GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Nice was simply not a successful Summit. Very rarely has a European Summit taken place which has had such ill after-effects, as is mostly the case in very problematic births. Presidents, a Chancellor, Prime Ministers and Foreign Affairs Ministers are falling over each other with articles in prominent newspapers, with speeches for prestigious institutes and statements on what Nice should have been like and what should be Europe’s future. It would have been much better if that work had been delivered before and not after Nice. Maybe we would not be facing this debacle now. A great deal went wrong at Nice, but the most serious mistakes have been the complicated decision-making processes that have been created, which are even more complex and opaque than before, and the fact that on a number of scores, a qualified majority vote was taken without approval from the European Parliament. If this were to happen in a developing country, we would say, it was high time a good governance programme were drafted. It is therefore best not to look back any more, but to look to the future instead and to improve on Nice. In this connection, I welcome Chancellor Schröder’s initiative to adopt the ideas of the 70s and 80s and to give them a new lease of life. Mr Barón Crespo wondered what had happened to the proposals by the Presidents and Prime Ministers: reinforcement of the European Commission, a European Parliament with proper powers, and a Council which has to hold public meetings in the form of a Senate or a Bundesrat. Our – both group and party – have stood for those ideas since the 70s and 80s. The question is now how to ensure that these proposals actually take shape. We are no great fans of wise men – we have had 20 such committees since 1979 – or of a forum which can be convened at any time. Quite simply, a convention should be set up of national parliaments and the European Parliament. When national ministers meet in the European Summit, they would then at least be covered by national parliaments. Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, it would be better if you were to adopt this idea. I wish you good luck in Gothenburg, and I hope that a convention will ensue. That appears to be the best solution to me.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to join other Members in expressing my condolences to the families involved in the tragedy that has taken place. I also share some of the opinions of previous speakers. I would like to insist on one point, however: I believe that the system based on prohibition, the Seveso system, is not sufficient. The tragedies taking place recently are demonstrating that we are experiencing phenomena which can only be reduced, if not eliminated, by means of integrated treatment. The issue today is town and country planning. Europe has an old and antiquated system in which all towns wanted to have their industries and it seemed that quality of life was linked to everything being together. A town with many shops, many industries and all within an accessible area. Nevertheless, the scale, the risk and the dimension of our companies today demonstrate the serious problems that this entails. We cannot continue to allow town and country planning to be completely subsidiary. We must be capable of selecting basic elements in order to create a European area of security, in the way that is being done in other areas, such as food safety. We must recognise the need for an area of security in the field of town and country planning. And the countries must accept it. And in the same way that any town and country planning accepts protected natural areas, measures of this type will also have to be accepted. In this respect, I regret the fact that, in the version of the environmental action programme which we have received from the Council – the sixth – with regard to which we presented proposals on the urban environment and inhabited areas, certain aspects have been removed which our group considers important. We believe that it is a matter of urgency to establish environmental strategies, to implement risk studies, also in industrial areas, to create specific industrial areas far from towns, to penalise those builders or local authorities who allow anything for the sake of construction, and of course establish risk indicators which are incorporated into a European policy.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr Commissioner, I am satisfied with your reply, but I would like to add something else. The sea is a difficult world, and the Community fleet which fishes in international Atlantic waters experiences the interference of controllers and patrols from coastal countries which give the impression that, behind the harassment they sometimes suffer, there is one sole intention; to expel them from those fishing grounds. The Commissioner knows, as I do, that the current situation in the NAFO is not, fortunately, what it was five years ago after the seizure of the Estai. The European Commission – like the fishing sector itself – has made significant efforts to iron out our differences. However, there are still outstanding questions, such as the extraterritorial clauses, which allow the Canadian Government to carry out inspections, controls and seizures beyond their national waters, in open sea, which is incompatible with international provisions and which, all too frequently, involves the arbitrary application of controls within the framework of the NAFO. For all these reasons, I would like to ask the Commissioner how the European Commission intends to defend the right of the Community fleet to fish freely in these waters, albeit within the existing rules.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Slovenia has succeeded in achieving the majority of the short-term priority objectives of the pre-accession partnership and this positive evaluation is helping to provide fresh impetus for the negotiations. I am focusing on Slovenia because I have been involved in that country’s accession process and because it is a fine example of how realisation that the end is in sight can speed things up. There are only a few days to go before the Slovenian general elections. This is not the most opportune moment for it to focus on foreign policy and the interchanges between the different parties could become heated and exploitative. However, with the exception of insignificant minorities, no political group is questioning the principle objective of the Slovenian policy which is to join the European Union as soon as possible. The political line therefore remains unchanged. The speeches of all those who have contributed to today’s debate on enlargement paint a not-dissimilar picture. The report on Slovenia presents us with a problem which is also part of the Czech question, the Croatian question and the situation of other nations. However, at various different stages, always during or immediately following the Second World War, measures were adopted which do not clearly meet the Copenhagen criteria, given the prevailing spirit at the time, and yet the political and ideological architecture of the period, including the peace treaties, was founded on precisely those laws. The third amendment to the Slovenian document, for example, welcomes the Slovenian Government's intention to ascertain whether the laws and decrees currently in force, which date from 1943, 1944 and 1945, are in conflict with the Copenhagen criteria. Internal battles are being sparked off in the individual countries over these issues. While an amendment, as we said, welcomes the Slovenian Government's intention to ascertain whether the laws are in conflict with the Copenhagen criteria, the Slovenian parliament’s Foreign Policy Committee, which has decision-making power, stresses that the bases established between 1934 and 1935, upon which Yugoslavia was created, are fundamental, and requests that the Slovenian Government firmly enforce this position in its entirety, that part of the country ... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, last year, Parliament discussed an Association Agreement with Egypt. The Association Agreement needed renewing. At the time, we expressed our concern in a resolution about the persecution of 52 men on account of their homosexuality. Twenty-three of these men were put behind bars, although the Egyptian government eventually partly granted the European Union’s wishes by releasing twenty-two of them. My group, and I assume also the other groups in this House, are therefore shocked to hear that Egyptian law enforcement agencies are now once again bringing 50 of these men before the court for something in respect of which sentence has previously been passed on them. In doing so, Egypt is violating the rule of ne bis in idem – no second conviction for the same offence. This is, in principle, what Egypt too claims to subscribe to. A letter which Amnesty International has received from the Egyptian government further states that: “ Egyptian law does not incriminate the practice of homosexuality if not performed in public; homosexuals should not be subjected to any kind of discrimination”. However, practice is quite another matter, and so it is necessary for us to approach the Egyptian government again in order to put an end to this persecution of gay men. We owe it to these men with whom we have concerned ourselves previously and we also owe it to our own credibility. I was therefore surprised to have to find out that the Christian-Democrat group had withdrawn its signature from this resolution, which I would in any event ask this group to continue backing.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I abstained from the final vote on this report. I share the concerns of the European Member of Parliament who, quite rightly, before the vote, discussed the situation of the gipsies and the injustices they suffer in Hungary. The existence of serious discrimination against this community, one of the most victimised communities in Europe, is a key element casting doubt over whether Hungary is truly committed to making Europe an area of peace, democracy and prosperity for all its constituent populations. - Van Orden Report (A5-0241/2000)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I should like to draw this House’s attention to the Commission’s refusal to follow up, within the framework of interinstitutional accords, a request for information regarding the possible award of EUR 230 million Euratom funding to the Cernavoda nuclear complex. As a rapporteur on the liberalisation of the electricity market, I feel politically responsible for ensuring fair competition in this market. I asked the Commission to provide us, as it is required to do by the Espoo convention, with the environmental impact study, along with the report on public participation. The Commission has not submitted the documents concerned to our committee within the established time frame. This is confirmation, if further confirmation were needed, of the Commission’s blatant lack of transparency when it comes to the nuclear issue. I should therefore like to request your support, Mr President, in compelling the Commission to comply with the right to information, as provided for in the interinstitutional accords.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, in the absence of our chairman, as vice-chairman of the Committee on Petitions I would point out that our committee requested the report from STOA on the possible toxic effects of Sellafield in the Irish Sea and Cap de la Hague in the English Channel. The Petitions Committee is as anxious as anybody that this report should be published as soon as possible. It is important that the report, when adopted by STOA, is seen to be absolutely objective and scientifically independent. That is why it has been subjected to independent assessment. When we have considered that assessment I believe all Members of this House would want the report to be published. But that should not be done whilst doubts remain – and unfortunately there are doubts – about the objectivity of the report as currently presented to the STOA panel. ***

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the case brought by 39 pharmaceutical companies against the South African government on the sale of cheap drugs against AIDS is a tragedy as well as a dilemma. A tragedy because the scale of the problem in South Africa, where millions of people suffer from AIDS, is almost impossible to grasp. South Africa is one of many countries contending with this problem. Ninety-five per cent of those infected with HIV live in developing countries. Africa has over 25 million AIDS patients, and South Africa 4 million. By 2010, life expectancy in Africa will fall by 20 years. In South Africa, half of all young people already run the risk of dying from this disease. It is a tragedy that all these countries have to cope with. Then there is the dilemma of the pharmaceutical industry, which has meanwhile developed drugs that have reduced the number of deaths from AIDS in Europe and the US by 75%. But those drugs are so expensive – in Dutch terms, G 30 000 a year per patient – that they are out of reach and unaffordable for African AIDS patients. Hence it is understandable that these African countries should look for solutions, for instance imitation drugs and parallel imports. After all, the lives of millions of people are at stake. The price varies from NLG 30 000 to NLG 450. In our view a court case is not the right way of solving problems. Solutions must be sought through discussion, as has happened meanwhile in Senegal, the Ivory Coast and Uganda, where five pharmaceutical companies are working with three governments on considerably cheaper drugs. For that matter, the pharmaceutical industry often exaggerates its costs: after all huge profits are also made in this sector, especially on cosmetics and on products like tranquillisers and vitamins. AIDS drugs constitute only a fraction of sales. We therefore advocate the dropping of the court cases in South Africa and the finding of an acceptable solution, and therefore ask the Commission to retract its previous letter to the South African government in which the case brought by the pharmaceutical industry is supported, and to do its utmost to ensure the application of the TRIPS scheme in the WTO. Europe must opt for solidarity with the AIDS patients and not for the rights of the strongest and wealthiest. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I wish to ask a question and, depending on the answer, perhaps lodge a complaint. Who is responsible, in Question Time, for determining the order in which questions are answered?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I enthusiastically support the further deepening of integration. Many matters are best dealt with at Community level, but when I read the report of my colleague Mr Katiforis – which provides several guidelines which are favourable to the market economy and therefore worthy of support – I cannot agree with some of the proposals in it. The dynamism and desired growth of the European economy will not come about by creating Union-wide integrated programmes, whether they be applied with good intentions in the area of training or entrepreneurship or whether they be common support systems for the benefit of SME organisations. I also have my personal doubts about the superiority of a European scientific community, if it is to be created from above, i.e. by the volition of the Commission and the Council, and not allowed to develop naturally through networking between the scientific communities, from one business or university to another; financing, both at a national and European level, must naturally be secured. Something which I have reservations about is the faith in the importance of top-level structures which stands out in this report; a programme and planning from the top may actually put the brakes on development rather than make it dynamic. At present, European dynamism will be improved by dismantling top-level structures, for example, barriers to trade, which are still hindering the creation of a genuine internal market. This is what Mr Katiforis is also calling for, albeit of the Commission, when it should be demanded of those nation states, which – in a few individual cases – practice obstructionism, for example, in the areas of transport, public procurement or energy. When discussing economic policies in the context of this report, we should not forget about competition policy. Recently, the neutrality of the Communities’ competition policy has been called into question – justifiably so – inter alia in the case of Volvo-Scania. The reason given for regional monopolies and concentration of power in regions with a small population base is rather lame. It is clearly a real blow to the industry and trade of small and remote countries while they are making efforts to increase their competitiveness within the Union area.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the regulation we are discussing today dates back to 29 April last year. Parliament was unanimously in favour of this regulation at the time. The regulation was intended to provide EU legislation which would ensure that certified supersonic civilian aircraft are subject to new environmental stipulations. I therefore make no secret of the fact that I took great exception back then to the decision to defer the regulation. What is more, this deferral of the measures proposed by the EU came about at the request of the United States government, under threat – I might add – of an official complaint. The negotiation process attending this regulation, which ensued at the request of the American authorities, was a drawn-out uphill struggle. I would like to offer my compliments to the Commissioner responsible, Mrs de Palacio, in this connection. She acquitted herself of her task admirably and gave her all to the matter at hand. In other words, we were not obstructive but we were firmly united in our willingness to introduce a regulation; under the terms of which, I might add, the United States would, in any case, have two more years in which to complete the phasing-out process. I will also be speaking for many of my fellow MEPs when I say that we will lose credibility in the eyes of the electorate and the grassroots support if we spend tens of millions of guilders in our own Member States on pulling down and insulating housing in the vicinity of civilian airfields, whilst neglecting to tackle the root of the problem in an effective manner. I believe it is unacceptable that the people of Europe continue to be exposed to noise levels which are damaging both in financial terms and to health. That is why the Group intends to show a united front in its support for our own resolution, and hence for Mrs de Palacio’s policy. I also call upon the United States again to take our European legislation seriously. I did become a little perturbed on hearing the President-in-Office of the Council say that new conditions were introduced yesterday. I wonder what he actually means? It is either one thing or the other. The regulation should come into force now as far as we are concerned. After all, there is no conceivable way in which you can start dreaming something else up. That would be absolutely out of the question because we are past the adoption stage. Things went wrong on the legislative front last year as it was. If the European Parliament had approached the European Court of Justice at the time, then it would have been proved right. I have a feeling there is a little bit of backtracking and outmanoeuvring going on, which is completely unacceptable in a case such as this. We must support our Commissioner and honour the legislation that we ourselves have adopted.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this is a very important report for which I wholeheartedly congratulate Mr Bullmann. I would like to make two points. When we talk about the special things Europe is doing and why hopefully in the future we may be a model for the world, we must be able to support our facts with figures. How do we measure this success? We have very traditional instruments: GDP or the unemployment rate which, according to research carried out by the Munich-based institute, the IFO, has fallen from 8.1% to 7.6%. We also have the external value of the euro. But there are many other indicators we have hitherto not taken into consideration. That is why I would particularly like to express my support for paragraphs 24 to 29 of this report, which redefine quality of life and quality of employment. That would help our debate a great deal. What has also been lacking hitherto is introduced by Amendments No 13 and 17, namely the environmental aspect, which also seems to be a special concern of the Swedish Presidency. It is an area where there is still much to be done. To Mr Friedrich, who spoke of the danger of knowing too much, I would say that we are rather in danger of knowing too little. This particularly concerns Parliament, which brings me to my second point: access to information in the follow-up to the post-Lisbon debate. It is undignified for preparatory documents on Summit meetings to be slipped surreptitiously into Parliament, and often not before they have first been made available to the press. There is nothing unifying in this; it is simply divisive. With the partitioning off that is being practised, especially when Parliament is involved, the Council is doing itself a disservice. It is simply promoting the delegitimisation of holders of political office. Why are we in Parliament no longer trusted? Let the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, or the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, or the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy in. Give one of the chairmen of our committees, Christa Randzio-Plath for instance, the chance, give Parliament the chance, to work with you on equal terms. What are you afraid of?

Political group: PSE
In light of the major changes in tourism, the current VAT system applicable to European travel agencies is inappropriate, out of date and extremely anti-competitive. I therefore support the European Commission initiative and the amendments by the rapporteur, Mrs Torres Marques, to make the system more straightforward and more competitive. The very active tourism industry in the Algarve region can only benefit from such a change. Travel agencies and tour operators outside the EU will have to pay VAT when they provide services to European customers, and conversely, European travel agencies will be exempt from VAT when they provide services to customers residing outside the EU, thereby re-establishing healthy and fair competition in the European internal market.

Political group: PPE-DE