GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Environmental pollution is the work of human beings. Instead of dividing the existing yield of our natural resources more fairly, we strove for ever-increasing returns in order to make everyone less poor or even richer. Air, water and soil pollution together with soil erosion, floods and landslides are a cross-border problem, that we should wish to solve even without the existence of a European Union. The listing of objectives and means as a way to achieving this in a programme of action is a first step. Even if it concerns painful means, such as Amendment No 21, which puts an end to subsidies for the use of coal. The next step is to crush the opposition of those who still regard opting for the environment as harmful to their own interests. Some States and some large corporations still regard profit and growth as much more important. The US government and the oil companies that helped to bring that government to power do not regard it as their concern that climate change will result in the expansion of seas and deserts, so that a portion of the land area of the earth will become uninhabitable. I see the sixth Environment Action Programme, and especially the tightening up of ends and means proposed by the rapporteur and the three draftsmen, as a signal that the European people do not wish to resign themselves to the impotence that America is trying to impose on us. - Hedkvist Petersen Report (A5-0141/2001)

Political group: GUE-NGL
It would be a disaster if the military were to resume power in Indonesia. This is why Europe has to support President Wahid in his attempts to restore peace in the Moluccas. So far, the European Union has done precious little. We need to provide more humanitarian aid and help the Indonesians gather Muslims and Christians round the negotiating table. A European mission, for example under the guidance of former Dutch Prime Minister Lubbers, could be of benefit here. The Group regrets that the arms embargo is not being extended. There is still a hotbed of tension and human rights are still being violated. As such, the General Affairs Council fails to observe our own European criteria for an arms embargo. The European Union’s decision is playing into the hands of the military and this is exactly what should not happen.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the essentials have been covered, but I should like to reiterate the point that the right to propose legislation rests with the Commission. We have taken an initiative across the various political groups, which we presented in February to President Prodi. As a matter of law there has been a reference to political parties in the Treaty for more than seven years now. It states that the parties are a factor for integration, they contribute to the formation of European awareness and are a vital element in the democratic life of the Union and the political debate of the Union. However, like several of the rather aspirational articles in the Treaties, Article 191, the article referred to, lacks a certain operational content. The question is: can the Commission take an initiative which breathes life and operational content into the aspirations of Article 191? That really is what the debate is about in this House today. I share the concern of other speakers that the reports of the Court of Auditors – which, by the way, we fully anticipated in this House several years ago with the report of Professor Tsatsos, which pointed out the urgent necessity of validating parties in statutory terms – adds a new urgency. The institutions must be able to deliver accountability and transparency. This House does not have the right to draft legislation: that is the exclusive preserve of the Commission. We are asking for your assistance to ensure that this vital element, as the Treaty states, in the democratic life and political debate of the Union is validated by statute.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the Grossetête report on orphan medicinal products responds to an important requirement. It is to be congratulated for providing an immediate although imperfect solution to this problem. The absence of proper research into these supposedly rare diseases is prejudicial to thousands of patients. However, this report has several shortcomings. Firstly, it takes into account only private research and research carried out by the pharmaceutical industry, as if only these were capable of finding therapies to research medicinal products. No support is given to public research or to non-profit-making bodies which may also be capable of finding therapies. The second and most important shortcoming is that, although mentioned in the preamble, the text does not provide a solution for one vital problem. This involves research into diseases which are common but for which there is no market for the pharmaceutical industry, in particular diseases affecting people who cannot pay for their treatment. This is particularly the case with tropical diseases and even malaria and tuberculosis. No incentives for research into these diseases and no regulations are suggested which is astounding in view of the millions of deaths caused by these diseases. Parliament and the Commission must consider this issue in the coming months because the lives of millions of people are just as important as the profit of a few businesses.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I want to thank the President-in-Office for his reply which was very comprehensive. I am a bit happier with the attitude of the Council today than I was in July because, as on many occasions in situations of crisis, the European Union seems always to be the last authority to arrive on the international scene and make its voice heard. I also appreciate the expertise of Mr Solana in South American affairs and I recognise that we have made some progress. Nevertheless, is the Council aware of the amount of money that the European Union provides, something like ten times what the United States provides for development cooperation throughout the world? Yet when a crisis occurs, whether in Africa, South America, the Middle East or the Far East, it is the United States and not the European voice that is heard. Does the President-in-Office recognise that we are failing to capitalise on the resources that we provide?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we all know that the European public’s need for information is still very great, although monetary union is already in place and euro banknotes and coins will come into circulation before too very long. There are less than 75 weeks to go in fact. The Committee on Budgets, in common with all Members of this House, is very much in agreement with the objectives described in the Commission communication on the communication strategy covering the final stages of the completion of EMU. We also believe that there should be incentives and support for companies, especially SMEs, to enable them to carry out the work needed to change over to the euro. Furthermore, enhanced preparation is just as desirable and important for all our citizens and for all consumers. We all need to change over to the euro in our daily lives. It was not of course for the Committee on Budgets to assess the content of the Commission communication in detail: we limited ourselves to budgetary aspects. We wish to point out once again that in the interinstitutional agreement it was stipulated that information policy is an autonomous action which does not require a separate legal basis. For the reason mentioned, this particularly needs to be brought to the attention of the Council again. However, I would particularly like to remind you that the Prince programme was initiated by Parliament through budgetary intervention in 1996 with the clear aim of financing information campaigns on priority issues for the EU. This was to take place at interinstitutional level, as at that time we were convinced, as we are now, that this would ensure that the available funding would be spent as effectively as possible. We therefore wish to stress once again that the decision on the breakdown of appropriations and the guidelines for implementation, including joint actions, is taken on the basis of the opinion given by the interinstitutional working group. This working group was specifically referred to in the budgetary remarks, and that is how it should stay – and that comment is particularly for the ears of the Commission! For that reason we wish to reinsert the relevant remark on budget headings B3-300 and B3-306, which the Commission evidently ‘forgot’ to include in its preliminary draft budget for 2001. I would like to thank the rapporteur and the committee responsible for including our remarks on this in the conclusions. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
The report and the amendments by the Committee on Legal Affairs on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions creates an asphyxiating environment for the creative skills of scientists and small software firms and will ultimately only work in favour of the giant enterprises which have thousands of patents and huge legal departments to throttle small companies and, more importantly, the free innovative environment. The European Union will thus follow the path of support for the behemoths taken by the USA. Patents should have nothing to do with algorithms or business methods. This should have been made clear and the only restriction should be on technical/material structures. Despite the improvements made by plenary, the lack of transparency remains, which is why I voted against.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I agree with the overall thrust of this report, which notes with concern that the region’s economic decline has a greater negative impact on women than on men and that the feminisation of poverty is growing rapidly. I should like to highlight the fact that poverty and unemployment, combined with a strong patriarchal tradition, are the main causes of prostitution, trafficking in women and violence against women. Women’s human resources, which are relatively plentiful due to women’s generally high standard of education, are under-utilised in the economic, social and cultural development of the region because of discriminatory practices and prejudices. Accordingly, the governments of South-East Europe, in the light of increasing religious fundamentalism and the return to patriarchal societies, must guarantee fundamental freedoms and respect for human rights and freedom of thought, conscience and religion. They must also ensure that tradition does not impinge upon personal autonomy or violate women's rights and the principle of gender equality. I am concerned to note that, in most countries in South-East Europe, the rate of women’s participation in political life is currently below 20%, which, in comparison with other parts of Europe represents the highest level of exclusion of women from... (Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, Mr Lamy, I would like to point out that expanding free trade also opens up scope for Europe. We should not have any fears in this respect. However, my concern is that the world, further to a new WTO agreement, may become richer economically speaking but poorer in the area of culture and environment or in terms of agriculture or horticulture, and that we may lose out on business in those areas which are essential for Europe. It is important to find a balance in this respect. This is why I am delighted with the Schwaiger report, because this very report indicates that we should hold on to what is essential to us, whilst keeping an open mind towards the world, and because this report links political reality and the issues we can defend on behalf of Europe’s citizens in our capacity as parliamentarians. It is essential that we voice the issues that are apparent within Europe. I would also like to make two remarks regarding agriculture and horticulture. The representative of the Council said this morning that the Berlin Agreement forms the starting point for these negotiations, but he also mentioned that agriculture could well prove to be a sticking point. In this respect, I feel that Europe should be more on the offensive. May I remind you that as a trading bloc, we are the largest importer and second largest exporter? At the same time, in a couple of years, out of the total budget for agriculture, horticulture and rural development, a mere 10% will be earmarked for product support. In other words, if we take into account the national budget, then we note that only 2% of government spending within Europe is set aside for agriculture, horticulture and rural development. If we refer to the 10% of this amount for product support, this is a negligible amount worldwide. To all those who advocate the dismantling of agricultural policy within the framework of the WTO, I would like to point out that Europe boasts its own standard in terms of the environment, animal welfare and consumer protection. Whoever is in favour of scrapping the European agricultural policy, also favours the scrapping of all we have acquired in Europe in terms of rural policy, animal welfare and welfare in general. This means that I also defend the European standard and we, as a Parliament, have to opt in favour of the Schwaiger report, because it offers guarantees for freer trade but, at the same time, also offers guarantees for preserving what we pride ourselves on, rightly so, within Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is Parliament’s last opportunity to express its mind in the form of a resolution before the Intergovernmental Conference on a new European constitutional treaty, which we hope will complete its work before the end of December. That the Convention’s draft was important as a foundation is not in dispute, but nor is there any dispute about the need for various points in it to be improved. One hopes that all the politicians want to bring the work to completion and to find a compromise with which all parties can live, including on the composition of the Commission, with each Member State having one Commissioner who is entitled to vote. Public opinion in the EU is one reason why we should not create Commissioners of unequal weight. Something else to be welcomed is the European Court of Justice’s monitoring of the decisions of the EU Council, which will make for judicial control and transparency. There is also a need to reinforce the Stability and Growth Pact, not only to make it more solid and substantial, but also to improve its flexibility, for there must be no repetition of what has just happened with Germany and France – bad examples must not be allowed to catch on. In security and defence policy, a commitment to mutual assistance along the lines of Article 51 of the UN Charter should have a permanent place as a self-evident act of solidarity in a shared Europe. Issues of the weighting of votes in the Council should not be over-valued; after all, in the European Union’s political practice, it is usual to arrive at a consensus and a compromise in which ‘small or large’ is not the determinative issue. The dual majorities – 15 States, 60% of the population – appear sensible, and I agree with those Members who say that Parliament’s original budgetary rights are important and must not be curtailed.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on the basis of the twin factors of the current serious level of atmospheric pollution and its foreseeable development, on the one hand, and the Kyoto objectives and the means intended to achieve them, on the other, and if we reject allowances for latecomers, the perpetuated and exaggerated domination of the poor countries by the rich countries, and above all the commercialisation of air, which I believe to be a universal resource, we can only express reservations in relation to the system of pollution allowances and trading in them. I do not deny that this system is certainly better than the existing one. And I would like to say in all seriousness that I am personally alarmed at such a generalised lack of awareness considering that breathing is something that everybody will always have to do. It is clear that, however, within this context, our rapporteur has done some very good work. I can say that he has done a lot to improve the system by extending the scope, making it obligatory and proposing complementarity with other environmental polices – public transport, renewable energy, charging, research, energy efficiency. We can therefore vote for these proposals although we will not abandon our fight for a more courageous and less mercenary global policy in this area.

Political group: GUE-NGL
This report falls in line with the prospect of the federalist integration of the European Union, and points towards establishing a constitution, striving to increase the supranational powers of the European Parliament by extending codecision. It consequently advocates extending the use of qualified majority voting in the Council with the communitarisation of a greater number of policies. The resolution also strives to change the method of amending the Treaties and advocates the institutionalisation of the ‘convention’ method with increased powers, laying down different amending processes – making a distinction between what is known as the ‘constitutional’ part and the ‘policy’ part – and opening up the possibility of the national parliaments no longer being able to play their full role in ratifying the Treaties. Although we welcome the withdrawal of this resolution, as proposed by my group, from the point where it recommends the end of decision-making by unanimity in the Council for any revision of the Treaties (when what is at stake are issues as crucial as the decision to transfer national competences to the EU), the resolution envisages an EU legal system that takes precedence over those of the Member States, thereby increasing the powers of its supranational institutions. It even proposes creating a new institution, by institutionalising the ‘convention’, laying the foundations for creating a future ‘European State’ and undermining national sovereignty and independence, not least of Portugal. Hence our vote against the report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I am very pleased to add my support and my group’s support to this report. This report had a long gestation period. But the fact that we are still here so early in the morning is a tribute to the rapporteur’s work on this programme and, indeed, that of the Commissioner and the Portuguese presidency – which has shown itself to be committed to youth, to the voluntary service and to education in its broadest sense. The report we have ended up with now is more closely targeted, with an emphasis on social protection and, as the rapporteur has said, a more flexible approach than in earlier reports. We also have more money in the programme in recognition of its importance. We will always ask for more money. The budget is not enough. It is perhaps Parliament’s role to ask for more. But we can be pleased with the outcome. We can be sure that whatever money we have in this programme will be directed at youth and will, in the long-term, be money well spent. I agree with the rapporteur that this money and this programme will ensure that the efforts are targeted not just at some small sections of society but, as the Commissioner said in a previous report, at all sections of society. We must look to those who will benefit most and those who are in greatest need and who might otherwise be socially excluded. We are delighted that some candidate countries of Central and Eastern Europe will benefit as well. We can be pleased with our efforts and pleased with this report. In seven years’ time we will look back at the youth of today who will have benefited from this report and be pleased that this was the beginning of real progress.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Commission has proposed to us a legal framework guaranteeing respect for competition rules and for economic freedoms in order to permit freedom of access to the market for port services. The initiative may be thought constructive in principle but, given the maritime disasters experienced by Europe in recent years, you will agree that there is the a need to ensure that the regulations voted for meet the demands of maritime security. That is why it is important for the text adopted to consider each particular port service in its own right. At first reading, I tabled two amendments designed to exclude pilotage and mooring services from the scope of the directive. The House voted in favour of these, and that is something I am delighted about. At second reading, our rapporteur, Mr Jarzembowski, once again proposed that pilotage services be excluded from the scope of the directive, a proposal not taken on board by the Council. In the interests of consistency with our vote at first reading and in order to allow pilots to continue contributing to environmental protection and to safety in Community ports, I therefore request a vote in favour of excluding pilotage services from the scope of the directive. On the issue of excluding mooring services, I think it would be preferable not to liberalise this service, which is also one of the key features of port safety. An opening up to competition would be slightly more acceptable to the relevant services if certain points in the directive, such as self-handling, were to be reworded. Having opted for self-handling, the ship owner must ensure that this is maintained throughout the operation. We must avoid enacting regulations authorising an à la carte system. That is why I would encourage you, ladies and gentlemen, to vote in favour of Amendment No 13, seeking to limit self-handling to seagoing personnel.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, since the signing of the Oslo Agreements in 1995, Israeli-Palestinian relations have entered a new phase, which should lead to a fair and lasting peace between partners which respect each other. The Union has played an invaluable part in this process, in its capacity as the primary source of economic aid to the region. The main reason for the problems of implementing trade agreements between the European Union and Israel, as has already been said, is the intractable problem of frontiers. The Israeli interpretation is not the same as the Union’s, as the Commissioner mentioned. At all events, it is a process currently under negotiation, a difficult one, but one that we all wish to see succeed. This is essentially a political process and the Union would be ill advised to look for a merely technical solution which would only be temporary, given the lack of legal frontiers between the two States. The settlement process must proceed by the only possible avenue, i.e. that of dialogue. A tripartite working group, comprising Palestinian and Israeli specialists as well as those of the Commission, should thus be set up. In this context, we may hope that the parties involved will manage to settle their differences and establish a creative solution for this transitional period. As was the case in Europe fifty years ago, the social and economic development of the Middle East is an essential condition for peace. We therefore have some expertise to bring to bear on the subject and we are particularly well placed to gauge the extent of what has already been achieved. Hopefully the Israelis and Palestinians will demonstrate the same optimistic faith in goodwill.

Political group: ELDR