to engage in controversial debate just for the sake of it, we are not helping either ourselves or the people afflicted by these tragedies.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to congratulate the Commissioner on the news that has already reached us via the television and to which he responded a moment ago. I hope that this Liberal initiative, which, by the way, received unanimous support in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, has helped you to reach your decision. Given the timeframe, it looks like it was of some help. I would like to concur with Mr Medina Ortega that we are not, in principle, opposed to a deposit system. If we want a deposit system, it would perhaps be helpful within one internal market if we were to introduce a harmonised Community system, as a result of which all businesses and all consumers within one Europe would know where they stand. We are against a restricting deposit system, and the voucher system in Germany does not belong in serious legislation but rather on a fairground, where it entitles you to a few rides on the merry-go-round, but not to do a few laps in Germany. As far as this is concerned, we are pleased with your announcement that you are going to intervene. What I would like to know is whether you could indicate whether it is possible to force, or at least implore, the German Government to suspend the current system with immediate effect? This should happen in any event until a European-wide system has been introduced, or at least a system that complies with the current framework, so that Article 28 would not be violated. This is my first request. Secondly, can you confirm whether it is true – as Mr Lehne claimed – that businesses that have suffered enormous losses, but also perhaps consumers, could recoup the damage from the German Government, for example? I hope that with this measure that you announced, German consumers will very soon again be able to choose freely between such European products as Badoit water, San Pellegrino or Bavaria beer. If this were possible, then I hope that after these ten months of being deprived of these enjoyable European products, the European market will once again be open and that it can help complete the internal market.

Political group: ELDR
The discussion on the annual report of the European Central Bank, with the visit by the President of the ECB, is the only time each year when we are not left with the impression that the note-issuing bank for 12 of the 15 Member States has been privatised. Whereas this type of bank used to be nationalised in order to enable greater political control over policy, politics is now being left behind. Interest rates, exchange rates, the implications for vulnerable regions, relations with the United States of America, and the position of the developing world are thus largely being decided outside parliamentary democracy. This also applies to the influence of the ECB and the Stability and Growth Pact on pensions, social security and the level of public service provision. The rapporteur, Mr Blokland, rightly shows that the success or failure of the euro should not only be assessed in terms of the speed of introduction of the euro banknotes and coins at the start of 2002, but also in terms of price increases for the provision of services. I will gladly support him in his endeavours to have inflation forecasts, the influence of Member States' governments, and especially reporting on all meetings of the Governing Council published, including dissenting opinions and the balance of votes, and the obtaining of greater influence over the composition of the Governing Council on the part of Parliament. This is the only way we can prevent the ECB from developing into an instrument that is at odds with the majority of the inhabitants of the EU.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, as I am the last to speak, I shall not repeat what everyone else has said. I would first like to answer the English Member this evening, as there are not many of us and we are all friends here, without stirring up any controversy. I have already said in this Chamber that British and Irish farmers are in a difficult situation and we must help them. We must work out who should pay and we must make the calculations together. If France has to pay – and perhaps the courts will decide that it must – French politicians will accept their responsibilities, but neither should we forget that those who have not respected the rules on the treatment of meal and who have placed us in this situation must also pay. We must certainly not forget them. Commissioner, my only concern is that the 1997 political commitment not be jeopardised. Why is the Council taking a step backwards? Who are the pressure groups? Knowing, as we do, what has happened throughout the European meat industry and what is still happening in other countries, I wonder. Are there pressure groups forcing it to move backwards, to go back on what has already been done in this industry in terms of labelling and also in terms of the consumer in order to clarify things? Can you tell us Commissioner, what proposals you have presented to the Council? Because normally, unless I am mistaken, the Commission makes several proposals to the Council when discussions are held, as was the case yesterday. How do you expect the citizen and consumer to understand this backwards step? Why is the Council rejecting Parliament’s proposal? These are certainly not budgetary measures. As far as abattoirs and traceability are concerned, I think that the Council is adopting a contrary attitude, and will have to accept sole responsibility. I agree with today’s speakers that Parliament must make the Council aware of this. I am therefore counting on you, Commissioner, to act rapidly – and this will be our New Year present for the end of 1999 and in that way Parliament will not be disappointed at the beginning of 2000. You can still intervene and you can still change the Council’s mind. The second point which I would like to draw to your attention before the start of 2000 is this: let us not wait until December, as we have waited this year until November, to put a definitive regulation on the table. This will enable us to apply it as rapidly as possible, for which, moreover, Mr Papayannakis’ excellent report makes provision.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would also like to welcome my constituent, Louise McVay, from Loughborough in the East Midlands, who is in the gallery. She has been a tireless campaigner for MS sufferers and I commend her courage and her hard work. I would also like to thank Mrs Aaltonen for her excellent work on this report. MS is the most common form of disability affecting young adults in the EU, and two-thirds of sufferers are women. Of the 400 000 sufferers in the EU, 85 000 are in my own country, the United Kingdom. MS demands our attention. This report proposes the very best kind of European cooperation. It recognises that the EU has no competence to determine the health policies of Member States, still less to set their budgets or spending priorities for Member States' health services. That is as it should be. What the EU can and should do is to offer the exchange of best practice, to benchmark performance, to encourage uniformly high standards of care. It has another vital role and that is in the area of medical research. As spokesman for my Conservative delegation on research, I share the view of Ms Lynne that we should like to see chronic diseases more strongly prioritised in the EU's framework research programmes. While it is fashionable to concentrate on newly emerging diseases, we cannot afford to lose sight of familiar problems which affect huge numbers of patients. We still do not have a full understanding of the causes of MS and we should not rest until this problem is solved. Certainly we have much to do in my own country, the UK. Our Labour Government has failed to address the problem of the postcode lottery, which means that the levels of care and availability of drugs can vary from street to street. I was first alerted to this problem for MS sufferers in the UK during our 2001 general election campaign when one of our Conservative candidates was approached by a young lady in Nottingham, Mrs Peel, who had just been diagnosed with the disease. Mrs Peel, who was pregnant at the time, was alarmed to find that she was being denied therapies and treatment by the local health authority simply because of where she lived. I was very pleased that the Conservative spokesman on health at that time, Dr Liam Fox, was able to visit Mrs Peel personally to listen to her case. I would also like to commend the European MS Platform for their campaigning work. I was glad to support their European MS Awareness Day in the European Parliament in Brussels in June of last year. Such events are invaluable in briefing Members on the issues surrounding the disease and the problems faced by sufferers. As we come to the end of the European Year of People with Disabilities, we must focus on the needs of MS patients and the research-based opportunities to accelerate the development of more effective treatments.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Podestà Report on implementation profiles is a very important one, and I would like, at the very outset, to express my thanks to Mr Podestà, the rapporteur. Anyone who knows me will know that this is not one of my usual ritual practices, but I do think Mr Podestà deserves thanks for taking over the task from our erstwhile colleague and general rapporteur for 2002, Carlos Costa Neves, and for taking over the job I started to do in 2001, observing the implementation of the Budget over the course of the year. That is a laborious business and far less appealing that the work on the forthcoming Budget year. How the Commission implements the Budget and makes use of its resources for the purposes that we decide on at the end of the preceding financial year deserves proper scrutiny. Looking at the course of a Budget year, one sometimes wonders how closely the intentions of the budgetary authority have been adhered to. A Budget year can positively teem with supplementary and amending budgets and much carrying-over of appropriations. Closer examination reveals that, taken as a whole, the appropriations carried over add up to a redeployment of funds from one line to another totalling some 1% of the total Budget. Not that much, then, one might think. But, as several Members of this House have pointed out, a lot of funds are not spent at all! From the 2001 Budget, the Member States are getting EUR 15 billion back, that is, over fifteen times the total of appropriations carried over. Even though we cannot generally accuse the Commission of disregarding our policy intentions, all of us together – by which, in this instance, I mean not only the members of the Committee on Budgets, but also the members of the specialist committees – have to support the Commission right through the year and see to it that they do not lose sight of our policy intentions. Trust is a good thing, but control is a better one. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, Galileo Galilei's words, ‘and yet it does move’ can be applied to European space policy's present situation. I have my doubts, though, when I see the downright interminable tug-of-war about the establishment of Europe's satellite navigation system, Galileo. So I am all the more pleased that there are some first positive signs that European space travel is to be given new momentum, something that is urgently necessary if Europe is not to lose its connection to this important and forward-looking high technology sector. Whether the systems we are working with are for communication, navigation, or observation, satellites play a decisive role. We should not make the mistake of comfortably relying on the existing systems of other, even friendly, nations. We should rather be demonstrating our own capabilities in this field, which is the only way that we will have reliable operational freedom and that European industry will have a chance of a healthy future. I speak from my own experience, having on several occasions been Parliament's rapporteur on the European satellite navigation system. In Europe, the potential we have in this field is so valuable, that we should not simply leave it unused. ‘Tackle it!’ must be our watchword. A political signal is indispensable. The first stage on this road is the drafting of a coherent strategy for space travel policy, and the Commission has done very good work on this. I emphatically support the proposed lines of action. Europe must accord space travel more importance in future. Let me sum up my priorities for European space travel in a conceptual pairing that may perhaps seem paradoxical: independence and cooperation. Independence means our own strength, autonomous structures and jobs geared to the future. Cooperation, on the other hand, represents the strengthening of the EU's relationships through compatibility and exchange. Space travel should be given new impetus.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the rapporteur and the Commissioner on the result achieved with this important report. By combining and simplifying various directives in this field, more than 10% of gross European product is covered, and a more transparent and simple directive is to be welcomed with open arms. However, I am disappointed with the surfeit of amendments, and it will become necessary in future to use a different system because, due to the multitude of detailed amendments, it will be impossible for fellow MEPs who do not have an intimate knowledge of the content of the report to know what they will be voting on. The European procurement policy aims to give the economy a shot in the arm and to involve small and medium-size companies more in the contracts to be awarded by authorities. This is a noble-minded enterprise, to which I, as a Liberal, give my unqualified support. I am satisfied with the outcome of the vote on the possibility of exclusion on the grounds of social and environmental criteria. The functioning of companies within the standards prescribed by the client should under no circumstances form the basis for exclusion. Needless to say, everyone should adhere to the law, provided this is generally applicable. I am pleased that the social and environmental criteria which can be prescribed now only pertain to products and/or services delivered and thus not to the conduct of the supplying companies. Although finally, for reasons of my own, I have voted against increasing the thresholds, I am in agreement with the 50% increase out of practical considerations. Needless to say, the amounts which were agreed as thresholds in the WTO Agreement remain applicable, but not for contracts which fall outside the scope of that agreement. The contracts which can be awarded beneath the thresholds will naturally also benefit the SMEs – the regional companies, that is – and this is, in a sense, what adopting a social policy within the regions means. Having spent two years on the above-mentioned directive, the result is something to be proud of, although, needless to say, it is difficult to please everyone on every score.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the liberalisation of air transport has brought countless advantages for passengers. Nevertheless, lower prices and greater demand have not put an end to consumer complaints, as we all know. As some Members have already said, we are seeing cancelled or delayed flights, passengers being denied boarding, problems with baggage and so on. This is unacceptable! In order better to protect consumers, the liberalisation of air transport requires better market management and rationalisation. The harmonisation of current legislation is becoming crucial in light of the new state of affairs. It also makes perfect sense to involve operators in this sector, forcing them to adopt rules for the protection of citizens, enabling authorities to intervene in the event that the guarantees for protection that have been announced should prove to be insufficient. I also believe the intervention of the authorities is extremely important. The operators’ involvement of passengers by appealing for volunteers, involving them directly in the negotiation and acceptance of alternative arrangements, is a good approach that will make the management of reservations more flexible and will contribute to passenger protection, improving the efficiency of the operation. I would reiterate here the issue of the competent authority: the proposal for a regulation reveals the importance of Article 14, which deals with the obligation on the part of the authority in this field to inform passengers of their rights. Basically, this reincorporates an amendment adopted by Parliament in its response to the Commission’s 1998 proposal. Passengers must be informed clearly and transparently about how to contact the competent national body – of which they are often, even usually, unaware – responsible for dealing with complaints about the regulation. I would also emphasise the importance of Article 17, concerning implementation, which obliges Member States to designate the body responsible for the implementation of the regulation, to provide them with information and to force them to comply with measures ensuring that passengers’ rights are respected.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I think any of us can understand why people should flee Afghanistan. Not only because of the repressive and fanatical nature of a regime which denies women and children education, work and even medical care, but also because of the deterioration of the economic situation which that fanatical regime is causing in the country. We therefore perfectly understand the almost 500 people which tried to flee, at risk of their lives, and came up against a brick wall erected by a country such as Australia, a rich country which could have taken them in from the outset without any problem. I believe that we should acknowledge the courage of the captain of the Norwegian freighter, Arne Rinnan, who, without thinking of the consequences and led only by humanitarian considerations, immediately picked up these people, who were in danger of drowning. In contrast, we must strongly criticise a country which, like any of our countries, is obliged to take in a ship which was sailing in it waters with almost 500 people in a situation as precarious as that of these refugees. Rules must be laid down to prevent this type of situation. I know that it is not easy, that there are increasing numbers of refugees, that poverty is spreading and is the reason why many people are seeking a better life, but I believe that the attitude of Australia must not be imitated by any country towards any group of refugees who, under the protection of the United Nations Convention of 1951, are asking to be allowed to survive.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, on behalf of my group and on my own behalf, I would like to sincerely congratulate you on your election. Everyone knows that we did not support your candidacy but that we respect you as an individual. And we are democrats. You are now a President for everyone. You are inheriting a responsibility successfully borne, during the first half of the legislature, by Mrs Nicole Fontaine, who, throughout her mandate, respected pluralism and cooperated loyally with every Member. We hope that this cooperation will continue under your Presidency. And, given your character, I have no reason to doubt this. I would therefore like, in this spirit, Mr President, to wish you good luck. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, we too welcome the peace in Northern Ireland and the new Executive which has been established. We also join Mr Valdivielso in expressing our concern about ETA’s threat to return to violence. However, I actually asked for the floor in order to join Mr Barón Crespo in expressing my feelings about the loss of Carmen Díez de Rivera. Instead of referring to her role in the transition to democracy, as my colleague has already admirably done, I want to mention the personal relationship which we enjoyed for six years in the Committee on the Environment. We too feel her loss greatly. She worked extensively to defend the Spanish and European environment and her death at such an early age is terrible. I therefore join Mr Barón Crespo in expressing my feelings of loss. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, since I only have one minute, I shall confine myself to a single issue and say that the strengthening of relations between the European Union and the United States should not only concern economic and commercial issues. I would therefore ask you and the European Union representatives attending Monday’s Summit to tackle political issues and, more specifically, the issue of the death penalty at the same level. It is impossible to remain silent about this State crime, especially when it is committed by the most powerful nation on earth which too often attempts to impose its own order and values on the rest of the planet. That particular value, at any event, is one that we do not want. It is impossible to accept that the only solution to crime and violence is further crime and violence. It is therefore necessary to take action to prevent the irreversible fate that awaits those women and men who, like Mumia Abu-Jamal or Leonard Pelletier, have sometimes been on death row for years. Throughout the world, voices are being raised to demand a form of justice which is a genuine reflection of the values of human respect and of the basic rights and freedoms of the individual. On every continent, a petition demanding the abolition of the death penalty is being signed by hundreds of thousands of people. As Nicole Fontaine rightly reminded us this morning, preserving this most precious commodity called life means, in the end, obtaining a universal moratorium on the death penalty as a first step towards its abolition. I believe that advantage should be taken of the dialogue that exists between the European Union and the United States in order to finally achieve this objective.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I should like an error to be rectified. In Annex I of the Minutes for yesterday, Wednesday 21 July, Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck's name appears under the Liberals in the list of Members that took part in the vote. Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck is no longer an MEP. However, Mr Ward Beysen, who succeeded Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck, is an MEP and he participated in this vote. Might I then request that the name Neyts-Uyttebroeck be deleted as regards the first round of voting as well as the second, and that the name Ward Beysen be added.

Political group: ELDR