GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, as a point of order I would like to request the floor before the vote on the two amendments, because I would like to propose an oral amendment to each of them. I would also like to table a point of order, before moving on to the vote, which will be a joint one concerning the whole text, because there are some linguistic corrections which I would like to point out to the services, since we have worked very quickly and some errors have slipped in which I will now mention, Mr President. We negotiators agreed that, by means of oral amendments and corrections, we could adapt the text if the circumstances had changed. Recital A mentions 'recent hours', and much has happened since the hull was ruptured; it should say 'recent days', because some days have passed rather than hours. In Recital B, where it talks about oil, it should say ‘fuel’, because we have agreed that ‘fuel’ should always be included. In the Spanish version of Recital F the text 'especially birds' appears and we had agreed that the word 'especially' would not appear. I therefore request that the word 'especially' be removed. The Spanish version of Recital G says 'sea craftsmen such as oyster farmers and seafood breeders'. I would ask that the Spanish version be corrected by saying 'sea workers such as mussel farmers, oyster farmers and other shellfishermen'. In point 3, the Italian version does not match the other versions; it is the only one in which, in line 7, seven words have been included which must be removed since they do not appear in any of the other versions. And finally, in point 11, it says 'maritime and/or fishing areas ' and, in Spanish, it should say 'maritime-fishing areas '. That is all, Mr President.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to echo the congratulations already expressed by many of my fellow MEPs to Mr Florenz. The Directive that is before us today is an important Directive. Why? Because Europe is facing every larger waste streams of discarded electrical and electronic equipment. That means, therefore, that a sound, environmentally-friendly solution is very much what is needed to recycle and process this waste. I endorse the way in which Mr Florenz has combined all these interests and all these sectors in groups in his report. Allow me to dwell on the Directive for a moment. First of all, it is in the consumer’s interest to be able to return electronic and electrical waste free of charge. Manufacturers thus need to finance the collection from the collection point, as well as the processing, recovery and removal of the waste. I back the opinion that manufacturers need to take care of this individually as much as possible. Indeed, individual responsibility is also an incentive for manufacturers to design products which are better suited to recycling, and I also share the view that historical waste cannot be left for the individual manufacturer to deal with. This was evident in the Netherlands too. Historical waste must be financed collectively. I support voluntary collection, processing and removal, with due consideration for the environment. This sends out the message to consumers, at the time when they buy new products, that the producers actually took their responsibilities seriously. A collective system has been in place in the Netherlands since 1999, with a visible contribution being made towards disposal, and it works very well. I support the increase in collection from 4 to 6 kg, for if I were not to do so, it would mean that a great deal of electrical waste would end up on the scrap heap. Finally, I hope that the amendments concerning lighting equipment can also be adopted.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, East Timor is the first new State to emerge freely and democratically onto the international stage at the start of the new millennium. The European Parliament must take pleasure in this result. The issue of East Timor has been on our international agenda for a number of years. We have given voice to those who have fought to return dignity to the Timorese people and to have their right to decide on their own destiny recognised and we have condemned the violation of human rights by Indonesian troops and by militias sponsored by them. I must emphasise the work undertaken by so many Members of this House. In particular, I wish to refer to Carlos Costa Neves, who has chaired the inter-group ‘For East Timor’ and who has taken part in each of the European Parliament’s missions to that country. We may have helped the people of East Timor to regain freedom and democracy, but we also have a responsibility for helping them to consolidate their gains. East Timor needs help from the international community: political, technical and financial help. Without this assistance, it will not be possible to rebuild what was destroyed, assemble a new administration and ensure the necessary development. This is why we call on the international community: to provide more support and assistance. Our compromise resolution, therefore, calls for an extension of the United Nations mandate, for the return of the refugees who wish to return to their countries and for the fight against the impunity of those who have committed crimes and who have violated fundamental rights. Lastly, I must say that I am glad to see a considerable degree of consensus and multiparty support for the candidature of Xanana Gusmão for the Presidency of East Timor. This Sakharov prize-winner could be a reference point for unity and could make a fundamental contribution to consolidating the new democratic institutions.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, while you are congratulating yourself on your competition policy, the workers of Aventis and Sanofi are filled with fear and awaiting redundancies and closures. They know that these stock mergers always lead to redundancies, in other words human catastrophes for those who make these companies work and often to the death of whole towns. I condemn a despicable system in which, in secret board meetings, a few individuals can decide the fate of thousands and sometimes tens of thousands of human beings. The European Parliament never condemns this type of dictatorship, for that is what it is, and this is one of the worst types of dictatorship. Moreover, in the pharmaceutical sector, we are talking about people’s health, and these corporations, which are some of the most profitable, make their profits by plundering social security. So why should the workers in those companies, the people, not have the right to monitor the decisions, why should they not have the right to force the billions in profits made thanks to the work done by them all to be used for something other than enabling the giants of industry to buy each other out, why should they not have the opportunity to force them to make the choices dictated by collective interests rather than just by those of the shareholders? What I would like, would be for the workers to be strong enough to put an end to this uncontrolled power exerted by the major financial groups over the life of the economy, and therefore, over life full stop.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, bearing in mind how much this is going to cost all Europeans, the fact that our aim is to restore confidence and that the issue is no longer the regulations in force but the implementation and observance of these regulations, should we not be thinking about how we can restore this confidence? Can we expect the irresponsible Minister, who insulted those who rightly warned us of this risk by calling them irresponsible, to restore this confidence? Or the Minister for Health, who demonstrated a lazy incompetence in this matter? Commissioner, given that these people are so discredited, will they be able to restore confidence, they, who are responsible for the current confusion, for the lack of control of banned feedingstuffs, for the environmental messes that are occurring, with illegal burials of hundreds of cows? Are these people, as discredited as they are, going to be able to restore the confidence that we need? Commissioner, unless we demand that these people are held responsible for their actions, we are the ones who will be held responsible. I can assure you of that.

Political group: PSE
I would like to compliment and congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Murphy, and the committee, on the work they have done on this. Although we are a small House tonight this is a terribly important subject. It cannot be said too often that small businesses do not have deep pockets and so have greater difficulty riding out cash-flow crises than bigger ones. They often have to wait for money to come in before paying their own suppliers. If payments are delayed it has a knock-on effect. Sometimes they are dependent on one large customer. If this client delays or defaults on payments, that can mean the equivalent of a whole month's work lost, with potentially catastrophic effects. Worse still there is often no real redress. Though there is a statutory right, for example in the United Kingdom, to impose interest on late payments, there is practically no way to enforce this and court action is impractical to recover small debts. We need to have some form of enforcement machinery. There is also the difficulty of different payment terms across the European Union – 30 days in some places, 90 in others. The compromise of 60 days seems to me a sensible arrangement. It is grand that the Commission has put its shoulder behind the wheel of speeding up commercial payments but it is far from the case that the Commission is beyond reproach itself. The Ombudsman’s report highlighted many instances of late payments to suppliers by the Commission. This point was addressed in the communication from Commissioner Liikanen and another concerning time limits. I am glad that the Commission is seeking to improve its own procedures to reduce late payments as I would like to see it put its house in order. I had a letter from a distinguished academic the other day pointing out that persons coming to give reports are often kept waiting for their expenses money for several months. This is unacceptable. We must make sure that the Commission does as well as it expects others to do.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The Labour Members of the Socialist Group welcome the Treaty of Nice which opens the way to enlargement of the European Union, an objective which all Member States of the Union have sought, as have successive British governments. The idea that the Treaty of Nice makes the European Union a centralised superstate is nonsense and was rightly dismissed as ridiculous in the debate yesterday. This resolution acknowledges that the last remaining institutional obstacles to enlargement have been removed and we welcome that. It also looks at the need for further reform, to which Labour is committed in order to make the European Union more effective, more transparent and more accountable. Nonetheless, the resolution contains some criticisms of the Treaty of Nice which are unfounded and also contains some proposals for the future which pre-empt the debate on the future of Europe due to take place over the coming years. Some of these proposals are premature and some are unlikely ever to be desirable; for this reason, the Labour Members decided to abstain on this text.

Political group: PSE
In this communication from the Commission, the European Union sets out its claim to impose itself as protector on the countries of South East Europe. But throughout the century which has just ended, that region of Europe has known nothing but suffering because of that claim, whether made by rival European powers or by a Western Europe which likes to think it is united. While it is easy for the rapporteur to denounce nationalism and local chauvinism, which are indeed intolerable, who can forget that the great European powers have always played on these nationalisms, setting them against each other according to their interests as great powers? The economic and political rivalries between European powers have led to two world wars: the first started in that region and the second was particularly destructive there. As to the newly united Europe, it has principally distinguished itself first by contributing to the carve-up of former Yugoslavia, and then by bombing Serbia and Kosovo. As the entire current situation illustrates, that war has further aggravated the situation in the region, both in material terms and in terms of relations between communities. Under the circumstances, entrusting the stability of this region to the European powers is the same as having the wolf look after the sheep. Our vote against this report expresses our opposition to the past and present policies of the European powers.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, today we have the opportunity to show our solidarity with the Venezuelan people, who last December experienced the consequences of a natural disaster which affected the coasts of the States of Vargas and Miranda and caused the deaths of 50 000 people. We therefore insist on the importance of approving this resolution which, in summary, is the logical consequence of the report of the special committee which travelled to Venezuela to get to know the reality on the ground of this natural disaster, and also reflects the coherence of the European Union’s political commitments. I hope it will thereby be possible to finance, in a significant way, the programme for recovery of the areas affected and that it will be drawn up according to the models for this type of action. Furthermore, we should take account, for the purposes of coordination, of the programmes of financial aid of the Member States and the Community regions.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would like to explain our position on this issue by making four simple points. Firstly, it is unacceptable for us to support what I would call a lawless area, where there is no recognition of the basic aspects of human welfare. I do not think that Europe will ever be able to allow this situation and I believe that each and every one of us, whatever their attachment, can sympathise with it, given the two examples that Mrs Fraisse already mentioned. Secondly, it is clear that the abolition of many symbols, representing what men and women might believe in, is crucially significant, but what is even more serious is the fact that denying any dignity for women’s rights must stir us into action. This is obviously a serious point and it certainly needs to be made. My third point relates to Islam. I believe we must have the courage to say that some people, who have a good understanding of Islam, have denounced the current situation in Afghanistan. By invoking Western values we must not deny this truth, which is that a certain number of men and women who are devoted to Islam oppose the events which are unfolding today in Afghanistan. Therefore, the message that ideas and convictions can peacefully coexist, which must be adopted by Europe, must be disseminated far and wide. So, there must be no demonisation, simply the desire to take action. Fourthly and finally, point 12 of our resolution calls on the United Nations to rapidly establish an independent committee of inquiry. We must arrange a meeting. If the United Nations does not have either the determination or the courage to establish this committee of inquiry, it may fall to the European Parliament to take the initiative on behalf of our shared values and set up such a committee. That is what is expected of Europe: it has its values; it is tolerant; it must demonstrate its determination, perhaps such a meeting has already been arranged. If the United Nations does not act, it is up to us to do so. However, we are sending a very clear message to the Taliban and I hope I have succeeded in obtaining your support. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, on the same point of order that Mr Duff raised earlier, the roll-call vote has just shown that we are not quorate, so therefore, under the same rules, I would like to ask for the quorum to be established and I call on Members to support me by standing. (19 Members rose) President. – The request is withdrawn. - Relating to Amendment No 10

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, we are today discussing the trans-European networks, and it is unfortunate that we are doing so in the absence of the Commission and of the Council. When we look carefully at matters, the fact is that, according to the calculations, the European Union is foregoing half a percentage point per year in economic growth because, for example, the infrastructure is insufficiently developed and not functioning efficiently. If, moreover, we were to achieve – as is probable – an improvement of between 25% and 50% in our air quality – at least in quite a few areas – we should be setting our sights more firmly upon combined transport, that is to say on a combination of rail, road and water. When the European Union has set itself two important objectives – the first in Lisbon, concerning the competitiveness of our continent, and the second, which has since been insufficiently implemented, in Gothenburg, concerning the sustainability of economic development on our continent – it is rather strange that there are already many contradictions in transport policy, in terms of many very different investments and trends, and of the fact that – although we hope this will soon happen – roads are, to some extent, still not paying their way in the light, for example, of the Road Costs Directive. I hope that the Commission will soon examine the proposals of the committee chaired by Mr van Miert and will present this Parliament with a practical proposal as to how, in the future, the trans-European networks should be developed. What is first of all necessary is a list of priorities and, secondly of course, the funding. Mr Goebbels and others have already referred to this. Credit financing alone will not suffice. Nor is it enough to organise private capital, something that is also incredibly difficult to do. What we see in the case of many projects – and Commissioner Kinnock has already submitted proposals in this respect and set up his own group of experts – is that, in actual practice, a private-public partnership really only works in the case of a few such projects if nothing is also done to increase public investment. In my view, it should really be considered whether, for example, there is the possibility, in the case of carefully targeted cross-border projects that are priorities specifically in terms of European cohesion, of permitting quite specific exemptions from the deficit calculation à la Maastricht. The Presidency’s proposals on this subject were very problematic because they were couched in too general terms, and I believe we must give them more specific wordings. The Commission and the Council should now be called upon finally to reach decisions and genuinely to propose a realistic funding concept.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I do not think that anyone could suspect our group or me personally of being opposed to a debate on Chechnya. Nevertheless, if we are going to have a debate on Chechnya, I think that it should be on the basis of a resolution. This does not make any sense: everyone is aware of the situation. For our part, we propose that there be a debate on Chechnya, on the basis of a resolution, at the mini part-session, that is to say in a fortnight's time. In any case, if it is topical issues that we are talking about, we ought to have held this debate, and voted on it, at the last mini part-session, whereas now Bolivia actually seems to me to be the most topical issue on which Parliament ought to adopt a position on the basis of a resolution. We do not therefore wish to debate Chechnya without a resolution and propose that we do so at the mini part-session, with a resolution.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like, in double-quick time, to take you through a number of observations which concern the Court of Auditors’ reports which were, indeed, useful. First of all, there is the Garriga report. I believe the Committee on Budgets has already made plans to this effect, but I think it is vital that we evaluate the results of the committee of inquiry on transit fraud. What has the Commission done so far with the recommendations in that report? Next, there is the McCartin report on agriculture. It is always an interesting topic, and nobody will deny that the agricultural policy is not static, but that it should move along with the times, especially in connection with the negotiations within the World Trade Organisation and enlargement. I would also like to raise two points without making a judgment either for or against. The following considerations are currently of importance to my group: first, what would the effect of cofinancing agricultural expenditure be, and income allowance, in particular? Another point, which is very topical at the moment, is animal disease control. This is taking a huge chunk out of the European budget. Would it not be possible, in imitation of customs in the Member States, to obtain insurance cover against the outbreak of certain animal diseases? Could the Commission look into this matter at the earliest opportunity? Turning to the Staes report, it is encouraging to see that the European Union can make a difference in the Balkans, which is much like a hornet’s nest. We are delighted about this, and we believe the Staes report is excellent. We particularly support the fact that it is not the Office of the High Representative which is calling the shots; it is the European Union which coughs up the funds and which will have to check whether these are well spent. I would like to make a general comment on the climate of corruption which is supposed to prevail in the Balkans. In our opinion, it is necessary for the Commission to decide on the way in which this should be allowed to affect Europe. Is this having an impact on European aid? Finally, I would like to make an observation with regard to the Dell'Alba report. In my country, there are indications that the price of industrial sites is rising considerably thanks to European aid. This is not desirable in our eyes. Could something be done about this?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, you have not addressed the real question, namely the request from the Maltese Labour Party to strike 1 684 citizens off the electoral register for the European elections because they currently live in the European Union, and do not work in Malta. This is the heart of the matter, and you have not addressed this in any way. We are talking about the European elections. That is the issue at stake, and yet the same thing happens every time. Once again, in this case, 1 684 citizens will be struck off the electoral register. My question related to this particular case. Please could you give a more detailed response?

Political group: Verts-ALE