GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, I would firstly like to make an observation with regard to all the issues we deal with in the parliamentary committee which I belong to, the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport. Less than 1% of the Community budget is dedicated to all of these areas, which leads me to believe that they are not one of Parliament’s greatest priorities, given that such a small proportion of the budget is dedicated to them. We hope that this situation will change in the near future. Secondly, I would like to say that just a few months ago I attended a meeting, in the Círculo de Bellas Artes in Madrid, attended by cultural leaders from the Member States, such as the directors of national museums, and I am sorry to say that they were all fairly disgruntled with the Culture 2000 programme. Many of them said that they thought it was a backward step in relation to the previous programmes, Ariadna and Raphael, and that given the expenditure on the bureaucratic formalities necessary to request financial assistance, that assistance did not pay at the end of the day. Generally speaking, they expressed the feeling of being somewhat deceived. I feel that we need to try to distribute the available funds so as to create more support than discontent, and I feel that this is very important for the image of culture at the European level. I think it is important that we simplify bureaucracy, because everyone agrees that this was a great obstacle. We also need to make sure that there are no delays in payments, because many beneficiaries cannot cope with such delays. It is also important for us to ensure that projects are not rejected for purely formal reasons, and that we have to provide opportunities for small structures, another issue on which there were complaints.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the difficulties we are experiencing at this critical juncture in the negotiations leading up to Cancun do not augur well for an easy ministerial meeting in September. These difficulties arise to a large extent from the current world trade system, with its liberalising tendencies and the consequent effects, so often negative, on the fragile economies of the less developed countries. The North and the South have not benefited from this system in equal measure. The most important questions raised by those countries must, therefore, be treated with the utmost respect. It is also essential to put a stop to that liberalising tendency, at least until a full assessment of its consequences is carried out. The Development Agenda must not be a paper tiger. It should rather instil in us an unshakeable resolve and steady us on a firm course. Over and above that, it is vital to give real and meaningful content to the clause granting special, privileged treatment to developing countries. The European Union should, moreover, establish a strategic alliance with those countries. We are all aware of the central issues at stake. I will confine myself to brief comments on three of them: medicines may become a key area, if they are not one already. The United States has stood in the way of an agreement, and is even pressuring some countries to give up the right to import generic medicines. It will be important to stress and emphasise the fact that the right to health must take precedence over all commercial interests. As for the trade in agricultural products, another important area, market access may well be at the heart of the negotiations. The spectacular increase in US farm subsidies does nothing to bring an agreement closer, but the European Union will be able to take an important step forward, particularly if it contributes to the phasing-out, in the long term, of all export subsidies. Finally, as regards access to the industrial market, the textiles and clothing sector merits special attention, since it is particularly vulnerable and since concessions, above all bilateral ones, have already been made. We can countenance a few measures in this sphere aimed exclusively at developing countries, but we must always take care to protect this important industry and its employment potential.

Political group: GUE-NGL
In the name of the precautionary principle and because the development of GMOs makes me think of the sorcerer’s apprentice in the service of easy money and an outmoded emphasis on high productivity, I am now hostile to the use and development of GMOs. That being said, since GMOs exist – and whether we are for or against them – neither I nor anyone else can be opposed to improving traceability and labelling. This improvement is a lesser evil that must not cause us to forget the basic question.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, I share Mrs Isler Béguin’s concern. Air contamination is indeed a crucial issue as far as people’s health is concerned, and an epidemiological investigation such as this is definitely needed. This would also lend much support to giving priority to science’s Sixth Framework Programme and improving the standard, quality and coverage of environmental research. In your reply you mentioned the Clean Air for Europe programme: CAFE. Will this programme concentrate just on the quality of the air outdoors and pollution, or could the investigation at the same time include a survey of the quality of the air indoors and especially passive smoking? I am very worried that the investigation will restrict itself to the quality of the air outdoors and rather narrowly to the contamination of this type of air. Might one consider it applying to clean air in all its forms, including that to be found indoors? Could passive smoking in particular come within the scope of the survey in this programme?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, while fully supporting the accession of Cyprus, I question whether the Union is trying hard enough to bring about a settlement of the dispute. The minister says that he supports the UN and is monitoring the talks, but why is he not offering the services of the Council in trying to broker a solution? Why are the Commission and the Council blocking the opening up of trade with the North? It is only the pro-active involvement of Europe that will assure the two sides that Union membership profoundly and radically changes the context of their mutual relationship. Conflict resolution should be at the centre of the Cypriot accession and the Union should prove itself far more creative, and even ingenious, than it has been so far.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I, along with many of my colleagues, have approved Mrs Giannakou-Koutsikou’s report. It should be emphasised here this morning, though, that controversial discussions on this report have been held in this House for months. In committee alone, there have been 130 amendments to this report. Weeks of compromise discussions were needed and such a report is then voted on here on a Friday morning with a relatively modest number of people present. As I listened to the debates here yesterday, in particular the comments of Mr Poettering, as to how dramatic and important it all now was and saying that a vote definitely had to be taken here this week, that is not now borne out by the presence of his own group here this morning. I therefore regret that a procedure as important as this should enjoy such limited attention. What is even more splendid is when the authors of this matter become embroiled in intensive talks afterwards. In any case, we have given our approval so that Mrs Giannakou-Koutsikou can then see the report home with an extensive majority.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, irrespective of whether this action was spontaneous or premeditated, it is still an act of sabotage by the anti-Strasbourg lobby. (Applause) I, too, noticed Members leaving the Chamber during the count. This behaviour does not contravene the Rules of Procedure, but it is contrary to the notion of fair play and the proper functioning of Parliament. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we all support recycling although it must be planned sensibly so that it does not cause more environmental damage than it saves. We also all support the waste hierarchy where it is best to prevent, it is next best to re-use and recycle, and after that comes energy recovery. For recycling, we welcome public education schemes and voluntary schemes. We have no problem with the German Government if it goes down these roads, or indeed down the Scandinavian nationwide road. However, it has chosen to go down an imposed route without consideration for customers or indeed for other EU countries. It is not just a German domestic problem: it is an Austrian problem, a Belgian, Dutch, French, Luxembourgish, Italian, Swedish and British problem. All these countries have been affected by this decision. Markets and jobs have been lost and consumers are the losers, whether as a result of the import blockade or the inability to recover their deposits. There is virtually no gain for the environment in this scheme. Non-compliance with internal market directives threatens the economic success of the European Union and I very much support Mr Bolkenstein's action and hope that this leads swiftly to German compliance.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would just briefly like to say that it has been proposed that we should start earlier on a Monday and leave earlier on a Thursday. I must say that this is absurd since it would mean that many of us would have to travel here on a Sunday so that others could have Friday free. It always used to be the case in Europe that Sunday and not Friday was a day of rest.

Political group: PPE-DE
I voted against the Haug report, just as I voted in favour of my group’s motion to reject the general budget for 2001. First: because the budget of the European Union is not commensurate with the huge economic needs of the Community of the 15, especially of the countries and regions lagging behind. Secondly: because the new items for the reconstruction of Yugoslavia – which we need and which should be more substantial – have been found by slashing items for food relief, agriculture, social spending, etc., rather than by increasing the budget, which is what the Member States of the European Union should have done, given that they perpetrated and aided and abetted the destruction of the former Yugoslavia. Thirdly: because the budget remains a mechanism for applying a policy which falls short on the social and development side and which has not been reorganised despite constant warnings of the fall in the euro.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we all regret Europe’s failure in this crisis and the fact that the existing instruments for coordinating our foreign policy have shown themselves to be ineffective. There is no question that our group wishes the European Union to have an autonomous position in the world based on the defence of legitimate interests, but also on values such as democracy, respect for human rights and freedom, in other words, everything that the regime of Saddam Hussein has destroyed in his own country and everything we share with the United States. And therefore my group advocates strengthening the transatlantic link which has united us at other times in our history, which have also been difficult, as the President of the Catalonian Government has said. Despite the obvious differences within the European Union, there are certain things which I believe, now more than ever, we are obliged to do together. We must increase our efforts to contribute to the search for peace in the Middle East, and to eliminate the points of tension in the Maghreb and, of course, provide humanitarian aid during the conflict and then assist in the human, political and economic reconstruction of the country afterwards, as the Presidency of the Union has pointed out. I would ask the European Commission to reflect on whether it was hasty in some of the statements it made in this regard. At times like this it is easier to look the other way, it is easier to hide behind a banner than to confront tyranny. Sometimes it is more profitable as well. What we must do is respect the opinions of others. However, experience has taught us, Mr President, that force is the only response to oppression, and we are only servants of our democratic convictions. (Applause from the right)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the European Central Bank report under discussion covers 1999, its first year in operation following the start of the third stage of EMU and, for this very reason, the European Parliament's criticism of the European Central Bank's annual report should be even stricter and even more demanding. The European Parliament is the only institution in the Community which is entitled to exercise any, albeit ex-post, control over the European Central Bank and its policy. From this point of view, the report by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs does not meet the expectations of the citizens of Europe, in that it fully supports the policy of the European System of Central Banks and, on several counts, is going beyond that policy by calling for even greater liberalisation. The claim that the international standing of the euro and its weakness against the dollar are due to delays in making the necessary structural changes at the expense of the job, goods and services markets and to delays in advancing on the public sector of the economy, dismantling employment relations and abolishing the labour, social and insurance rights of workers has caused a public outrage. In its quest for much-vaunted monetary stability, which I consider to be its only duty, the policy of the European Central Bank has been highly contradictory; in pursuing a single objective, i.e. to control inflationary pressures, it has swung like a pendulum from one extreme to the other, with successive reductions and increases in the interest rate which, in the final analysis, have had acutely negative repercussions on growth in productivity and employment. The workers paying the price for this seriously negative neo-liberal policy have no confidence in it, nor do they share the European Central Bank's ambition or the support given to its policy by the European Parliament, the other institutions of the European Union and the governments of the Member States. The much-vaunted new economy will certainly not serve the interests of the workers. In this sense, we oppose both the policy of the Bank and the support given to it by the European Parliament.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I can add to what Mr van Hulten and Mr Swoboda have said, having had the opportunity last week to read the Commission's report on disciplinary measures because a British journalist wanted to interview me about it. Some Members may find it of interest that this lady had once been Mr Heaton-Harris's personal assistant. I have just one point to add to what Mr Swoboda and Mr van Hulten had to say. Mr Heaton-Harris has just asked what the Commission is considering doing about informing the law-enforcement services. The lady journalist asked me the same question, to which I responded by asking whether it was not the case in all European countries, as it is at any rate in my own homeland, that disciplinary proceedings are set in motion only after the law-enforcement services and the relevant tribunals have decided on the prosecution of offences. This leads me to wonder whether Mr Heaton-Harris has got the sequence of events right. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Madam President, unbundling access to the local loop is intended to open up the level of competition, providing lower prices for the customer and easier, cheaper access to the Internet, fostering technological innovation in the local access area. I welcome these promised developments. But as the rapporteur mentioned, many of us have been made aware of the concerns of the local telecommunications provider. The Irish telecommunications provider, Eirecom, maintains that it should be allowed a reasonable time period to implement the changes and that the 31 December deadline is practically unachievable. Also, charging for unbundled access to the local loop should be fair and adequate to ensure the long-term development and upgrading of the local access infrastructure. If it is not financially viable to invest in less populated and less developed areas, it is unlikely to be attractive to new operators. When we combine this possible scenario with other measures that adversely affect rural areas, such as the liberalisation of the postal service, which threatens the survival of small rural post offices, and the recent closure of many small rural banks, how will the possible reduction of investment in long-term development and upgrade of local access infrastructure affect already disadvantaged rural regions? It is my sincere hope that none of these concerns becomes reality and that in future we avoid the risk of seriously limiting discussion in Parliament by speeding up procedures on issues that will ultimately have the greatest effect on the most vulnerable.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this brings us to the conclusion of a momentous two years for the European Union, which began with the 1996 discharge and its refusal. I should like to congratulate Mrs Stauner on the courage which she has shown in getting her report – although not much of it is in its original form – through this Parliament. We need, in this debate, to associate the 1998 discharge with that of the framework agreement which we will be voting on tomorrow. Hopefully we will see signs of a more democratic Europe as a result of these last few months. First, Parliament's role in the discharge has been shown to be one of extreme importance. The Council, by its absence today, shows its lack of interest in the way in which we, as a Parliament, have used our powers to begin the birth of a political Europe. Without the 1996 discharge there would have been no Wise Men's report, no Commission resignation and no real urgency for Commission reform. But not all of us in this House have been heroes. We have found ourselves split between countries, within countries, within delegations, often with strongly held views. It was the Socialist leader, Mrs Green, who took the biscuit by voting for a motion of confidence on a motion of censure, which she did indeed get. Miss Morgan now continues this particular inheritance by asking for a depolitisation of the discharge process. Indeed, one or two of her amendments, like removing paragraphs 47 and 48 of the discharge report today show that some of these amendments look more Commission-born than in Parliament's interests. But where to now? Monitoring is necessary to make sure that what we have gained as a Parliament is maintained. Mr Prodi needs to be supported in his reforms of the Commission. Last but not least, our most important role is to make sure we have greater accountability and more democracy and that it is not the beginning of the end but the end of the beginning for Parliament's rights in the European institutions.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Group of the abstained on the report, which it considered rather wet. As far as we were concerned, the objective of this report was to give Commissioner Lamy a specific negotiating mandate for the Round due to open in Seattle. Well, such a specific mandate has not been adequately asserted. That being the case, we would have liked Parliament to propose a very political specification to the Commission, instead of drawing up a more diplomatic report which deplores, stresses and considers but does not give any sort of mandate. The tone of the report is still too liberal, then, for us to find any reflection of our own views, especially since none of our amendments is included in it. The report, thus amended, has significant weaknesses regarding TRIPS. We can find nothing acceptable to us in it on the subject of intellectual property rights relating to trade. As regards the MAI, which was rejected by the OECD and which is coming back again, a reinforced code of conduct must be drawn up for investment and strict regulations must be drawn up in this field, and this is equally applicable to the settlement of disputes. The report does, however, include some fundamental principles which we consider essential such as the precautionary principle, regulations on production methods and procedures. It stresses in particular the labelling of foodstuffs in order to ensure the implementation of food safety, and the necessity of adopting a stance that is more favourable to developing countries. At any event, we shall follow with great interest the way in which the Commission conducts the negotiations, and even though we still find this amended report too liberal in tone, you will find that we will defend this text most fiercely if Commissioner Lamy should step below the recommendations made here.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, we must thank the Commission and the President-in-Office of the Council for including this vital issue in the weekly priorities, in particular at a time – as Mrs Díez reminded us – when the European Council has just proclaimed the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. At the moment – as it has been said – the images of the American electoral campaign and the final debate between the two main candidates are fresh in our minds; a debate in which the candidate for the Democrats stated publicly that the only thing he had in common with his opponent was being in favour of the death penalty. I think it is important for the European Union to head the campaign to abolish the death penalty, given that it is a campaign in favour of human dignity and the most basic of fundamental rights. Commissioner, I believe – and you expressed this very well – that when developing the European Union’s external affairs policy we must consider, with regard to the third countries, that there is already a declaration annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam which clearly reflects that to be eligible for membership of the European Union, candidate states must have abolished the death penalty. But, I insist, in relations with third countries we must be extremely clear and firmly promote relations with those countries that share our views on this matter. Commissioner – Mrs Ferrer expressed this very well a moment ago – sometimes we need to move on from beatitudes to balance sheets and we must therefore support the Commission's action with adequate programming, effective action and, in particular, visible, clear, transparent action by the European Union with the participation – as Mrs Bonino stated – of the non-governmental organisations, which have a lot to say and contribute from this point of view. Mr President, I believe that the institutions must live up to the values of our civilisation and that our citizens must see themselves reflected in the ethical mirror that, as a result of our work, we should be for them.

Political group: PPE-DE