GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Strasbourg has come to symbolise not only peace, but also human rights, civil liberties and parliamentary government. It was here, fifty-three years ago, that the Council of Europe was set up, and where it still has a special concern for human rights. It was here, fifty-two years ago, that the European Convention on Human Rights was adopted, our neighbour the European Court of Human Rights being its fruit. It was here, fifty years ago, that a European Parliament met for the first time. This week has found us observing its fiftieth anniversary. It was here too that we had our first joint session with the European Council's Parliamentary Assembly, which might well have been rather tricky in technical terms, but I must say that those responsible overcame the difficulties brilliantly. This was also a long-awaited opportunity to build stronger links between these two institutions, the European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the European Council. Strasbourg is also the seat of the European Ombudsman, who expresses our vision of a citizens' Europe, a Europe of human rights. It has already frequently been said that Brussels, being the home of the Commission and of the Council, is increasingly synonymous with bad administrative practice. I consider this rather unfair, and have to say so too, as Brussels is where the administration of the Council and the Commission does much that is exemplary. Indeed, the present Commission – and I have for some years been numbered among the great critics of the Commission – and Mr Liikanen as well, have done much to systematically improve its administrative practices. Despite that, there is still a staggering amount remaining to be done. Unlike Mrs Hautala, I do not believe that the introduction of more direct democracy will win the public over to European integration. What works outstandingly well in the small democratic structure that is the canton of Appenzell, will not work in the same way in a Community with half a billion inhabitants. The end result would be a society governed by hysteria, in which politics would be run by demagogues in television companies. What we need is decentralisation and the Rule of Law. A great deal has been said today about the Nordic culture. I welcome that. The Ombudsman is a Nordic invention, but we are not the Nordic community; we are the European Community. The concept of supranational law is a Roman achievement. That is why I was very glad to hear something Mr Gemelli said. ‘What is decisive,’ he said, ‘is that people are aware of their European citizenship.’ You can say it in Latin just as well: ‘Civis europaeis sum.’ Only when people can say that will the unification of Europe have been achieved. That is why we need good administration, clear principles of human rights, and Europe as a Community based on the Rule of Law!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, an historic decision has indeed been taken in Helsinki. It is a cheque made out to the future and, to be frank, neither you nor we know how we can honour it. After the unanimous vote on the enlargement process, no further doubt can or will be cast on the seriousness of our intentions and of Turkey’s intention to meet the Copenhagen criteria as quickly as possible. It is the will of the Helsinki Summit that the European Union should number 28 Member States in a few years’ time. However, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, a number of questions then arise as to the scope of the decisions which have been taken. Do you really believe that, once the Amsterdam leftovers have been cleared up, our Union will still have the power to act and will still be transparent and democratic with 27 or 28 Member States? Do you really believe that we can maintain the present language rules in our institutions with 15, 16, 17 or 18 languages? Do you believe that we can maintain the present internal modus operandi of our institutions, of the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission and the balance between them with 27 or 28 Member States? Do you really believe that Turkey, the European country with the largest population and a long history its own, will merely join the European Union as its 28th Member State rather than changing the very nature of it? Do we not need a plan for moving the Schengen borders to the Euphrates and Tigris? Do we not need a plan for dealing with accession applications received by the European Union from the States of Eastern Europe and the Caucasus in the wake of the Helsinki decision? And for dealing with Russia if we receive accession applications from the States of that region? I trust that we will find the flexibility within the European Union, the flexibility which has so far completely eluded us – what we previously described as flexibility notwithstanding – in order to safeguard the cohesion of the European Union. I trust that we shall, over coming years, find the strength and the courage to answer these questions and to find answers of our own before others find them for us.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on a point of order. Twice this week we have been in a situation where groups have made requests for a roll-call vote on the final vote of a report and, just before the final vote, the Chamber is told that the roll call has been withdrawn. What is the situation, because if, for example, a request for a roll call has been made, other groups do not actually make a request so the opportunity to hold a roll-call vote on the final report is denied us? Could you explain what the situation is?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, what I have to say is addressed particularly to Mrs Schreyer, the Commissioner. A fortnight ago, you described me as a champion of the European State Financial Prosecutor. I take that as a title of honour and might perhaps apply the term to you yourself, as we have now of course achieved what we wanted at the beginning of the nineties – a Green Paper and consequent Treaty amendment. I believe, though, that the timetable has to be tightened up a bit, as what you have said indicates that such a State Prosecutor will be in place only in 2006 or 2007. So, we are on your side, but, as we want to speed the process up, I would like to ask you to find the time to enable us to achieve the objective, and, with all the subsidiarity, please see to it that the process is not ponderous, slow or inefficient. That is important; it will enable us to really move ahead with setting up the State Prosecutor. The citizens out there demand it, and we are doing something for Europe if we make it clear that it is Europe's money that we are protecting.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as you know, we must support the production of grain legume crops by improving the system without reducing the level of aid, given the current shortfall in grain legumes both for human consumption and animal consumption. The fact is that the system of aid established in 1989 has been modified several times, but no report has been presented on the application of the present system. Now, by advocating a maximum guaranteed area of 400 000 hectares, the Commission wants to reduce the average production area over the last three years by around 100 000 hectares, which will mean considerable reductions in aid. On the other hand, although we do not disagree with splitting the maximum guaranteed area into two, we feel it is necessary to adjust the historical reference period in order to calculate each of the maximum guaranteed areas excluding the last three years, in order to reduce the damaging impact for Portugal on products designed for human consumption. Finally, it is important to point out that it is vital for Portugal that dry bean should be considered in this system, even without the change to the maximum guaranteed surface. We therefore firmly believe that the Commission should bear in mind these amendments to the new system which it hopes to establish for grain legumes.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the rapporteur is proposing rejection of the Commission's proposal. We, in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, are rather reluctant to do this without telling the Commission why, at least without giving the Commission a written explanation. However, in conclusion it has to be said that the directive cannot remain as it is. In its opinion, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market also made a number of comments. It confined its comments to its particular field. The issue of health protection undoubtedly has a role to play in this proposal for a directive. However, this is not an issue for our committee. The question of whether the minimum excise duty should be EUR 140, 120, 100, 80 or 60 is also undoubtedly significant in connection with health protection, but not for the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. For us, it was exclusively legal considerations that mattered. In this respect, the directive would appear to have two essential weaknesses, which mean that it does not stand up to scrutiny against reasonable internal market considerations. Firstly, the system of having a minimum incidence of excise duty comes under pressure from the fact that value added tax is imposed on top of this minimum rate. If I take a country where the rate of excise duty is the bare minimum required and the rate of value added tax is also very low, then I have to conclude that there are distortions of competition if I compare it with a country where the rate of excise duty perhaps exceeds the minimum and there is a relatively high rate of value added tax. That is why we think that in the future, instead of requiring a minimum incidence of excise duty exclusive of value added tax, it would be appropriate to work on the basis of a system which provides for a minimum rate of excise duty inclusive of the applicable value added tax. The second point concerns Article 3(1). We think that this proposal no longer draws a proper distinction between cigarettes and cigarillos or cigars. The proposal tries to give the impression that cigarillos with filters are cigarettes with dark-coloured wrappers and that they should be taxed accordingly, like cigarettes. We believe that this is wrong. The health effects of filters can certainly be disputed, but it ought to be indisputable that a cigarillo with a filter is in any case slightly more healthy than a cigarillo without a filter. If, however, I treat cigarillos with filters as equivalent to cigarettes for tax purposes – and I am not a cigarillo smoker! – then I penalise the fundamentally healthier product by taxing it like a cigarette. That is why I think that improvements also need to be made here. We agree with the conclusion that the proposal should be rejected. Even if it sounds harsh, technical improvements are necessary.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I would like to make a few comments. I would like, first of all, to thank the rapporteur for his exceptionally accurate and technical work on the report and, secondly, the Commission for the proposal it has submitted. We are concerned here with the harmonisation of examination requirements but also, in fact, with minimum requirements. This is a pity, in a sense. Needless to say, safety on roads, railways and inland waterways is of key importance and, given the international nature of these types of transport, training for safety advisors should also be harmonised, therefore, as well as the requirements of the new ADR, for example, which is under way. This is important, but so is enforcement and there are, of course, a number of reasons why we need to pay particular attention to this. Just think of the road accidents which have occurred over recent years, for example in Belgium, the Netherlands and a number of other countries where lorries carrying dangerous goods continued to drive in foggy conditions when really they should have pulled off the road instead. Or ships from Eastern Europe which moor adjacent to ships over here, with all the obvious risks that this entails. Furthermore, it has transpired that research in the ports in Belgium, Finland, but also in Japan has shown that 50% of containers with partially dangerous cargo are not delivered correctly for shipment. In short, the issue is an important one. If we look at the situation where safety advisers are concerned, in a number of countries it is compulsory to employ such safety advisers in companies as from 1 January of this year. There will be major problems with enforcing this rule at present, especially with smaller companies, as these cannot afford safety advisors. These smaller companies either dispose of their cargo or mix it with other cargo, which causes problems. It is therefore also being requested that ISO 9002 certificates possibly include the finer details of these activities in the form of annual reports and company analyses. The work is done. All that remains is the business of enforcement. I would like to mention one final point. With regard to enforcement, proper agreements must also be concluded with the Eastern European countries because they will not enter into treaties which deal with this matter until 1 July 2001, that is to say in eighteen months’ time. This gives them a competitive edge for the interim period. This is not in itself anything dreadful, but we should prioritise particularly the safety aspects for goods transported by road, rail and inland waterways and incorporate these, as part of the acquis communautaire, as soon as possible and present them to the acceding states.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I saw a few boats landing at Parliament this week and notified the security service. Not only were there language difficulties; the telephone line was so poor that it was almost impossible to communicate. I would be most obliged if the number on which the security service can be reached could also be clearly displayed in the House, so that if anyone wants to report an incident, they can do so quickly and efficiently.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we live in a dangerous world, even if, from the outside, the European Union appears to be a haven of peace. Of course, not everything in Europe is perfect. We must modernise our economic and social structures and we must prepare for the challenges of globalisation in order to seize the opportunities that it presents. In doing so, the Socialists want to protect the European social model. Social justice and social inclusion must remain our constant objectives but this does not prevent us from reforming the employment market. But if flexibility and mobility are a cure-all for full employment, how do you explain the recent rise in unemployment in the United States? In the Silicon Valley, the heart of the new economy, unemployment currently stands at 6%. The workers concerned, who are generally highly qualified, are not moving away. Those who are forced to leave are the 500 000 non-American specialists who had received temporary work permits under a special law. When comparing employment markets, we cannot disregard the fact that there are 2 million Americans in prison, versus 80 000 in Germany or 60 000 in Great Britain. The American model is not always to be commended. To sum up, we accept social reforms but are against ‘social dumping’. Following the Lisbon Summit, Barcelona is expected to step up economic reforms. The Socialists do want to achieve a real internal market. Liberalisation, however, does not mean deregulation. Liberalisation calls for better rules and a genuine monitoring of these rules; the Enron affair should be a lesson to us all. By modernising its economy, Europe has a duty to maintain efficient public services for its citizens, particularly the least affluent. At a time when the United States is rediscovering the virtues of public service, Europe must not bring down its own. The Socialists are in favour of macro-economic stability. However, the Stability and Growth Pact must be applied in a non-dogmatic fashion but attention must at the same time be paid to the global situation. We need budgetary discipline, but we need flexibility as well, when the state of the world economy demands this. Today the Americans are showing us their pragmatism in terms of budgetary and fiscal policy. We are also in favour of globalisation, but reject globalisation that has no well-defined and multilaterally accepted rules. We reject globalisation that offers no solidarity, particularly to the developed countries. Yet – and the events of 11 September serve as a cruel reminder of this – the developed countries can only live in peace if they help to resolve conflicts which allow dogmatic agitators throughout the world to convince unemployed young people that they live in a world that has no prospects. It is up to us, Mr President, to show them that a common future is possible.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, on a point of order. I wish to make three brief points. The first concerns the point of procedure addressed by Mr Oostlander, namely that various colleagues felt, because of the sensitivity of the issue in hand, that they should like to have in their own language, as is their right, the text of the report and all the amendments to it. This matter was signalled clearly at the Conference of Presidents last week – on more than one occasion, I understand. I myself was absent, but I have had this confirmed to me. In that case, when the sensitivity of the availability of documents was clearly signalled, why was it not prioritised by the services in such a way as to avoid this? That is my first question. Given the sensitivity, the Bureau, the House and the Conference of Presidents should be given a detailed account of this breakdown in the system. My second point is that Mr Oostlander is perfectly within his rights to say that, under Rule 115, proceeding with the debate or the vote can be questioned as the documentation was not available 24 hours in advance. He is perfectly correct to insist on the application of that rule, if he should so wish. It is my understanding that all the documents and amendments in all languages were finally available about 3 p.m. yesterday. I should like to have that confirmed. If that is true, I should then like to suggest that we change our order of business for today and, respecting the 24-hour deadline, I would ask the rapporteur, Mrs Buitenweg, to introduce her report at 3 p.m., followed by a debate, urgencies and then the vote, which would fully respect the 24-hour deadline. There is one point that, to many of us, is the issue of substance in this report. We have under the Treaties the power now to bring in new anti-discrimination legislation. Of all the areas of political sensitivity in contemporary Europe, that dealing with racism and xenophobia should be given the highest priority in this House. The Portuguese Presidency will organise a Social Affairs Council which we can engage with if we deliver a view. I appeal to the House to make creative use of the possibility open to us, in setting our agenda, to recognise this substantive political requirement and to facilitate a debate at 3 p.m. and a vote at 6 p.m. or thereafter this evening. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I am sorry to rise again on a point of order but I do so to challenge the ruling you made earlier, not in the context of the debate but in the context of the Rules of this House. If there is an equality of votes and if the honourable Member did vote, even though her machine did not work, then the procedure in any parliamentary assembly is that amendment falls. Therefore, in those circumstances I want you to tell me which part of our Rules suggests that your ruling is right, when clearly it is not.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, to speak of Burma truthfully, crudely and without disguising our words, is to speak of the violation of human and collective rights, of the non-recognition of the results of free elections and the persistence of dictatorship, of human exploitation through forced labour which benefits certain Western multinationals. And this is happening in a country which, unfortunately, was the first to benefit from our programme of preferential treatment, which should have had a better future. The European Union must continue to act under the Finnish Presidency so that relations with Burma can be re-established as soon as possible, but on the basis of the respect for human rights, the results of the elections and the liberation of the British prisoners who were arrested for defending democracy. We must put pressure on the military Junta and not allow them to find ways of circumventing democratic legitimacy, which will make a mockery of it. We must find the best way of working out a solution. I hope, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, that the European Union, neither now – with Finland – nor later, allows such a mockery to take place. And I hope that all of you – and Mr Kinnock in particular – will also condemn the behaviour of those companies which take advantage of human exploitation in a country which is under a dictatorial system and regime. (Applause) Iran

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we recently reached an agreement with the Court of Auditors under which we would be able to obtain advance information from the Court's annual report on a totally confidential basis, and we also agreed that we would be discreet about this. I am saddened to see that the Members of the Court of Auditors do not apparently respect this kind of agreement. So my question is whether we should repeat an arrangement of this kind in the coming years. I really think that you should have some concerns about the culture on your side, if the Court of Auditors is not capable of keeping its side of the bargain on such issues. Secondly, various honourable Members have already mentioned the lack of clarity here. You know, Mr Karlsson, that if you do not include the figures in the report, then others will work them out for you. Mrs Rühle and other previous speakers have mentioned percentages. Bearing in mind that there are error rates of up to 7%, Mrs Schreyer can no longer come along and tell us that the Court has endorsed the Commission's actions and has said that the Commission is on the right track, because that, of course, would be the track over the edge of the cliff! But you have not included that in your report, and I am sick and tired of hearing, year after year, that the Member States are responsible for 80% and the Commission for only 20%, while the report itself does not point the finger of blame! The points Mrs van der Laan made earlier should be included, and I am pleased to say that we agree about that. Let me be quite clear about this, you should name the Member States who are to blame even if you are nominated as Members of the Court of Auditors by those same Member States. After all, we have to judge what the new Commission achieved in 1999. What disturbs me, Mrs Schreyer, is that in many cases you have not honoured the commitments you gave to act on the Court's comments. I urge you, there really is some scope for improvement in the future – otherwise, your protestations that you want to adopt the right approach in tackling irregularities will merely be empty words. IN THE CHAIR: MR MARINHOVice-President

Political group: PSE