GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, next year’s budget is lighter than normal. The share it represents of the combined GNP of the Member States is lower than it has been for years. In addition, we all know that a part of the appropriations still remains unspent. The criticism Mr Virrankoski before me made is a portrayal of just how ineffective the Commission has been, and is a criticism I fully endorse. For some reason the Commission is allowed to execute programmes that are important for the Commission and not execute programmes that are important for Parliament. The interinstitutional agreement on the budget was concluded just before this Parliament’s term began. Certain restrictions that go back to that time are making it difficult to draft next year’s budget. The areas that are causing problems are category 4, which deals with external action, and category 5, which deals with the administrative expenditure of the institutions. As we know how finances are managed in the EU and we know that a large proportion of appropriations will remain unspent, many of our budgetary problems are mainly technicalities, and not real. We are becoming concerned about matters that do not suffer from lack of funds for their implementation. Category 4 contains ‘RAL air’ and there is much scope for flexibility in category 5 without it being necessary to increase it by introducing the so-called flexibility instrument. Our real problems are connected with enlargement. With current levels of expenditure the EU is still not ready for enlargement in 2004. We lack the proper language skills and workspace. The EU saves money all the time it does not enlarge. Appropriations were set aside for enlargement under Agenda 2000. These have not been used, as enlargement is to start later than planned. The use of this money for enlargement when it takes place should be safeguarded, but, technically, from the EU’s point of view, it is money that has been lost. The share of appropriations that are the Council’s responsibility in the area of the common foreign and security policy is increasing, and we should furthermore introduce a proper auditing and discharge procedure with regard to the Council’s budget.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I have to say that I was slightly surprised that Mr Coelho, who did an excellent job in inspiring difficult debates and maintained a completely objective approach, was given so little speaking time. I would also like to thank Mr Schmid who has obviously worked very hard on this issue, even though I disagree with some of the points in his report. The resolution poses a fundamental problem. It highlights that the Echelon system exists and was set up by the United States with the help of the United Kingdom, in particular. On the other hand, the resolution raises the problem of whether the participation of an EU Member State in the Echelon system is compatible with European law. This is a genuine problem in cases where Echelon is used to carry out commercial or industrial espionage and to quote from paragraph F of the resolution “if the system is misused for the purposes of gathering competitive intelligence, such action is at odds with the Member States’ duty of loyalty and with the concept of a common market based on free competition, so that a Member State participating in such a system violates EC law.” In my view, this point is fundamental and that is why this report, in spite of its values, leaves me with mixed feelings. In particular, I do not accept the way the use of the territory of a Member State by a third party state – whether or not an ally – is trivialised with the argument that another Member State, France, in this case, could have the resources to set up its own global interception system. This is not the same situation at all and that was not part of the work of the Echelon Committee. Today, economic conflicts can be very serious and industrial espionage is only an instrument and, therefore, we should perhaps take care to ensure that we do not use this sort of war-mongering vocabulary to refer to our allies, and, even more so, to the EU Member States. We in Parliament have a right to expect the Member State or States involved, the Council and the Commission to take preventative measures and action.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, my speaking time is too restricted to describe the fate of a country for which, for so many years, the situation was in fact quite hopeful, but which for the past couple of years has been on a slippery slope towards greater underdevelopment, whilst the population of Zimbabwe is highly developed. This is probably one of the things we should give the Mugabe government credit for during its early years. The population is knowledgeable despite the fact that the opposition was prevented from taking part in the election propaganda in a normal way, at least as far as the official media is concerned. I know Zimbabwe quite well. For quite a few years running, I visited the country and followed the situation from close by, but I was surprised at the extent of intimidation prior to the elections and I fear that this may continue, even after the elections. Accordingly, I think we should act within the remit of our international responsibility and ensure that we continue to exert the same benevolent influence after the elections that we had in the run-up to them. We can do this by driving a hard bargain, yet remaining specific, regarding the planned reforms in Zimbabwe. A reign of terror pervades the countryside, and this cannot be allowed to continue, of course, because this affects the quality of life of the white and black population alike. I would like to underline this because these people are also being sucked into a maelstrom of events which are beyond their control. I hope that we will be able to keep the dialogue going with the government, the opposition and the civil society.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Group of the will vote in favour of the proposal of the Confederal Group of the calling for the common position to be rejected. We are not supporting this proposal because we wish to oppose the financing of supplementary pensions through accumulation of capital on principle. As Mr Kuckelkorn said, a pension is a pension. It is not a form of saving. Pensions are for life. They provide for workers when they retire. They also offer certain guarantees in case of incapacity. Reversion pensions provide for surviving spouses. Pensions are not financial products. It is quite possible that certain financial products and financial institutions may contribute to the management of certain pension schemes. Beyond this, however, we would be embarking on the search to establish European definitions of pension products and social mechanisms for the first time. We also need to consider in what circumstances financial institutions can make a contribution. At present, we are just dressing up savings products in a very ill-defined way. I would like to thank Mr Karas for all the efforts he has made to make this dressing-up as convincing as possible. Savings products have been dressed up to resemble pensions. With Mr Karas’ amendments, they were already far from being pensions. The compromise amendments, however, have made everything quite clear. They are purely and simply savings products and should be treated as such. It would amount to a violation of trading regulations to sell them as pensions.

Political group: Verts-ALE
In view of the fact that the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament do not permit us to table our own resolution condemning Haider’s party, as well as all the parties throughout Europe which disseminate racist slander and which are xenophobic and hostile to immigrant workers, we voted in favour of the compromise resolution. We did so even though we did not agree with some of its recitals or terms, in order to show our solidarity with all those in Austria itself who are opposing the Austrian extreme right and its demagoguery. Our vote in no way constitutes an endorsement of the signatories to this compromise resolution, their present policy or their future attitude should the threat of the extreme right become more serious. Some of these parties, despite declaring themselves to be republican and democratic, adopt the demagoguery of the extreme right, either out of connivance or as a vote-winning ploy, if only in openly and hypocritically blaming the immigrant workers in our countries for unemployment, and generally making their lives more difficult. More generally, those signatories who take part in or have taken part in government in the various States of the European Union must take their share of responsibility in the influence which the extreme right has managed to gain since their policy, devoted exclusively to the interests of big business, has not included taking action likely to eradicate unemployment and the poverty it engenders, and has thus facilitated the xenophobic demagoguery of the extreme right.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to congratulate Mr Torben Lund on a sterling report which can rely on my group’s unqualified support. Endocrine disrupters are a relatively new concept. In my own linguistic area, the term did not become an established concept until one or two years ago. I know that the Danish equivalent is oestrogen substances and that they have been the topic of discussion for nearly ten years. The English term is endocrine disrupters and, certainly in scientific literature, they are the subject of a heated debate. But in German, for example, there is still no term which has become established. This indicates that the problem is new but no less serious as a result. We fully back the 2001 deadline. I fear that the European Commission, under pressure from the chemical industry, will want to wait too long before introducing statutory measures. Half of the 560 substances which are suspected of having an endocrine disruptive effect are pesticides. The Commission has admitted this in response to my questions within the Environment Committee. We ought to start with these. They should, in any event, not be placed at the end of the list. Do endocrine disruptive characteristics play a role in the approval of pesticides at the moment? Unfortunately not. They do not feature in the so-called uniform principles, although they should. In my view, this should be put right during the revision of the Pesticide Directive in 2003 at the latest. I hope the Commissioner is able to give us a response on this issue.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the centralised procedure is our preferred choice. Medicines should be accessible to all Europeans, particularly following enlargement. The fact that we have 500 amendments is to do with the different lobbies and, above all, with the conflict between new and generic medicines. I welcome the compromise that has been reached, which offers protection that lasts eight years. I can just about endorse the ten-year market protection for new medicines within the EU. However, it should be possible for manufacturers of generic medicines to sell their products in countries outside of Europe. Those countries are invariably poorer and would benefit from these cheaper medicines. My group is delighted that the Commission's proposal to authorise advertising for prescription medicines for AIDS, asthma and diabetes has suffered a crushing defeat in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. Despite this, the has re-tabled this absurd proposal. In the USA, advertising for prescription medicines has been decontrolled for the past five years. Sales have increased by 80%, admittedly not only thanks to advertising, but even so. The American population has not become any healthier as a result. The pharmaceutical industry's profits, on the other hand, have soared. Patients are in great need of more information, but only if they ask for it. At the moment, they have to make do with American websites. Via the Internet and telephone helplines, it should be possible for patients to obtain information about medicines in their own language. The five-yearly re-evaluation of medicines has now become a formality. My group would prefer to see an improved re-evaluation procedure put in place, a re-evaluation with substance. Does a medicine have value-added? The pharmaceutical industry is decidedly against this. I should, however, like to repeat that it is not commercial interests but health care that should come first. Many medicines are toxic substances. When they leave the body, they are often still toxic, also to the environment. This is why my group is very pleased that consideration will now also be given to the environment in the assessment of new medicines. The European Commission has dropped a major clanger in this respect. Is that because the Directorate-General of Industry is responsible?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, my group has voted, with good reason, for the whole of Amendment No 3 to the Brok report, including the section in which Parliament urges Iraq to implement all relevant Security Council resolutions to avoid the implementation of these resolutions having to be enforced. The resolution links this to a statement by the Security Council about the result of the inspections. As I highlighted in my contribution to yesterday's debate, the Group too is of the opinion that explicit permission from the Security Council is required for military action. This is, in fact, how the 's entire amendment should be interpreted.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, on behalf of the Socialist Group, I wish to say that we are against the tabling of this oral amendment.

Political group: PSE
I congratulate Mr Izquierdo Collado on the excellent report he has drawn up on the Commission White Paper entitled ‘European transport policy for 2010: time to decide’, which I fully support, in particular his call for the issue of the growing liberalisation of the transport sector to be accompanied by guarantees, investment, mobility, subsidies, price support and maintenance of services for remote and island regions. In this context I should like to emphasise that, due to the importance of transport for the development of the outermost regions, the European Parliament must, within this process, defend the commitments given to the outermost regions in the Treaty of Amsterdam, thereby contributing to economic and social cohesion in Europe. I should also like to point out that the safety of transport cannot be made conditional on its profitability and that, where the safety of road transport is concerned, I fully share the aim laid down by the Commission to achieve a 50% reduction in the number of road deaths by 2010, (totalling 20 000) and I support the proposal for the Community-level implementation of evidence-based measures that will enable this target to be achieved.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Piet Dankert, from Stiens in Friesland, whose enthusiasm for social democracy had been kindled by his Frisian grandfather, started his career as a teacher, and made an important contribution in Europe in many roles, of which I should like to list a few examples. Openness. The election of Piet Dankert to President of the European Parliament was the first time that a decision of such significance had not been reached internally among groups. The election was held in an open and almost professional manner, and included a press campaign. This action was about twenty years ahead of its time. Piet Dankert, monsieur le Président. Perseverance. As a good European, Piet believed in the right and proper use of European money. He took an interest in any report of possible misuse. However, he was also keen to find out whether the accounts were true. Sometimes, the facts were somewhat distorted to ensure that other bodies with more powers would actually take action. Democracy. In 1979, Piet Dankert managed to give the European Parliament more bite by deploying budget legislation as a political instrument in an inventive manner. He threatened that Parliament would vote against the Budget, and this is exactly what happened. Ever since, the Commission and Council have been forced to take the European Parliament seriously. Vision. Piet Dankert wanted a more social and democratic Europe with a clearly defined role in a world with which it shows solidarity. Piet Dankert featured in this connection as a level-headed and realistic champion of the European ideal. In the capacity of secretary of state for Europe, he tabled proposals for a more democratic Europe during the Dutch Presidency in Maastricht in 1992. Governments were not quite ready for this. Piet Dankert observed with satisfaction that the results of the Convention were not dissimilar from his own proposals all those years ago. Enjoyment. In 1979, Piet Dankert made a very conscious and clear decision in favour of the European Parliament over the Dutch Second Chamber. According to him, operating at international level was more fun and more exciting. He also knew how to enjoy the pleasant sides of his job. From time to time, Piet was able to appreciate a meal consisting of a little more than a cheese roll and a mug of buttermilk. Relations. He was averse to hoo-ha, could be very obstinate, yet was at times almost shy. He was a kind and honest man, and was able to identify with the political way of thinking of people from other countries. Over the past few days, and during the commemorative service yesterday in the Great Church at Edam, many confirmed this image of him as Monsieur l'Europe. We hope that all these impressions, qualities and images of Piet Dankert will be of comfort to his wife, Paulette, and his children.

Political group: PSE
I voted against the EU­Mexico agreement, not because I am against more intensive cooperation between the European Union and Mexico in principle, but because the agreement, in its form for the purpose of the vote, is unbalanced and flawed from a development policy point of view. Never before has Mexico made so many concessions to a much stronger trading partner as it is now making to the European Union. The impact on Mexico cannot be quantified, although the NAFTA agreement has already resulted in the impoverishment of large sections of the Mexican population and the demise of small undertakings. The rules of the agreement on which we have voted go even further than those of the NAFTA agreement. For example, the liberalisation of investments which is championed covers all sectors of the economy. In other words it is a mini-MAI. The drop in the standard of living and the inequalities between the European Union and Mexico which already exist will be exacerbated yet further. Whereas Mexico has been required to make numerous concessions to Europe (such as in the agricultural, investment and public procurement sectors), the EU has included derogations and restrictions for itself in order to keep competition at bay. It is obvious that the European side, especially Europe’s large corporate groups, will profit from the agreement with Mexico. It is a gift to large-scale European industry. However, it will do nothing to improve the living and working conditions of the Mexicans, on the contrary. There is no mention in the agreement of employee rights or social standards. It contradicts development policy objectives and for this reason among others Mexican NGOs and other parties have asked their Senate not to sign this agreement. The EU is trying to use individual agreements with developing and newly-industrialised countries in order to implement what it failed to achieve at the WTO conference of ministers in Seattle, partly due to the resistance of developing countries. Its main objective in the present case is to gain access to the lucrative NAFTA area via Mexico. The living conditions of the people have been disregarded. This agreement does not bring about the progress needed in relations between Europe and Mexico, nor is it a suitable model for similar agreements to be concluded in the future, for example with Mercosur. Agreements with developing countries must serve their interests first and foremost, not the interests of European corporate groups. – Joint resolution on the annual legislative programme

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I want first of all to thank Mr Martínez Martínez for all the hard work he has put into this regulation. The European Parliament cannot possibly support cutting development aid to South Africa by ten per cent. Of course, I deeply regret the fact that the Council sat on this urgent matter for eight months so that there has been no legal basis for cooperation work since the beginning of the year. Relations between the European Union and South Africa must not be damaged. South Africa ought to – and must – be the European Union’s greatest and best friend in Africa, for South Africa will play a quite decisive role in the whole continent’s future. In times of large-scale conflict on the African continent, for example in Congo, Angola, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, Uganda, Rwanda and Algeria – not to mention the intense unrest of recent months in Zimbabwe and the hatred which President Mugabe has been stirring up there – South Africa and the country’s remarkably strong democratic institutions constitute a constructive and stabilising factor in leading Africa towards a brighter and more peaceful future. South Africa has a vigorous constitution with a clear commitment to human rights and freedoms. The country has a constitutional court whose judgements are respected by the president. Free elections have been held. There is freedom of the press, and the office of president was in a peaceful and orderly state when the country’s great reconciler and nation builder, Nelson Mandela, left it. The Truth Commission, led by the Anglican bishop, Desmond Tutu, has demonstrated its willingness to strive for genuine reconciliation in South Africa. Sweden’s prime minister called the Cairo Conference, held earlier this year between the EU and Africa, “the start of something new and great”. A democratic and reconciled South Africa is the prerequisite for this “something new and great”, in which Africa and the countries of Europe meet on a new and equal footing and look forward, instead of remaining stuck in the old colonial period. South Africa is a necessary engine of democracy for the whole of South Africa and for Africa in its entirety. It can show that it is freedom, together with democratic and strong ethical and moral values, through which Africa can advance furthest.

Political group: ELDR