GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
The minutes of this House on Monday 3rd May 2004 exposed Mr Martin for the deceitful person that he is. He also falsely accused hundreds of MEPs, including 11 Irish MEPs, of ‘milking no show loopholes’ in our daily expenses. This relates to the facility that MEPs have to sign on a register on a Friday so that they are enabled to claim their allowances for accommodation on a Thursday night when they participate in votes on a Thursday afternoon and are unable to fly home. On the Irish radio programme ‘Live Line’ he disingenuously claimed, that as these votes closed at 5.14 pm, I could have easily caught the Frankfurt to Dublin flight. This flight closes at 7.05 pm, so therefore Mr Martin was claiming that in 1 Hour and fifty minutes I would have plenty of time to collect my belongings and drive approximately 250 kilometres to Frankfurt airport. Such a statement is blatantly dishonest and he knows that well. He also claimed that I leave Strasbourg early. MEPs are prisoners of flight schedules. Up until November 2003 when my flight schedule changed my regular routine was leaving Strasbourg in the afternoon to catch flights which departed for the airport in my constituency at times varying from 16:00 to 18:00. Furthermore this routine also required me coming regularly to Strasbourg on a Sunday for which I received no daily allowance. Mr Martin also accused me of some 32 problem cases of claiming the daily allowance. Despite the viciousness of his accusations he has never once provided with this list – strange justice indeed. However in relation to the 6 dates he mentioned on RTEs liveline programmes, he was inaccurate in at least half of them. On a date when he alleged I signed in late I actually was present early that morning voting in my committee. With regard to 2 other dates I did not receive any daily allowance for the Parliament and these facts have been confirmed in writing to me by the EP services. I want therefore to read this into the record to once again expose the type of behaviour that Mr Martin engages.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner Monti, ladies and gentlemen, it is natural of the market that companies in the telecommunications industry, which right now requires its players to invest billions and embark on enormous basic infrastructure projects, should try to seek partners in the free market, all the while honouring the rules and regulations. It is of overall benefit to society that an operational environment should be created in Europe, in which companies, that is to say, the private sector, are themselves able to attend to these infrastructure projects that vitally need the information society. As these same companies at the same time employ more and more people, as we heard today in your presentation, Mr Monti, and are therefore boosting economic growth in Europe, I do not really understand the fears that have been expressed over there at the other side of the Chamber that these mergers, which are fully beneficial to society as a whole, should have a detrimental effect on employment in Europe. Politicians and trust busters, such as Mr Monti, must not interfere in this current development in the market other than when the Commission has proper grounds to believe that a particular merger may cause distortions to the competition situation, so harming the interests of consumers. Mr Rapkay, you may be sure that nobody in this Chamber wants monopolies or oligopolies in the market. This must really be restricted to certain cases; in other words, we need logic and consistency in this. On the other hand, the Commission must actively monitor whether free access to markets is being realised in all sectors, as stated in point 3 of Parliament’s joint motion for a resolution. Global competition must be examined, and there have been problems recently, at least with regard to the Deutsche Telekom – Voice Stream deal. I hope, Mr Monti, you will comment on this plan by the US Congress, which totally contravenes WTO regulations, to ban licence transfers to firms owned by foreign companies.

Political group: PPE-DE
I would address my very good friend, Mary Banotti, and ask what the situation is regarding Danish TV here in the Parliament building. We are, of course, one of the small countries which are always oppressed, but we should like to be able to watch Danish television so that we can keep up with what is happening. We are Europe’s most important country. We are simply the best. Just look at who won the Eurovision Song Contest. But we cannot keep in touch with what is happening. What are you going to do about it, Mary?

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, the public – especially in the candidate countries – often makes the erroneous assumption that the European Union's Budget deals, in effect, only with agricultural policy. Such an assumption is not only fatal, but also false. It is even more important, in times of economic upheaval and renewal, for us to affirm and create social cohesion in order, among other things, to stabilise democracy and gain public acceptance in these new Member States. Speaking on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, I would like, then, to highlight four points from the debate that were of particular importance to us. In this context, the first is support for the social dialogue. In practically all the candidate countries there is still the need to establish and reinforce structures that will make the social dialogue a reality. The second point is the need to improve conditions in the workplace. Our work in the Member States treats health and safety at work as a priority, and the same must be true in the candidate countries. The third point is that the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs has stressed our desire to have greater support, in every case, for the social platform as part of the action programme against social exclusion and discrimination. I would refer you to the Lisbon resolution in which we highlighted competitiveness and employment opportunities and stressed the need for them. In the candidate countries, restructuring affects not only agriculture, but still also major, and outdated, sectors of industry. They need our help with that, help that we can – and should – provide by means of European Union funds. In all these areas, we rely, of course, on the knowledge of the agencies. We therefore expect them to receive the financial appropriations that they need.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Mr Lamy, Mr Fischler, I should like to say, first of all, that I am delighted by the success of the Doha ministerial conference, not only from the point of view of its results, but also from a material point of view. It took place in excellent conditions, despite all the fears that we may have had. Holding this event in Qatar was in itself a response to the war against terrorism that we entered into following the tragic events of 11 September. Like other Members who took part in that conference, I appreciated the constant transparency that prevailed between the Council, the Commission and Parliament during the negotiations. That transparency was also the order of the day among the NGOs present at Doha, who are to be congratulated on the efforts that they have made in this direction since the previous conference in Seattle. We all hoped that this conference would lead to a substantial agreement that would pave the way for growth to be stimulated, thereby contributing towards economic development at a time when the international community is going through a very difficult situation. This ministerial conference certainly enabled considerable progress to be made on various fronts, including the inclusion of China and Taiwan. Another positive result, as has already been mentioned, was in connection with medicines. As for the rest, the Commission took a tough stance in the negotiations, and the efforts that it made during the final night and on the morning of 14 November enabled the European Union to convince its partners that its positions were well-founded. However, the work programme is still lagging behind the ambitions that we had set ourselves on certain major issues, such as the environment, the Singapore agenda and social standards. For my part, I should like to make three comments. During the conference, the developing countries often adopted a highly critical attitude towards the European Union. When we were preparing for this ministerial conference, did we listen carefully enough to their concerns? Let us show humility, let us take up our pilgrim’s staff again, let us listen to them and try to understand them, so that we can take their real concerns into consideration, and above all let us stop taking their place in defining the development policy that they need. Secondly, the Doha ministerial declaration constitutes an undertaking to start negotiations on the priority issues of European enlargement and integration. Finally, now that the real negotiations are about to start, I hope that the transparency that has prevailed so far will continue to do so, and that it will be strengthened still further between us. I have just one question to ask the Commissioner. What will be the general structure of the negotiations which will be defined?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, a little while ago, you made the point that Parliament would not issue a statement on the number of seats in the European Parliament. I would urge you just to read through the Leinen-Dimitrakopoulos report, in which Parliament has taken up clear positions, not only in respect of the distribution of the seats, but also on the weighting of votes in the Council and the composition of the Commission. Perhaps these positions, when read in context, will help us to extricate ourselves from the present conflict between larger and smaller States, which is paralysing the Intergovernmental Conference. Because that is one of the most serious problems we face. We must recognise that the smaller States are on an equal footing with the larger ones in this Union of States, and that we must find other ways to redress the balance for the larger States. We must not allow things to reach a point where the smaller States fear that there might be recourse to solutions by decree. The increase in intergovernmental initiatives, the official demands raised, and the options discussed in connection with enhanced cooperation, are all initiatives that could ruin the truly successful nature of the European Union. In the past, the European Union has been successful in those areas where the Monnet method and majority decision-making are applied, and where the institutions, i.e. Parliament and the Commission, have been strengthened. This must be brought out at the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference, so as to avoid any misunderstandings in this respect. To do otherwise would lead us down a blind alley. This method, which was appropriate for 6 Members, will be all the more appropriate for 27 Members because it is not possible for the European Union to be led by a Council of Ministers that changes its chairmanship every six months, and will therefore not be in a position, once there are 27 Member States, to lend coherence to the development of the European Union. The Commission, having the option of simple majority voting, would be better equipped to provide this impetus in the future. For this reason, Mr President, I would urge you to push for the Monnet approach at the next Intergovernmental Conference, together with qualified majority voting, and in so doing, to make the Union fit for enlargement. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I hope you will allow a point of order. During the debate I became aware that, according to tomorrow's voting list, we are also going to vote on a Bureau proposal concerning the security rules, which are a precondition for adopting the interinstitutional agreement. I would like to know why there has been no mention of these security rules on our agenda. Would it not be appropriate for the House to discuss those security rules, which are being put to the vote tomorrow in the context of the interinstitutional agreement and the amendments to the Rules of Procedure? I consider this procedure to be most insulting to the House.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would first of all like to extend warm thanks to Commissioner Patten for his extensive clarification. I have a question pertaining to his first point. As I understand – and I am delighted to hear it – the European Commission intends to provide more structure to the way third-country elections are observed within the European Union. My question is: will this be a structure similar to that employed in the United States? I have always noticed that it is the Carter Institute which is responsible for election observation over there, and it always acquits itself of this task in a very professional and very transparent manner. The European Union, which may be present on a massive scale, is really lacking such an image. Could you explain whether you will use this American model as a gauge, because I think this is an excellent example of how things could be done and how they could be done properly?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would simply like to ask when Question Time proper, with the preparatory questions, is likely to begin. After all, it was scheduled for 6 p.m.

Political group: PPE-DE
Many thanks to Commissioner Monti for a very thorough answer. I look forward to the Commission’s continuing, first and foremost, with its investigation into extensive state aid and, especially, to its conducting a general investigation into whether the conditions of state aid to small and medium-sized enterprises should be changed. I hope to be, and look forward to being, kept up to date on this matter, which means an incredible amount to industry not merely in Denmark but also in other countries, including the western part of Germany.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, early or late we can now discuss the implementation of the 2003 Budget. I would like first of all to thank the rapporteur, Mr Färm, most sincerely for carefully reading the figures that he has kindly made available to us. What he read was of course not so pleasing, and I would like to sum up in only very general terms by saying that, as a member of one part of the Budgetary Authority, I have to ask myself what force and what decisiveness we must bring to bear in order, together with the Council, to prepare a budget – which is, after all, policy in figures – when those who have to implement it are far from being in a position to implement that policy in the way the Budgetary Authority wanted. That is in fact a fundamental criticism that I have already voiced in this place on a number of occasions, and things get no better, they get worse. That cannot of course be the Commission’s long-term strategy. The budgets we present are always tight ones, and then we want to make ourselves more popular with the Member States by not spending the money we have just argued over so passionately. I now have a large number of complaints on the table where individual groups that are supposed to be supported out of the Community budget, as is stipulated in the rules on the matter, are faced with massive administrative problems in negotiations with the Commission, especially this year because of the new Financial Regulation. All the rules must be followed, but my plea here would be that we also help to ensure that in the end resources actually can flow. Bureaucracy – or the proper control of the use of resources – is not there to make payments basically impossible.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we have a Commissioner for Agriculture and Fisheries who – and I am now talking as my group's shadow rapporteur for the fisheries budget – is at any rate decisive and, if you will allow me a personal comment, has guts, courage and a proven vision in terms of the EU's enlargement. As for fisheries, this Commissioner has also launched far-reaching proposals aimed at sustainable fisheries, that are also in line with the agreements made at the Johannesburg Summit finally to reach true sustainable fisheries. At the same time, there is something lacking there; I note with regard to the fisheries budget that this decisiveness is not translated into major shifts or priorities in the fisheries budget up to 2003. You could, of course, claim that the fisheries policy is only partly being launched, but I should nevertheless like to mention a few points concerning the fisheries policy. Parliament and the Council have indicated that we consider it important, as a result of the failure in Spain of the fisheries agreements with Morocco, that money be set aside for the regions in question. The Committee on Fisheries insists on this being done. Secondly, we are facing far-reaching decisions. This means that the responsibility of fishermen is considerable and that producer groups in the fisheries sector deserve extra support in this. We have tabled specific amendments in this area too and would greatly appreciate it if the Commission were to adopt them. Thirdly, far-reaching decisions in the fisheries sector also means that a number of regions will actually be affected. I would refer to cod fishing in Scotland, but also to areas along the North Sea. This means that employment, namely indirect employment in the ports and indirect employment in the fish-processing industry, will be badly affected in those regions. In this respect, Europe needs to invest to create replacement employment, also in terms of sustainability in those regions. We would, in this connection, like the Commission seriously to consider, and subsequently adopt, a number of amendments tabled by the Committee on Fisheries.

Political group: PPE-DE
The minister said that she needs to make inquiries before giving an answer. Does that mean she will be giving me a written reply once she has this information?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I wish to support my colleagues who have taken a very broad-ranging view of this important proposal. This is not specifically about the digital world. It is about the future of the European economy and about the ability of any manufacturer who has intellectual property rights, whether protected by patent, copyright or registered design, or indeed by any other form of ownership, over a creative work or design that they have genuinely originated, to be able to protect and sell their products in a legitimate way, reap the profits and create jobs within the European Union. We are talking about the procedure and timescale because we all know that as from the enlargement of the European Union on 1 May there will be major concerns about the inability of intellectual property owners to enforce their rights across the enlarged European Union. Many of my colleagues have given graphic examples of the problems associated with the counterfeiting on a large scale of physical goods that are being shipped into the European Union and essentially sold illegally, thereby depriving people of their legitimate livelihoods. Let us put matters into perspective, since this is the nub of the issue and is why we have supported Mrs Fourtou in her work with the Council aimed at reaching a genuinely balanced compromise that will be in place on 1 May, thereby ensuring we do not have to wait another six to nine months to deal with this problem. We are in the real world now, and this is not some theoretical piece of legislation but something that will actually protect jobs in our constituencies. As we move towards a world in which more and more goods are coming into the European Union from countries, such as China, that are new members of the World Trade Organisation and where intellectual property enforcement is at best very weak, we have to be able to protect ourselves in a legitimate and balanced way. That is what is at stake, and those of you who are contemplating amending this proposal with the result that it is not in place on 1 May will have to answer to manufacturers in your constituency when a container load of counterfeit goods from China arrives through an accession country on their doorstep in June. You will have to answer for the impact this will have on local jobs and local manufacturers.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to put a question to Parliament. Yesterday, further hundreds of acres of forest were destroyed by fire in Italy, endangering the outskirts of Rome and the lives of European citizens as well. A similar incident occurred a few days ago in France, on the Italian border. These acts of arson, which endanger and destroy hundreds upon hundreds of acres of European forest, occur frequently during the summer in the Mediterranean European countries, with harmful repercussions for the economy and the tourist industry. It is vital that Parliament intervenes, but a decisive intervention on the part of the Commission and the Council is also essential when we consider that the possibility of setting up a European civil protection service was even discussed at the Feira Council. These fires represent a considerable hazard, damaging the forest stand and the environment throughout the European Union, but, most importantly, the economic effect on our endeavours to boost employment in the tourism industry in all the countries of the Mediterranean area will be extremely serious.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in the 1990s I worked as a trainer and advisor for a large Finnish development cooperation organisation. Zimbabwe was our one cause for pride, our favourite example of what development cooperation and genuine partnership achieves. It was proof that Africa was flourishing. What destroyed Zimbabwe? I am not now going to repeat that pitiful and seemingly endless list of factors the resolution mentions. That would be too much. Destruction has permeated Zimbabwe’s entire social structure, from healthcare and education to the trade union movement and agriculture. Africa’s formerly productive model country is in a state of chaos and its economic structures are in tatters. In inciting people to occupy land illegally, instead of implementing controlled land reform within a reasonable timeframe, Mugabe flouted the law of the land and so devastated the functioning core of society. That is what this issue is about. When the basis of the legal system is destroyed the structures break up one by one. The fact that President Mugabe, former fighter for independence and national hero, degenerated to the level of dictator to keep watch over his own country is a tragedy of our time. I was a member of Parliament’s delegation of election observers in Zimbabwe a few years ago and we were simply amazed when during the elections someone had the nerve to declare that the government would remain in power whatever the result was. Despite intimidation, people voted. In Zimbabwe that could mean not only taking risks but also walking for miles to a polling station and queuing for hours. That was a sight to behold for someone used to a system where voting is easy. I wish everyone who is scornful of voting and representational democracy could just see queues like that even once. Let us in the EU give our unambiguous support to those who, despite oppression, have the courage to fight for law and rights.

Political group: PPE-DE