GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I too want to congratulate Louise McVay and indeed the rapporteur, Mrs Aaltonen, for bringing forward this report from the Committee on Petitions. There is a clear need, based on the information that has been provided to us, for the European Union to become engaged in seeking to develop best practice across the European Union to ensure that the people of Europe have adequate access to services, therapies, drugs and indeed aftercare, and that they are not discriminated against in relation to employment. There is also a need for a Europe-wide epidemiological study which should be financed by the European Union, and that should be done as a matter of urgency. There is also a need for a new directive on disability rights which would guarantee that people who suffer from conditions of this kind are not discriminated against in accessing jobs. It is one thing to be in a job and have this condition, but if you have the condition it is virtually impossible to access a job subsequently. These are matters strictly speaking within the competence of the Member States but it is clear that as a Union and as a Parliament we have an obligation to seek to ensure that European citizens are treated properly. It is estimated that something like 400 000 people in Europe have this condition. In Ireland, for instance, there are around 500 000 people with neurological conditions of various kinds. I do not at know offhand how many of those are MS patients, but a recent study has shown that there is a 2:1 gap in terms of the number of consultants necessary to provide treatment, care and appointments for people with conditions of this kind. There is a two-year waiting list and something like double the number of clinics are required in order to cope with the numbers involved. There are clearly large gaps in our services and we have an obligation to try and close those gaps.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the media system has developed alongside democracy, but our impression is that there has for some time been growing conflict between the two and that there is a tendency towards concentration, the result of which is, in practice, less democracy. The media has an extraordinary influence over society, but I believe we have to realise that there is only one way to resist the domination of North American investments in the media and advertising industry and that does not involve media concentration in European Union countries. In Italy, the President was moved to send a message to parliament on the matter, but I would also like to point out that the highest moral authority, Pope John Paul II, has called for clear, fair rules guaranteeing pluralism, freedom and participation, to avoid the abuse of what are extremely powerful tools having a devastating impact on people’s consciences and society. I would, however, like to point out that this issue affects other sectors as well as politics. During the recent hearing organised by the Group of the European People’s Party on television without frontiers, a reporter noted that television is exacerbating the commercialisation of sport and the concentration of advertising resources. Thus, there is a growing divide between the few wealthy sports and the poor sports, and the link between television, advertising, sports rights and the owners of the major football teams is becoming increasingly close. Public television networks can provide alternatives to these tendencies, but we all know that, in the world in which we live, in a liberal society, private, commercial television companies play a major role. However, this role must not be allowed to develop in such a way that the extraordinary power to influence public opinion is concentrated in the hands of a few.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to start by warmly congratulating our rapporteur, Mrs Redondo Jiménez, who has done an outstanding job, with the support, obviously, of Commissioner Wallström. I say outstanding because, despite serious initial concerns, we have finally reached this compromise agreement with the Council. The European forest is very diverse: from the forests of Scandinavia to those of the Mediterranean, the problems we encounter are completely different. This summer, disaster struck southern Europe because of the drought and the heatwave. It was therefore important to include fire prevention, which was not at all clear at the outset. As Mrs Redondo Jiménez has explained so eloquently, we need to consider all of the different facets of our forests: we need to look at them from an environmental point of view and take into account the problems of pollution, but we also need to consider their economic, touristic and social functions. We need to compare different people's experiences and indeed take advantage of the good example set by the Scandinavian countries on forest management, but we also need to see our forests as part of our rural development strategy. There is no doubt that a good number of Member States need to reflect on the future of their forests. Fire prevention requires us to keep farming our land. This should give critics of the common agricultural policy pause for thought. The public should also be better informed in risk areas. Finally, and above all, replanting of the forests that have been destroyed needs to be carefully thought through and species chosen that are appropriate to the land and climate and more likely to withstand fire. We can therefore only welcome the new financial framework for 2003 to 2006, which provides for EUR 61 million, EUR 9 million of which will be allocated to fire prevention. At last, we can exercise our full power of codecision because in 2006 we will also be evaluating what we have achieved. The negotiations have, it is true, been very lengthy, but the result is important for Europe. It is up to us to continue our efforts because, as our Commissioner said, this is an ongoing task.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I have the highest regard for Elmar Brok, but in this case he is mistaken. The only point of the compromise amendment was to add the word “continuing” in English or “anhaltend” in German to “serious”, which is “schwerwiegend” in the German version. That is the old text. We have not agreed on the four-fifths majority, so it is just too late for this now. We cannot split this again now.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by expressing my very heartfelt thanks for all my fellow-Members' solidarity and sympathy, as this is a really difficult time for people in the affected areas of Central Europe. The last time Austria experienced a flood disaster of this magnitude was over a century ago. We are especially grateful to the Commission and the Presidency of the Council for their prompt action in response to this catastrophe. I would also like to thank all the Austrian MEPs for the solidarity and cooperation which have been manifested without regard to party political boundaries, and also all the voluntary aid workers, the voluntary fire brigades, the Red Cross, the Austrian Federal Army for their tireless endeavours. I am myself from an affected area in Lower Austria and have personal experience of their superhuman efforts. It took no time at all for many livelihoods to be destroyed, with, for example, over 20 000 hectares of Austrian arable land inundated. The damage done has been enormous, meaning, among other things, that harvesting cannot be completed in the areas where threshing is done late, and that many fields and meadows cannot be mown as they are still under water as a result of the continuing high groundwater level. Machines and equipment are sinking into the fields, and shortages of animal feedingstuffs are to be reckoned with. The Commission's immediate authorisation of measures to help farmers is therefore a matter of life and death for us, and for it they have my heartfelt gratitude. In a study, the Austrian Institute of Economic Research puts a figure of over EUR 7.5 billion on the damage. The destruction of many businesses and of the infrastructure in these regions has set the areas' development back by years. Parliament and the EU as a whole must give aid, actively and with all speed. The time has come to demonstrate this. I see this as a chance for the Europe in which we share to prove itself. I really do welcome the emergency aid that the EU gives, one of the most important features of which is, as many of the previous speakers have already said, the transparency of the process and the absence of bureaucracy involved. This is an area where – to speak very frankly – the governments of the affected areas also need to make the necessary funds available without delay. Emergency aid must find a place in the Supplementary Budget. We have to set up an efficient disaster fund, give it sufficient funds and define criteria for it. It must be possible to give this fund an endowment of a billion euros. Disasters will happen over and over again, but our society is distinguished by the way we treat nature and live in harmony with it, and by our solidarity with those visited by misfortune, for we can all be in their position.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we need to ensure the viability of the sector that is vital for employment and economic and social cohesion in the Union's coastal areas. We need to maintain sustainable marine ecosystems conserving fish stocks for future generations. Parliament's resolution the green paper identified the fundamental aim of the CFP as attaining a balance between the two. amendments to the Jové Peres report seek to ensure the long-term future of the 12 mile limit and of relative stability. These are essential both to the sustainability of fragile coastal communities and of the stocks on which they depend. We aim to specify more clearly the other measures that need to taken to protect stocks. We would rename regional advisory councils as regional management councils. This makes it clear that such councils should have a real role in helping to formulate and to implement the measures needed under the reformed CFP. In particular, we must use these councils to help achieve the fullest possible understanding of the functioning of marine ecosystems. For example, recent research suggests that an increase rather than a decrease in nephrops quotas could actually be positive for the regeneration of cod stocks. Finally, balancing the viability of the sector and the sustainability of stocks is not just a matter for the reform of the CFP. It is precisely what is required in the current cod crisis. It is good that the Commission has addressed the socio-economic problems but the measures so far seem like prescribing a couple of aspirins to cure a severe case of pneumonia. So we are formally in support of the resolution. Let us hope that a proper implementation of CFP reform will prevent any such crises arising in the future.

Political group: ELDR
This initiative by Spain, within the Council, is part of the process of strengthening supranational police and judicial mechanisms – specifically at EU level – in the name of the so-called ‘fight against terrorism’. Bodies which evade democratic and jurisdictional control (Europol and Eurojust), are being developed and strengthened, bypassing the guarantees for rights and freedoms laid down in national legislative and constitutional frameworks. Cooperation between national States is bypassed with the creation of mechanisms for supranational control over these States. It is worth emphasising that the proposal for the creation of a ‘mechanism for evaluating the legal systems and their implementation at national level in the fight against terrorism’ bypasses and breaches the legal base that currently exists in the Treaties. Amongst other aspects, these initiatives are part of a security shift that increasingly threatens fundamental rights, freedoms and guarantees. Although the rapporteur has tabled proposals for amendments that seek to introduce assurances and safeguards for fundamental rights, freedoms and guarantees – for example, for the transfer and management of personal information and data (it should be noted that Europol is bound by agreements with third countries, not least with the USA) – this does not change the general tenor of the initiatives that have been proposed. Hence our vote against the report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the report under discussion in the House today is doubtless of great importance. In addition to the objectives it is working towards, the strong point of the Community initiative INTERREG for the 2000-2006 programming period lies in its added value from the viewpoint of what is now the imminent enlargement of the European Union to include new Eastern European and Mediterranean countries. In my opinion, it is precisely in anticipation of this deadline that the European Union should strive to reduce disparities between regions and put an end to the isolation of border areas. Indeed, these areas – and it is right to stress this – have an important role to play as an interface with the applicant countries that are going to join the Union. It is precisely with this in mind that I tabled some amendments which I consider to be of the utmost importance, and that the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism has subsequently taken up. They call for the areas eligible for cross-border cooperation to be extended to all regions of the Adriatic, as well as to the Sicilian provinces which have a frontier with Malta – an applicant country – which, inexplicably, are not currently included in strand A, Annex 1. I am confident that Commissioner Barnier and the President of the European Commission will duly consider Parliament’s position on the matter, in accordance with the Code of Conduct. There are fundamental advantages for the whole of Europe for it to promote cooperation with the applicant countries and to support border regions. Finally, it is to be hoped that greater coordination will be sought between the INTERREG initiative and the existing Community programmes, which are significant for external policy, as a vector for greater integration and for the joint drafting of programmes.

Political group: PPE-DE
I find it incredible, given the anti-Brussels hysteria of his UKIP allies, that Mr Blokland has managed to produce such an over-regulated monster of a report. But at least these proposals will allow the anti-European rubbish peddled by Mr Blokland and the UKIP to be disposed of in an environmentally-friendly manner. The aim of these proposals is to improve air quality and protect human health. Incineration is often the most effective and safe method of waste disposal. Sometimes, however, it can release dangerous chemicals, such as dioxins, into the atmosphere. It is therefore vital that these by-products are monitored and prevented from escaping into the environment. The technology for cleaning up fumes from waste incineration plants already exists. We just need to make sure that it is used. The sensible measures put forward by the Commission should encourage the utilisation of this technology. I find the UKIP's hypocrisy breathtaking. I challenge the UKIP to explain to their own supporters how they can be allied to such an obvious supporter of EU over-regulation. While pretending to be the Eurocrat's foe, they are clearly, in fact, the Eurocrat's friend. I fear that cleaning up the environment may prove to be a doddle compared to the task of persuading the UKIP to clean up its act. The losers, sadly, will be our own citizens.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, in the extremely interesting debate that we have heard this morning following Mr Prodi’s presentation of the White Paper on governance, he said that the control exercised by this Parliament, including control over budgetary matters, should not be concerned with questions of detail but should check whether the instruments are achieving their objectives and should adopt more of a political approach and less of an accounting one. Perhaps this is why the Committee on Budgetary Control has made a few suggestions for the creation of an Aviation Safety Agency, such as, for example, that we again adopt the model of control used by the two agencies set up in 1975, which are Cedefop, in Thessaloniki and the Dublin Foundation. According to this model, granting discharge to the agencies was the responsibility of the European Parliament. Between 1990 and 1997, nine agencies were created, but it could be said that creating an external agency gives the Council carte blanche to do what it likes. This idea is not borne out by reality, however, because the agency set up to deal with the issue of Kosovo in Thessaloniki in 1999 is a return to the model according to which it is Parliament, at the behest of the Council, that gives discharge to the Director and the board of management. This is, I believe, in harmony with the form of governance that we are seeking to adopt on the Commission’s proposal and that would be beneficial to the Agency itself, because in this way, the external agency does not have to mean lesser control of Community funds, a control which is the responsibility of the European Parliament. We also emphasise, in the fourth amendment, the need to incorporate in its rules of procedure the requirement for periodical external assessments of the Agency. I must repeat that the external Agency will have freedom of action, but we would like to have an independent expert cast an eye over it from time to time to see whether the Agency is fulfilling the objective that has been proposed for it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, today's debate is not about whether genetically modified food is good or bad or dangerous to our health, despite the fact that there is of course good reason to suspect that it may be. Today's debate is about ensuring that consumers have the right to know and to choose between the products on sale to them. In order to do this, products need an identity and they need some sort of label to state their identity. Today, we have the technology to ensure that this identity corresponds to the product's actual history, what materials have been used to produce it and how it has been produced. So I am against any amendments designed to restrict the traceability of genetically modified organisms and to restrict it to the final form of the product, whereas with the Commission's proposals we could have a system which gives us more information at all stages of production and hence a more accurate, more complex picture of the origin of the final product. If we want even rudimentary prevention and freedom of information and consumer choice, we need to support the Commission's basic proposals and reinforce its approach. We, as a Parliament, must not take a more conservative position which might leave us open to accusations of adopting a position which allows information to be concealed. For me, this support includes the need to trace genetically modified organisms – including of course in animal feed – and I should like to add that a limit of 1% seems rather high to me for random contamination. I have learned and heard that 0.1% is possible and I see no reason why we too should not adopt this. Finally, I should like to ask the Commission this: it has introduced a concentrated control system, mainly under the principle of food safety. However, for numerous reasons and the games which some people may play, we should I think give the national authorities strong powers of control, perhaps under a system of provisional licences. IN THE CHAIR: MR DIMITRAKOPOULOSVice-President

Political group: GUE-NGL
Prime Minister Persson, Commissioner Wallström, Mr President, I would like to thank the Swedish presidency particularly for its perseverance in seeking to highlight issues which are important for the environment and for bringing the environment to the heart of policy together with economic and social issues during its six-month presidency. Unfortunately, not all of the Council were able to achieve the progress on environmental issues that the work put in by the presidency merited. It is true that conciliations were finally concluded, but not perhaps at the ambitious level that Parliament would have liked to see. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the Swedish presidency really has sought to achieve results. Sustainable development is an important step in taking the environment into account in European policy. Strengthening the ecological pillar in sustainable development is also essential since when sustainable development is monitored year by year, we have to be able to set clear targets for the ecological pillar to make this monitoring possible. We have to have measurable goals, quantitative and qualitative targets, sufficient perspectives on how the environmental situation can be monitored to enable us also to tackle the threats we face successfully. In my opinion the Swedish presidency otherwise succeeded very well, although it would have been good to see a decision on the Food Authority reached at the Göteborg Summit, as work on this should begin immediately.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to denounce the fact that, last week, another two workers died in Greece and two others were seriously injured in the mines belonging to the president of the Association of Hellenic Industries, Mr Kyriakopoulos. These two deaths come in the wake of another six deaths as the result of similar accidents at work, together with dozens of injuries in September alone. It would appear that workers in the countries of the European Union – and I am speaking of Greece in particular – are indeed considered to be expendable resources and their health and their lives are being sacrificed by big business to the quest for maximum profit. It is my impression that this intolerable situation is not manifesting itself in Greece alone. The evidence proves it, perhaps more intensely in Greece. Hundreds lose their lives and thousands are injured every year in my country alone. Imagine what is happening in the European Union as a whole. If you think this is in keeping with generous proclamations about employment, about securing health and safety in the workplace, then we really are mistaken. That is why we believe that this is yet another sign of the system under which we live and the barbarity of that system towards people trying to earn an honest living.

Political group: GUE-NGL