GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I really do not want to start without thanking our rapporteur, Mr Kreissl-Dörfler, for the truly outstanding work he has done with this report, but, today, I want also to thank Mrs Redondo, who chaired the committee on foot and mouth disease and who managed it with a great deal of circumspection. Fundamentally, I believe, both the Commission proposal for a directive and this report are to be welcomed. It is fortunate that the proposal submitted by the Commission takes on board most of the demands made by Parliament’s committee on foot and mouth disease, which, on 17 December 2002, adopted a resolution calling for the revision of the European Union’s existing policy on the control and prevention of foot and mouth disease. As the contributions to today’s debate make clear, the next epidemic is already rampant in Europe, and I believe that it really is five minutes to midnight when it comes to our changing the European Union’s policy, for we have to avoid in future any epidemic spreading and becoming the tragedy that we saw in Great Britain in 2001. We are not talking here only in terms of the grave financial losses sustained by farmers, especially in the upstream and downstream sectors, or about the damage to rural areas and the profound public disquiet; this is, rather, an image issue for European farmers such as ourselves and for the agricultural policy as a whole. One important point that has been taken on board is the retention of the ban on prophylactic vaccination, which strikes me as pointless until such time as there is a vaccine that covers all seven serotypes and the 80 subtypes within them. There is a need for research into this to be extended and improved. A further, and decisive, point is that the importance of emergency vaccination is recognised, so that it is no longer seen as a last resort. In conclusion, it has to be said that the disease, which spread to such an immense extent in Great Britain that we all still shudder to recall it, could have been prevented. All that was needed was for appropriate control measures to be taken and for the existing vaccination requirements to be adhered to in the Member State in question. The one thing that has become perfectly clear is that the Member States really do have to discharge the responsibilities placed on them by the Treaties. I trust that we have learned our lessons from the past in order to be able, next time, to act with more responsibility and coordination. Never again must there be a catastrophe – for a catastrophe is what it was – of these dimensions.

Political group: PPE-DE
Every day, tobacco kills more people, and every year, over 500 000 Europeans die from smoking or passive smoking. In response to this scourge, we should take the necessary steps, in particular by significantly reducing all forms of advertising or sponsorship of these products. We know that these communications play a part in increasing tobacco consumption, particularly amongst young people. Furthermore, harmonisation on the subject, due to adequate, responsible cooperation between the Member States, can effectively reduce the increase in cigarette sales as well as the number of lives destroyed by smoking. The amendments proposed by Parliament, however, are highly ambiguous and do not adopt a position in favour of public health, but quite the opposite. Under cover of arguments twisted to suit this context, such as the emphasis on freedom of speech, the wording of the parliamentary proposals allows for too free an interpretation and does not present a firm provision to protect Europeans. We must stop this hypocrisy. The communication on tobacco should be based more on the dangers arising from the consumption of the product, which is extremely harmful to humans and particularly costly to society as a whole.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, what concerns us in particular is the hypocritical and selective manner in which human rights are applied during the exercise of the European Union’s external policy, especially as a pretext for justifying intervention, including military intervention. At the same time, the European Union turns a blind eye to situations in which human rights are being savagely violated when, of course, it comes to protecting its imperialistic interests. Its attitude towards the Turkish regime is a blatant example. The recent and continuing invasion in Kosovo, using the rights of minorities as a pretext, and the unbelievable demands being made on Yugoslavia are a typical example of how military intervention is being advanced as a general principle of international law at the expense of the principle of national sovereignty. Furthermore, the policy being exercised by the European Union at home basically violates a series of fundamental human rights. Political and social rights are being hit and individual rights and democratic freedoms are being trampled underfoot. The results of this policy are already visible in the support being given to extremist, racist, Fascist powers, and not just in Austria. And yet the report on the fight against racism does not demonstrate that the necessary conclusions have been drawn. We call on the people to step up their fight to stop their self-proclaimed saviours trampling on the rights for which they have fought hard and made sacrifices, and to reverse the current trend, which only serves the interests of those who are exploiting them.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, this again is the increase from 10% to 20%, not 25%.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, one of the European Union’s primary objectives is guaranteeing freedom of movement. This freedom of movement can only be exercised, however, if the Union also adopts all measures necessary to protect its citizens, especially if they fall victim to a crime, irrespective of their nationality within the EU and also irrespective of the Member State where they fall victim to a crime. The citizens of the European Union like travelling, and they do a great deal of it, working in other Member States and also exercising their right to freedom of movement in the EU in a variety of other ways. Yet any citizen can fall victim to a crime or a terrorist attack in another Member State, or indeed in their own country. Until now, national legislation has varied widely, as Mrs Angelilli has explained. In other words, two persons who have been victims of a crime in very similar circumstances but in two different Member States may receive wildly varying compensation for similar damage, and in an extreme scenario, a victim may receive no compensation at all. That is why, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party , I greatly welcome the Commission’s proposal and thank Mrs Angelilli for her report, which is intended to establish rules for victims of intentional criminal acts or terrorist attacks within the European Union. With the entry into force of this directive, all EU citizens and all persons who are legally resident in the EU will receive appropriate compensation if they fall victim to a crime. This also means that anyone who is the victim of a crime within the EU will have the right to approach an authority in their own Member State in order to seek assistance. This ensures that victims have easier access to compensation, even if the crime was committed outside the person’s own Member State. It ensures that victims of crime will at last enjoy appropriate protection and compensation, which, paradoxically, is still not given due consideration in many jurisdictions and systems of criminal law to the present day. I am convinced that there will be a substantial majority in favour of this report in the House tomorrow, and I am gratified that this is the case.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I had no idea that I had that effect on microphones! I would like to congratulate the rapporteur for his work. I would also like to congratulate the Council for having finally seen sense, assisted, it must be said, by the introduction of qualified majority voting. There are great lessons there for us in the Convention and in the IGC. The Council has finally moved to a common position which the large majority of Liberals are able to accept fully. The first draft sought – absurdly – to outlaw political party campaigning with public money. What on earth are political parties for if they are not for campaigning? The new draft, however, has corrected this and is allowing sufficient possibility for political parties to receive modest private donations. The question of the threshold is settled quite reasonably in favour of small political movements with real and serious European objectives. Certain other officious bureaucratic provisions have been removed. This is good news for parliamentary democracy in Europe. Trans-national political parties are a vital sinew of democracy, articulating the anxieties and the aspirations of the citizen on a European scale. The constitutionalisation process in which the Union is presently involved requires the engagement of mature European political parties. This report is a breakthrough and should be supported by all those who wish this institution well and who subscribe to the principles of transparency and accountability.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Mr Ortuondo has not referred to me personally, but he has referred to certain things I have said during the debate, and I believe I have the right, in accordance with Rule 122, to respond to these comments in which he has quoted verbatim some of the things I have said. I do not normally go on the attack in these debates, because I believe that dirty washing should be laundered at home. But the truth is the truth – whether it is expressed by Agamemnon or his swineherd – and Mr Ortuondo, before launching into assertions and giving advice to others, should take a look at his own house, because, whether he likes it or not, the only politician responsible – and when I use the word responsible in this context I have serious doubts about a person who brings together an anti-constitutional project which is intended to destroy the unity of Spain – has been the President of the autonomous government, from his own party. I therefore reaffirm everything I have said and I do not withdraw a single word.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would firstly like to congratulate the rapporteur on her excellent work and also the Commission on having been able to overcome the obstacles it always faces so that this Parliament can address issues relating to sport. I would like to emphasise two points on the reasons why I think this report is so important. Firstly, I think that we should not forget that sport is a great educational tool. People have always talked about the qualities of sport – that it teaches us to value striving to succeed, or that it brings people together, for example. A million things I do not intend repeating right now. However, what I do want to say – and if I may be so bold I would like to say I have some experience in this field – is that young people, especially children, do not usually, or would find it difficult, to forget what they have learnt through playing whilst practising sport. Sport has a great educational role in a wide range of fields, especially in areas such as the environment. This is just one of the many areas that can benefit from education through sport. The second point I would like to emphasise is that we should not forget that we are living in a Europe in which differences based on race and culture are growing every day, and that we all have to make an effort to integrate into the European Union. Sport plays a fundamental role in this integration. This would be difficult to achieve with any tool other than sport, and any attempt to do so would entail enormous costs. I hope that 2004, European Year of Education through Sport, will be the driving force we all need to be able to ensure the inclusion in the Treaty of an article that makes specific reference to sport, and for this programme to be the starting point, and only the starting point, of what sport can achieve in the European Union.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Evans warmly for his report, and also for his statement just now, which has already placed this report and the Commission’s statement in the wider context of the necessary reform of competition policy. We know how rapidly the world economy is changing and so we are also aware of the increasing importance of research and development, the value of cooperation between companies, and the need for companies to specialise, and hence also the need for specialisation agreements. Competition is not an end in itself, as far as we are concerned, it is a means of achieving growth and employment, and if, like the Commissioner and ourselves, you champion a functioning single market organised along the lines of the social market economy, you do not favour unlimited competition, but competition governed by the necessary principles of political organisation, keeping in mind that we have a responsibility towards the future and our fellow human beings. The point has already been made today that these are very welcome reforms, that there is a need for companies to work together, and that the statement affords companies greater freedom as regards their cooperation agreements, and will allow for simplification, flexibilisation and liberalisation. That is what we have on the plus side. We are also critical of some aspects, and there are certain things we would like to see. The rapporteur touched on some of them, and I would like to explore them again. Firstly, Commissioner, we believe that, in view of increasing autonomy, the people hanker after legal certainty. I therefore ask myself whether treating horizontal restraints and vertical restraints differently will really lead to greater legal certainty, or whether it would not be better for both, to have a block exemption regulation. Secondly, it is our wish that the exploitation of the results should not be restricted to five years, but should be extended to ten. We urge you to make it perfectly clear, by including them in the guidelines, that reciprocal, or unilateral agreements on supply – ‘trade supplies’ for short – are not affected by the ban laid down in Article 81(2), and we take the view – which is also expressed in the report by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs – that you ought to consider the definition of market share. Which market do we mean? The buying market, the selling market, the national market, the regional market? We all know that the market is in a constant state of flux for the businesses concerned, and we also fear that guidelines 122 and 141 will set an arbitrary market power threshold of 15%. We feel it is important to increase this threshold, just as we believe that the length of the transitional period for introduction of these regulations should be increased to at least two years, so that your aspirations are fully realised.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the main conclusion to be drawn is that, in 10 years of Structural Funds, no real progress has been made in closing the huge gap between the per capita income of the richest and the poorest regions of the European Union. Not only have we failed to achieve the main purpose of the Structural Funds, i.e. to help reduce regional disparities and achieve economic and social cohesion; in numerous cases, the situation has worsened and the gulf between the regions lagging behind and the developed areas has widened both in rural areas, especially island and mountain regions, and also in urban areas, which are plagued by mass and long-term unemployment, poverty, and a scarcity, or in many cases, a total lack of basic infrastructures. The report under discussion makes a number of critical observations and evaluations which are heading in the right direction and I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on that. However, the reality of the situation is even worse. The lack of planning and transparency and the huge number of irregularities and cases of fraud in implementing the programmes, which have helped swell the coffers of parasitical undertakings, have actually widened the gap instead of fostering cohesion. In fact, the Structural Funds have, on numerous occasions, been used as a means of eroding cohesion and fostering asymmetric development. Greece is a typical example of this: in 1996, only two Greek regions were classified among the ten poorest regions in the European Union. However, the following year, a total of seven Greek regions were amongst the eleven poorest regions. Epirus acquired the dubious accolade of being the poorest region in the European Union. The scarcity of resources under the Damoclean sword of Agenda 2000 and persistent cutbacks in order to satisfy other requirements, such as enlargement, do nothing to strengthen cohesion or stabilize development levels; on the contrary, they help set further socio-economic degeneration of the regions in motion.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we can either accept and rejoice in the outcome of the Tampere Summit or else consider it to be defective. However we may categorise the result, the Tampere Summit was, and is, important. It is important because it signifies a step towards a common European area of justice. The direction is the correct one. But with the great goal of the common area of justice in front of us, Tampere is just a small step on a long road. The people of Europe expect more. They expect larger and, above all, courageous steps in quick succession. I am convinced that they are also entitled to these. The citizens of Europe can certainly demand that the law in every individual Member State should offer them the same level of safety, protection and security. They can expect not to be taken to the cleaners in a neighbouring country with the help of another legal system which is alien to them. Summits of varying degrees of solemnity do not alone do justice to these entitlements. Just as peace is not created simply by not going to war, so too is a common European area of justice not created just by a handful of governments expressing their good will. Reliable rules for cooperation must also follow a willingness to cooperate on issues of justice. The Council and the governments alone cannot create these. Parliament must help them. The Council should know that, in the interests of the people whom we represent as Members of the European Parliament, we are prepared to do this and will in fact do it. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I would like you to go into a little more depth, given that we are not at all satisfied with the reply that you have given, even taking into account the limitations of the Council in this area. But we cannot forget that not only in my country but also in the rest of the European Union, in the years to come, we will continue to experience migratory pressure from nomadic groups, which is the case in Spain with the group of Romanian and Gypsy origin. And faced with this pressure, which we all know will continue to increase on our borders and within our countries, we believe that it is essential that we develop a general plan to attend to these populations. A general plan in which the competences and responsibilities of the European Union are defined, as well as those of each Member State. It is absolutely necessary to co-ordinate actions to the benefit of these groups so that at all times, in all circumstances, the human rights and dignity of people are respected. But the required co-ordination can never allow any Member State of the European Union to shirk its responsibilities: neither the State nor any of the administrations into which that State is divided, which has happened in the case that has been mentioned in my country. We therefore demand a response from the Council to this problem which we will face with regard to the nomadic migratory population in the whole of the European Union, a co-ordinated response of the Member States, which at the same time involves everybody taking their own responsibility.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, today you have unambiguously declared yourself in favour of multilateralism. You have called for the United Nations to be strengthened and mentioned the UN General Secretary’s visit to the European Parliament, which is scheduled for the end of the month. I do not think many presidents-in-office have begun by speaking out so clearly in favour of multilateralism and the United Nations in this House. Moreover, I believe that the challenges we will be discussing in great detail over the coming weeks – international terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, disintegrating states, drug trafficking, trafficking in human beings – are too much for even the world’s strongest nation to tackle alone. It is multilateral solutions we need. Mr President-in-Office, I think this is another reason why we need the Constitution, however. The European Union is not ready to put up a united front against the United Nations system. There are too many stakeholders. The European Union is a member of the FAO, with a seat and a vote. As yet the European Union has no legal status in external relations. We have a Commission office in New York. We have a Council office in New York. We need this Constitution to enable the European Union to obtain this legal status and act in this sphere as well. Consequently, both for the purposes of external relations and in terms of working within the United Nations system, where the European Union is the greatest contributor, we need to increase our political influence and express our political strength together. That is why we need to have a Constitution very soon, and I ask you to take that into account during your consultations. If Europe wants influence, there is no place for division. The only way is to act as a community, and your declaration in favour of multilateralism is a very significant starting point.

Political group: PPE-DE