GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, I am probably going to repeat things my fellow Members have said but I believe that, as far as the Council is concerned, the thing is to repeat over and over what we think of LIFE. I shall therefore reiterate that, as the rapporteur has already said quite clearly, LIFE is the only specific financial instrument for the implementation of the European Union’s policy on the environment. This instrument is absolutely essential since it provides the impetus for truly innovative actions in favour of nature and the environment in Europe, which are adopted and expanded upon by the Member States. This financial instrument is, furthermore, deliberately democratic since it is accessible to both governmental and non-governmental organisations. That is why, ladies and gentlemen, I would urge you not to vote in favour of the amendments which have no appreciation of the spirit of LIFE. Through the associations, then, LIFE is a facility that can be used by the European citizen directly, and for the benefit of actions in the interest of the community. Several million NGO members – millions, I say – recognise in LIFE the Union’s determination to build up an ambitious policy in favour of our natural heritage. LIFE is, moreover, the fundamental instrument of the Natura 2000 network in Europe into which the Member States have put a lot, pursuant to Community directives on the habitats of rare and endangered fauna and flora and on migratory birds, and which makes it possible to set up the protection of sites of high biological value in our States. I should like to say that those who run down this policy in their own States bear the responsibility for obstructing European nature conservation policies. This is a pity because everyone within this Chamber knows that LIFE is a financial instrument which is not sufficient to carry out the projects submitted by Member States, a good many of which are turned down due to lack of funds. Let us not forget that, to date, LIFE amounts to only EUR 100 million per annum, i.e. scarcely 0.1% of the budget of the European Union. For the record, the budget for agriculture, which has a real impact on the environment, amounts, as we all know, to EUR 37 billion. Against this background, my group thinks it essential to increase the allocation to LIFE and unreservedly supports Mrs Lienemann’s proposal to increase the budget to EUR 850 million, since we know, and I think it bears saying, how high the expectations of our fellow citizens on environmental matters are and how excessively cautious and unacceptable the Council’s compromise regarding the budget for LIFE is, especially as the LIFE programmes show exceptional implementation rates and have demonstrated the extent to which they made it possible to bring about new environmental practice. The first sustainable development projects are unquestionably those.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, first of all let me remind both the Council and Commission that the purpose of the regulation is: 'to give the fullest possible effect to the right of public access to documents and to lay down the general principles and limits on such access'. When looking at the Council and Commission decisions, I see an attempt to rewrite the regulation, in particular references to it in Article 9 of the Commission decision – documents which do not reflect opinions or individual opinions will not be made available. The same applies to Article 11 of the Council decision. I should like to remind both the Council and Commission that a restriction on access to documents can only refer to the exemptions listed in Article 4 and Article 9, which in turn relate back to Article 4. Equally, in the Commission's proposals, third country nationals are denied the right of complaint to the European Ombudsman – again, a violation of the spirit of the regulation. Under delegated powers the Commission believes it will not make legislative papers available until adoption of the final text. I would remind the House and the Commission that 90% of some 5 000 legislative acts adopted every year in the Union are under delegated powers. The Council has widened access to some of its internal documents, but maintains confidentiality on Member State demands on national delegations and national positions. Why is it that six months after the regulation entered into force, no information campaign has been launched by the institutions? Why? When are we going to have the Commission's proposals on amending secondary legislation? Has the Commission adopted security rules? If so, can it publish them according to the regulations? When will Parliament adopt its own security rules? I am extremely worried that if someone were now to approach and gain access via either the Commission's decision or the Council's decision we would see a violation of the regulation. Furthermore, I should like to echo Mrs Maij-Weggen's very important point. It is not acceptable that we should have secretaries-general representing politicians in this interinstitutional committee. Politicians must be accountable and responsible for their decisions.

Political group: PSE
I am very happy to hear that the Commission has decided to limit the number of languages that can be used for the Community patent. At the moment translation costs are the biggest problem when we try to reduce the costs and speed up the process. I warmly welcome the proposal and hope that the IGC is ready to make the necessary changes to the Treaties. But I would like to ask a specific question concerning the process in EPO. I was under the impression that the process itself would remain more or less the same in the new system. Why is it that at the moment the EPO uses the system of many experts instead of the system of one expert, which is in use in Japan and the United States? There the patent is granted when one expert has given their opinion. That is also a factor in making the process in Europe more costly and slower than that of our competitors.

Political group: PPE-DE
With regard to the Schwaiger report, a number of amendments have been adopted which condemn the subsidised export of agricultural products from the EU to developing countries. The VVD (Dutch People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy) recognises that this export can, in some cases, have a detrimental effect on developing countries. This problem, however, cannot be solved by unilateral restriction of the EU Member States alone. Other countries also subsidise their export and will immediately take the place of the EU when it discontinues the practice of subsidised exports. A multilateral approach to this problem is required, whilst nothing is stopping the developing countries from adopting a sound agricultural policy, that is to say preventing or restricting, by means of import levies, the import of these cheap products at the expense of their own agriculture.

Political group: ELDR
Thank you, Commissioner, for your answer. I would like to ask a few supplementary questions. So far there has been talk of these practices from the Netherlands happening in Ireland and the United Kingdom. Is there now any view of whether these practices have taken place in other Member States as well? In the debate on 1 July you announced that there would be more cooperation between the Member States and the Commission to tighten the controls on fraudsters. What steps have you now taken in this regard? You have already answered a number of other questions I was about to ask. But on 1 July you also announced that you would be developing standards for meat products. As regards the presence of water, you have answered that. But what about the presence of other proteins, ‘chicken meat’ that contains beef or pork proteins? What is the state of play on that point? Can you offer any prospect of a total ban on this practice? Because I think that the last part of your answer is absolutely right: really this practice is totally unacceptable and there should be a total ban on these practices. Do you have any idea of when such a ban might be issued and whether it could be issued?

Political group: Verts-ALE
I support this proposal, and the work carried out by the rapporteur, Mr Pirker, and I congratulate the Council, which took account of most of the proposals tabled by the European Parliament at first reading. This initiative is intended to turn Directive 92/109 into a regulation, so as to enable the legislation to be simplified, making it easier to apply in a uniform way and at the same time. This has become even more relevant with the enlargement of the Union, because otherwise, for every amendment tabled to this Directive or to its annexes, national implementing measures would have to be established in 25 Member States. This is, therefore, an attempt to achieve the harmonised monitoring of the trade in drug precursors and to prevent their being diverted into the illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs. The intention is also to facilitate legitimate trade in precursors within the internal market, used for legal and legitimate purposes, such as the manufacture of medicines. Given the growing increase in the production of and trade in synthetic drugs, effective and rigorous monitoring of the manufacture and marketing of these substances must be set up, as they can be diverted to the illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. At the same time, there must be close cooperation between the competent authorities and the economic operators in the chemicals industry.

Political group: PPE-DE
In welcoming the cross-sectoral approach embodied in the new EQUAL initiative, it is crucial that the programme addresses the distinct forms of discrimination which militate against disabled people in particular: physical barriers in the workplace affecting those with limited mobility, visual information systems which exclude blind workers, working systems which effectively close the door on people with learning difficulties or with mental health problems. Organisations of disabled people and disabled people’s non-disabled representatives must have a proper interest at every stage of decision-making. That is why this Parliament has put forward paragraphs 10 and 15 of the resolution, to ensure that Member States cannot ignore any one target group. Disabled people have too often been left off the list. Because disabled people do not form one homogenous group – for example many deaf people see themselves as a linguistic minority denied respect for their own language and culture – it is necessary as stated in paragraph 9 to enable some partnerships to be defined which are specific to a particular disability or other group. EQUAL remains crucial also to regions like my own, in the east of England, outside the principal funds of Objective I. We have had an extra incentive to take up Community initiative funding and an excellent record in response. Former ADAPT projects range from the CORE project, which has developed new supply chains for the car industry in Bedfordshire, to projects to raise standards in small businesses in Hertfordshire in Essex. We have seen the NOW project helping 70 women to return to work in Suffolk, many of whom were able to come and share the results of their experience directly with us at the European Parliament in Brussels. EQUAL remains important to us because it is precisely in relatively more prosperous regions that lower-skilled jobs are being shed, which can be an important first destination for those discriminated against in the labour market. Finally, a word on INTERREG. It really is quite nonsensical that partnerships set up in 1994 are being rolled over now to the exclusion of new inter-regional links. During this period the ports of Great Yarmouth and Harwich on the Essex-Suffolk-Norfolk coast have launched significant new transportation and economic links with partners in the Netherlands. I urge Parliament to support our Amendment No 2, which would ensure flexibility so as to include new areas, particularly on maritime borders.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, in connection with your words on the Middle East, I would like to announce an initiative conceived by some of the female Members of Parliament – Nuala Ahern, Pasqualina Napoletano, Ana Palacio Vallelersundi, Ulla Sandbaek and myself – who have asked other women to go with us to Jerusalem to meet with Palestinian and Israeli women who, in recent years, have never stopped trying to communicate with one other and build bridges of peace. And so, in this spirit, we invite the women of the European Parliament to be part of this delegation. We will make an appeal on Tuesday and Wednesday and collect the names and signatures of those women who wish to be part of the delegation. Our intention is to build bridges of peace between women in places where violence prevails.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I seek your advice as to what redress I have against an inflammatory press release which has caused hate emails to be sent to my office. Richard Howitt MEP claimed in a press release that I had directly accused the Turkish Prime Minister of supporting militant Islamist groups, following the atrocious bombing in Turkey last week. In fact, I made reference to media reports of a former Turkish Government's alleged provision of covert support to Islamist groups in their fight against the Kurdish PKK, and made no reference to the current Prime Minister, Mr Erdogan. Furthermore, Mr Howitt claimed I disregarded the plight of Turkish civilian victims. My use of the word 'atrocious' shows this is patently untrue. I regret any misunderstanding and extend all my sympathies to those who have suffered, irrespective of race or religion. The Member, in his role as Labour's European Affairs spokesman, should have understood the sensitivities in this case. I would be grateful for a correction from Mr Howitt, as otherwise legitimate debate on accelerated EU membership for Turkey will be stifled.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to congratulate Mrs Vlasto on her report. It is certainly clear that we all need to be aware that SMEs and SMIs play an important role not only in the economy, but also in society, by promoting economic and social cohesion. However, the scope for modernising an economy and stabilising a society is very much dependent on institutional conditions and on having a clear, accessible and above all appropriate legal framework. The single market and the total achievement of economic and monetary union, the enlargement of the European Union and the forthcoming establishment of a Euro-Mediterranean area will increase the size of this market and thus change the rules. This globalisation of markets has a marked impact on the competitiveness of Europe’s companies, which need to adapt their strategy by incorporating into their analytical data the strategic advances made by their competitors in third countries and competition from markets in third countries which they want access. We have found that Europe’s companies are not sufficiently internationalised, neither within the single market nor outside the European Union. That is why companies need more favourable and above all more appropriate regulatory conditions to be put in place as soon as possible. In particular, these conditions need to improve market access and provide for additional measures for enterprise partnerships at international level. SMEs also need to come up with new forms of work organisation, but these changes should in no case be at the expense of workers’ needs in terms of security. It is essential to encourage workers to adapt their skills to the needs of the company and to consider training as an investment for companies and an added value for employees. Furthermore, SMEs make a contribution to Europe’s cultural values and to increasing skill levels. They are the section of our economy that we need to promote, as stated at the Lisbon Summit, but we need to act quickly, because our slowness is suffocating them. When confronted with economic reality, our companies need deeds more than words. We need to be as efficient as they are. This is already clear in the Sixth Framework Programme on Research. We now need to pursue that coherence.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am surprised. The situation, and I should like a response to it from the minister, is this: First, the Helsinki conclusions state that resolving the Cyprus problem is not a precondition to the accession of Cyprus. But the Cyprus problem is not just any old problem. It is the specific problem of the invasion and occupation of a significant part of the territory of a country which is a member of the UN and a candidate for membership of the European Union by another country which is also a member of the UN and also a candidate for membership of the European Union. Are we are saying that the Cyprus question can be resolved without ending the occupation? And what is his opinion of Mr Cem's position – the President-in-Office did not reply here – that there can be no link-up between the Cyprus question and furthering the Accession Partnership between Turkey and the European Union? In other words, is it possible that this partnership will be furthered and that Turkey will join the European Union without ceasing to occupy Cyprus and removing its settlers from Cyprus? If that is the case, you can hardly blame us for seeing the European Union as an imperialist organisation.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, North Korea’s acknowledgement that it has a programme under way to develop nuclear weapons is not only an insult to the credibility of international agreements but also a total defeat for the KEDO project. The EU believed it could use so-called peaceful civil nuclear power to bribe a totalitarian regime to refrain from developing nuclear weapons. This naïve confidence in nuclear solutions to serious problems has now given rise to a backlash and caused the EU to appear in an embarrassing and ridiculous light. The Group of the has maintained right from the beginning that the KEDO project has been badly thought out. We have proved to have been horribly right. Unfortunately, it appears as if neither the Commission nor the political groups in Parliament that support nuclear power are managing to look the truth in the face, draw the logical conclusions from the KEDO fiasco and abandon the project. What is missing from the joint motion for a resolution is a clear acknowledgement of the fact that KEDO has been wrongly constructed, badly thought out, dangerous and counter-productive right from the start. Support for North Korea’s seriously afflicted people must be provided in quite different forms. The EU must clearly and openly acknowledge its fatal mistake in joining KEDO and inform other KEDO members that it is withdrawing from the project. The fact is that those responsible for KEDO should be ashamed of themselves. Certainly, there is a need to proceed carefully so as not to damage the so-called Sunshine Policy, and certainly there is a need to talk with the Pyongyang leadership in order to drive the normalisation process forward. There is no need, however, desperately to cling to so completely ill-conceived and discredited a project as KEDO.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to welcome the Speaker of the Knesset – whose acquaintance I made during a visit to Israel a very short while ago – and the representatives of the Palestinian Legislative Council. We all deeply regret the partial failure of the Camp David discussions, although we would like to thank President Clinton and Mrs Albright as well, who put so much work and brainpower into the talks. However, we feel – and here we agree with the report – that this peace agreement which is being drawn up has increased the possibilities and that there is a way forward. We feel that everything that can be possibly be done now and in the future, including in terms of equal opportunities, must be done and followed up: the Palestinian people has the right to self-determination, without prejudice to the rights of the State of Israel. There is one more point which deserves our attention, Mr President, which concerns the city of Jerusalem, which is one of the most sensitive elements in the issue. We must endeavour to preserve the religious, cultural and universal character of this holy city, and it must certainly not become the subject of haggling or the property of any one side. It has been proposed that it become the capital of both States. That would be ideal. I would also like to touch on a personal, political consideration. Europe must make an additional effort, it must take further steps to gain and perform a political as well as an economic role. We cannot limit our concern to economic issues or matters of water, the sovereignty of Lake Tiberias and so on and so forth. We must not forget our political responsibility to history: the European Union has a responsibility as well as the Heads of the States of Israel and Palestine. Europe must become a political body and negotiate to achieve peace in this case as well, doing everything in its power to ensure that lasting peace is established in the Mediterranean.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, a never-ending drama seems to be unfolding in Burma. For years, a brutal junta has been terrorising the people of Burma, who live in extreme poverty. The regime bullies thousands of forced labourers, thousands of political detainees languish in the country’s prisons, and the President, once democratically elected with an overwhelming majority, the holder of the Nobel Prize – and also the holder of the European Parliament’s Sakharov Prize – was imprisoned for years and then, after a short period in which the hope of a thin silver lining of democracy could be seen on the horizon, was arrested again on 31 May this year together with nine other members of the country’s parliament. As you have no doubt learned from the media, it is not clear how many human lives the enforced military takeover has actually cost, or what fate the Deputy Chairman of the persecuted party, the National League for Democracy, has suffered. It is possible that the President herself was injured in this latest attack. This is a really serious reversal, given that exactly a year ago the release of Aung San Suu Kyi raised hopes that the regime was ready to carry out reforms. In this spirit of hope, a political dialogue was begun, under the supervision of the UN Special Envoy Razali Ismail, but it is to be feared that on his visit, planned for tomorrow, he will be prevented from meeting Aung San Suu Kyi, and that this will result in a further hardening of attitudes. Military might, political persecution and taking away the freedom of people who, in defiance of all repressive measures, continue to fight for democracy – all these must not be tolerated. The Council has therefore been invited to reintroduce, with immediate effect, the sanctions against the regime which had been temporarily suspended. However, it must also be clear that the Council, the Commission and in particular Parliament, in the interests of the people of Burma, do not want to close all doors in Burma. In other words, we are still ready to help to encourage a process of national reconciliation, but there must also be signs that such a reconciliation process is desired and pursued by all sides. As long as terror and military might prevail, however, no one can hope for tolerance from the European Parliament and from the other European institutions. (Applause)

Political group: PSE