GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, if I could echo other colleagues from all parties and indeed national groups who have said that the time for talking is now perilously short. We all, Commissioner, whilst saluting the way in which you have maintained your negotiating position, expect you to tell us that it is not indefinite – and neither is your patience. You have a mandate from every party and group in this House to tackle the problem of the increasing pollution of the skies and the damage to the lives of those who live around airports as a result of the current situation. There is a belief still that the endless expansion of air traffic is an unmitigated good, that everyone gains from it. They do not. There are social limits to growth and to how much we can enjoy even something as life expanding and enhancing as travel. We heard many threats and some bluster from the United States last year, when it looked as though hushkitted aircraft and Chapter 3 planes would be leaving our skies, perhaps in the year 2002. But Europe as a whole suffers problems, particularly those who live around airports who suffer not only noise pollution, but also aircraft emission pollution with consequences for the environment. We must see the beginning of change. In the East Midlands of the United Kingdom, where I live, a number of small new airports are coming into being. Many of them are desperate to compete with 'through-the-night' traffic. This means air traffic using older aircraft, which are going to stagger on for another few years, if they are allowed to, with few controls on how they operate. Obviously, that is something on which the Member States can act. Unless there is a framework for taking older aircraft out of service, we will never have the degree of control we need. I join with other colleagues who have spoken. Mrs Lucas put it very lucidly for us all – in saying that if there is a failure to agree in September we should not just leave the matter there and agree that we tried and failed. This House does not want the Commissioner to fail, we want her to succeed. If we are telling her so rather bluntly, it is in a friendly spirit.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, do we need legally binding European legislation to guarantee the pluralism of the media or not? That is the question. I say yes, we do. And I would add immediately that it is extremely important that, in future, under the new Constitution, the European Commission should have sole power of initiative. We must not poach on the territory of others. However, we are not discussing forcing the European Commission to do what it cannot and does not want to. The point is that there is now clearly a legal gap. We must admit it and ensure that it is filled. There is already a legal gap thanks to the remarkable, impressive technological innovations that have taken place, but it will be further widened when the Union enlarges to 25 Member States and, in particular, as Mr Watson said just now, when it establishes a new Constitution shortly. The Constitution will include articles which are part of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 11 of which enshrines the pluralism of the media. Now, if we do not introduce new legislation, we ourselves – Parliament, Commission and the Council – will be in danger of actually promoting violation of this Constitution, which we all want to adopt soon. In other words, the only thing we cannot do is nothing. If – and this is something which I bitterly, very bitterly regret – one of the Member States of the Union ranks below the Republic of Benin, below position number 40 in the world in terms of media pluralism, that is not a matter solely or primarily for political dispute within the country concerned, and I am talking about my own country, Italy. No, in my view, it calls for analysis on the part of the European Union followed by the adoption of political, institutional and legal measures – the substance of which will be for the Commission to decide.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, politics works in such a way that, after each international meeting, we spend more time talking about the results that are, apparently, still unsatisfactory than about the actual progress that was made. This is what happened after Rio, this is what happened after Kyoto, even though, in the meantime, Rio and Kyoto became undeniable milestones in the area of sustainable development. The concept of sustainable development has become a chant, a sort of enchanted prayer that is uttered indiscriminately. In my view, it is obvious that there can be no sustainable development without economic and social development – it is as simple as that. Poverty is the major enemy to managing natural resources and protecting the environment in a responsible manner. Responsible globalisation must become the process of a global economic development that makes genuine global solidarity possible. State development aid is not sufficient, even if we manage to double or triple it. USD 50 billion of state aid is not much. Americans spend the same amount of money on the upkeep of their lawns! In 2001, a year that did not bode well for international investment, private investment flows towards developing countries amounted to over USD 200 billion, in other words already four times more than the total state aid. For private investment to reach all countries, we must, as a necessity, negotiate a multilateral agreement on investment protection, which involves creating international arbitration bodies responsible for resolving disputes. No private investor – no ethical investment fund, even – will invest any money without guarantees and without the prospect of a return. In the absence of any multilateral rules, there will be an avalanche of bilateral agreements. There are already more than 1 200! Yet, in all bilateral agreements, it is not the poorest partner who dictates the conditions. Sustainable development needs global standards, and these standards are also needed for investments and for their protection.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should also like to congratulate the rapporteur on his own-initiative report, particularly because it is precisely that: an own-initiative report. He affirms, especially in Paragraph 17, that publicly funded health care systems should remain within the exclusive competence of the Member States and I very much agree with this. He highlights the need to address the issue of health problems of tourists visiting other Member States, and this is certainly a very live issue, as I know from the many letters on this subject I receive from constituents. But above all he draws attention, for example in Paragraph 3, to the significant problems regarding the long-term sustainability of public health care systems throughout the EU because of the increasing cost of advances in treatment possibilities, as well as the growing demand from an increasingly elderly population. This is a major concern. We certainly need fresh thinking on this subject and that has to include new ways of private and public health care working together. His report is a useful contribution to that debate, though I hope he agrees in turn that the contributions made in committee, including those made on this side of the House, may perhaps have made it even more useful. It is certainly now much less prescriptive, which is good. Health care is financed in different ways in different Member States and the roles of private health insurers are correspondingly different. Even the definitions of 'supplementary' and 'complementary' have slightly different meanings in different languages. So an absolute 'one size fits all' solution for insurance is unlikely to be the answer. On the basis that Amendments Nos 2 and 3 are passed, which accept the suggestion of a Green Paper but do not dictate precisely what has to be in it, I shall certainly be calling upon my UK colleagues to vote in favour, though I shall be proposing abstention on Amendment No 16

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I was very pleased about the speech given on behalf of the Presidency, and I was particularly glad that importance was attached to how people in the candidate countries experience the situation. We must not ignore the fact that there are to be referendums in quite a lot of the candidate countries. I hope that people in the candidate countries read, in particular, that part of Mr Brok’s report consisting of the statements from the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities and the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs for these, in my opinion, give due weight to what is really important to the individual citizen. I hope, however, that they do not read the part concerning the common foreign and security policy and, in particular, NATO membership. We all know that a common European defence would cost a fair amount of money. Calculations show that, for our part of Europe, it would mean a 50% increase in budgets. I dare not even imagine what it would mean for the candidate countries. I hope that people read the good part of the reports, and I hope that it is this, and not all the other parts, that will be pivotal to the enlargement process.

Political group: GUE-NGL
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Budgets. – Mr President, my report on behalf of the Committee on Budgets is brief, because the Committee on Budgets was asked to give its opinion on the proposal by the Commission. We were broadly supportive. First of all, it streamlines the policy, making it simpler and much more defensible within the GATT negotiations, thereby providing longer-term security for farmers engaged in sheep and goat farming. We proposed an amendment in relation to individual tagging. We did not propose in that way to enter into the area of food safety, or indeed the business of the Committee on Agriculture. We simply wanted to ensure that premiums were paid on sheep and goats that actually existed and that we had a means of ensuring that the animals could be counted and accounted for. Since I am responsible to the Committee on Budgetary Control for animal products, I felt it my duty to insert that amendment. Speaking for myself, I can say that the Committee on Budgets has its responsibilities. This is largely a neutral proposal by the Commission, but the Committee on Agriculture has its responsibilities to farmers. I support the position it has taken in this respect. I support the Doyle amendment which was passed by the Committee on Agriculture. As regards costs, the Committee on Budgets added approximately EUR 400 million in horizontal cuts that the Council deducted from the budget so we added EUR 400 million this morning. We added another EUR 400 million in relation to animal health measures. The budget this year is 2% more in real terms than we started with last year, and in real terms it is more than 5%, when you consider the outturn. It is my opinion, and the opinion of EPP members in the Committee on Budgets, that there are sufficient funds to meet the request of the Committee on Agriculture: if the Doyle position is accepted by this Parliament and by the Council there are sufficient resources to finance the policy. It will be a shift of money from the rich areas to the poor areas, from the bigger farmers to the smaller farmers. It is a social and regional measure that we could do with.

Political group: PPE-DE
We approve the principle of giving protection to the victims of networks trafficking in human beings. However, the Commission’s proposal is perverse in its duplicity. To grant a renewable six-month temporary residence permit to illegal immigrants who would help the authorities of Member States to combat the illegal-immigration networks is totally unsatisfactory. This measure, as proposed, will do nothing to put an end to the vicious circle of illegal immigration. Victims will remain under the control of the networks and mafias. Worldwide protection of victims must, above all, give them a permanent residence permit, access to asylum procedures, and access – without restrictions or conditions, and on an equal footing – to medical and social services and to the labour market. We cannot fall short of these minimum requirements. I voted against the report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the industrial revolution in England in the latter part of the eighteenth century started in the textile industry. This sector has a pioneering history, an active present and a future full of challenges and uncertainties. The European textiles industry is today threatened by competition from countries where prices for goods are extremely low and where there are no environmental concerns or constraints. Exploitation of labour, particularly of child labour, reminds us of the wretched conditions that marked our own industrial revolution. Yet the textiles industry continues to survive, modernise and renew itself. It is the point where industry, craft and art converge, and it plays a major role in people’s lifestyles. The neo-liberal dogmas that had previously held back the EU, fearful of a de-industrialised Europe, from adopting an industrial policy, are now obsolete. European decision-makers can now see what is happening and can take a stand in defence of the textile and clothing industry. The Commission communication is therefore most welcome, albeit over-long. We also support the motion for a resolution tabled by Mrs Ferrer, containing the essential elements of a European policy for the sector. Since trade policy falls within the exclusive competence of the EU, it is of vital importance that the Commission does not turn the textiles and clothing sector into a bargaining chip to win concessions in other areas deemed more appealing. To do so would be pitifully short-sighted and ethically reprehensible. On the other hand, the negotiators of the Doha Agenda for development must fight for conditions of access to markets of third countries that are equitable, requiring in particular that they comply with the principle of reciprocity and open up new markets. Portugal, as we all know, is a country in which jobs and economic and social cohesion depend a great deal on the textiles and clothing sector. It is therefore highly sensitive to the downturns and slumps of this industry. Some highly industrialised regions of Portugal are even experiencing economic crisis, as we speak. The Commission must therefore back up its words with action.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first we had Enron and WorldCom. Now, with Parmalat, Europe has caught a cold. The simple fact is that there are criminals everywhere. There are not only good people, there are also bad people, and we have made laws against bad people. Unfortunately, bad people sometimes break laws. That is why I do not see any point in reinventing the wheel now and considering yet again if we should perhaps forbid such things yet again. They were already forbidden. What we need is a rational analysis to establish where there may have been shortcomings in the supervisory system and what scope there is for fine-tuning legislation. I am very grateful, especially in the light of the statements made by the Commissioner and the Commission's proposals, which we are already aware of, that unlike America we in Europe do not intend to overreact but that we are instead trying, by means of individual measures, to improve the existing legal position. Our objective is not to totally prevent such things happening in future – that would be impossible – but to make them less likely. I believe that the proposals made by the Winter Committee in the Winter II Report aim very much in this direction. The Commission's Action Plan on company law has taken on board the essence of the proposals made in the Winter II Report. I do not wish to go into detail, for the simple reason that the Commission's Action Plan on company law is being dealt with by means of a special consultation involving a separate report to Parliament. I would just like to refer to two points, by way of example. I particularly welcome the fact that the Commission is now to bring forward the Eight Directive in the foreseeable future, but I believe that regardless of the many good ideas it contains, we should perhaps consider if certain aspects could not be made a little more consistent. I think it is outrageous that it will still be possible for audit companies to both provide consultancy and carry out audits for large quoted companies, in Europe at least. I stand by the principle that if you audit you cannot advise, and if you advise you cannot audit. It would not in any case affect the market at all, because the cake would remain just as big, it would simply be sliced up differently. Against that background I very much welcome the fact that legislative proposals drawn up in America will also have an impact on international audit companies operating over here in Europe. In other areas I sometimes doubt whether the Commission's proposals make sense, for example the requirement in the transparency directive for mandatory quarterly reporting by companies throughout Europe. On that point I would just like to comment that companies like Enron, WorldCom and others all submitted such quarterly reports. Unfortunately, they were all false. That is why I do not believe that this instrument is really helpful. It is not a question of providing information overload, but one of obtaining the correct information that investors require for decision making. I shall conclude on that note and thank you for your attention.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, European transport policy is not really a page of glory in the annals of the European Union. Too little, too late, not really consistent, those are only some of the features criticised as being characteristic of European Union policy to date and justifications for criticising it. The present Commission is investing a lot of commitment in attempting to counteract this. The proposal for a regulation on local public transport belongs to the legislative package with which some past errors are, admittedly belatedly, to be repaired. Some of the internal market philosophy is also to acquire significance in the transport sector. Controlled competition, not total liberalisation and certainly not privatisation at any cost, was said to be on the way. One unfortunately has to say 'was' as what the competent Parliamentary Committee has produced as a compromise signals a return to the old and unsatisfactory situation. In order that there may be no misunderstanding between us, let me say that there is consensus on all the points concerned with the quality of the transport offered to the consumer, consensus also on demands for high standards of safety, social provision and environmental protection. All that, though, can be, and is to be, required and put into effect by the conditions on the offering of contracts for tender. So we do not need the continuation of monopolies and quasi-monopolies. Finally, I will say something about subsidiarity. It is no help to local autonomy to declare local public transport to be a res extra commertium, whose watchword is that everyone is to do what they like in the way they like. It is, unfortunately, no help to the citizens either, for it is they who, at the end of the day, have to pay for all that twice over, as consumers and as taxpayers. So, then, controlled competition and high standards for local public transport as well.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I recognise how difficult it is for Parliament to comment on the Nice Summit when we do not have the documents yet. There seems no possibility of our having a well-thought-through and properly argued position. That said, this Parliament is often criticised for not keeping up with what is going on and it would be a pity if we said nothing. So I agree with Mr Poettering: on Thursday we should pass a short resolution as a political signal after the Summit. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I rise to speak specifically and directly in response to Sir Neil MacCormick's report on tripartite contracts. I hope I will be able to respond to a number of the points he made in his opening remarks. In the light of current events in the UK, this report centres on an extremely important issue. The UK Deputy Prime Minister a hapless fellow if ever there was one is trying to foist regional governance upon our own electorate. This unwanted and completely unnecessary tier of politicians is symbolic of the UK's recent shift towards regionalisation. I have no doubt this move is directly related to the President of the Commission's call for the development of a 'Europe of the regions'. This report, and the Commission proposal that lies behind it, certainly echo this call. By drawing up contracts directly with the regions, the Commission can enter into legally-binding agreements with local and regional bodies on regional and other policy issues such as the environment. If these proposals go ahead, one can imagine all manner of projects and policies which could be foisted on the UK by the back door. This move clearly represents a slippery slope towards a system where the prerogatives of national governments are diminished and those of the regions are enhanced. It appears to me that the Commission is attempting progressively to break down the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe into bite-sized chunks, aided and abetted, in this case, by our own government. British Conservatives are opposed to any measure which would bolster such a development. I shall certainly vote against this report tomorrow in plenary. Quite simply, we cannot accept a situation where the Commission foists upon us any changes to the UK's government structures. If we accept that the EU can deal directly in any way with the regions, we are compromising national integrity, and the nation as the prime building-block of the EU. This report represents an unacceptable interference in the governance of individual countries, and I reject the approach entirely.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on 8 November 2003 I was in The Hague participating in a demonstration in favour of the release of Slobodan Milosevic. I am not going to speak about Mr Milosevic now, since I have done so on a number of occasions in the past. I should like instead to refer to the fact that the demonstrators in The Hague, most of them Serb immigrants, were not allowed to write slogans in their own language. Speaking to the police I found out that there is a general rule against slogans written in languages that the police do not understand. This is apparently so that the police can control their content. It is obvious that the Netherlands, so tolerant on many things as we all know, will not tolerate uncensored political expression. Another incident occurred last Saturday at the airport in Paris when I was going through a security check on my way to Athens. The staff insisted that I take off my jacket, although I had removed from it all metal objects and had gone through the metal detector. Upon my refusal, the police were called and the next minute Mr 466294 and Mr 485684 – they would not give me their names – appeared and tried to convince me that this was the rule and nobody was supposed to contest it. Behind this unacceptable behaviour I see a clear effort to terrorise people by having them obey stupid orders. I also see the presumption of guilt of terrorism for any person going through a security check. Moreover, if a Member of the European Parliament can be subjected to such embarrassing and humiliating treatment, I wonder what would happen to others, in particular those whose complexion is a bit darker than average. These two incidents show signs of a police state being gradually built up in the European Union, in line with the wish of the ruling class to exercise full control upon their subjects. I look forward to your reactions, Mr President.

Political group: GUE-NGL