GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I too thank the rapporteur, the President of the Commission and all those who have contributed to the achievement of an agreement that I see as being positive and satisfactory on two key subjects that have concerned us: the restructuring of the Spanish and Portuguese fleets and the impact of enlargement on cross-border regions. These two problems do not just affect two nations but have Europe-wide repercussions. I therefore ask the Commission once again to provide a better definition of the concept of cross-border area and region. For us s, a cross-border region, which should be included in the pilot project and other measures, is one which forms a border by land or by sea. I do, however, regret certain cuts, in the case of the Balkans for example, but I am also pleased with the success achieved in MEDA recovery. In this regard, I hope the Commission will give priority to the regional dimension of the partnership provided for within this programme. I must also express my satisfaction with e-learning, Socrates, Leonardo, Europol, Eurojust and the Global Help Fund. Thanks also to Mr Turchi for his report. The projects approved at Essen must be speeded up; the individual States must be involved more, but the space for the great networks linking North and South must also be increased. Only if North and South can be brought closer together will we have a more cohesive European Union.

Political group: PSE
Conservative MEPs and MEPs from the Moderate Party believe that the financial perspective should be decided upon by Member States in unanimity and that the European Parliament should not be involved in this process. However, once the financial perspective has been fixed, we believe that the European Parliament and the Council should have an equal say in deciding how the money should be spent.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, we insist that the fundamental equality of all languages be retained. This is one of our priorities. Needless to say, we endorse a Community patent. It is a service to the community of European citizens, and in my view, all European citizens should be able to address the Union’s bodies in their own language, including in patent applications, and they should also be able to receive a reply in their own language. Discrimination on linguistic grounds would contravene Community law and the Charter of the Fundamental Rights. Consequently, we cannot sanction the selection of five languages as an honourable compromise. We would request Parliament, the Council and the Commission to endorse our amendments which allow everyone who submits a patent application to do so in their own language and to receive a reply in their own language, with translations into the other official languages of the Community. Consequently, we believe that the discussion in the three working languages within the Bureau does not contravene these principles, because it would also have a cost-saving effect and avoids all procedures being conducted in English.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as rapporteur for the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, it is with some satisfaction that I would like to point out that, in our own area of competence, the Court of Auditors had no criticism to make of the way the appropriations for the financial year 1998 were implemented. I have, what is more, received no complaints from any officials at all. I am not aware of any vengeful articles by investigative journalists, or any OLAF inquiries, and personally I have not managed to discover any proven cases of mismanagement, fraud or misappropriation of funds in our sector. In a word, as far as our committee’s area of competence is concerned, there is nothing to prevent the discharge being granted to the Commission. And now, to express my own personal opinion, I would like to say more generally that I support the conclusions of Mrs Stauner’s report with a view to postponing discharge to the Commission for the year 1998. The citizens’ primary right is to see that their money is managed and spent properly and as long is this is not clearly established discharge must not be granted. I should, however, like to make two observations. Settling political scores or making personal attacks must not be mistaken for combating poor management, irregularities and fraud. In this context, it is essential to prevent a climate of political vendetta arising between the main institutions of the Union. My second observation is that, in my opinion, it is essential to be as implacable in criticising oneself as in criticising others, and I therefore wonder about the effects, which I expect to be disastrous, of postponing discharge to the Commission on the one hand, even though Parliament is prepared to grant its own discharge, despite the administrative problems it acknowledges, and although the political groups gloss over their own administration. My personal preference would be for adopting a more self-critical attitude.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I accept the vote which has just been held and that a decision has been taken to vote now. I would like to point out, however, that the voting will be by roll-call. This is very important because it will then become clear how many Members were present and, more importantly, how many have left.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, first may I also associate myself strongly with the remarks made by my colleague, Mr Galeote, with regard to terrorism. I too have had some experience of that in another place. The first point I would like to make is that the repairs to the cooling system of this submarine are already under way. It is already happening, so let us be realistic about what options face the UK and Gibraltar authorities in dealing with it. Let us please be realistic about the notion of lifting this submarine, waiting for weather conditions to be favourable and somehow transporting it back to the UK. It needs to be repaired in situ. You have just heard the Commissioner say that defence issues in general, and in particular nuclear defence issues, are a matter for national sovereignty, not for this Parliament, but that the concerns of the public in Gibraltar and the adjoining areas are a natural and legitimate cause for debate in this Parliament. One might well ask whether the government of the United Kingdom has exercised its responsibility in that regard to keep its defence equipment properly maintained, and indeed whether people in the UK are aware that, because of this incident, and the withdrawal of other nuclear submarines, our shores are currently being defended – rumour has it – by a U-boat from Germany. I think it is very important to keep this matter in proportion and to avoid crying wolf with alarmist statements which are not supported by the facts. This is a technical problem with a technical solution and the sooner the repair is completed, the better it will be for all.

Political group: PPE-DE
In the Dutch press, the impression has been created that Mr Doorn, the acting leader of the CDA Party, has found a way of saving the country EUR 10 billion a year. While a superficial reading of this will lead one to assume that he will use this sum to reduce EU tax payments, Mr Doorn does not offer a solution to the problem of the EU’s waste of 20% of its budget annually on prestige projects, on pumping money around rich Member States and fraud. His only concern is to liberate businesses from what he considers to be stifling bureaucracy. Above all, he wants fewer rules that are intended to protect employment and the environment and, consequently, fewer costs for entrepreneurs. That is in keeping with the ambition of Mr Zalm, the Dutch Finance Minister, who wants to reduce the administrative burden for businesses from EUR 17 billion to EUR 14 billion annually and reckons that half of this is attributable to European rules. According to Mr Zalm's calculation, the sum involved therefore is not EUR 10 billion but only EUR 1.5 billion. While I support an expansion of the options to be able to assess the negative impact of European regulations at the earliest possible stage, I do have a feeling that Mr Doorn will be wanting to put a stop to entirely different rules from those I have in mind.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The report we are now considering attempts to defend the monetarist policies of the European Central Bank, particularly on price stability, whilst forgetting that we do not currently have a continually falling interest rate. On the contrary, we are in a phase of constant increases, which have very serious repercussions on the incomes of less well-off families who use bank loans to buy their own homes, which is what happens in Portugal. The rapporteur, who is delighted with the conduct of the ECB, considers that what is crucial is strict observation of the nominal convergence criteria in the Stability Pact, for applicant countries too, together with the policies linked with these criteria. These policies include wage moderation, the flexibility of the labour market and of social security systems and speeding up the liberalisation of the services and capital sectors. The rapporteur even goes so far as to criticise euro area countries that have reduced working hours since, as he sees it, this attitude contributes to “rendering labour markets more rigid instead of more flexible”. The rapporteur therefore puts himself in the position of defending the most refined form of capitalist neo-liberalism, at which we must protest most vehemently by voting against the report. - Karas Report (A5-0170/2000)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, there is no doubt that there are a great many weaknesses in our food controls, and food safety is an unacceptably low priority. The revision of the directive on food may help to significantly change this situation. This is particularly necessary given the growing worldwide trend towards producing food by artificial means. There are at present no universal controls on the value-added chain, and awareness of state food controls needs to be increased. There will certainly be an improvement in this state of affairs if we can succeed in involving the agricultural industry, the animal feed industry and those engaged in the monitoring of food. That will not be a simple task as those in positions of responsibility throughout the chain have a very negative attitude. State controls are necessary, but we need to create better incentives for promoting voluntary self-regulation and self-regulation under civil law. State controls can then focus on the high-risk companies and farms that will always exist. It is not acceptable, when products have been placed on the market contrary to health regulations, for this to be declared the result of a production accident and the products withdrawn under covert or open buy-back schemes so that they will simply be forgotten. As we know from past experience, it tends to be very difficult to clarify the facts of such cases rapidly and rigorously. Compulsory reporting of what are labelled as serious health risks is clearly not enough. In Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania 320 farms were temporarily closed because of suspected contamination with Nitrofen, but the discovery of this scandal and the attendant publicity were remarkable not so much because of the number of cases as because of the nature of the crisis.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Is the Commission concerned that its pressure on Ireland and Ireland's Finance Minister may influence the forthcoming referendum on the Nice Treaty? I feel that the Commission should be pulling back just in case there might be bad publicity. What is the point of the citizens of Ireland electing a government if its Finance Minister is not allowed to make his own choice? What is the point in us having a government? How far will the EU go in putting pressure on Ireland in relation to public spending, because services in Ireland are in an appalling situation? If we follow EU lines, it will make things even worse. We also have to look at EU economic policy and its impact on Ireland in relation to interest rates, over which we no longer have any control. It is undemocratic to try to decide the economic policy for an individual Member State considering that it is the citizens in that Member State who elect the government to do that.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I declare an interest as a farmer receiving agricultural subsidies. But today I specifically want to speak in defence of the weaker developing countries, particularly those in the ACP. To me, Cancún should have been the culmination of months of serious work in committee, thrashing out answers to the doubts and fears of the developing world. To expect to sit down with 148 countries and reach any conclusion is beyond any possibility, but I believe that Cancún was a watershed. The days of powerful blocs such as the European Union and the USA sitting in smoke-filled rooms, carving up the spoils and throwing a few crumbs to the rest of the world, have long since gone. Developing countries have realised that there is strength in numbers and power in using that strength. But this is not just a matter of the developing and the developed world. There are different strata in both groupings. Economically, Asia, the Far East and Latin America are light-years away from the ACP countries. Countries' trade potential will develop at different speeds. Successes for the future depend on flexibility of timing. Opt-outs were offered as essential ingredients at Cancún and must be part of any future plan. Capacity to enact what has been agreed is a key factor. The ACP is, at this moment, negotiating a Cotonou partnership agreement on trade to be agreed by 2008. Economic partnership agreements and regional economic partnership agreements are the eventual aim of those negotiations. Most of those countries are not ready for reciprocal trade agreements or rules on competition; but regional integration would give them strength in a global world and increase south/south trade. The ACP countries could not cope with Cotonou and Cancún at the same time. For them Cancún was a step too far, too soon. Now we must have a complete reassessment of procedures.

Political group: PPE-DE
The second railway package, like the first, aims to create a common internal market in rail transport. Following the examples of the telecommunications, post, electricity and natural gas sectors, it is meant to help open up the networks to competition and thus reduce prices for consumers. This line of thought is fundamentally sound and should be implemented, but not in the one fell swoop that some of my fellow-MEPs envisage. Not all railway companies are the same; that there are small ones and large ones is not attributable solely to some being more efficient than others, but also to some companies having had from the very outset a monopoly in a larger market than others. If the markets were opened up too quickly, the result would be unjustified and unfair distortion of competition to the advantage of the former monopolies in the larger Member States. Although I advocate the opening up of the railway networks, this must be done in accordance with a timetable that makes it possible for all the parties concerned, whether enterprises or workers, to prepare themselves for the new state of affairs. Imposing an earlier deadline for opening up the railway networks for national goods traffic – 2006 rather than 2008 – is not acceptable, any more than is the introduction of a deadline for national passenger traffic, for which 2008 has been suggested. (Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137 (1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I thank Mrs Grossetête for her excellent work on this report. The tragedy is that human and veterinary medicines have been confused rather, because both of them are combined in one report. We should really be looking at them quite separately. I will come back to that in a moment. On that score I agree totally with what Mrs Doyle said. I would like to take this opportunity to thank both the UK and the Irish Permanent Representatives for their work. It is a pity that their work on this report has been rejected by some Member States. The Council's co-called common position is not at all a compromise: it is merely a way of expressing the Commission's original proposals, and the Commission has made it clear that any listing of products arising from comitology proposals will largely be under its control. The common position would mean, as Mrs Doyle quite rightly said, that many rural small businesses would be put out of business. That is of particular importance. There has been huge confusion here and this is where the Council seems to have got it totally and utterly wrong that we are asking for exemption for prescription medicines. That is not the case: they are already covered under food safety regulations and completely off the record as far as we are concerned. We are not asking for that sort of thing. Mrs Doyle quite rightly said that while you can go to the chemist's and get a pill for a headache, the problem is that in the United Kingdom and Ireland you can go to similar locally registered people where you can get flea powder, teat-dip for cows all those sort of things. And we are going to put at risk not only animal health but also animal welfare and the whole principle, because people just will not bother to pay the money for a vet. That is very important. This is already covered, as I have already said, by legislation. In the United Kingdom we do not eat horses, dogs, cats, or budgerigars for that matter, so these should not apply. I would say to you that if you cannot accept this sort of proposal then maybe we should have taken veterinary medicines out of this particular proposal and had a separate piece of legislation for it. In fact, tomorrow, if you are not prepared to accept what Mrs Doyle and I are saying, it might be an idea to vote against this particular piece of legislation and send it back to committee.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I wish to begin by congratulating Commissioners Reding, Monti and Diamantopoulou. We have all come a very long way since last August. The partnership has been invaluable in proving that we can come to some agreement on this issue. The principles that have been established, especially around the specificity of sport, are extremely important. However, my worry remains with the players' associations. I know that the Commissioner may say that this is a matter for the sporting families, but ultimately we will have to sort it out, because if the players' associations either refuse to come on board or the players take action, then ultimately the agreement may be in tatters. First, what will Mrs Reding be doing to bring the players' associations on board and, secondly, are there any particular problems that she thinks we could resolve as far as the players are concerned?

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I agree with Mrs Carlotti that the merit of the Durban conference was to make it clear that Aids is not being fought in the same way in Europe and in Africa. Aids lays bare all the economic and social deficiencies of developing countries and grafts itself onto the more general problem of destitution. Prevention cannot succeed unless it is accompanied by access to treatment. So, and here I agree with the previous speaker, the pharmaceutical companies with the monopoly of manufacture and marketing of triple therapy and even AZT charge a high price for them. We would not be having this debate if triple therapy cost a dollar. And as the director of UNAIDS recognises, we need to increase the amount currently invested tenfold even to make a start on a real policy of prevention and social security. Besides, medication cannot be distributed like sacks of rice. Doctors, dispensaries and social support structures are needed. And, by IMF dictate, poor countries are cutting public expenditure, in particular on education and health. The European Union must contribute towards the rapid cancellation of the debt of African countries, which costs them 15 billion annually, so that those resources can be allocated to establishing the health infrastructure and new social programmes. Finally, the research priority must be to perfect a vaccine.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I regret I cannot support the Poos report on Cyprus. The fourth round of Cyprus proximity talks took place in New York from 12-26 September. The parties have agreed to meet next in Geneva on 1-10 November. The UN settlement process has now lasted since December 1999 without a break, longer than any of the previous attempts to solve the Cyprus problem. The UN Secretary-General's Special Adviser on Cyprus, Alvaro de Soto, said at his press briefing on 26 September that a 'qualitative step forward' had taken place in the fourth round of talks. He emphasised that, while there is still a long way to go, the two sides had engaged in substance during the talks in a way that they had not done before. He observed that new ground was being broken, which might cause nervousness in some quarters. But he looked forward in the coming months to building on the progress that has already been made. He also noted that the UN was already in contact with the EU in order to ensure that there was no clash with the goals of the United Nations process. As Mr de Soto noted, we do not expect progress to be easy, and the success of the UN process is far from assured. The UK position is that it is vital for us to do everything we can to show our support for the Secretary-General's efforts. Unfortunately some of the comments made in the draft report on the application by Cyprus for membership of the European Union by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy are not helpful. The use of polemical language and the one-sided impression given of MEPs' views risks undermining the process. I therefore hope that MEPs will do all they can to encourage the European Parliament to express its support for progress in the UN settlement process, based on the continuing goodwill of all parties in that process and that they will ensure that the European Parliament does not produce statements or take positions which might cut across that process.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, whatever the budgetary sleights of hand to finance aid for the reconstruction of Kosovo, the Council, like Parliament, is refusing to address the real issue, which is that the reconstruction of Kosovo, like Serbia, which is in equal need of reconstruction, should be financed from the military budgets of the countries responsible for the bombing. The military budgets should likewise pay the sums needed to compensate the neighbouring countries of Montenegro, Albania, Macedonia, which all suffered from the war waged in the region by the West. Even though there is no excuse for Milosevic’s past and present policy with regard to the Albanians of Kosovo or with regard to his own people, the few crumbs which have been thrown to reconstruct Kosovo alone, crumbs which bear no relation to the money spent during the actual war, cannot hide the fact that, once again, western intervention in the Balkans has not only failed to solve the problems in this part of the world, but has made them worse. The countries in the region which were already poor are now poorer still, the living conditions of their people have deteriorated and the bombs certainly did not put an end to the chauvinism at which they were targeted. The purpose of our refusal to vote in favour of the Bourlanges report is both to denounce the limited and derisory aid envisaged and, above all, to denounce the policy of the western powers in the Balkans.

Political group: GUE-NGL