GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I voted in favour of this report. We must face the fact that the rate of biodiversity decline and loss in Europe and throughout the world continues to increase. The existing measures do not seem to be sufficient to reverse current trends, particularly the decrease in the number of species and their habitat, ecosystems and genes. Europe must fulfil a specific role, boosting initiative and providing impetus in this area and it must not merely voice pious hopes that will not be followed up with action. To begin with, Europe must ensure that environmental legislation is applied. Too many Member States, for reasons connected with their national political situation, resist transposing certain directives into their law in a swift and efficient manner. This is particularly true of the birds and habitats directives. We must also take action in the areas of agriculture and fisheries. Agriculture must play a key part, and the new CAP must be radically reformed and account taken of the requirements of sustainable development. In the area of fisheries, it is essential that we provide for short- and medium-term coherent measures in order to preserve or restore biological diversity where it is at risk. Lastly, preserving biological diversity does not mean we have to put a stop to the research effort and the development of knowledge. Also, in the area of GMOs, for example, although we must not disregard the precautionary principle, we must support objective and step-by-step scientific validation of these experiments.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I wanted to say this a minute ago, during the debate, straight after Mr Dillen’s speech. In it, he made a passionate plea for the ‘Iron Rhine’ railway connection between the port of Antwerp and the Ruhr area. I wanted to point out that, when, a year or 18 months ago, we discussed a Commission proposal to extend the TEN projects – a proposal which did not make it through in the end, and which has now been replaced by a new one – I tabled an amendment to include the Iron Rhine as a matter of priority. I just wanted to put on the record that Mr Dillen’s predecessors abstained on that proposal back then.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, in this year 2002 during which the international community has met successively in Monterrey, Rome and Johannesburg, setting as a priority the challenge of leading two-thirds of humanity out of the situation of hunger, poverty and under-development that affects them, it seemed that the European Parliament was obliged to consider and adopt a position on how the European Union can support agricultural and rural development policies that contribute to the development of the countries of the South. The numerous amendments, which the rapporteur has shown flexibility in accepting, mean that we are faced with an acceptable and balanced motion for a resolution. But there are principles that we should take more account of when assessing the different policies of the European Union and also, of course, Community agricultural policies. In fact, for many years the Socialists, when judging any Community policy, have used the yardstick of what that policy offered in terms of social cohesion. To this end a particular policy was considered by us to be positive insofar as it offered added value in terms of the cohesion of our societies and negative insofar as it increased inequalities between the Europeans. Well, in the global world we are becoming involved in it is clear that solidarity cannot be an exclusively internal, or intra-European, value. And therefore, every Community policy deserves our support insofar as they contribute not only to social cohesion within our borders but also to reducing inequalities at world level. For us, the common agricultural policy was something to be welcomed, since it supported our farmers, so that they would not be left behind in a process of prosperity which was benefiting other sectors of society. But, later on, when it comes to evaluating the Community’s agricultural policies, it will not be sufficient to measure whether they contribute to maintaining or improving the situation of our farmers and breeders. Furthermore, we should consider whether subsidies to our producers also contribute to improving the situation in the Third World, or whether they actually devastate it, increasing the chasm separating it from our developed world. In this case, those policies will not be acceptable and, however difficult the exercise will be, others will have to be found which are good, fair and provide a balance for the North, while being good and fair for the South, and providing a balance in terms of relations between the South and the North. From this viewpoint we will vote in favour of the Resolution proposed by the Committee on Development and Cooperation as a conclusion to the report presented by Mr Khanbhai.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I have taken the floor for the last time to declare, once again, that it was with no reservations that I voted against the Bösch report on the 1998 report on the fight against fraud. This is not because I do not approve of fighting all types of fraud – of course I do! Naturally I support this fight. However, I feel that in order to genuinely fight fraud in the European Union we need to change Europe’s expenditure system. The same report states that these EUR 1 019 million which have disappeared as a result of fraud are only the tip of the iceberg. Now, we know that 10% of an iceberg is visible but the other 90% is underwater and therefore hidden. Therefore, the European Union is being defrauded of something in the region of EUR 10 000 million. It is absolutely essential that we change the way we spend our money.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should just like to say that after this vote I hope everyone is convinced of the need to reform our Rules of Procedure.

Political group: PSE
Alzheimer’s disease and other neuro-degenerative diseases are seriously affecting the population of Europe. According to current estimates, they affect 5% of those aged between 50 and 60, 8 to 10% of those between 60 and 70, and 10 to 20% of those between 70 and 80. These diseases which affect the brain occupy third place in the tragic hit parade of diseases, after cardio-vascular diseases in first place and cancer in second place. Alzheimer’s and related diseases affect millions of European citizens who, in time, become incapable of coping with their lives, not to mention their families who, when they assume responsibility for the care of such patients, have to reduce considerably or even give up their professional activities. These diseases are having disastrous human, economic and social consequences for our society. In addition to the mental suffering caused by these diseases, there are almost no specialised care homes available, and those which do exist are often too expensive for the patient or his family, and are not covered by the social security system or by medical insurance. There is therefore an urgent need to develop, on all fronts, a real plan for the organised control of this scourge, which affects all of us either directly or indirectly. The economic and social burden of diseases of the brain represents 35% of the cost of all diseases in Europe, and this figure is expected to rise in the next ten to twenty years. This finding must lead to a redefinition of the policies to be pursued regarding research, education, healthcare, prevention and social protection. Since a third of the total cost of all diseases is attributable to diseases of the brain, the following measures are necessary: a substantial part of the funding for research into the life sciences should be devoted to the brain and its diseases, in particular Alzheimer’s disease, and the Seventh Framework Programme currently being negotiated should take this into account; a substantial share of spending on healthcare (prevention, diagnosis and treatment) should be devoted to these diseases; medical study programmes should be proportionately targeted against these diseases; a system of social protection should be set up, making it possible to give material support (care homes) and financial support to patients suffering from this disability and their families; and finally a European brain disease monitoring centre should be set up. This scourge is so widespread, and its impact on our society so severe, that it is the duty of the various European institutions, the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council, and of the Member States, to take all appropriate measures within their power to combat, control and prevent these neuro-degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s, and to help those who suffer from them.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, the establishment of a European Research Area is a truly innovative idea, which Commissioner Busquin proposes to make a reality over the next few years. We are grateful to him for that and I want to congratulate him personally, just as I want to congratulate Mrs Plooij-van Gorsel on the excellent report she has drawn up on the subject. Of course, we are in favour of this idea, and we would like to point out the aspects that the Group of the considers most important. First, we must move towards closer European integration in research. We want national programmes to be more accessible at European level. Point two, this European Research Area must focus on sound basic research carried out by public establishments and it must be accompanied by a European innovation area that is geared to enterprises, be they large, small or medium-sized. At each step, we must try to create a real European added value. Three, we must also consider introducing new tools. It is clear that the Sixth Framework Programme we are beginning to work on is the most important one. We must renew it and make it more accessible, more flexible and more legible. We must look into the idea of integrated programmes, of networks of excellence, but, at the same time, we must not forget the smaller entities, which can act as sources of discovery and innovation. Four, we are aware of the need to develop means of promoting exchanges, such as grants, to invest in young people and to create a balance, giving more time to research. Five, we must continue to promote pure science. We would like to see more attention paid to the subject of sciences and society and more support given to the human and social sciences. Six, the European Research Area must place more emphasis on sustainable development, by drawing up very concrete research projects, such as projects relating to the environment or to renewable energies. But we are not in favour of the inclusion of military research or research in the defence area. Finally, my seventh point, we are paying close attention to the international aspect, which is not just a question of competition with the United States or Japan and which must take account of the candidate countries and the cooperation programmes with the developing countries and the Euro-Mediterranean countries.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, we have exactly the same problem. The oral amendment is part of compromise amendment AC53. AC53 contains aspects of Amendments Nos 46 and 32. The adoption of Mr Radwan’s oral amendment, which I approve, does not in any way imply that we are rejecting those aspects of Amendments Nos 46 and 32. I therefore support the proposal – a logical one at that – for the compromise amendment, which includes all the proposals by various Members, to be voted on first. I think it is totally unacceptable that, in the previous vote, the amendment of one of the points rendered other points null and void which had nothing to do with what was a global compromise amendment, whose aim was to make the House vote on this relatively technical problem as quickly as possible. Therefore, if we do not agree to start with the compromise amendment, we will first have to vote on Mr Radwan’s amendment, then Amendments Nos 46 and 32, which have not lapsed in spite of Mr Radwan’s amendment.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I think it would be sensible if next year the financial needs of the crisis in Kosovo are addressed by demonstrating flexibility now, and we should not yet start to amend the financial perspective in Category 4. The maximum figure for Category 4 does not have to be amended permanently other than by using a flexibility clause to the full. On the other hand, the position of Parliament that was adopted here today will mean enormous challenges for Portugal, as the final decisions on the financing of external actions are being left until next spring. - Theato report (A5-0090/1999)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we have called for this discussion on Burma because we are on the eve of the decisions that the Council of the Union must take to renew sanctions against the regime which oppresses this country by means of a cruel military dictatorship and continuously violates the most basic human rights and the rights of ethnic minorities. Firstly, we are asking the Council to confirm and strengthen its common position on sanctions. This is the request made by my group and the other groups which have subscribed to the motion for a resolution that we are discussing today. Unfortunately, no positive developments have been reported in Burma, but we are witnessing a worsening of the repression, as the resolution says. Over the last few weeks there have again been dozens of arrests of Burmese citizens and foreigners who continue to fight for democracy and human rights in this country. At this time, we must reconfirm our complete and total solidarity with, and give our sympathy to Mrs Aung San Suu Kyi, President of the League for Democracy which obtained the majority of votes in the 1990 elections. Despite the limitations imposed on her freedom of movement and expression, this courageous woman is continuing her tenacious opposition to the regime, and we cannot fail to remember the inhuman way she was treated by the regime on the death of her husband. This has already been condemned by this Parliament. The resolution also asks the Burmese Government to put an immediate stop to the loathsome practice of forced labour which much of the civilian population is forced to do and which particularly affects children and women from ethnic minorities. We also denounce, as does the International Labour Office, these practices as a crime against humanity. The European Union must consider the situation in Burma to be one of the key areas for its international action in the defence of human rights and democracy. We must hold our battle up as an example to all the other similar regimes in the world, but we must also succeed in transforming it increasingly into a coherent, efficient and practical policy. The Member States must also join the fight to tackle the Burma question in accordance with the common position of the Council, with the same intensity in all the international bodies: from the UN to the regional organisations which unite the Asian countries. Only the isolation of the military dictatorship through sanctions and dialogue with the opposition groups and the ethnic minorities can contribute to establishing democracy in Burma. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
I have voted in favour of the amendments to the following effect: 1) that the European Parliament itself be allowed to decide upon its seat (adopted by 275 votes to 223, with 16 abstentions), 2) that the European Parliament have a single place of working instead of, as today, three in the form of Brussels, Strasbourg and Luxembourg (adopted by 271 votes to 223, with 21 abstentions), because this dividing up of its work leads to an additional cost of EUR 185 million per year (approximately SEK 1 750 million) and, after enlargement, EUR 203 million (approximately SEK 1 850 million), 3) that the reimbursement of expenses be reviewed (adopted by 380 votes to 119), 4) that the reimbursement of expenses be based on the principle of reimbursement of actual costs (partly taken into account in Amendment No 40 and adopted by 336 votes to 138, with 28 abstentions), and 5) that outlay on taxis not be refunded separately but be included in the general reimbursement of costs (adopted by 351 votes to 146, with 18 abstentions).

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we can only look at the Intergovernmental Conference’s work so far with disquiet and concern. Imagine, a Convention that makes people smile – at any rate one that is not taken very seriously – manages, despite all political and geographical boundaries and the most disparate institutions from which it is drawn, to produce a convincing, well rounded draft constitution without having to take a vote on even one thing, and now we find that the Intergovernmental Conference tears that very same draft to shreds, unpicks it without giving the slightest hint about how it intends to reach a positive outcome. It is quite remarkable that none of the proposals discussed in the Intergovernmental Conference mark any step forward, but are all retrograde when compared with the Convention’s draft. The Intergovernmental Conference is in reverse gear. The Heads of State or Government are in the brakeman’s cab of the European Union. We are back in Nice again! The most astonishing statement came in fact from the finance ministers. They simply want to ‘governmentalise’ this Parliament’s budgetary powers. They want to deny Parliament any part in budget decisions. To which school did they go to learn the basics of democracy? (Applause) Do they not know that parliamentarianism is the pillar of democracy and that Parliament’s budgetary powers are the pillar of parliamentarianism? Not for the sake of its members’ powers, but for the sake of the democratic control that Parliament clearly must exercise. In making this proposal, the finance ministers are betraying a pre-democratic understanding of parliamentarianism. Incidentally, in this European Union the most costly favours have always been dispensed in ministerial meetings behind closed doors, not in this Parliament’s public budget debate. That is why Parliament must keep its budgetary powers. I want to set out just a few expectations that we have of the Intergovernmental Conference and address them to the Council Presidency, whose work up until now, which has certainly been very positive, we want to endorse. Firstly, we expect agreement to be reached by the end of this year. That is technically possible. There are not a vast number of articles to argue about, only a few key institutional issues. Secondly, the Intergovernmental Conference must put Nice behind it. The Heads of State or Government who took this Union down the blind alley of Nice must now bring it out again. Thirdly, a balance must be achieved between sometimes small-minded but basically legitimate national interests and the well-being of the European Community; in other words the Heads of State or Government must not only seek the good of their Member States, but they must also have and demonstrate a sense of responsibility for the unification of Europe, because what the Council devised in Nice is not only indefensible in democratic terms, but incomprehensible by any rational person. A new Treaty must be easy to understand; that is the only way to achieve the transparency and proximity to the citizens for which we are striving. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to congratulate Mr Linkohr on his report, even if, as rapporteur for the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, I am not totally happy about the fact – although this will depend on the outcome of the vote – that scant attention has been paid to one fundamental factor, namely the utilisation of oil in the transport sector. Mr Linkohr has described the circumstances in which oil prices fluctuated abruptly and erratically and has pointed out that a whole series of countries took measures which were out of kilter both with the rules and principles of the European Union and with what we are debating today from the point of view of sustainable development, because we must not forget that the debate is not just about this report, it is about the huge task of the Swedish presidency and the Gothenburg summit as regards sustainable development. Even if the topical subject of Ireland is taking centre stage, we should not forget this fundamental approach. I particularly welcome the fact that the President of the Commission said quite clearly today that sustainable development is one of the cornerstones of development in the European Union, including a transport policy geared towards sustainable development. This also includes, as Mr Linkohr said, a price policy which prevents erratic fluctuations but which does not follow the populist line of: the lower the price of transport, the better. No, what we need is a pricing system and structure in the transport sector which is keeping with transport policy objectives, especially where oil is used. And the transport policy objectives, as the Commissioner also sees them, consist of shifting more traffic from the roads to the railways wherever it is possible and makes sense to do so. When we have adopted a railways package, when the Commissioner has proposed the additional measures which we are waiting for, then it will make sense overall to boost sustainable development by shifting traffic, especially freight traffic and passenger and local traffic, on to the railways. The last point I want to mention here is planning policy. We know it cannot happen overnight but I think – and this too is contained in the Linkohr report – that we must urge individual Member States to think in their future planning policy about providing public transport which is as efficient and environmentally-friendly as possible wherever land is developed and houses, factories etc. are built. This too is important if we want to ensure that sustainability is not just dead letter.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we are all agreed that never has so much been achieved to promote the future of Europe with so little money as through the Erasmus programme. Offering young people from other states the opportunity to spend some of their formative years in Europe is something we should all be seeking to do, because we all stand to benefit from it. I do however believe that establishing clear, specific and common standards is crucial to the success of these programmes. This will avoid subjecting students to difficult procedures that could also be humiliating. The criteria for choosing a place to study or to undertake voluntary work should always be its appropriateness or excellence. The existence of entry or residence facilities should not influence the choice. Clear rules and flexibility are certainly needed to allow a student to earn money legally in reasonable conditions for his or her stay. Common principles are called for, such as the Commission’s proposal. I believe this proposal is very helpful. We recognise that reasonable restrictions are required. In particular, this is to ensure that the students return to their countries and put what they have learnt to good use. They can also spread the new skills and approaches developed during such an experience. That is probably even more important. It cannot and must not be achieved solely through strict regulations. I venture to suggest to the Commission that this proposal should be included in future generous and ambitious actions involving the countries of origin of such students. There needs to be scope for mobility, for example, to maximise the benefits the Union can gain from hosting these individuals. I trust no further difficulties or reasons will emerge that will prevent the Council from adopting the proposal on this occasion. I have in mind a threat to the security of Europe, for instance. The proposal needs to be fast-tracked through the Council. Mrs Roure deserves to be congratulated on her work. I commend this helpful report to the House and call for it to be endorsed by a substantial majority of Members. Hopefully this will be achieved for once, and a precedent set.

Political group: PSE