GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I fully support the move to create a European network of permanent national football information points. Such a common-sense and workable solution to the problems of football crime and disorder is long overdue. Until recently, Member States have had to contend with and fight against such problems in virtual isolation. Co-operation in this domain is a positive way to limit the negative effects that a few hooligans have on the game. In order that co-operation is as close as possible, there must be an exchange of personal data of those few who pose a threat to security. This does not pose a threat to individual privacy, but it does represent a boost to enhanced security at football matches. - Kirkhope report (A5-0036/2002)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, there is a misunderstanding here. Mr Bourlanges is referring to the explanatory statement – not to a paragraph in the resolution – and, as you know, the explanatory statement is not included in the final text adopted by plenary.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Commission’s report makes it clear that the functioning of Directive 91/414/EEC is full of serious shortcomings. Consequently, the rapporteur, who, as I have said repeatedly, has done sterling work and receives unqualified support from my group for this, is quite right to criticise a number of those shortcomings in his report. For example, it transpires that it is not so much inherent characteristics as commercial interests that play a decisive role, that evaluation is limited to certain aspects of hormonal disruption, for example, and that effects on children are barely taken into account. However, the rapporteur has already been considering all these aspects for some time. We have to conclude that we have no guarantees whatsoever that substances that feature on the positive list are in fact really safe for the public and the environment. We hardly have any choice but to go along with extending the evaluation deadlines, because only three percent of the substances have been evaluated to date. We do this, however, on a number of very specific conditions. As the rapporteur has elaborated on these extensively, I shall not repeat them here. However, I do want to take this opportunity to make another point. The pesticides policy should not only focus on admitting substances regulated by this directive, especially since this directive is unable to stem the continuous increase in the use of, and dependence on, pesticides, and hence the presence of pesticide residues in water and food. We have a number of important things to do, and I, along with many others, am waiting for the Commission to take the initiative. There is a wide range of instruments which we need to use at European level. First of all, the extra financial support for research into, and the application of, non-chemical pesticides must be greatly increased, both for integrated crop management and for organic agriculture. Secondly, compulsory training in integrated crop management methods and good agricultural practices is essential. Thirdly, the lack of information requires that a database accessible to the public be set up at European level as a matter of urgency. This database should comprise both sales and user information on all pesticides and their toxicological characteristics. Fourthly, a VAT level must be set which is harmonised at European level. It should be harmonised, Commissioner, but at a sufficiently high level. This currently fluctuates between 23 and 25%, and we need to do something about this. Furthermore, we need special taxes on external environmental costs related to products and product prices. And last but not least: reduction programmes must be set up at national level which must curb the use of, and particularly dependence on, pesticides.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, people who suffer from the bleeding disease of haemophilia are gravely concerned, as, if payment for blood donation is actually banned, there may be serious difficulties with the supply of blood products. Indeed, some people could even die. Half of all the plasmatic clotting factors currently used in the European Union comes from remunerated donors; either they have made their donation in the EU or their plasma has been imported. It can readily be imagined what a threat it would be to patients if new legislation meant that the supply of these products were to be halved. There is at present no evidence that medicinal products from unpaid donors are in any way safer than those from donors who have been paid. The fact is that the medicinal products authorities in Europe have been checking the safety and effectiveness of all plasma products in the European Union and this has not led them to see the payment of donors as a problem. There is something else. Contrary to prior expectations, the provision of genetically manufactured Factor 8 – which is only one of the blood clotting factors – has been constantly beset with problems. That precombinant synthetic blood clotting factors would bring with them a boundless range of low-priced compounds, as the pharmaceutical industry originally asserted, has quite simply not, to date, been demonstrated to be true. The products have become more expensive and also hard to obtain. It is a cause of dismay that between 400 000 and 500 000 people around the world are dependent on clotting factor compounds; only 10% of them are provided for to the standard of the industrialised countries of the West. Of the world's haemophiliacs, 80% have no supplies. If we now dispense with remuneration, the position of these people – who do not live in the European Union – could get much, much worse.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is rather odd that we find ourselves dissecting Council documents the day after summit meetings. I too have been doing so, having a privileged look at the transport sector, and I have seen some interesting things: the Single Sky, the Gibraltar affair, the railways, Galileo; in short, there are several good and interesting pieces of news. I was, however, rather concerned to read the part about the trans-European transport networks, although it started off positively enough. There is mention of carrying out a quick review by December 2002, and then it is said there is a need to improve transport conditions throughout the European Union and to reduce the bottlenecks in regions like the Alps, the Pyrenees and the Baltic Sea. In the White Paper, however, instead of ‘reduce’ it says ‘eliminate’, which is certainly better. I think, therefore, that we will have to work hard at this project of eliminating the bottlenecks, particularly considering the situation in the Alps. In this context, I should like to point out that unfortunately these declarations do not mention the Mont Blanc question. I must say to the Vice-President, Mrs de Palacio, that this is turning into some kind of joke: after three years we still do not know what is going to happen. Will it reopen to heavy goods vehicles or not? For now, only cars can drive through. I really would like some clarification on this. Our position as inhabitants of the Val d’Aosta is well known: we want a limit imposed, for safety reasons and for reasons of environmental pollution. All the rest is liable to be just gossip, but it creates a feeling of real uncertainty amongst the public and also, I must say, a certain mistrust of the institutions.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have often heard that Europe’s wealth lies in its cultural diversity, and the expression is often, and readily, used in many political speeches. It is not, however, meant only to be used, but should also emphasise and reinforce European consciousness. As we have already heard said many times today, one essential part of this richness is linguistic diversity, which we have taken on as our cultural heritage and must pass on as a matter of cultural responsibility. Put into practical terms, this means that we need institutions to take on this work, financial resources to make it possible, and voluntary organisations to give support in the performance of these tasks. Being myself from Austria, a country in which six recognised ethnic groups and their minority languages are represented – three of them, including Roma, in my very small federal state of Burgenland alone – I know how difficult it is to meet all the demands involved in using languages properly and in maintaining them. Whilst it is the individual states that have responsibility for minority languages and for their support, the European Union cannot evade the obligation to take action to back them up in this; we are talking here about 40 million EU citizens and 60 regional and minority languages. The European Year of Languages was, as we have heard, a great success; it also sent the right signals and pointed us in the right direction. Now is the time for what we have learned to be put into practice, and I would agree with Mrs Martens that sign language must absolutely be included, as the deaf must be able to participate in social and political life. Multiannual programmes for linguistic diversity are desirable and should be pushed through. International exchanges of experience and courses of study, cross-border projects and so on, should be brought together under one roof, and I believe it to be absolutely necessary that EBLUL be given a legal basis enabling it to make full use of the financial resources provided for it.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it is vital that this report should be approved so that a decision can be taken at the next Fisheries Council on the restructuring programme for the fleet that operated in Morocco and that has been idle since the end of 1999, affecting Portuguese and Spanish fishermen and shipowners and the populations of the areas where they live. The fact is that compensation for the stoppage finishes at the end of this year. The central question, then, is the allocation of EUR 197 million for the restructuring programme that is to commence in January 2002, which should be improved along the lines proposed in the Miguélez Ramos report. For our part, we consider the proposal the Commission has made of using a flexibility instrument in the budget to be acceptable, and we regret that the matter was not made clearer during the first reading of the budget by the European Parliament, inserting the amounts on the line and requesting the use of the flexibility instrument, as in fact the Committee on Fisheries had proposed, as our chairman has just reminded us. It is, therefore, important that the next Budgetary Council should stop blocking and take these proposals into account, creating the solution that will allow the fleet restructuring programme to come into force early next year.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I am delighted to present this report on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy on IDABC. I have been the rapporteur on several previous occasions and have had the pleasure of seeing the IDABC programme grow. We have seen improvements in the effectiveness of cross-border cooperation between public administrations and what is now being proposed is that this be extended to businesses and to citizens. The journal that the Commission publishes on IDABC often mentions the IDABC way and it is important to emphasise that the IDABC way is about eMethodology: not only about the projects, but looking at the way in which those projects are developed. IDABC is a means to an end, a means to interactive government services at a pan-European level and it is absolutely logical to want to extend this now to businesses and to citizens. I have submitted just three amendments after discussions with the Commission. They are technical amendments, which will give legal clarification to the original text. I shall spend a couple of minutes talking about why this is so important. It is about giving value in terms of quality of services. It is about encouraging citizens to be better informed in voicing their own praises and their own criticisms of those services. It is about economies of scale and sharing common services. It is true that IDABC has been a driver of modernisation of public services and a contributor, as it will continue to be, to eGovernment in the candidate countries. It is also important that one of the achievements of IDABC is that it can give our citizens practical, very workmanlike examples of how the European Union, the Commission, Parliament, the Council have worked together to bring citizen-friendly benefits from the European Union to the Member States. I commend the report to you. I particularly thank my colleagues at the Commission who continue to work so hard and so effectively on this. I also thank the Council presidency, which took its time, but did so because it wanted to put down constructive and progressive amendments that were born of its own experience of the implementation of IDABC at Member State level.

Political group: PSE
I should just like to underline Mr Staes's point on the importance of the language regime, while not ignoring the importance of the point my colleague, Mr Purvis, has made about the need for speed. Nevertheless, the whole business of taking research on to the development stage is important. If we are to have good research in all the universities and all the areas of the Community, it is really important for people to be able to work in their own language, even though, of course, most scientists work in English much of the time.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, I wish firstly to say to the rapporteur, Mr Kreissl-Dörfler, that I have rarely been involved in work on a report that has been handled as diligently and fairly as Mr Kreissl-Dörfler has handled this report. It is simply admirable, and I want to say thank you. At the same time, I would draw attention to the fact that, by now abandoning the non-vaccination policy, we are creating changes that will be very significant for those countries that export extensively to third countries. I want at the same time to say that foot and mouth disease is so infectious that anyone who believes that all the problems are solved merely by opening the way for vaccination and who is also sure of being able in future to contain a future outbreak of the disease will have to think again, for that is not the way foot and mouth disease works. I therefore choose to go on believing that it is the non-vaccination policy that we shall continue to work towards, and I acknowledge that the situation will meanwhile be one in which we shall use vaccine, as we did for example in the Netherlands, under the very proficient administration of the Dutch. Ring vaccination did prove effective as a way of containing the disease. In that connection, it is also important for me to support what was said by my colleague in the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, Mr Mulder, namely that it is important for the vaccinated animals not to remain in the food chain but to be removed from it. That is not something for which there appears to be a majority right now, but it must be remembered in this regard that the vaccinated animals are of course disease carriers, and, given that fact, it would be a disaster if any of these animals were to pass on the disease. I should also like to point out that there can be no question of imagining, as is done for example in Amendment No 11, that milk and meat from vaccinated animals can be sold freely throughout the EU. In this area, we must be very clear in demanding regionalisation so that, if such milk and meat is to be sold, it is within, and not across, national borders. Although I am aware that this is not Commissioner Byrne’s area, I shall again draw attention to the fact that there is a need for export agreements, particularly with the Americans, so that we contain the losses there might be in connection with a future epidemic of foot and mouth disease and, especially, in connection with possible vaccination. It would not of course be of help to anyone if, instead of exporting fresh produce to third countries, we were to close the doors, with the result that these products were to end up on the European market at sharply falling prices. That is not of course what farmers need in this situation. There is also a real need for the Commission to undertake serious regionalisation and to conclude agreements with the Americans.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I am a firm believer in the Lisbon strategy because it consists of a great many different policy areas that have to be coordinated. I felt very concerned before the Barcelona Summit, and about two matters in particular. The first of these was the balance of the strategy. I was afraid that the balance would be disturbed, and that the talk would merely be of deregulation. My second anxiety was as to whether the sustainable development strategy would be given enough space in the document. Where the first point is concerned, I am glad that matters did not turn out as I had feared. I believe that the process is well balanced. It contains proposals for deregulating the gas, electricity and financial markets, together with proposals in the social sphere such as those for improving child care and increasing employment, all of which entails a strengthening of the social model. When it comes to the proposals on sustainable development, I have to state however that these are insubstantial. It was as I had feared. All that is really clear is the proposal that countries sign the Kyoto Protocol. That is undoubtedly important, but the document is otherwise far too flimsy and consists merely of notes where certain matters are concerned. The ecological aspects will clearly disappear in the future. Another aspect of sustainable development is the relationship between ourselves as rich countries and the developing countries. The target set for development aid falls far short of the UN’s target. The objective of coming up with one half of the 0.7% established by the UN is not nearly good enough. Seen in relation to what the Commission proposed, the fight against poverty is being undermined. I have high hopes for the Lisbon process. I also hope that it will be possible to maintain the balance in the future and that, at forthcoming spring summits, the ecological dimension and issues surrounding sustainable development will be integrated more clearly into the process. That is crucial if the process is to survive.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to table orally a joint amendment proposed by Mrs Berès and Mr Méndez de Vigo, to replace Amendment No 3 and Amendment No 2. It reads thus: ‘Parliament proposes, in line with the position it expounded when the Convention began its work, that, at its meeting in Biarritz, the European Council call on the Intergovernmental Conference to consider the text of the Charter adopted by the Convention and ways of incorporating it into the Treaty with a view to a decision being taken at the European Council meeting in Nice’. (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Explanations of Vote - Bodrato recommendations (A5-0263 and 0262/2000)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am very pleased as shadow rapporteur to commend this report to Parliament and to congratulate Mrs Carrilho on an excellent report. Last year I was the rapporteur for this report when we extended the budget line for a few more months. I am also pleased that the Commissioner is here this morning to reply to the debate because I want to talk to him about a big idea. Are we not in a rather curious position? On the one hand we have asylum-seekers coming to Europe and seeking help, shelter and aid and, on the other, we have displaced people living in camps in countries such as Afghanistan and right throughout the world. These are the same people and we need to make that connection: the people who come here are actually the same sort of people who are living in camps. If we can help them to be resettled, then we are not only helping them fundamentally but we are also helping to alleviate a problem that is growing in Europe. My big idea is nothing to do with this, however. It is about the Montevideo Convention. I would like to ask the Commissioner whether he could envisage a new approach? After the Helsinki and Harare meetings we now give aid to countries on the basis of human rights, good governance and so on. Yet there are 59 civil conflicts around the world creating uprooted people and many of these conflicts are about looting natural resources, greed and dictators wanting to run their show their own way. Yet we all recognise each country as an equal sovereign nation. I find it very curious that on the one hand when we give aid, we treat people with a certain measure of circumspection, but when we recognise the national sovereignty of a country we apply the Montevideo Convention and say they are all sovereign. When the British ran the British Empire, particularly The Raj, they had a habit of giving gun salutes to different Maharajas and Rajas depending on how they behaved. It is time that we looked at how we recognise what we call national sovereignty and how we treat so-called independent nations. We need to differentiate between countries and presidents and governments that are democratic and behave in a civilised way and countries that are dictatorial or brutal. Then we can give different levels of ‘gun salutes’ to the latter countries so that we do not treat everybody in the same way.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to start by thanking Mrs Emilia Müller, and Mr Corbey and Mrs Roth-Behrendt too, for the courage they have displayed, despite the immense, absurd amount of pressure to which they have been constantly subjected by people with no scientific knowledge and no integrity. I would like to inform Commissioner Byrne that, in order to speed up the adoption of this directive, I have withdrawn an excellent amendment which sought to ensure the safety of consumers, particularly, in that it specified that all food supplements should be prepared according to good manufacturing practice. This amendment was intended to ensure that food supplements are prepared in such a way as to guarantee not just the highest quality of ingredients but also their innocuousness when taken repeatedly over long periods of time. I therefore call upon Commissioner Byrne to deliver a formal undertaking to the effect that the provisions of the regulations to be drawn up stipulating that food supplements must meet high quality and safety standards in order to prevent small artisans – or health quacks, even – from marketing low quality, potentially dangerous products, will be made clearer and more explicit. In view of Parliament’s clear, great responsibility in matters of the citizens’ health, we must be highly focused in our work in order to ensure that all the individual Member States of the European Union are provided with rules making high standards of quality and safety a priority. One last plea to Commissioner Byrne: in calling for this new documentation we should request that it be differentiated according to the composition of certain products, for this would reduce the expenditure for small and medium-sized businesses considerably.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the report's title is misleading. I would like to say to colleagues that one of the amendments to be voted in relation to the Corbett report proposes a rule that makes it very hard to set up temporary committees. This applies to the second vote, so be careful what you do, colleagues. I know it is very late, but please take into account that this will mean that good work such as that carried out in this Parliament on the Prestige issue would not be possible if we were to adopt this amendment.

Political group: Verts-ALE