| Subject | Object |
|---|
| lp_eu:1999-07-20-Speech-2-002 | "Mr President, I should like to thank you for giving me this opportunity to address the House. I want to register my protest at the lack of facilities for me, as a Deputy within this Chamber. Two and a half years ago, I went to the authorities who were dealing with the building of this new structure and informed them of my requirements as a person with a disability within the Chamber. I was assured at that stage that every facility would be made available. I arrived here last month and spoke with the architects and builders with regard to the seating arrangements within the hemicycle. I also wrote a letter to the former President, informing him of the difficulties that would arise.
I arrived here today, after being re-elected to this Parliament, to discover, firstly, that I cannot get from the ‘0’ level of the building to the first level without getting a security card from one of the security services. I was delayed for 24 minutes this morning and 38 minutes last night waiting for someone to come along with a card.
Secondly, I cannot sit with my political group within this House because there are no facilities for me to sit with them. Thirdly, it is an absolute disgrace when so much public money has been spent on this new building that we could not give a proper example for the 21st century – for the new millennium – of what kind of an inclusive society the European Parliament wants to see in the future.
(Loud and sustained applause )
I should like to finish with a quote from George Bernard Shaw: ‘To hate your fellow man is not the ultimate sin but to be apathetic towards him, that is the essence of inhumanity’. We have seen it here today. I want to register this protest. I will be taking part in the proceedings. But I want my heartfelt objections to be heard by everybody within this Chamber and around Europe when it is being televised today.
(Loud and sustained applause )"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-07-20-Speech-2-007 | "Mr President, before moving to the election of a President of this House, I should like to ask you to confirm that Annex I of our Rules of Procedure is being abided by. Annex I of our Rules of Procedure, Article 1, paragraph 2, states that before a Member may be validly nominated as an office-holder of Parliament, he or she must have duly completed the declaration of financial interests. I would ask you to confirm that this has indeed been carried out."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-07-20-Speech-2-026 | "Madam President, I extend my congratulations and good wishes on your election as President of the European Parliament. I am quite satisfied that Parliament has acquired an excellent President and I am equally certain that you will conduct your duties with dignity and fair play at all times.
You have won the respect of this Parliament during the period of time that you served as Vice-President and the many roles that you had to fulfil. I want to wish you every success, on behalf of Parliament, during your term of office. Parliament has a wonderful President. We all wish you well.
(Applause )"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-07-21-Speech-3-015 | "Madam President, I know you, like me, will share the concern that this week offers no opportunity to express our interest at what is occurring in Burma and, in particular, the sacrifice and suffering of Aung San Suu Kyi who is our Sakharov Prize winner.
There has been a troika visit to Burma. I would urge you, President, as one of your first acts, to support the proposal that a political dialogue takes place urgently with Aung San Suu Kyi and her political party."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-07-21-Speech-3-018 | "Madam President, may I say that I fully endorse your speech earlier in which you said that one of our jobs is to provide the public with information about the work of the institutions. Can I invite you therefore under Rule 38 (Statements explaining Commission decisions) to ask the Commission at the end of today's agenda to come to this House and explain the decision that was taken yesterday to fine the French football authorities a derisory £650.00 for a clear breach of Community rules.
It is very difficult for anyone to understand what that message was from the Commission, apart from to say that it is good news for ticket touts and bad news for football fans to suggest that people can actually get away with breaking the law providing they are prepared to throw a few coppers towards the European Commission later in the process. So, may I ask you to invite the Commission, at the end of today's proceedings, to come and explain that decision so that ordinary people can actually try and understand the thought processes which, I have to say, completely confound me."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-07-21-Speech-3-042 | "Mr President, I believe that overall the German Presidency was a very positive period. In particular I should like to thank them on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, and indeed the Socialist Members, for the very good work that was done throughout that period on the reform of the structural fund process. We believe that we have a fair and just deal for Member States. In particular I would like to thank the Germans for not only pushing ahead for progress in peace concerning Kosovo, but peace on the issues concerning Northern Ireland. This House will know that we have entered yet again a critical phase in the peace process in Northern Ireland. Successive Presidencies have backed that peace process. What I should like to say today at this inaugural session is that we hope to be able to count on our new Commission President, on the Finnish President-in-Office of the Council and indeed on Madam Fontaine to continue that good work in supporting the peace process and making a priority of peace in her visits to Northern Ireland."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-07-21-Speech-3-053 | "Madam President, Mr President-in-Office, President-designate of the Commission and nominee Commissioners, you are very welcome to our Chamber this afternoon and we look forward to our hearings and our various communications over the next few weeks and eventually months and years.
(Applause)
Madam President, in September we have the hearings and, as I said, I do not wish to anticipate how they should proceed, but my group's strong preference is that in September – subject always to the reservations that we must see what emerges – we should take a decision and rid ourselves of a sense of crisis. If we have to have some difficult debates, for God's sake, let us have them in September and let us have it out in September so that we do not have some form of institutional guerilla warfare right through to December or January. Let us do the business early and let us do the business well!
A final comment, Madam President; before he had this high office thrust on him some months ago, rather I think to his surprise, Mr Prodi had sought to contest the European elections in Italy. He had chosen as the symbol of his party the donkey. Well, the donkey has various traits – one of which we know is stubbornness. I wish to say to Professor Prodi, if he uses his stubbornness in this Parliament as a reliable partner for Europe, that is the kind of stubbornness we welcome. And if he uses his stubbornness to refuse to dialogue with us, if we have difficulties in the hearings, that is a stubbornness we will oppose.
That is the message of my group today. We want to work with you as a reliable partner for Europe now and in the future and that requires respectful dialogue. We will give it. We believe in a strong Europe, we believe in a strong Commission and we believe we should be natural allies – let us work to that end.
(Applause)
I want to make a few things clear here at the outset. Firstly, the ELDR Group in this House comes here in terms of a European vocation. We will not judge Commissioners on the basis of the national preferences of one or other party or group inside this Chamber.
(Applause)
I wish to say, Madame President, in respect of your helpful suggestion this morning that we should incorporate, as we prepare for the hearings, an understanding of the work and insight of the Committee of Experts that we, as an Institution, must say to the Experts ‘speed up what you do and deliver it in time'. If necessary, 'speed up the report' but by no means should we slow down the process of hearings as anticipated.
(Applause)
My group's essential and fundamental starting point in this debate is very clear. The outgoing Commission resigned last March and since I can hardly explain to myself why the rump part of that Commission is still there, how can we expect the citizens of Europe to understand that fact? It is therefore our overwhelming duty in this House to decouple Europe from this institutional embarrassment at the earliest available date and the only means to do that is to take the available Commission – and I do not prejudge how the hearings may go – and do our utmost to make sure that it takes up office at the earliest available date. By this means we should begin to decouple ourselves from what has been a very difficult, but useful experience, but one that remains, unfinished as it is, deeply embarrassing and complicated as we have seen recently by the deplorable choices of Dr Martin Bangemann.
Could I say also in regard to the hearings process which will be in two parts, i.e. written and oral, that we in the Liberal Group will want to know from each of the candidate Commissioners: ‘What is the perspective that you will bring to Europe for Europe?' This will be important to us. We want to be able to talk to you and engage with you on the question of suitability for the portfolios and to understand the capacities that you bring to this prospect. We want to ask you about your willingness, your personal willingness, to accept that you are accountable and responsible to the public of Europe in whatever you do with your President and before this House and in clear and full public understanding that this is the public forum for European democracy to which you are accountable and have a public responsibility. I wish to say on behalf of my group that when the IGC comes we will continue to press for Treaty reform on the question of individual accountability. We recognise that within the current constraints Professor Prodi is taking some steps to improve the dreadful situation of the past, but we may need Professor Prodi to take some more steps.
We propose that the hearings should be tough because we have learned from the lessons of the past five years that it is better to be tough at the outset than to regret it later. Our hearings also will be fair. There is one point I would ask the Commission President-designate to respond to. We have been so busy reconstituting ourselves we have not yet had the capacity to do our homework and our research, so if the hearings bring to light issues of substance and public concern about which we as yet know nothing, we in this House would have a duty to Europe to act and we will act – certainly, my group will.
If such difficulties present themselves, I would make an appeal to you as President-designate of the Commission, Professor Prodi, please to make sure that difficulties do not become crises. We need a respectful dialogue between our institutions. This Parliament has matured in recent months and we have learned one basic lesson for the years ahead: we are no longer the junior partner in the European political institutions. We do not claim the status of ‘primus inter pares' but we expect and demand to be treated as an equal among equals in the European institutions."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-07-21-Speech-3-062 | "Madam President, Mr President-elect, I represent the EDD Group, a small group in this Parliament, but extremely democratic. I share the platform this afternoon with my French colleague and I share his concerns for the future role of this Parliament. Parliament, at the moment, does not appear to be very democratic. It appears also that Members of Parliament are not very concerned as the auditorium is now half empty.
To get a democratic structure we have to change over the years so that Parliament is not the servant of the Commission but the Commission is the servant of the elected representatives of the electorate of Europe. Until that happens there will be extremely low turn-outs at all future European elections. It would be better if the future of Europe was entrusted to elected representatives who can be dismissed from office at elections and not to nominated bureaucrats in the form of Commissioners.
Turning to Mr Prodi, I believe that half this Parliament at least is disenfranchised because he was endorsed by the previous Parliament and just over 50 % of us were not in that Parliament. I would seriously suggest that he should put himself up again for reselection with his other Commissioners in September.
(Applause )
In the long-term, I am convinced that, while the cart is in front of the horse – and that is the Commission exercising greater policy-making influence than the elected Members of this Parliament – throughout Europe people will remain apathetic toward this institution. In the United Kingdom, we already have a very Euro-sceptic electorate. We probably are the most Euro-sceptic according to a survey conducted on behalf of the European Union published two weeks ago. If Mr Prodi and his colleagues wish to remedy Euro-scepticism and Euro-apathy, I am calling for true democracy and for the elected representatives to have much more authority over the programme and policies of this institution."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-07-21-Speech-3-080 | "Mr President, the Finnish Government assumes the Presidency of the European Union at a very challenging time. This year has seen the implementation of some very wide-ranging and aggressive policies which are all going to play a role in developing the economies within the fifteen Member States of the European Union.
The launch of the new euro currency will certainly help to reduce business costs for small and medium-sized enterprises as foreign exchange transactions in eleven countries become an event of the past. I know that the euro currency has experienced some trading problems at times during this year. The instability within the EU institutions and the war in Kosovo have certainly not encouraged a climate of investor confidence. However, in recent times, the value of the euro currency has substantially increased as political and economic stability within the European landscape has re-emerged. There are eleven participating countries within the new euro currency zone encompassing over 291 million people. It is of the utmost importance that consumer information campaigns about the timetable and effects of the new euro currency continue in the run-up to the introduction of euro notes and coins in the year 2002.
The Finnish Presidency of the EU, together with the Commission, should review progress that is being made on this important issue across the EU so that consumer concerns about the new euro currency are fully addressed. The increased interdependence between the Member States and EMU demands the strengthening of economic co-ordination. In order to boost competitiveness, growth and employment, the Finnish Government rightly intends to promote the co-ordination of economic, employment and structural policies and to complete the internal market.
The ageing nature of our population, globalisation and technological advances present real challenges for European economic and social development. European employment strategies must be put in place in accordance with the new powers contained within the Amsterdam Treaty as well as within revised European social fund regulations.
Unemployment still remains at over 9 % within the European Union which is unacceptably high. It is not right that one in four people below the age of 25 have difficulty in getting a decent start in life. The Finnish Government is certainly laying a great emphasis on the need to promote the enlargement process to a greater extent. The Finnish Presidency will direct preparations to convene an Intergovernmental Conference in accordance with the decisions taken at the recent Cologne European Council. An IGC is very important as institutional reform must take place before the practical process of enlargement can succeed and much work needs to be done to prepare EU Institutions for this intergovernmental phase. I am very satisfied that the Finnish Government intends to pursue this matter vigorously over the next six months.
Enlargement of the Union is essential for the stability of Europe. The opening-up of larger markets will assist in the process of economic growth. The Union itself must be prepared to take up the challenges posed by enlargement by improving its decision-making capacity and improving the functioning of its institutions. National interests must be protected during this phase of negotiations as an overburdened bureaucracy at EU level is not the desired outcome from these IGC talks.
In conclusion, as a result of the Cologne Summit of March of last year, it has been agreed that the EU budget will be worth over £506 billion during the seven-year period, i.e. 2000-2006. The conclusion of the Agenda 2000 discussion has ensured that the European Union can move forward and discuss and implement new policy objectives and goals. The Finnish Government has certainly started this process. The EU certainly now has a golden opportunity to put in place new policies in the fields of consumer rights, food safety and assistance to the elderly, as well as areas of environmental protection."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-07-21-Speech-3-085 | "Thank you, Mr Fischler.
I have received ten motions for resolution pursuant to Rule 37(2) of the Rules of Procedure."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-07-21-Speech-3-108 | "Mr President, Kosovo is a small economy. The European Union could subsidise Kosovo for ever and hardly notice it. But surely this is not an acceptable solution. As soon as possible, we must aim to have Kosovo stand on its own economic feet. That inevitably means external trade. However, there is a problem in redeveloping Kosovo's trade. Its biggest trading partner in the past and almost certainly in the future must be its neighbour immediately to the north, Serbia proper. Not only that but its trade routes to much of the rest of Europe past through Serbia. And yet Serbia is a pariah, embargoed, its infrastructure largely destroyed, its economy shattered. Here we have a conundrum: how do we get Kosovo to stand on its own feet unless we can rehabilitate Serbia also?
The current international community's set purpose is that Milosevic and his regime must be got rid of and then everything is possible. Until he goes, not a penny – well, we heard earlier, hardly a penny. But what if Milosevic does not go? Let us hope that he does, but if he does not, have we begun to estimate the cost of restoring Serbia's infrastructure and productive economy? Remember, Serbia was a sizeable, developed industrial economy, a vital trading partner and transport corridor for Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey, Greece, as well as Kosovo and all the former Yugoslav Republics.
So my question to the President-in-Office of the Council and to the Commission is this: how far have you thought through the political steps, the economic and financial commitments that are needed to bring about a free and democratic Serbia and reintegrate a free and democratic Serbia into the European economy and body politic?"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-07-21-Speech-3-112 | "Mr President, most of the contributions in this debate have been about the big global issues that appear on our television sets. I want to raise something with the Presidency which was in the small print of her remarks. It is something which affects millions of our fellow citizens in Europe, not once in a while, but every day of every year, and that is mental illness. I was so pleased when the Finnish Government decided to make mental health promotion one of their priorities for their presidency. That is welcome. It is important.
It is important because as the World Bank showed, this is the fastest growing area of health burden throughout the world. It is important because as the United Nations has declared, it is to be one of the priorities for the UN for the next fifty years, as declared by Boutros-Boutros-Ghali, Secretary General. It is important because, as the Harvard World Bank report showed, mental disorder accounts for some 10.5 % of the global health burden and that is forecast to rise to 15 % by the year 2020.
It is important because five of the ten leading causes of disability are psychiatric, with the first of those, unipolar depression, accounting for some 10 % of life with disability. It is important because psychiatric and neurological conditions cause 28 % of lives with disability. It is important because suicide is the tenth most important cause of death in the world – in the United Kingdom it is the ninth, ahead of road accidents.
It is important because surveys show that one in three people visiting their doctors have a mental health problem but only one in six are diagnosed as such. It is important because one in seven of us have a mental health problem at any one time. One in three of us will during our lifetime. It is not a forgettable minority. Nothing is more important among all the Finnish pledges than their pledge to take up the cause of people and their families who suffer not just an illness or a disability but disadvantage and stigma too.
We need to encourage good mental health. We need to help prevent illness and we need to educate peoples and governments in Europe that mental illness is not to be feared, not to be ignored. It can be cured, it can be treated and millions of our fellow citizens can lead full and fulfilled lives if we...
(The President cut the speaker off )"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-07-21-Speech-3-113 | "I would also like to commend the Finnish Presidency on another of their initiatives which is the attention they are giving to the development of the information society. This issue is going to affect the lives of every citizen in the European Union. We have crucial decisions to make in the Union and in the regulation of information technology over the next five years.
I am very much hoping that the Finnish Presidency will give us the right framework within which those decisions will be taken. I would just like to set out some pointers for that.
The first pointer is that it is quite clear that technology runs ahead of politicians. I cannot resist pointing out, Mr President, that we do not yet have computers or Internet access in this splendid building. Indeed, I suspect that many of our colleagues are not as literate in technology as they should be, but that technology is going to have a huge effect on opening up the single market and we must make sure, first of all, that legislation does not restrict the ability of people to innovate and introduce changes and new forms of electronic commerce.
Secondly, we must ensure that consumers powerfully use this technology. The information society is going to be one in which consumers have tremendous power to shop all over the world and particularly within the boundaries of the single market. I have to say that over the next five years the power of electronic commerce will act more quickly to create the single market than any amount of harmonising legislation that we might care to introduce in this Chamber or anywhere else. It will be crucial in creating the single market. Finally, of course, it will create jobs. Electronic commerce is giving small entrepreneurs access to global markets cheaply, quickly and effectively. It is encouraging the development of new forms of small business and we must continue to allow those new businesses to grow.
And so, in conclusion, Mr President, Finland with its great strength in computers and communications is ideally placed to lead us. There are three words I would leave you with if I may – openness, flexibility and innovation."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-07-21-Speech-3-118 | ". – Can I join Mr Sasi in congratulating Members of the House on the election that they achieved to this Parliament and particularly congratulate, as Mr Sasi did, the new Members of the House? I hope that they will find their tasks and their career here are both fascinating and fulfilling in the service of the people who have elected them.
The House may also wish to know that, in the course of discussions this month, Members of the existing Commission who have always fully respected their solemn undertaking to meet the obligations of integrity and discretion have readily and voluntarily reaffirmed that commitment. To them, as to me of course, it is axiomatic.
The House will be aware that the composite version of the resolution for debate before this Parliament today was produced this morning in keeping with usual practice. The Commission has therefore had no opportunity to discuss the specific call in the motion for resolution for current Commissioners to respect voluntarily the new Code of Conduct. I have, however, consulted the acting President, Mr Marín, and can inform the House that this issue will receive the attention of the Commission at its meeting next week.
I have sought to respond to the motion for debate as fully as possible whilst respecting the fact that the case which prompted the question is now
.
I know that the House will share my awareness of the fact that this debate and my later response to it will need to take account of that obvious legal consideration.
The resolution for debate relates to specific events and to principles concerning the conduct of Commissioners. I will therefore respond on behalf of the Commission by reporting briefly on those events and on the Commission's reaction to them.
On 29 June 1999, the President of the Commission, Mr Santer was made aware of the decision of Mr Bangemann to depart from the Commission in order to take up a private sector appointment two days later on 1 July 1999. Mr Santer wrote to Mr Bangemann on 30 June 1999 informing him that he would be put on functional leave and that his responsibilities would be transferred to a colleague in the Commission. In that letter, Mr Santer stipulated that Mr Bangemann could not commence his new duties and his new activities until the procedure set out in Article 215 of the Treaty had been completed and he also said that he would submit to the College the question of the compatibility of that planned appointment with Article 213 of the Treaty.
On 1 July 1999, the Commission discussed the matter before beginning its formal scheduled meeting. Mr Bangemann attended those proceedings and stated that he had not acted and would not act in ways that breached Article 213. The Commission formally took note of those statements from Mr Bangemann.
The House will be familiar with Article 213 which, amongst other things, requires Members of the Commission in particular ‘to behave with integrity and discretion as regards the acceptance, after they have ceased to hold office, of certain appointments'. All Commissioners, Mr President, appear before the Court of Justice to swear an oath to that effect on taking up office.
At the meeting held on 1 July 1999, Commissioners expressed their views to Mr Bangemann and he then withdrew from the room. Commissioners subsequently considered the issues raised by these events and their conclusions are set out in a statement which was published on 1 July 1999 and extensively reported.
On 9 July 1999, as the House will have heard from Mr Sasi, the Council decided to refer this case to the Court of Justice under Article 213 of the Treaty and, following that decision, it is now for the Court to pronounce on the matters. Honourable Members will understand that the case is therefore now
and the Commission consequently has to abstain from public comment on it.
As a general indication of the view of the Commission on the issues posed by the motion before the House, I refer Honourable Members to the concluding paragraph of the Commission's statement of 1 July 1999 which expressed the view ‘that it would be advisable for the future to clarify the implementation of Article 213 regarding Commission members' activities after they have ceased to hold office'.
The Commission consequently notes that on 17 July 1999 the President and Commission-designate agreed upon and published a draft Code of Conduct for Commissioners. As the House will have seen from press reports, that document specifies clear compulsory requirements for future Commissioners who intend to engage in any occupation during the year after they leave office to inform the Commission of their intentions in good time. It further provides for a procedure of examination and decision-making that includes the specific power of the Commission to refer the matter to an ethics committee when a Commissioner's planned occupation is related to his or her portfolio."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-07-21-Speech-3-119 | "Mr President, it is clear that in our European Union today changes are underway, particularly in the Commission, as a result of the refusal to give discharge for the 1996 budget and then the consequent and ultimate mass resignation of the Commission. Everything in that particular story showed where codes of conduct had begun to be discussed and debated. Indeed the acting President, Mr Santer, had put out a Code of Conduct for Commissioners and officials but it seemed it did not go far enough. Everything in the story was too little, too late. From the comments of Commissioner Kinnock, the Commission might examine this tomorrow or next week. It is always in the same kind of vein.
This applies also to the question of a Code of Conduct for high level officials because in the Commission over the last few years there has indeed been lax management in internal organisation as was underlined by the Wise Men's report. This is why we were calling earlier today for the second part of that report to be available to us so we have as much information available to us when we come to the hearings in early September for the incoming Commission.
One simple example which I can give the House of the internal games which were played by the heads of cabinets – not the Commissioners – on one particular staffing matter goes to show how these things were handled. ESPRIT, an important information technology programme designated under Mr Bangemann at the beginning of the Commission as it was in early 1995, was transferred from originally DG XIII which was under Mrs Cresson to Mr Bangemann. Lo and behold, in 1998, this was then shifted back to Mrs Cresson without any formal Commission decision – it was just decided as a game between the cabinets. How much time, energy and problems were caused for staff in the running of a programme simply because the Commissioners did a deal between themselves which was not transparent, not effective and certainly unaccountable to us here in the European Parliament.
I come to this particular case of Mr Bangemann. It is to us extraordinary insensitivity at this particular time, in this current climate, when you have an acting Commission, that someone can, in that particular state of office simply say two days later he wants to go and work for a private company which is one of the major operators in the field for which he is responsible in telecommunications. It could be argued that Mr Bangemann is not doing anything strictly wrong because there was not an enforceable Code of Conduct. But the Statute is very generous to Commissioners. Is not 80 % of salary for five years enough to satisfy someone's need for financial back-up and to make sure that they do not need the extra finance which a company like
is giving?
We unanimously support in our group the Council's decision for this case to go to the Court of Justice. We are particularly hopeful that they will look at the suspension of pension rights for the Commissioner in this instance, particularly while he is engaged in a private company. What it leaves for us is a reflection of the disregard of certain members of the outgoing Commission for the need to have a rigorous approach to high standards in public life.
We therefore welcome the statement by the incoming President, Mr Prodi, that there will now be codes of conduct applied rigorously, but we have heard this before. This is what worries us. We want to be able to see these codes of conduct effectively applied so as to make sure not only that the people at the top accept political responsibility, but also that we have high quality management right the way down so that people can be appointed for what they know rather than who they know."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-07-21-Speech-3-126 | "Mr President, it is right that this Parliament and indeed the Council and the Commission treat this matter with the utmost seriousness. It really is most reprehensible that there has been not only an apparent flouting of the formal rules for Commissioners, but also a contravention of the spirit of transparency and trust that should be the basis of the work between this Parliament and Commissioners.
However, one matter still is outstanding. There seems to be no mechanism within the existing rules and obligations where a company like
itself can be subject to some sort of punitive measures. If we could find some way not only of having a measure to take against former Commissioners who act in this way, but also against the companies who benefit from their knowledge, then I think that we might have two very powerful levers to use in future transgressions.
We hope, of course, that these will not occur. We wish the new Commission every success and hope that the high standards they espouse will be put into practice.
I have been the rapporteur on a substantial number of Directives concerning the liberalisation of the telecommunications industry and I, and my colleagues, have acted in good faith in this work and had assumed that the former Commissioner Bangemann had done the same. One can only speculate at just how much of a commitment Mr Bangemann had to the level playing field in this aspect of the internal market when he is willing to sell his knowledge to
a major player in the European Union and further afield.
It is particularly difficult, Colleagues, when Mr Bangemann was a former Member of this Parliament and indeed, a leader of the Liberal Group.
One matter which has not been mentioned in the debate is that there is to be a major review of all of the telecommunications legislation later this year and part of this work has already been started by the Commission under Mr Bangemann's commissionership.
As I have previously stated, I have been the rapporteur on a number of matters, but if I can just give you a thumbnail sketch of just how extensive this review will be and what it will cover – universal service, frequencies, satellite, regulation, licences, interconnections, numbering, mobile telephones, convergence of broadcasting, data transmission and telecommunications – an explosion of legislation and an enormous segment of the European Union's manufacturing, industrial and commercial base in its own right, but also as an adjunct to so many other industries. On all of this, Mr Bangemann takes with him his knowledge and his contacts to
.
There are also a worryingly substantial number of cases before the European Court of Justice on breaches of legislation, particularly in the field of interconnections – again, matters on which the former Commissioner has intimate knowledge. The Commissioner, when he was here in this Chamber, and I have had many debates with him, was fond of quoting from Shakespeare and other English poets. I shall quote one in his absence on his behalf – 'Just for a handful of silver he left us, just for a ribbon to stick on his coat'. I know that the money he has been offered by
hardly can be justified by the description of a handful of silver and indeed it begs the question of just how seriously Members of this House will treat a company like
when it comes to lobby us as they surely will on the matter of the review and future legislation in this field.
If I can be slightly mischievous, one wonders just how much value for money
will get out of Martin Bangemann. I wish he were on a performance-related pay and he might find that the fat cheque might not look nearly so attractive.
I understand Commissioner Kinnock's hesitation and his hesitations because this matter is
. Fortunately, Members of this Parliament are protected by parliamentary privilege, but even then, Commissioner Kinnock, I would ask you to note the reasonably restrained language that there is in our resolution and if I may just quote to you briefly on what the resolution says – “it deems his conduct to be particularly open to criticism’. We did choose the language very carefully and many might say that ‘open to criticism’ might be a serious understatement.
I finish, where I started, by saying that we are right to treat this with the utmost seriousness. I support absolutely the Council's decision to refer this matter to the Court and to use all the powers that there are under the agreements."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-07-21-Speech-3-128 | "Mr President, the worst thing about Mr Bangemann's imprudent career move is the threat that it poses to the Commission that he served. The Commission was already in serious trouble and its problems were bound to have been compounded by the Bangemann decision. In my view, the Commission has a final chance to prove itself the clean, efficient and effective executive that the European Union needs and that its citizens deserve. Should the Prodi Commission fail, then I fear that the European Council will execute a coup d'état and deprive the Commission of its right of initiative and its important role as the promoter of European Union. So to start the process of the Commission's recuperation, may we insist that the outgoing Members of the Santer Commission apply voluntarily the Prodi Code of Conduct."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-07-21-Speech-3-132 | ". – I should like to begin by saying that Mrs Read was absolutely right to draw attention to the moderate way in which the resolution is couched and indeed the moderation of the language throughout the whole of this debate. It would have been easy for people to try to make a populist appeal. That was almost entirely avoided. That simply added to the weight of the opinion of this House and therefore to the reaction which everyone has just heard from Mrs Sasi, President-in-Office of the Council.
Mr Elles was quite right to emphasise that it is absolutely essential to see responsibility exercised to the highest standard. I hope – to take Mr Barón Crespo's point – that this experience is not repeated, that we can ensure that specific and very clear provision is made so that there cannot be any repetition of the experience of recent weeks.
There are those who would say, and they have, I believe, rationality on their side, that the provisions of Article 213 of the Treaty and its references to integrity and discretion mean that for anyone who has an understanding of required standards in public life, little more should need to be said, if anything.
But if it is necessary – and I am conscious of being subject to the fact this issue is now before the court – even then to be more specific about what the implications of integrity and discretion are, then I am glad the House welcomes the developments that will take place as a consequence of the initiative taken by the President designate. I look forward to ensuring that there is a full response to both the appeal of Mr Barón Crespo and that of Mr Elles to the demonstration of the highest standards of public integrity.
I would also say that Mr Kreissl-Dörfler was right to emphasise, together with Mr Duff – in a very interesting maiden speech – that if all institutions do not demonstrate the highest standards of rectitude for themselves, by themselves, then those standards will be imposed externally, either in the form of punishment by the general public, initially through its apathy and detachment but maybe in other ways more directly, politically too, or by the Council taking a responsibility which others appear to be unwilling to demonstrate.
I do not believe the European Union, its institutions or its people would be enriched by that experience. It is a fair warning to all of us who serve the institutions and the European people that we are responsible for our own destiny and our own standards and we must therefore proceed without any form of delay to ensuring that those standards are as stringent as possible.
I was interested in the point made in another fine maiden speech by Miss van der Laan which calls for a response. I am happy to report to the House that she is a friend of some years and therefore my joy in witnessing her maiden speech was very particular. I see it was shared in other parts of the House. She said that it would be ‘better if the Commission had taken the step of reference to the Court of Justice’. I should like to say to her, therefore, that the Commission, as I reported earlier, discussed the matter in its meeting of 1 July. In that meeting the feeling was expressed that the issues relating to Mr Bangemann and to Article 213 had legal complexities that could not be speedily resolved. For that reason the Commission made plain its view in its statement of 1 July that there needed to be clarification of implementation of Article 213. There was no consensus at that meeting which supported reference to the Court of Justice at that stage. I say that to ensure that Members of this House understand that the issue is live, it has been a matter of discussion, the action has now been taken by the Council and that determines the path for the future. But there is no lack of concern or consideration in the current Commission, despite the fact that it is coming to the end of its life, in these issues.
I conclude by saying that Mrs Laguiller made an extremely valuable contribution to this debate because, like others, she dramatised the issue quite properly by drawing attention to the economic gaps in society and the way in which those divisions actually serve to emphasise the fact that it is absolutely essential for those of us who have the good fortune to hold representative and appointed positions in the public service to act with complete integrity and discretion. We enjoy a very considerable privilege. We must, therefore, show complete probity. This debate has served to underlined that. If anybody ever needed the lesson, this has added to it. I hope we can look forward to a future where no instruction will be necessary."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-07-22-Speech-4-002 | "I wonder if you are able to confirm, or your services are able to confirm, that this building, particularly the Tower Building, satisfies all aspects of health and safety legislation and whether it has a valid fire certificate. These are important issues and if it does not, then I think serious questions must be raised. I would therefore ask you either to confirm this categorically or, if not, to confirm that measures are taken to investigate the situation."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-07-22-Speech-4-004 | "Mr President, do I understand it that you are therefore not able to confirm what I asked? You are not confirming that the building satisfies health and safety and fire regulations? You said you will look at it and try to clarify the situation. What I am asking is: are you able to categorically confirm that the building satisfies these regulations, yes or no?"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-07-22-Speech-4-025 | "Mr President, given the history of the United Kingdom in relation to the BSE crisis, some delegates may consider that the UK is disqualified from giving an objective view. However, such a view would be wrong. It must be remembered that this was not our only crisis. We also had salmonella in eggs and listeria, giving us unparalleled experience in dealing with food safety crises.
On the matter of listeria, this crisis came to a head in 1989 when over 200 babies and young children had been killed in preceding years, far more than died of new variant CJD. What fellow Members may not know is that the main source of the disease was contaminated paté sold from three Belgian plants. Only when UK health officials intervened was the problem finally resolved. What this says is that it is not just the UK that has food safety problems. But what we have learned from our incidents is that precipitate reaction can often do more damage than the initial crises. Action needs to be carefully considered and based on good science.
In response to the dioxin incident, we see the Commission launching once again into frenzied legislative action. This is damaging British interests, in particular a company called Spalding Nutrition which is threatened by an entirely unnecessary ban. Thus, we would say: by all means have an enquiry, but first let us have a wide-ranging review of all Member States' systems for dealing with food and health scares, starting with an evaluation of the British system."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-07-22-Speech-4-027 | "The dioxin story is very familiar to those of us in the United Kingdom who have lived through BSE. Many of the ingredients are exactly the same – disagreeable and even disgusting practices in the preparation of some animal foodstuffs in a world of intensive agriculture and panic and deceit in some of the Member States concerned when the source of contamination is first discovered.
We must remember this was discovered in January 1999 and the Commission was only able to take action after a period of months and a good deal of obfuscation. What we have now seen is the same set of arguments that perhaps they were trying to avoid: a consumer panic and protection of a market – a market which is actually now much more imperilled by the way in which the crisis has unfolded.
I think there are dangers of overreaction and some Members have referred to that. What I would say is that we must learn lessons from this crisis. Firstly, a vigorous and properly funded inspectorate must be established to take a preventative role in this matter.
We are now talking about significant changes in the law, long lists of further regulations of substances which may be banned. I certainly do not know, because I do not have the technical expertise, whether the range of recovered vegetable oils which are now seen to be a source of risk should be subject to an outright ban, or whether it should simply be limited to some section of kitchen waste which should never have been in any form of animal foodstuff in the first instance. What I do know is that the inspectorate which we have fought for – we had to fight to get an effective budget for it, to set up the veterinary office in Brussels and to make sure that we had the principle of general inspections throughout the Community – that inspectorate finds itself threatened and bullied.
We have had examples in my country and in Belgium of people being physically threatened, of being blackmailed and in some instances even murdered! Now when that is the situation, how can we say that the proposal, welcome as it is, to look at a Europe-wide Food and Drugs Agency and all these grand gestures can work when no individual inspector can penetrate into the world of crime and fraud which characterises sections of this industry.
So, in my opinion, we have to put our own House in order in this matter. We have to be able to say, as the motion of the Socialist Group does, that the rule of law must apply, that we are a Community of law, and unless we have a universal application, which never happened in the wake of BSE, of the regulations, the situation cannot improve. Simply to bring forward new lists to imperil the producers and not to safeguard the consumer in the actions involved is the wrong way forward."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-07-22-Speech-4-032 | "Mr President, I want to focus on one particular issue which I feel has not been fully explored. Dioxin, and in this case its source chemical PCB, is one of the number of non-biodegradable bio-accumulative chemicals that we know are contaminating the food chain around the world. There are rules and regulations already in existence for the correct and proper disposal of these substances. Indeed, I was Parliament's rapporteur on the Council and Commission proposal for the elimination of PCBs and PCDs we dealt with in the last Parliament.
We have to ask if these existing European rules and regulations are being properly followed. Are the responsible authorities given the duty to dispose of these chemicals in a correct and safe way, following the rules, or are they deliberately avoiding them and disposing of these chemicals in the wrong way? This incident appears to indicate that is the case.
Unlike bacterial or some other form of organic or biological contamination of the food chain, we have here a finite quantity of substance that could easily be eliminated. Would the Commission please look into why the regulations on the proper disposal of PCBs and PCDs are not being correctly followed? Will they please investigate where the substances came from that caused this incident?"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-07-22-Speech-4-046 | "A small matter, Madam President. Is it possible to sort out the microphones? Those of us that must listen to interpretation for nearly every speaker are finding it very difficult to hear with the volume of these mikes. A small matter, but please resolve it.
(Applause)"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-07-22-Speech-4-056 | "Madam President, apparently the Committee of the Wise Men may be presenting their report to the President and the group leaders sometime today. If that is the case, could you please ensure that these are the final conclusions and that they are available to all Members as soon as possible?"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-07-23-Speech-5-012 | "Madam President, it has become a bit of a tradition in this House for Members to stand up and say that their name was not on the attendance list for the previous day. My name does not appear on the list for yesterday for some reason or other. Perhaps it might be a better system if one could just go up to the front desk somewhere and point out to a member of staff that one's name was not on the list, rather than having to rise and inform the whole House."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-07-23-Speech-5-019 | "I should like to begin by responding to the words of Maij-Weggen. The point is well made and well taken. I know that she feels strongly about this and that she is not alone in that.
That is the silver lining. It is a pity that first there had to be a cloud.
Whilst I obviously cannot commit my colleague, Mrs Loyola de Palacio, who is happily a Member of this House at the present time, to the development of her policy and approach in this House, there are several who feel that the time is right for further discussion between the Commission and Parliament on some of the procedures and conventions of this House, which obviously meets in more than one place, as well as the conventions and procedures of the College. I hope that discussion can proceed without great delay because there could be developments which would be of mutual benefit and would actually promote accountability and transparency in the service of the Union.
On the question before the House, I would like to make the following statement on behalf of the Commission. This week, the Commission issued a formal legal decision against the local organisers of last year's football World Cup tournament in France. The organisers were the CFO. That decision followed the organisation's use of discriminatory sales arrangements for tickets for matches.
As the House will recall, in 1996 and 1997 the system used by CFO favoured consumers who were able to provide an address in France. In the view of the Commission, that constituted an abuse of the organisation's dominant position in the market which is contrary to Article 82 of the Treaty. This was the first case in Community history in which Article 82 of the Treaty has been used to penalise a discriminatory practice that harms the interests of consumers without having a significant effect on the market. In reaching its decision therefore, the Commission took account of the fact that there were no previous decisions of the Commission or case-law from the Court of Justice to guide CFO in its ticketing policy. In addition it was evident that the ticketing arrangements used by CFO in 1996 and 1997 were exactly similar to those employed in previous World Cup tournaments and other similar major international contests.
As the House will recall, the Commission responded to complaints from people outside France who were finding it impossible to buy tickets by beginning an investigation. The CFO then quickly changed its policy and made efforts to make sure that tickets sold in 1998 were available without discrimination. Then 100, 000 tickets became available to everyone on a first-come-first-served basis.
The Commission judged that these factors – the unprecedented application of the law, the conventions relating to
previous ticket sales for international tournaments, and the constructive action of CFO – justified a symbolic rather than a punitive fine. In addition, it is relevant to add that a more substantial fine on the organisers of the 1998 World Cup in France would have imposed an obligation on the Commission to consider action against the organisers of previous major tournaments who used exactly the same ticketing policies. This could have meant, for example, action against the organisers of the 1996 European Championship because on that occasion, supporters benefitted from a sales scheme which favoured nationals over fans from abroad.
The French organising committee is not a normal commercial profit-seeking company. It exists for the interests of football and it is important to recognise that all profits reverted to the game of football. Fining the French organising committee means taking money away from grassroots football and from the promotion of the game and putting that money into the coffers of the European Commission. I do not believe that any genuine lover of football would think that was either sensible or acceptable.
I know that football supporters in parts of the Union have strongly criticised the size of the EUR 1, 000 fine. My colleagues and I can certainly understand such reactions when those reactions are not informed by the facts. I hope, however, that in this House and elsewhere, there will be recognition of the specific factors directly relevant to this case. The important – and I think the instructive – outcome of the case is plain. All future sports tournament organisers now clearly know that any ticketing arrangements must comply fully with European Community competition rules and be non-discriminatory. Secondly, they know that the Commission will not hesitate to take action against any organiser that fails to comply with those rules. Thirdly, they know that the symbolic approach could only be followed once, and in very particular circumstances.
These realities, in the view of the Commission, mean that standards of fair treatment for sports fans have been clarified and strengthened. They will definitely enjoy protection against discrimination in the future. The organisers of the Euro−2000 Cup in Belgium and the Netherlands have, for instance, contacted the Commission and as a result, they have adapted their sales system to meet the requirements of Community law. There has been no previous occasion on which a higher percentage of tickets has been made available to the general public with absolutely equal rights for all citizens of the European Union. We intend to keep it that way."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-07-23-Speech-5-020 | "Madam President, I want to congratulate Commissioner Kinnock on the statement he has just made. I simply do not know how he managed to keep a straight face as he read out those comments. That statement from the Commission was quite appalling. I do not blame Commissioner Kinnock himself, but I certainly blame the action, attitude and inaction, in fact, of the outgoing Commission. This is a pathetic fine from a pathetic Commission. All we can say is that it is absolutely typical of the way they have conducted affairs over the last five years. I only hope that the President-elect Mr Prodi will take this as an example of how not to do it.
I was one of 32 Members of this Parliament who took a private legal action before the French courts last year in a last-ditch attempt to get more tickets for fans across Europe. Unfortunately, when we went to the French courts, we were told that it was too late at that stage to get the redistribution of tickets ordered, although the French courts themselves recognised that European rules had been flouted in the procedure that was followed.
I should like to point out that the costs to the individual Members of Parliament who took that legal action was, surprise, surprise, in the order of £1000 each, something rather more than the fine that has now been imposed upon the World Cup organisers.
The Commission itself, had it wished, had the power to impose a fine of something like EUR 20m – perhaps even more – if it had taken this seriously. It did not take it seriously in 1997 when it could have taken action to ensure a fair distribution. It did not take it seriously in 1998 when we had the problem and fans across Europe were denied the opportunity to see the World Cup. It is not taking it seriously now. What sort of message is this giving out to sports organisers? Commissioner Kinnock called this a symbolic fine. Well, it is certainly giving a sign that it does not take it seriously at all. We are talking about big business here. The amounts of money involved are significant. Something like £300m, I am told, was the turnover of the World Cup; the fine something like EUR 1000. This is simply not acceptable at all.
The sign that is being given is that the Commission is turning a blind eye, that it is not really worried. It is saying to large-scale organisers: ‘You can carry on exploiting the fans’. It is also saying that this is the way to encourage – and it is encouraging – a black market in these tickets. It must do something to stop it. Sport is now big business. The Commission in future must show that it means business to ensure that sport, like other businesses across Europe, must observe European rules and regulations."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-07-23-Speech-5-021 | "Madam President, I thank the Commission and Commissioner Kinnock for being available to make this statement following my request earlier in the week. While I welcome the fact they are here to make the statement, I am disappointed in its content.
I am told I do not like football: I am a Manchester City season-ticket holder. I am told that the Commissioner has similar problems with a rumoured enthusiasm for Cardiff City which may explain some of the difficulties we both face. Nevertheless, I agree that the French Football Federation put on a wonderful feast of football. The French ‘rainbow team’ did much to confound the xenophobics and racists who, like Mr Le Pen and our unlamented former colleague Mr Mègret, believe that to be French is to be white. Yet importantly, there clearly was a breach of competition rules on a massive scale. Commissioner Kinnock talked about 180, 000 tickets being made available to football fans across Europe. That was after 600, 000 tickets were sold on a discriminatory basis. The organising committee deliberately and provocatively ignored early on the requirement that all citizens of the European Union be treated equally, and clearly breached Article 82 of the Treaty. In doing so, they massively increased their profits, selling tickets in corporate blocks as small as one. You could not buy a ticket by telephoning and paying FF500, but for FF5, 000 you could get the same ticket and the equivalent of a school dinner – I have had corporate hospitality before.
If Commissioner Kinnock is asking me if I believe that the European Commission could actually help grassroots football better than the multinational corporations who actually rely on the profits, I would actually vote for the European Commission. It may not be a very popular move but I have seen very little evidence of the people who are making multi-millions of pounds out of football putting it back into football. They are putting it into franchising and other things.
This also endangered the security of thousands of football fans. It turned tens of thousands of French men and women into amateur ticket touts. If they bought their allocation of four tickets each for a major match and sold them on the black market, they had enough money for two of them to take a two-week holiday in Australia. It was very difficult to imagine that French men and women would not pick up tickets and sell them in that way and clearly that was happening.
In these circumstances, therefore, does the Commissioner not agree that football fans will think it is absolutely ludicrous, the EUR 1000 fine – which was about the black-market price for a ticket for England-Argentina – that ticket touts will think that this is good news and that genuine football fans will be disappointed? Can he not confirm that we could have fined the French football authorities something between FF 100m and FF 200m, which was something like 10 % of the extra profits they made? Does he not believe that the excuse that the organising federation no longer exists is actually a facile one when clearly it is the responsibility of the French Football Federation?
Does he not agree that the message to the organisers of Europe 2000, to the organisers of Europe 2004 and the possible organisers of the Mondiale 2006, whether in Germany or the United Kingdom, is that they can ignore the rules, maximise profits and in the end, all it costs them is the small change?
Should the Commission be treating football differently from any other multi-billion pound industrial operation? It seems to me that if this had been in the telecommunications sector or elsewhere, the notion that we would have come back with a symbolic fine in circumstances where people had increased their profits by £200m or £300m would have been as ludicrous as the symbolic fine appears to football fans."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-07-23-Speech-5-022 | "Madam President, our former Belgian Socialist colleague, Mr De Coene, and I led the group of 30 MEPs who took the case to the High Court in Paris last year. The tribunal there found in our favour. They found that the European law had been broken by the CFO. They dismissed our case on a technicality, finding that we were inadmissible as litigants. But we took action because we were not convinced that the European Commission was standing up for the rights of the European citizen. As a result of our action, we were assured by Commissioner Van Miert that the Commission would prosecute this to the very end. That action, as Mr Perry has pointed out, cost us individually more than EUR 1000 each. Members of this House are sick at the fine that has been imposed by the European Commission on the CFO. I can well imagine why Commissioner Van Miert did not want to come here personally to make this statement today.
This is not the first time that the World Cup organisers have rigged the sales of tickets against the ordinary football fan. But it is the first time that they have trumpeted their tournament as the first billion-dollar World Cup. They have made millions out of discriminatory sales arrangements. If the Commission had pursued this abuse of Article 82 as rigorously as it pursues abuses in other areas of industry then this fine would have been not £600 but £6m or more.
The Commissioner tells us that the interests of consumers were harmed but that this had no serious effect on the market. I suggest to the Commissioner that it has a very serious effect on the European Union's reputation. He tells us that there was nothing to guide the CFO. What about the fine that the Commission imposed on the Italian organisers of the World Cup in 1990, a fine which was, in fact, larger than the fine that is imposed on the CFO this year? What about the exchange of correspondence between the CFO and the European Commission which started the previous July?
Unlike Mr Ford, who represents the Southwest but supports Manchester City, I do not support any football club, but I do support the right of the European citizen to be protected from discriminatory practices and the abuse of a dominant market position. I support the European Union in developing its role to protect those citizens. To me, this fine sends to the European citizen the message that Europe is on the side of big business and not on the side of the ordinary man or woman in the street.
In my view, this is a sad-and-sorry ending to a sad-and-sorry Commission. I hope that our new Commissioners, when they have been approved in September, will have rather more backbone in taking up this kind of case on behalf of the people of Europe.
(Applause )"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-07-23-Speech-5-026 | "Madam President, I am here to speak on behalf of millions of women football fans. I welcome Commissioner Kinnock's reassurances.
I must say that I was appalled at how the ticket allocation was handled by the French authorities. I know that a large number of people in Britain were equally frustrated. The release of the tickets was really too late for most people to be able to take up those opportunities given their work commitments. What we need, I believe, is some joined-up thinking.
One of the main objectives of the EU institutions is to ensure that citizens of all EU countries are treated fairly and equally. In this instance, millions of football fans were discriminated against. And yet, this breach is taken lightly. Whatever the reasons for that particular measly fine, it will alienate a large number of fans. It is another missed opportunity to connect with the people of Europe. Football is a passion that unites all the countries. What better way for us to change our image and connect with the people of Europe than to say that we take football as seriously as we take any branch of commerce."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-07-23-Speech-5-027 | ". – I should like to begin where Ms Gill left off, first of all by congratulating her on her maiden speech in this House. She will never feel such fear again or derive such satisfaction. I am sure the whole House thanks her for her contribution. Indeed, she summed up the feelings of the Commission in many ways when she said that she deeply regretted the existence of discrimination. That is the universal feeling in the Commission, which is why my colleague, Mr Van Miert, and his associates in the Commission specifically sought to do something effective about preventing for all time in the future and indeed for 1998 the use of discriminatory practices by CFO.
I should like to take up where Mr Vander Taelen left off. When he said that football is a valid alternative to war I was reminded of the maxim that the first casualty of war is truth. As I listened to some of the contributions in the course of this debate, I could not escape the feeling that sometimes the first casualty of football is truth because there were one or two contributions that were made passionately, but largely without the recognition of fact. I would like to respond on behalf of the Commission, with some repetition of fact. I regret it if I am repetitive, but if at first people do not hear, perhaps they will hear the second time.
I begin with Mr Perry. I enjoyed his recitation of sound-bites about pathetic, appalling and all the rest of it. But what is he really saying when he says that the European Commission has the power to impose a EUR 20m fine? In theory and in constitutional terms, he is right. But is he really suggesting that the European Commission should take EUR 20m or EUR 30m out of football and put it in the coffers of the European Commission? Mr Ford says ‘yes’, he would rather that the European Commission have the money than the CFO. He demonstrated a surprising distance from the realities of public opinion. This man has been my friend for a considerable time. I admire everything but his taste in football clubs. But the fact remains that if that were the course of action taken, he knows what the headlines would be. So does Mr Watson, who is disturbed about the reputation of the European Union. He knows the headlines would say: ‘Euros snatched from football’.
Let us be rational. Is it sensible in the circumstances to take the money in large amounts from football and deposit it in the European Commission's coffers, or is it sensible to take action that guarantees that on no future occasion will there be discriminatory sales of football or other international tournament tickets? Then Mr Perry says that he wants this action to be absolutely firm and ferocious. I can understand the sentiment. But to be consistent the same action would have to be taken against the organisers of the European Cup competition which happened to be in the United Kingdom in 1996. Football came home, it was said. Are we really suggesting in this House, or anywhere else, that we should look back to 1996 or comparable competitions and say that we are dishing out EUR 20m fines on those who organised these competitions? Come on. Let us be rational.
Let me return very briefly again to Mr Ford. He said those who make money out of football should put it back in. He knows very well that I am zealous in my support of that view. But I would suggest that we have to do rather more than attend only to international football ticket sales in order to bring about that intelligent and necessary recycling of funds.
One point I want to focus on, in what Mr Ford said, is that the Commission, he alleges, is sending out the message to organisers of Euro 2000 and maybe future World Cup competitions in the European Union that they can ignore the rules. The absolute opposite is taking place. I had already said ten minutes before Mr Ford spoke that the organisers of the Belgian and Netherlands European championship have been in touch with the Commission and not a single ticket will be sold on a discriminatory basis. They are already obeying the rules, setting the precedent, and, at all future times in the European Union, that will be the way in which affairs are conducted. The football supporters and supporters of other sports quite rightly will now know that they have the protection of the law and organisers of tournaments will know that they will be the object of real and heavy punishment if they break what are now known to be the rules.
This is the point. There was no knowledge of the rules. There is no case-law from the Court of Justice. There is no precedent of action by the European Commission. The money would have been taken out of football if there had been a heavier fine. There would have to be a further effort to levy fines against previous organisers. The fact is that CFO, who I do not paint as plaster saints, the moment that our investigation commenced, stopped the discriminatory sales. Everybody would have liked that to have occurred earlier, but it did happen. When Mr Watson says, therefore, that this is not the first time that organisers have rigged the sales, he may be right. But this is the first time that the legal competition authority has stopped the rigging, stopped the discriminatory sales and the first time that any competition authority in the world has prevented for all future time the use of discriminatory methods in the sale of tickets.
Mr Watson accepted my point when I said that this was a case where consumers were hit but the effect was not on the market as it is generally understood. I think he conceded that because he said that was my claim and the problem was that the reputation of Europe had suffered. I would put this point to him, a man for whom I have very high regard, as I do for the other participants in this debate: that reputation can only suffer if what has occurred is misrepresented. I know there is no-one in this House who will ever want to do that. I therefore appeal for attention to the facts. Whilst I fully understand and indeed, to a degree, share the passions about the way in which the big business of football so frequently now is operating in ways that contradict the interests of genuine football fans, I accept all that. I ask for fair treatment in this case as indeed in many others.
It was uncharacteristically unworthy of one honourable Member to say that he could understand why my colleague Mr Van Miert is not here because of the gravity of this case. If there has ever been a Commissioner in the forty-two year history of the European Union who has publicly demonstrated integrity and guts, it is Mr Van Miert. The reason he is not here this morning is because he has to attend to his work, not from any cowardice. It is infamous for anybody to even infer that is the reason for his absence."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-13-Speech-1-006 | "Madam President, I respect what you say about not engaging in the debate and I will not seek to do so. But I wonder if you could give an undertaking to reply to the letter that I and a number of other Members specifically wrote to you personally on the issue of disability access. If we were to receive that reply in advance of Friday, it would help the issue enormously."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-13-Speech-1-012 | "Madam President, I should like to request that the “no smoking” areas are respected, which was not the case at the last Strasbourg session. As an asthmatic, I had two asthma attacks in this building during the last session. I do not wish to repeat that performance. I am sure there are other people in this building who also have asthma and other lung problems, so I request that all “no smoking” areas are respected."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-13-Speech-1-020 | "Madam Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I see that certain Members in the House at this time are raising banners in support of a cause. I am sure the overwhelming majority, myself included, agree with the sentiment but can you advise us on any rules, regulations or guidance that you wish to give this House in terms of manifestations in any form other than speaking under the Rules of Procedure of the House?"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-13-Speech-1-028 | "Madam Chairman, I rise with regard to an item on the agenda for Wednesday, 15 September. I am rather surprised to see a procedure without debate on a report under the name of Mr Westendorp. I have the document of this report in which it says that the committee voted it. I was in attendance in the committee at this time and I am not aware that this report was voted. I think there has been a misunderstanding or a mistake within the secretariat of the committee. I am giving advance notice that this is a matter subject to a query and that we may have to object to this item on the agenda."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-13-Speech-1-040 | "Mr President, we are being asked to comment on a 283-page report that was not released until late on Friday morning, and that was produced in two languages. In between there has been a weekend and today most people have spent the whole day travelling to Strasbourg.
We cannot possibly comment in any way at all in such a short space of time. It is not possible for us to have formed any real opinions. For certain, no business would ever operate like this. But perhaps I should not be surprised because it seems to me that in the European Union one is drowned in paper to the level where the European Parliament – and, I am sure, the Council of Ministers – cannot actually read what they are being asked to approve. In this world the bureaucrat most certainly is king.
There are, however, two points that I have picked up: firstly the outgoing Commissioners complained that in practice they were unable to supervise the actions of their most senior officials, namely, their Directors-General. It seems to me unacceptable that the Commissioners can be the executive of the EU without having the responsibility that goes with it. But the real meat of this is Recommendation No. 59 which urges strongly the appointment of a European public prosecutor, which urges strongly a European prosecution office with delegated public prosecutors in Member States to create “an area of freedom, security and justice as laid down in the Treaty”.
The British Government has repeatedly told us that
was merely a discussion document. And yet it would appear that we are at the beginning now of an entirely new legal system just for the sake of a few fraudulent officials. It is quite unacceptable."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-13-Speech-1-042 | "Mr President, I am very grateful for the opportunity which this House has provided for comment by the Commission in this debate. The report of the Committee of Independent Experts is obviously large in size and scope and significance, and I know that at this stage Parliament will not seek detailed references to every one of the many comments and valid conclusions. The House will be right, however, to expect effective Commission responses to the recommendations of the committee as we proceed with reform. In this case, as in many others, deeds speak louder than words. As far as I am concerned, and as far as the President and Commission-designate are concerned, that is a maxim and a reality that will shape the reforming mission of the Commission from the outset, if that is the decision of the vote in this House on Wednesday.
In the same spirit, the Commission will respond to the report by setting up an internal audit service, as recommended by the committee, and we reiterate our commitment to the strengthening of financial cells in all directorates-general. As an immediate development, the control of technical assistance organisations is being made more rigorous and specific, and radical reform will ensure clear definition of the core public service functions of Commission officials and effectively supervised and accountable management of executive agencies. A complete overhaul of personnel policy will take place and it will focus in particular on the areas of weakness identified in the report and elsewhere including the Commission’s own stringent report, notably recruitment, discipline and career development and training.
The Committee of Independent Experts advanced the arguments for establishing a committee on standards of public life at European level. The House will know that the Council and this Parliament, as well as the Commission, will obviously have to deliberate on that. As an individual however, I must say that I believe that the functions set out by the committee should be fulfilled either by an existing suitable body or by a new organisation. I hope therefore that all the European institutions will be willing to proceed on that basis. I am certain that the Committee of Wise Men is not exercised by the name of such a body. It is the fulfilment of the functions relating to public standards that is really required.
The Commission of the future must be an independent, permanent and capable public service that puts the principles of accountability, efficiency and transparency to work at all times. The values sustaining the institution should moreover be centred on an ethos of good management, value for money, clear communication, merit and duty to the citizens and taxpayers of the European Union. My colleagues and I share strong commitment to those purposes and to the practical changes need to achieve them. We do not promise instant gains. We do promise unceasing effort. We shall get the advances which the people of the Union deserve and the people of the Union have the right to expect. Given the chance by the vote of this Parliament, we will show that, not in our words but in our deeds.
Mr President, the Committee of Independent Experts has provided us with a comprehensive and constructive report which shows impressive insight and makes practical proposals for progress that is deep, broad and indeed essential. Its diagnosis is of an institution overtaken by, and to some extent overwhelmed by, increases and shifts in demands which over the years should have been met by new standards and methods of management, of practice and of openness, but were not met by those means. The report says that everything outside the Commission changed, whilst it remained largely untouched. The past ruled, conventions paralysed.
Of course a diagnosis is not an excuse, it is at best an explanation which provides the basis for remedy. That is how the report is received in the Commission, the current Commission which has days to live, and the Commission-designate. It must be used by the Commission and, as the committee emphasises, by Member States and by this House as a charter for change, a prescription for cure. That is the essential validity of this report from the Committee of Independent Experts.
As the committee acknowledges in several references, some of the changes needed have taken place and some are in prospect. That recognition is very encouraging. It demonstrates a clear alignment between the recommendations of the committee and the reforms that have been undertaken and the reforms that are impending. There is however no lasting comfort to be taken from that. To the great frustration of those in the Commission and those in this House who have promoted reform, and as we have just heard from Mr Dell’Alba, the advances made so far have been sporadic and not conceived and not implemented as a managed programme of change.
Reform has therefore not gone far enough, fast enough or deep enough. It has been approached in a way that has meant it has not been offered or pursued with the explanation and the reorientation necessary to gain an understanding of purposes and of outcomes. It has therefore not motivated the will of the many high-quality people which, as the report says on several occasions, are in the Commission services. Even those who are interested in and committed to change have not been imbued with a sense of urgency or, crucially, Mr President, a feeling of ownership of reform. The cumulative efforts to modernise have therefore not been strong enough to replace an outdated and deficient culture with the practices and instincts of what is generally termed new public management as it has developed over the last 20 years in several other modern administrations. That must change – and it will change.
Mr President, I heed and I fully understand the view of the committee in its final remarks that no single measure can deal with the problem of mentality, but I do believe that a clear and comprehensive reform strategy, effective mechanisms for vigorously assessing and insisting upon the achievement of objectives, quality of public service and value for money, vocational training in the techniques and ethics of management, strictly meritocratic promotion, fair, firm and trustworthy disciplinary procedures, continual emphasis on professionalism and probity in the college and in the services can mould mentality. That is not a wish-list. It is an outline of the changes that will be designed, the changes that will be put into effect.
In undertaking those tasks we have the advantage of the commitment of the many people in the Commission services who, as the committee says, sincerely want to contribute to radical improvement. The reform effort can therefore be with the grain of the attitudes of a large number of the Commission staff at all levels from the most senior to the most recently arrived. Some may not yet share the broad desire for improvement, however. They would be well advised to recognise the weight of political and public opinion that propels the change and has given rise to the circumstances that now starkly confront the institution that I represent and indeed all of the European institutions. I also trust that those who may fear reform as a source of insecurity, of disturbance will, on reflection, come to understand that change is the path to security. It is institutions, administrations, companies which fail to anticipate and to respond productively to new demands that doom themselves and the people who work for them to insecurity and the turmoil that comes with it.
Against the background of all these considerations and the statements that we have heard from political leaders in this House today, I offer on behalf of the Commission-designate the pledge that the report will be treated as a fundamental ingredient in the Commission’s reform proposals. The February reform strategy will therefore address all of the issues raised, propose the relevant action and set out the means of taking that action.
I equally give the undertaking that the complete overhaul of the Commission’s financial management and control systems will be intensified, taking full account of the specific recommendations of the Committee on all matters including those raised by those who have so far spoken in the debate on subsidies and much else. In particular, the Commission pledges to move systematically from the traditional dependence on ex-ante financial control to an integrated system of financial management and auditing in which the responsibilities of individual officers are clearly defined, monitored and reinforced."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-13-Speech-1-050 | "Mr President, I, along with my Socialist colleagues very much welcome this report which underlines the work that we have done in the Budgetary Control Committee and really is built upon that. There are several very radical recommendations, not least the one that establishes the post of the European public prosecutor. Time and again many Eurosceptics have used fraud within the European Union institutions as a battering ram to beat us with. Of course any degree of maladministration and fraud must be weeded out. But this makes clear that 80% of the problem lies within the Member States themselves.
The recommendation to establish a European public prosecutor, as proposed, would mean that there would be a mechanism to present criminal cases relating to EU fraud throughout the Union but it would not impinge on the jurisdiction of national courts. That is the way it has been written. It is sensitive to Member States’ worries. A series of shortcomings within the institutions have been identified in this report and recommendations are made here for correcting the problems. We look forward to developing the action programme for reform with the Commissioner responsible and although we have not had time to look at it in detail, I believe it would be fair to ask the Commissioner for a clear discussion and justification on why steps are not taken if some recommendations are left out. I am sure we will not agree with every single detail in this report but that would be a useful exercise nevertheless.
The whole question of outside bodies doing work for the Commission is an area that needs clear attention. Whose responsibilities are the bureaus for technical assistance? Can we tighten-up the contracts granted to these bodies? How can we simplify procedures and make staff within the Commission more knowledgeable about tendering processes? The proposals outlined by Commissioner Kinnock in his hearing, in particular in the field of training, need more detailed response. We look forward to hearing more of his ideas over the next few months.
I hope people will take time to read the report which clearly distinguishes between fraud and irregularity. The report states that of all the thousands of transactions which take place within the European Union institutions there are only 30 investigations involving Commission officials in fraud. Of course that is 30 too many, but the main cause of concern are the many examples of irregularities. This is an administrative problem, not a criminal issue. But measures are needed to tighten up the slack administrative practices, to rewrite poor regulations, to cut down complicated payment mechanisms, dispense with excessive exceptions and derogations which lead to the far too many irregularities and errors. It is these irregularities that give rise to alarmist headlines when we are presented with the Court of Auditors’ report on an annual basis.
The report also correctly referred to the regulation on the protection of the financial interests of the European Community and points out that only three Member States have ratified the regulation. I am sure this report will give food for thought to those Member States that have not signed. It will be interesting to note how they respond in particular to the recommendation on the creation in each Member State of a national prosecution office for European offences.
It is indeed appropriate that this report is published this week when we are about to decide on the fate of a new Commission. It is interesting in particular, in the light of recent events, that the Committee of Experts recommends that legal powers are given to allow the Commission President to sack individual Commissioners. This week we also received from the Commission a request on the supplementary and amending budget for money to establish the staff necessary to operate the new fraud office, OLAF. We would also concur with the report that specialised expertise is needed for these posts, and the need to make more effective use of information technology in intelligence gathering.
The report itself should also be a lesson to us all within the European Union institutions. It has been clearly written, is really easily accessible and avoids jargon wherever possible. It is really a model on how to write European legislation. Having said that we welcome the move from ex ante to ongoing ex post control in the budget control mechanisms within the Commission. We would like to see that implemented. Again, we will have further discussions on that in the committee.
We are at the dawn of a new era within the European Union institutions. We look forward to a time when officials are promoted on merit. We look forward to recruitment of people with appropriate expertise in specific sectors. We look forward to the commitments already made on whistle-blowers being implemented. But most of all we look forward to a time when every official and Member State Government responds to a new culture of responsibility. The next few months and years will be critical. But let us not forget that we have a base on which to build. The report is clear in its praise of the commitment and experience of most officials. From this week on a new chapter is being written. The plot is outlined in this report. It will be written by the Commission but Parliament will insist on strong editorial control. In partnership we can rebuild confidence in the institutions, not only for the people who work within them but most of all, for the people they serve."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-13-Speech-1-059 | "Mr President, I, along with my Socialist colleagues very much welcome this report which underlines the work that we have done in the Budgetary Control Committee and really is built upon that. There are several very radical recommendations, not least the one that establishes the post of the European public prosecutor. Time and again many Eurosceptics have used fraud within the European Union institutions as a battering ram to beat us with. Of course any degree of maladministration and fraud must be weeded out. But this makes clear that 80% of the problem lies within the Member States themselves.
The recommendation to establish a European public prosecutor, as proposed, would mean that there would be a mechanism to present criminal cases relating to EU fraud throughout the Union but it would not impinge on the jurisdiction of national courts. That is the way it has been written. It is sensitive to Member States’ worries. A series of shortcomings within the institutions have been identified in this report and recommendations are made here for correcting the problems. We look forward to developing the action programme for reform with the Commissioner responsible and although we have not had time to look at it in detail, I believe it would be fair to ask the Commissioner for a clear discussion and justification on why steps are not taken if some recommendations are left out. I am sure we will not agree with every single detail in this report but that would be a useful exercise nevertheless.
The whole question of outside bodies doing work for the Commission is an area that needs clear attention. Whose responsibilities are the bureaus for technical assistance? Can we tighten-up the contracts granted to these bodies? How can we simplify procedures and make staff within the Commission more knowledgeable about tendering processes? The proposals outlined by Commissioner Kinnock in his hearing, in particular in the field of training, need more detailed response. We look forward to hearing more of his ideas over the next few months.
I hope people will take time to read the report which clearly distinguishes between fraud and irregularity. The report states that of all the thousands of transactions which take place within the European Union institutions there are only 30 investigations involving Commission officials in fraud. Of course that is 30 too many, but the main cause of concern are the many examples of irregularities. This is an administrative problem, not a criminal issue. But measures are needed to tighten up the slack administrative practices, to rewrite poor regulations, to cut down complicated payment mechanisms, dispense with excessive exceptions and derogations which lead to the far too many irregularities and errors. It is these irregularities that give rise to alarmist headlines when we are presented with the Court of Auditors’ report on an annual basis.
The report also correctly referred to the regulation on the protection of the financial interests of the European Community and points out that only three Member States have ratified the regulation. I am sure this report will give food for thought to those Member States that have not signed. It will be interesting to note how they respond in particular to the recommendation on the creation in each Member State of a national prosecution office for European offences.
It is indeed appropriate that this report is published this week when we are about to decide on the fate of a new Commission. It is interesting in particular, in the light of recent events, that the Committee of Experts recommends that legal powers are given to allow the Commission President to sack individual Commissioners. This week we also received from the Commission a request on the supplementary and amending budget for money to establish the staff necessary to operate the new fraud office, OLAF. We would also concur with the report that specialised expertise is needed for these posts, and the need to make more effective use of information technology in intelligence gathering.
The report itself should also be a lesson to us all within the European Union institutions. It has been clearly written, is really easily accessible and avoids jargon wherever possible. It is really a model on how to write European legislation. Having said that we welcome the move from ex ante to ongoing ex post control in the budget control mechanisms within the Commission. We would like to see that implemented. Again, we will have further discussions on that in the committee.
We are at the dawn of a new era within the European Union institutions. We look forward to a time when officials are promoted on merit. We look forward to recruitment of people with appropriate expertise in specific sectors. We look forward to the commitments already made on whistle-blowers being implemented. But most of all we look forward to a time when every official and Member State Government responds to a new culture of responsibility. The next few months and years will be critical. But let us not forget that we have a base on which to build. The report is clear in its praise of the commitment and experience of most officials. From this week on a new chapter is being written. The plot is outlined in this report. It will be written by the Commission but Parliament will insist on strong editorial control. In partnership we can rebuild confidence in the institutions, not only for the people who work within them but most of all, for the people they serve."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-13-Speech-1-060 | "I will speak, as I can at this juncture, only on behalf of the current Commission. As I said earlier, my fate is in the hands of this Parliament. Depending on the vote on Wednesday, either I have taken up much too much of Parliament’s time already in putting forward a point of view or we are at the start of something big. It is for Parliament to choose, therefore, which capacity I speak in on this particular evening."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-13-Speech-1-061 | "It really must be a big question because there are an awful lot of questions on your plate. I hope you can answer some of them at least."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-13-Speech-1-062 | "I am sure you will join me in regretting that there are many more questions than there are Members in the House. Indeed, even after four and a half years, I am constantly struck by cultural shock since at Westminster, unlike in this Parliament, to speak in the debate is to impose an automatic requirement to sit in that debate throughout and never to depart unless and until permission of the Chair is given, the understanding of fellow Members in the House is received or business is so pressing as in fact to forbid you from participating in the debate in the first place. Nevertheless there are differing traditions throughout this democratic association of Member States and I respect all of them
Mr Elles raised several interesting questions. I will not be able in the time available to answer all of them. I would just like to touch if I may on two. I have already touched on the question of the European public prosecutor which he raised. In trying to secure real and durable improvement in what he described as the financial control environment, he will know that there have been efforts to achieve this through more effective allocation of responsibilities and effective central coordination monitoring unnecessary control. The idea set out in the report of the Committee of Wise Men for the establishment of the internal audit service in the way that they described it represents in my view and the view of my colleagues a significant step ahead. We can I suppose be blamed for not making this change spontaneously – it is one of several recommendations in the Committee of Wise Men which we should take, which we should think about quickly and exploit to the full. I hope that we will have Parliament with us on that.
Finally, if I can simply say that on the question of whistleblowers, raised by many Members including Mr Elles, I hope that I made clear last week what my intentions are for securing change in the current system, that will ensure, if I can put it briefly, complete fairness and security for those who exercise their duty of reporting, for those who are the object of accusation and for the institution as a whole and through that the European taxpayer. We know that there are innovative systems now in existence amongst many Member States. We want to learn quickly from the best of those and seek radical reform in this area. It is a basic requirement of effective and accountable public administration. I cannot give an absolute date for the introduction of change. To some extent its full introduction will depend upon agreement between the institutions, but in terms of setting out in detail what I and my colleagues want and pursuing that with vigour, Parliament has absolute undertakings on that. The changes I want in my view cannot come quickly enough. They will work to the benefit of the whole of the Union.
I hope the House will forgive me, Mr President, if I end there. There is much more than I would like to say. Can I offer reassurance on a point that has been raised by many Members. As I said, I think in my first or second sentence this afternoon, this Commission-designate will, if the Parliament votes for it on Wednesday, have years of opportunity to demonstrate how seriously it takes the recommendations and indeed the admonitions of the Committee of Wise Men. We will strive to do that, to our best endeavours and in good faith. In the course of doing it we will have extensive opportunities to discuss in detail what was produced last Friday by the Committee of Wise Men. As I indicated earlier, it is not just the discussions that will be important, it is the decisions and actions following from it. In this, as in many other things, it is the verb that matters more than the noun.
Can I begin by taking issue with one tiny point put forward by my very good friend, Mr Colom I Naval who said that he hoped that this was a full stop to an unhappy episode in the history of the Union. I can certainly sympathise with his sentiment, but I rather regard the publication of the second report of the Committee of Wise Men as more of a stage in necessary progress than any sort of a finishing line. I am sure on reflection that will be the view of a large number of Members of this House.
Can I also say to Mr Schori that I congratulate him on his maiden speech. As he has discovered, on previous occasions, politics is about the only profession in which it is possible to be a maiden more than once! It is difficult to think of Mr Schori as a maiden of any description after his very long and distinguished career in democratic politics over many years. I firmly underline and endorse his view that he hopes that we are at the beginning of the kind of reforms the people want. I am certain that he, throughout his parliamentary career here, will as on previous occasions be vigilant in ensuring that we try to achieve those objectives.
Mrs Theato who is not with us at this juncture, but nevertheless made important points, as she invariably does, raised the question relating to this Parliament getting access to documents that were given as part of evidence to the Committee of Wise Men. I can only say what I said in answer to my written answers to the questionnaire and repeated last week that transparency should be maximised. It is important, however, to respect the right of individuals who give evidence in confidence, and confidentiality must therefore be observed where necessary. I consequently believe that the Commission and Parliament should work together to ensure that these dual objectives – transparency and the need to honour undertakings given to individuals who gave their evidence in confidence – are met in deciding on the final destination of the complete archives and on rules relating to access to those archives in a secure environment.
(para)I hope I can say conclusively that in all the words I have used, both in that written reply and last week in the hearings, there is no intention of trying to obscure or to evade the full requirements of transparency. I do not think I can say it any more clearly and strongly than that, and if any misunderstanding persists, I will do everything I can to completely remove it. We are in agreement about the objectives. I am certain that nobody in Parliament would want to fail to honour commitments given to people who gave evidence on the understanding that they would enjoy confidentiality; but in all other respects, if we can agree on a workable means of ensuring the proper depositing of that evidence with the agreement of the Committee of Wise Men, then I am sure we should do it. I hope that will be very clear.
Can I now move to this question of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office that has been suggested, not for the first time. Indeed, it was first suggested by this Parliament. All I can say is that we can only speculate about the response of Member States on that proposal. However, without going into the immense complications that will attend any further developments in a manner suggested by the Committee of Wise Men, I should like to say that crime is increasingly internationalised. All efforts to fight crime equally have to be internationalised and, whatever else happens, there has to be improved coordination and cooperation between the judicial and other relevant bodies of this European Union. I am certain that no responsible person, certainly no elected representative or Member of the Commission, would want it otherwise. I look forward to the continuation of the debate launched in many ways by reports from this Parliament. I am absolutely certain that if we understand that we all have this shared purpose in combating and deterring fraud, we shall want to maximise the means of doing that by any rational means available to our democracies.
Can I say to several Members, including particularly Mrs Morgan who has just spoken and Mrs Van der Laan who explained to me why she had to be absent from this part of the debate, that the Committee of Wise Men is extremely explicit about the way in which there has to be a joint and cooperative approach by Member States, by this House and by the Commission in securing the extent and depth of reform which this European Union in its fourth decade must achieve. It was said indeed during the debate that we should try to ensure that we get that kind of association as a precondition for successful change. I understand and completely accept that as a basic purpose but I have to say that there are changes that we must secure in the Commission, the executive administration of the Union, that simply will not wait for what by definition will be a prolonged and very thorough activity.
I am sure that Parliament will excuse us if we make some innovative departures by ourselves.
If I can come very quickly – because I do not want to detain the House for too long and I am conscious of the fact that this is the second speech that I was invited to make by the Parliament – to this question of Recommendation 36 and Commissioner’s responsibility. I am grateful to Mr Lagendijk for the way in which he raised the question, not only because he was right to draw our attention to the provisions of Recommendation 36, which I happen to agree with, but also because it gives me an opportunity to reply to another Member who chose to represent my references in answer to the questionnaire and the references made by some of my colleagues in the Commission-designate to effective management by the services in the services as somehow abdicating the responsibility of Commissioners. It is no such thing. I believe that Commissioners must have and accept overall political and managerial responsibility. But it would be absurd and inconsistent for us in one breath to be advocating the effective decentralisation of responsibility and the increase in accountability that derives from that and at the same time presuming to sit on the shoulders of every manager in the European Commission. That is not the way to enhance efficiency and accountability, it would simply be a more rigid form of centralisation that would not help anyone."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-13-Speech-1-063 | "As you have indicated, Commissioner, this matter will be under discussion for weeks, months, years and possibly even generations in the future. But thank you just now."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-13-Speech-1-065 | "The next item on the agenda is the report () by Ms McKenna, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the proposal for a Council Decision setting up a Community framework for cooperation in the field of accidental marine pollution."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-13-Speech-1-066 | "Mr President, I am rather disappointed that the Commissioner responsible, Commissioner Bjerregaard, is not here. It is rather disappointing that the Member of the Commission responsible for this issue is not here and that someone else is here who is not responsible for this portfolio. It makes a laughing-stock of the debates in this Parliament.
Marine pollution, accidental and deliberate, is one of the major threats to the marine environment of Western Europe. This region represents one of the most intensively industrialised areas of the world where chemical, radioactive and hydrocarbon materials are routinely discharged into the marine environment and carried by cargo ships. The region also contains one of the highest concentrations of shipping and includes several of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. There are several tragic examples of accidental pollution from tankers and from other ships carrying various forms of dangerous cargoes. More by good fortune than by good planning there has not yet been a major accident resulting in radioactive spillage with a ship carrying radioactive materials although there was an incident some years back where a ship carrying uranium hydrofluoride from France to Riga sank but it is recorded that the containers apparently were recovered without any spillage.
Historically the marine environment has been used as the ultimate dumping ground for much of our industrial waste. Although industrial and radioactive discharges continue from a range of sources, the practice of direct dumping with little thought to the future is now widely regarded as unacceptable. However, the legacy of the years where materials were simply dumped remains and has sometimes returned to haunt us, often with severe consequences. It is a lesson which tells us that when we attempt to throw things away there really is no such thing as “away”.
This report acknowledges the need for establishing cooperation in the field of accidental marine pollution. Furthermore there is a need to broaden the definition of accidental marine pollution to include operational historical and radioactive and other harmful substances, accidental and operational marine pollution. Although much attention is rightly paid to the impact of marine accidents, in terms of the chronic pollution it is the operational spills and discharges of hydrocarbons, radioactive materials and other harmful substances which, because they go largely unnoticed, are a cause of major concern. In terms of the environment whether a substance is accidentally or deliberately discharged is of no real consequence, the environmental impact remains.
Furthermore, although the direct dumping of industrial materials, including military dumps of redundant munitions, is largely a practice which has been abandoned by Member States, the sites of such dumps continue to present a real threat to fisheries and in some cases, for example not far from my own coast, the Beaufort Dyke, a threat to human safety. Often fishermen’s lives are at risk, as are the health and welfare of the public who either visit the coast or live by the sea. Furthermore, as the sea is the ultimate sink for much industrial material from the shores and rivers these sources must be included within the definition.
The transboundary nature of the marine environment, which means that pollution in one area can impact on a wider region, leads to the need for a Community-wide framework for cooperation in the field of accidental marine pollution. Sharing information regarding hydrocarbons, radioactive substances and other harmful substances carried at sea and discharges into the sea which have been dumped as part of historical dumping regimes is a vital prerequisite in facilitating the preparation and coordination of any response necessary to mitigate the environmental and human health impacts of pollution incidents.
Effective mitigation requires a rapid response. The longer an incident is allowed to go unchecked the wider the impact, as we have seen. Hence it is too late to begin trying to get the required information after a serious pollution problem has occurred. We need to take action before. Knowledge about the type and extent of potential pollution problems is also a prerequisite for correct preparation in terms of techniques, personnel and equipment at appropriate locations. It is also necessary to be clear about the risks to the public and the environment and to alleviate justified public concern with accurate assessments of the risk. The public’s trust in the authorities is important to ensuring adequate responses. Furthermore, the public have a right to know what preparations are being made, what types of materials are threatening and what impacts may be expected. To this end, publication of information is a vital component as it establishes a route through which the general public can obtain information, for example emergency phone contact numbers. Such information can be easily made available and updated on the Internet as well as through established channels.
To conclude, it is a truism that once the marine environment has been contaminated or polluted it is impossible to fully clean up and repair the damage. However a rapid, efficient, adequate and effective response coordinated across national boundaries is needed to mitigate the impacts on the environment and public health in the case of a pollution incident. A prerequisite is the necessary information sharing with all parties. The database and information technology exists to establish the necessary communications between national and regional authorities, emergency response experts and the public. The dissemination of information about the range of marine pollution threats – hydrocarbons, radioactive substances and other harmful substances – will serve to ensure that the best possible mitigation measures are in place and have the full public trust and confidence of the public. On the issue of radioactive substances, during the debate in the committee the Commission representative said that it was “implicit” but we want it to be explicit. It is quite clear that it should be explicit
and if it is already implied then I do not see what the problem is about ensuring that it is explicit
because as time goes by radioactive substances are going to pose an even greater danger and – as I have already said – we are very lucky that there has not already been a serious accident."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-13-Speech-1-070 | "Mr President, I agree with the tenor and the thrust of the McKenna report. Indeed, as a Member of the European Parliament who represents the east coast of Ireland, this is an issue which is close to my heart.
It has come to my attention that British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. has applied to the British Department of the Environment for authorisation to discharge high levels of technetium 99 into the Irish Sea in the near future. If BNFL is successful with this application, while it will result in halving the levels of technetium 99 that are dumped in the Irish Sea, this will still be 15 times higher than the levels which existed in 1992. If BNFL has problems in discharging radioactive products such as technetium 99, it should store such waste materials on land in Britain as opposed to dumping them in the Irish Sea.
It is quite timely that BNFL is making applications to the British Government to deal with how much radioactive materials it can discharge into the Irish Sea. I say this because 15 September – Wednesday of this week when there will be a lot happening – is the deadline which has been given by the Radioactive Discharges Commission of the Ottawa Convention for the British Government to come up with proposals as to how best it is going to substantially reduce the discharge of radioactive substances into the marine environment.
One must remember that the Ottawa Convention on Marine Pollution has at its core the principle of substantially reducing the use of radioactive substances. A clear plan in this regard must be implemented by the year 2000. We know that the British Government has done nothing to implement its obligations under the Ottawa Convention to date. I await with interest to see how the British Department of the Environment intends to comply with its legal obligations under this important convention. As the British Government addresses the final details on this issue, it should be remembered that there is no safe level of radiation. The Irish Sea must not be used as a soft option for the disposal of radioactive nuclear materials by BNFL. Ever since the opposition to the THORP nuclear plant in 1993, the level of radioactive discharges from nuclear operations in Cumbria has substantially increased.
In conclusion, I support the proposals in the report. From the Irish perspective, we will have more confidence in the British regulatory authorities if they reject this application in its totality. It is up to the British Government to force BNFL to come up with alternative technological methods to deal with the discharge of such materials. I congratulate Ms McKenna on her report."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-13-Speech-1-076 | "Mr President, I rise as the rapporteur on the draft recommendation from the European Commission on the provision of minimum criteria for environmental inspections. The most important thing about my report is that I rejected the idea – and the Committee has backed me on this – that it should be a recommendation. I want to make sure that this instrument is in fact a directive. I am absolutely certain that the speech which Mr Marin is now anxiously looking through rejects what I am about to say.
It is a very important point and underlies some of the disappointments that people feel about the European Union in many of our countries. It is based on the perception that we adopt legislation in the European Union which is then not implemented universally throughout the Member States of the European Union. I do not know about my MEP colleagues but certainly this was one of the criticisms made against the European Union during the British version of the European election campaign.
It is a situation at the moment where there are currently more than eighty actions pending before the Court of Justice against eleven Member States for infringement of European Union environmental legislation. I know, as rapporteur on the recent directive on landfill, that what is happening is that the European Commission is proposing legislation on the basis that it will be adopted and properly implemented in all the Member States while at the same time the same directorate-general of the European Union knows full well that in some areas of policy no inspectorates at all exist able to see that that legislation is implemented in some Member States of the European Union.
The European Commission’s recipe for dealing with this is for inspectors from the various Member States to meet together from time to time to try to improve their techniques and to make that into a recommendation. There is nothing particularly radical about it at all. I and the members of the Environment Committee feel that this is grossly inadequate and that if it is not a directive there will in fact be no impulsion on the Member States which are currently lagging behind to do anything at all.
The advantage of transforming the recommendation into a directive is twofold. First of all it creates the momentum for changes to take place under the eventual sanction of financial penalties and secondly, by taking the proposed text of the recommendation, which we have before us as its base, avoids creating a directive which is too heavily prescriptive in detail. People want to see the legislation implemented. They do not want what they call ‘red tape’. This instrument, if transformed into a directive, would mean that we are able to see through the European Commission and through the Members of Parliament whether anybody is actually doing anything. The likelihood is that if we leave it as a recommendation somebody in five years time or so may or may not remember to report to the European Parliament that a recommendation was passed and that very little was done about it. A directive has legal force and we feel that is what is needed.
I note that the Greens have proposed an amendment drawing attention to the opinion of the European Parliament that there should be some form of European Union environmental inspectorate. We have to tread very carefully here if we are not to tie up even more red tape around the Member States. It is much better, rather than going for a supranational environment inspectorate with all the difficulty about right of entry, if we have the legislation in place to make sure that the environmental inspectorates in all the Member States (a) exist and (b) are performing their tasks to more or less the same standard. You can only do that through a directorate. A recommendation is grossly inadequate."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-13-Speech-1-078 | "Mr President, the European Union has many critics but few voices of protest are heard when the institution takes action to protect our air, our rivers, our seas and our land. Because people everywhere recognise that pollution knows no national boundaries and can only be tackled effectively by countries working together. To its great credit Europe has taken a lead in introducing legislation to protect the environment. But laws which are not enforced equally by all 15 Member States will be cynically ignored by those who seek financial gain at any cost and will generate a sense of injustice and eventually hostility in all those who play by the rules.
None of us, of course, have any reason to feel superior. No country has a perfect record when it comes to enforcing environmental legislation. This report takes us a positive step forward and shows Parliament at its best as a defender of the public interest. It emphasises our commitment to protecting our environment and applying equal procedures in each Member State. It greatly strengthens the Commission’s well-meaning but frankly insubstantial recommendations for inspection procedures which could not guarantee that improvements will actually take place and it provides for a detailed programme of action to make sure that existing laws are properly enforced within a realistic but tight timetable.
There are one or two sections in this report, as drafted, which I believe would benefit from some very minor amendments to tighten them up. I have tabled a couple and one of the delights about making a maiden speech in this House is that one has the feeling that those words might actually be studied for their merits rather than simply judged on their party political background. The real substance of this report and my concern is as raised by Mrs Jackson, that the Commission may not give its support to these proposals. I congratulate Mrs Jackson on the work she has undertaken. I believe strongly that this report should be given Parliament’s wholehearted support and a message should be sent to both the Commission and the Council that we are determined that these essential measures should not be diluted or weakened in any way."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-13-Speech-1-083 | "Mr President, I will very briefly come back on that. I take the Commissioner’s point about subsidiarity but what we are arguing for in Parliament is a minimum framework directive which does not invade subsidiarity and which solves the problem by creating an obligation on the Member States to set up an inspectorate within certain broad guidelines.
Secondly, I would like to ask the Commissioner, given that all of us will be lobbying the Member States to change their minds, whether he can let us in on a secret in the interests of transparency. Which is the one Member State which we do not need to lobby?"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-14-Speech-2-003 | "I find it entirely objectionable that the Greens demonstrated noisily in this House yesterday about East Timor. It seems to me that they are insensitive to the reality of how this House feels about the issue of East Timor, and I wish and I hope that you will insist on people not doing that kind of thing in the future. I might remind the Greens that the German Greens are the least interested in the issue of East Timor. I do not want to make a political statement, but the idea of demonstrating as they did yesterday I find disgusting, to say the very least.
***"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-14-Speech-2-018 | "Madam President, let me begin by saying on behalf of my group that we fully share the perspective of Mr Prodi that certainly from tomorrow we stand on the threshold of a new beginning; a new beginning in particular between our two institutions, Parliament and the Commission, and a new beginning for Europe itself.
There has been a certain diversity of views, Mr Prodi, among your nominee Commissioners about their personal political accountability in the future. They all accepted in the hearings that they will be responsible for themselves and their cabinets. Some did not quite accept what I believe is also a necessary requirement, that in the matter of policy formulation and implementation they carry a general responsibility for their departments, answerable to the college but accountable to this Parliament.
Specifically, my group, has for many months now raised the question of individual responsibility. Again I return to that point today. I have already said we support as necessary the collegiate nature of the Commission. However we reassert, as we have done consistently, that an effective college requires the assumption of individual political responsibility. The buck must stop somewhere. Where everyone is responsible it can result in a system where no one is responsible. We do not contest, President Prodi, your prerogative to act in this regard. But we insist that, whatever the current state of law, the law needs changing and that if a Commissioner fails to enjoy the confidence of this House you must act accordingly. We urge you to do that. It is your prerogative but it is our right to insist that the confidence of this House be respected and its absence be respected also. Indeed, here I hope you will not adopt the Stoiber formulation referred to by Mr Barón Crespo.
I should add, arising from matters raised in the hearings but not concluded, in respect of some of the individual nominee Commissioners that should any legal or criminal proceedings arise – which I do not anticipate would necessarily be the case but which would pose problems for the integrity of the Commission - we would expect the President of the Commission to act in such circumstances.
We intend to negotiate later today and tomorrow a political resolution. That will formulate and specify a number of requests, not just on the area of individual responsibility but also specifically to do with areas of transparency and access to documents. When we vote on those my group will expect to hear from you a specific detailed and positive response before our final vote.
In conclusion, we share the vision expressed here today. It is high time that we had this new beginning. It is the time for us to return to serious work. It is time that we recognise and rebuild as institutions – Commission and Parliament – our common European vocation. The ELDR group pledges itself to that task.
On the issues which the President-designate has raised of reform, which should be brought forward by Commissioner Kinnock next February with due consultation, the policy programme of next January, the moral and political imperative of addressing the enlargement challenge and preparation for the Intergovernmental Conference, I pledge my group to a positive and constructive engagement with the Commission in this regard. Indeed we look forward to getting down to serious and immediate work on questions such as East Timor, south-eastern Europe and the Balkans in particular.
But today is an opportunity for this House to review the investiture process and to place on record some of the questions or observations that arise from that. In due course, within the House and in the appropriate fora, my own group intends to contribute to a debate which we hope will be initiated on lessons which we ourselves, as Parliament, must learn from the hearings process. We certainly would hope for the future that we might be able to develop procedures to allow for what might be described as more questioning in depth of nominees. That said, however, we believe that the exercise just completed has been a positive and valuable exercise.
Some in this House – I believe from the outset that they have been a minority, though perhaps rather vocal in terms of the media – have talked of targeting individual nominees. This has not been the approach nor the view of my group. We believe that ab initio this kind of process, which, as I said, was a minority pursuit, to be a sign of weakness and not of strength.
Tomorrow, when we vote on the college, the ELDR group will vote for a college and we will not seek at this point to differentiate, to pick or to choose between nominees. We respect in the act of voting tomorrow the essential collegiality of the European Commission and regard that as an essential value for its working method. But we have some questions that arise from the hearings and some observations.
In the procedures to date, many of the nominee Commissioners were kind enough to, in effect, promise in advance a charter of reform for their own areas and have alluded to specific policy commitments. We have taken note of those commitments and we expect to see them reflected in the work programme in January. We shall check that programme against those commitments which were given in the course of the hearings.
It is obvious from the hearings – indeed without them it is obvious – that there are major areas of overlap and therefore potential conflict in operational responsibilities within the college. Here again we hope that, in working through the programme for January, where these overlaps arise they will be explicitly identified and addressed in order that potential conflicts in spheres of responsibility should not slow down the reform process.
I recall in particular questions about the overlaps between food law and food safety, the various overlaps that one can imagine with the World Trade Organisation and a host of other responsibilities, not least those of the Environment Commissioner. The President mentioned the importance of electronic commerce and information technology. These issues must clearly be addressed as to responsibility.
Many colleagues have also raised questions about the desirability of separating the ex ante responsibility for budget control from the ex post responsibility for budget implementation or formulation within the Commission. Many in my own group have raised this question with me. I raise it today but hasten to add that this is in no way a reflection on the qualities or capacity of the nominee Commissioner charged to deal with both of these issues in the current sphere of responsibilities."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-14-Speech-2-021 | "Madam President, at the outset we must view this week as a new beginning for all the key institutions within the European Union as to how they intend to interact and work together on various policy programmes over the next five years. In particular the relationship between the European Parliament and the European Commission must be hardworking and harmonious, so as to ensure that key elements of our EU legislative requirements are enacted in as an effective a manner as possible.
The 350 million people who make up the membership of the European Union will not thank either the European Parliament or the European Commission if we are seen in the public eye as having a fractious relationship in any shape or form. This would only help to erode public confidence in the institutions of the Union, which would be a very regressive step for all interested parties, particularly in the light of the key challenges that lie ahead for the Union as a political and economic entity.
The President-elect of the Commission, Mr Prodi, has certainly made it clear that he intends to guarantee that the European Commission and the European Parliament will work extremely closely together on the implementation of a comprehensive work programme within the Union over the next five years. Included within this process must be the efficient working of the codecision procedure, which covers the enactment of EU legislation across 38 different economic and social sectors of our society. Since the Amsterdam Treaty came into force on 1 May, the codecision procedure, which involves a very close relationship between Parliament, the Commission and the Council, now covers a wide range of policies including those in the transport sector, regional affairs, social matters, employment initiatives, structural funding, consumer protection, public health and environmental concerns. The relationship between the European Commission and the European Parliament must not be based on strict contractual terms. We must set common policy objectives together and face the key challenges which lie ahead for the European Union within a united and unified framework.
The European Union works at its best when Parliament, the Commission and the Council are working closely together on the implementation of various EU regulations and directives. The body of the European Union treaties and, in particular, the Single European Act, the Maastricht Treaty and the Amsterdam Treaty are all to be reevaluated in the context of the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference. This IGC will examine what key amendments must be made to the body of EU legislation to take account of the impending enlargement of the European Union. Preparing for enlargement is not going to be a particularly easy task and it will not be made any easier if Parliament and the Commission are not working closely together to guarantee that tough decisions must be taken on these issues or worked through in an atmosphere of understanding and equal purpose. Enlargement of the European Union will itself not succeed unless the internal decision-making procedures within the Union are streamlined and simplified.
Finally, with the accession of six new Member States between the years 2004 to 2006, we all collectively have a lot of work to do to ensure that this process is a success. The forthcoming IGC is the biggest challenge facing the European Union as a political and economic body since the decisions were taken when negotiating the Maastricht Treaty to set in train the process of Economic and Monetary Union."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-14-Speech-2-035 | "It is indeed welcome of course that the interinstitutional trauma of the last few months is now drawing to a close and good that normal business is about to resume. But, as has been said before by many speakers, we must understand the way in which the interinstitutional crisis of the last few months has altered in some fundamental way the relationship between our two institutions.
It is fair to say that in the past there was a traditional view that the European Parliament and the European Commission should operate in an almost permanent state of collusion to take on the vested interests of Member States and so promote European integration. This is now an outdated view which has been bypassed by recent events.
From now on we should perhaps both accept and welcome a permanent creative tension between our two institutions – that, after all, is the heart of a mature parliamentary democracy. This requires changes not only in the European Commission with which we are all familiar, but also changes in the European Parliament itself. Indeed, I hope that Parliament will take this opportunity to reform our own outdated procedures and practices including the financial provisions for MEPs.
Unless we, as parliamentarians, examine ourselves with the same forensic attention with which we examine other institutions we will find it difficult to reverse the shocking voter apathy which was seen in so many parts of Europe in the elections in June. Indeed, it is not an exaggeration to say that voter indifference remains the greatest long-term threat to the European Union as a whole and perhaps to this Parliament in particular. Thus our overwhelming priority should be to re-engage the disenchanted voter: a reformed European Commission, a reformed European Parliament, interacting in a robust but mature manner, is the only way in which we have any real hope of doing so."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-14-Speech-2-041 | "Mr President, I should like to make four points. The Conservatives are opposed to the return of any of the former Commission and we have been denied votes on individual Commissioners. Secondly, the left-wing composition of the proposed Commission is wholly contrary to the views of Europe’s voters as shown in June. Thirdly, important questions on probity have still not been answered in respect of some of the Commissioners-designate. Fourthly, we are concerned that some are simply not up to the job.
Over the past two weeks Conservative MEPs, as others, have cross-examined the nominated European Commissioners. Our criteria were competence, policy and background. Right from the outset we demanded an open vote in every parliamentary committee in order to allow MEPs to register their opinion on individual EU Commissioners. Time and again this request was blocked. Finding ourselves unable to hold individual Commissioners to account, Conservative MEPs are left with no choice but to oppose, on the grounds of democratic principle, the incoming team of European Commissioners. We insist on responsibility and accountability. Even Professor Prodi declined to face an open hearing.
In most of our countries, perhaps all, a minister who misleads parliament or who fails to take action to deal with grave mismanagement would step down. In the Wise Men’s report into the last Commission, it was noted that it is becoming difficult to find anyone who has even the slightest sense of responsibility. It is even less reassuring to note that during their time as commissioners not once were the EU accounts effectively signed off. It is hardly an advertisement for responsible financial governance.
The outgoing Commission stood on collegiate responsibility. Four governments reappointed their Commissioners. For these reasons, Conservative MEPs oppose the four returnees. This is not personal. It is not political. It is a point of principle. The only way to deliver on this is to vote against the Commission as a whole. We want the European Parliament to be given the power to dismiss individual Commissioners for maladministration or fraud. By failing to allow votes on individual Commissioners, MEPs have been denied an important democratic right.
We want a European Union that is efficient and accountable and where Europe’s institutions are kept under close scrutiny. We are not anti-European Commission. We are against fraud and corruption, mismanagement and inefficiency. We want a Commission which works, which really does less better. Wednesday’s vote is an important opportunity to signal to the new Commission that business as usual cannot be the guiding principle in Brussels."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-14-Speech-2-042 | "Mr President, I address my remarks this morning in the main to Mrs De Palacio. Mr Prodi in his address to this Parliament some time ago gave a strong commitment to combating fraud and the misuse of public money. That is why during Mrs De Palacio’s hearing I and my colleagues insisted on questioning her very closely on the flax subsidy scandal in which her department was involved in Spain. The response of Mrs De Palacio was not to our satisfaction and indeed her contention that the Spanish Parliament had cleared her of any responsibility and that the issue is now closed is clearly not true.
Whilst I appreciate that the OLAF and Spanish investigation is ongoing and that Mrs De Palacio may be totally exonerated of any involvement, the fact remains that she was a little economical with the truth when answering my questions on 30 August.
Finally, Mrs De Palacio’s outburst at the press conference following the hearing does not bode well for someone whose remit includes relationships with the European Parliament and, whilst I accept that Mrs De Palacio did apologise later for her remarks, it nevertheless raises another doubt about her ability to carry out this specific role in the new Commission.
Sadly, Mr President, even though Mrs De Palacio answered our questions on transport to our satisfaction, and as a group we will no doubt endorse the Commission tomorrow, we must enter a reservation on the candidature of Mrs De Palacio pending the findings of the OLAF and the Spanish authorities’ investigations and because of the way she responded to questioning on this issue at her hearing."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-14-Speech-2-047 | "Mr President, it would seem that even the majority of your own MEPs are indifferent to this charade of a democratic debate. What can one say in 90 seconds or even in 90 minutes, Mr Prodi, that would justify to the people of Europe your appointment and that of your Commissioners? The answer is “nothing” because there is nothing that can justify your agenda to control the political life of the nations of Europe by stealth, aided and abetted by the Heads of Government of Member States, not least the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom Independence Party supports the EDD and rejects the dangerous and unworkable scheme to create a new nation called Europe. We campaign for a Europe that once again respects the political, economic and cultural diversities of all the individual nations and their right to democratic self government. That is why the UK Independence Party campaigns for the withdrawal of our country from membership of the European Union by repealing the European Communities Act so misguidedly signed by Prime Minister Heath in 1972. Already almost 50% of the British electorate are in favour of withdrawal. Our campaign has placed this question firmly on our nation’s political agenda.
Of the three nations allowed a vote on the Maastricht Treaty seven years ago only Ireland, with a population of 3.6 million, showed any enthusiasm. What about the other twelve Member States? So much for European democracy. The appointment of Mr Kinnock and Mr Patten clearly underlines the impression that appointment to the Commission is in effect a consolation prize to compensate for political rejection in one’s own country. Clearly this is yet another reason why a large section of the British electorate reject membership of the EU and backed our campaign for withdrawal.
Tomorrow we shall vote against the appointment of your Commission."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-14-Speech-2-081 | "Mr President, Mr Prodi this morning you used a Russian word
which means openness. I hope you know the other word which Mr Gorbachov made famous
meaning restructuring, reforming - because we expect that from you too. You have to regain the confidence of the public of Europe. Everyone has said that this morning. You will only do that if you show these qualities: clarity, leadership, honesty and humility.
Clarity: your political vision, as expounded this morning, does not completely satisfy our vision, and you have to expand and think very much about social Europe, the environment and other aspects. We want from you concrete objectives. That is what people understand, and we want, as part of this clarity, evidence that you can listen. That evidence is not forthcoming at the moment. We want evidence that you can listen and understand what your role is, what our role is and what the roles of of the Council of Ministers, of lobbyists and of members of the directorates-general are.
Leadership: you have to show willpower, integrity and you have to show that you have very good eyes and ears and that you are a competent person.
Honesty: telling the truth even when it is not comfortable to do so.
Your Commissioners are being tested on the same grounds. Our committee, the Industry Committee, questioned three Commissioners and sent delegations to three others. We questioned Commissioners Liikanen, Lamy and Busquin and we went to the hearings of de Palacio, Patten and Wallström. We had the widest grasp of any committee. When we questioned Commissioners Liikanen and Lamy, we did so objectively, asking questions about their role. That was not the case with half of the Members there for Commissioner Busquin. Commissioner Busquin’s hearing revealed far more about that side of the House than it did about Commissioner Busquin. That is because he was subjected, unlike any other Commissioner-designate, to a sadistic, preplanned and concerted attack. There was no reaction to his repeated, very clear answers to the same question, and issues involving internal Belgian politics which had no bearing on Mr Busquin’s future role, given that this is a multilingual House, were repeated ad nauseam. No other Commissioner was subjected to this ordeal and it is bitterly resented by those of us who wanted to do this thing properly and to objectively listen to what Commissioners would say about their future work. That side of the House should be thoroughly ashamed of their conduct in the Busquin hearing.
Unlike those opposite we listened to the answers to questions about the future roles. The six Commissioners with whom we had dealings satisfied us as to their future competence in the roles which they will undertake."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-14-Speech-2-084 | "Mr President, on a point of order. I should like to refer to the point of order that was made from the other side of the House about the attendance of Commissioners. If we demand the attendance of Commissioners, surely it is right and proper that we demand the attendance of all parliamentarians in this House? I would point out to the other side of the House that you cannot be selective in the application of principle. Thank you."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-14-Speech-2-087 | "Mr President, we Socialist members of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs believe that Mrs Diamantopoulou has shown herself to have the skills and attributes that she will need to become a good Commissioner for Employment and Social Affairs. We will give her every encouragement and the support she will need to pursue progress for social Europe through the college of the Commission. We hope she will be heard fairly there.
She knows some of the tests we will apply to her. I should like to mention three. Firstly, a commitment to sit down at the earliest opportunity with members of the committee to devise a new social action programme to cover the term of office of the new Commission, which will recognise the realities of the new world brought by the euro and the new possibilities arising from Amsterdam to promote employment and opportunity and to combat insecurity and exclusion. Secondly, to seek with Parliament a new understanding on the operation of the social dialogue provisions of the social chapter. Neither the procedure itself nor the legitimate expectations of this democratically-elected institution have been met in the way the procedure has been used so far. That is an urgent priority. Thirdly, to join with Parliament in calling upon the Council to remedy the exclusion of Parliament from the macroeconomic dialogue agreed at Cologne. The last thing we need now is to add to the democratic deficit.
Should all go well tomorrow, we look forward to working with her on these and other matters."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-14-Speech-2-093 | "Mr President, we welcome the opportunity to work with the President-designate of the Commission and with the Commission. This is an opportunity to explore their commitment to working in partnership with Parliament and embracing positively our concerns to scrutinise the implementation of the reform process and also their constructive engagement with our concerns as Members for a European economy based on knowledge, skills and creativity and a European society based on inclusion, diversity and cultural wealth.
What cannot be ignored are the challenges of globalisation now facing our Union, the explosion of the audiovisual and information society, the need for an educational capacity of great depth and breadth and, finally, the need to establish the legitimacy of our institutions and reinvigorate their forms. These are challenges that go right to the heart of the reform process and challenges that concern my own committee. I hope that the Commissioner-designate will go forward with our confidence but also with the understanding that your success also reflects our own success. Together we can work for the future of the European Union."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-14-Speech-2-106 | "Mr President, I feel that none of us must lose sight of the fact that the European Union is seen as irrelevant and unresponsive to the crises in our world today. The huge problem of confidence in our institutions has been exacerbated by the problems of the Commission in recent months.
The European Union’s response to the Balkans, on our very doorstep, was generally viewed as too little, too late. On East Timor – and I note, Mr Prodi, what you said this morning – where are we? Two weeks after the world is advised of the most brutal genocide following elections in an attempt to establish the very essence of democracy which we, as Parliamentarians, above all should uphold, we are not yet in gear and not seen as relevant to the solution by any commentators.
While Parliament must look at its own role very seriously, especially following the poor turnout in the recent elections in many Member States – evidence at best of disinterest but more likely cynicism and disdain by our citizens – our job today is to respond to the hearing of the Commissioners-elect and to the case put by the President-elect, Mr Prodi.
Yes, Mr Prodi, we need “ambitious reforms of the European Union institutions”. I take that to be your
to match the
which you refer to, but not an everlasting reform, not a constant state of flux. We need stability and we need to get down to the business of policy as quickly as possible.
I support the view of the Commission’s relationship with Parliament being akin to that of a government’s relationship with its parliament. But let us reflect that in most parliaments a vote of no confidence in a single member of the government results in the entire government resigning, not just the individual minister. Is that what we are asking for? We are giving confused signals.
In insisting on the political reflection of the outcome of the recent European Parliament elections within the European Commission, how far should we go in restricting the choice of and dictating to national governments their selection of Commissioner? We must learn from our hearings. We must never allow a government to use the Commission as a retirement home for politicians past – to use a consumer term – their “sell-by date” or for a political pay-off for old pals or indeed to export a national embarrassment to Europe. At the same time there is a need for an important balance between the Commission, Parliament and the rights of governments.
We have no choice, Mr Prodi. It is all or nothing in terms of your new college. On balance I feel we must accept it and support your team. Yes, we have concerns about a few individuals but the responsibility for ensuring that none of them hit the headlines adversely over the next five years is yours, not ours, given the limited scope of the hearings in this Parliament.
The key to the future of a credible Europe lies in a proper relationship between the Commission and Parliament built on mutual respect. I hope you agree with that. I wish you all well."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-14-Speech-2-107 | "Mr President, with these hearings we have just carried out an exercise in scrutiny and transparency the like of which exists in none of our Member States. Imagine if each of our national governments had to go through a procedure whereby they had to fill in fifty pages of answers to a questionnaire and were subject to three hours of grilling and questioning in public before the national parliaments took a vote of confidence allowing them to take office. We have achieved something that we can be proud of.
Of course this is a new procedure and a young parliament and things were not perfect. Some of the questions were less than forensic. There are things that could be improved next time. Nonetheless, with the outcome of this procedure on this side of the House we are confident that we have a Commission that is a distinct improvement on the previous one. Granted there were questions on the past activities of two candidates in particular; but both have been cleared by the national investigations that pertained to their activities and, in the absence of anything new, it would be difficult for the European Parliament to press this issue further. But the fact that the President of the Commission has secured a right not available to his predecessors to dismiss any Commissioner, should that ever be necessary, means that we can rest assured – and we shall be vigilant on this – that, if anything new emerges, we will be able to take action.
We have not tried to play party politics or national politics and petty games of that sort on this side of the House. We thought that Parliament should approach this professionally and responsibly. We are satisfied with the outcome of these opportunities afforded to us in this new procedure."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-14-Speech-2-110 | "Mr President, I would like to make three remarks about the hearings, their results and the elements that still remain to be put in place between the incoming Commission and Parliament.
On the hearings, I agree with Mr Corbett that it has been a good start, but there are several things that need to be improved when the issue comes up again in 2004, for example, the possibility of our voting on individual Commissioners after a committee or at least an indicative vote to see whether the committee was really in favour or not. Secondly, we should have time in the hearings to follow up questions which it was quite clear were treated unevenly by the committees. Last but not least, the committees should have equal time. The Committee on Fisheries for instance had only one hour whereas other committees had three hours. We in Parliament need to sort out these details.
As for the results, without referring to individuals, many in my Group have already indicated which performers have been good or less good in the incoming Commission. Our Conservative position has been set out by the Conservative Leader Mr McMillan-Scott. We are left with an imbalance in the Commission and it is there that I believe we need to make some progress.
Firstly, in the light of our experience from the discharge for 1996 for which I was responsible, can we really be sure that, if we do vote against an incoming Commissioner, that Commissioner will resign? Secondly, how can we be sure that we will get the information which we need? There was so much frustration in the last Parliament about not being able to get the information we required. Finally, as regards the codes of conduct, we need to know that promotion will be on merit and that promotion at the highest levels of the Commission will involve managerial competence, which has not always been the case up to now.
In conclusion, these are important elements, at least for my Group. We want to see these included in our operating agreement between the Commission and Parliament because the numbers abstaining or voting against the Commission tomorrow on the final vote will depend on how far those elements are in place by tomorrow."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-14-Speech-2-111 | "Mr President, you have a major task ahead of you and nobody is more aware of that than the Budget Control Committee. The number one priority must be the reform agenda. If you fail to deliver on this then we will all judge you very harshly and will in fact all suffer as a result. But as Mr Kinnock said yesterday, you will be judged on your deeds and not on your words.
On behalf of the Socialists in the Budget Control Committee, I would like to comment specifically on Mr Kinnock’s presentation at the hearing. Mr Kinnock’s record within the Commission is second to none and we accept fully his commitment to accept collective responsibility in terms of past problems whilst agreeing that he bears no individual guilt. Performance and management of the transport directorate has been exemplary and we believe that with his experience of modernising the Labour Party in the UK, he has the relevant qualification to undertake this work. If you can turn the Labour Party around from the lamentable state it was in the 1980s to getting us to a position in the 1990s where we swept everything away, then you must really be able to perform miracles.
We note the Commission’s commitment to the reform agenda and, in particular, Mr Prodi, your commitment to consult the European Parliament on the reform programme. We expect this to be before its presentation in February. We note the commitment to consult us on the reform of the Staff Regulations which addresses some of Mr Elles’ concerns, the new commitments given to whistleblowers and the need to develop new disciplinary procedures. The idea of giving legal effect to the codes of conduct once established is also something we welcome and the overhaul of the Commission’s management and control systems. We expect active consultation with Parliament at all times and we have no doubts that the Commissioner will fulfil his commitment on that score. We do have concerns that the Commission must respect the independence of OLAF. We will not allow you to play budgetary games on this issue. This is the beginning of the reform process and we now look forward to some action."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-14-Speech-2-113 | "Mr President, I am sorry to make a second point of order when I still have not made my maiden speech in this House. I would like to point out to my colleague that the Treaty of Amsterdam refers to ending discrimination not only against women but against a whole range of minorities on the basis of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability. That is something that I hope the Commission will approach as a whole and not just, on a point of order, the equal opportunities of women."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-14-Speech-2-116 | "Mr President, much has been said today about the cynicism and hypocrisy of the past, but I want to say to you that there is nothing more cynical or hypocritical than people who have already announced that they were going to vote against the Commission commenting on the process of hearings. We had part of this House announce even before the hearings started that they intended to reject the Commission. We need the progressive forces of this House – and I say this to people like Mr van Velzen and to others – to unite after the vote tomorrow to work with the new European Commission so that we can actually make progress, because we have had nine months of stagnation. We must stop the political guerrilla warfare that is going on in this House. We must work together.
Let me make a comment on the fact that two members of the potential Commission have been criticised. We are not offering the European Commission a blank cheque, Mr Prodi; we will be watching very carefully what you and your colleagues do. But we will not see members of this Commission hounded by the press in any Member State of this Union. If there is evidence, it will be presented, and we rely upon you to take action where it is necessary. We will be voting within the Socialist Group in the European Parliament not on a party political basis but on the objective basis of the hearings and the questions that we had answered over the last couple of weeks.
Let me pick up the point made by Mr van Velzen because I think this process is in two stages. We have had the speech by the President of the Commission and we have had the hearings, but the second stage is the work programme of the European Commission. The work programme should be an exciting indication of where the European Union is going and of what the European Union intends to do. In the past even under Delors and under Jacques Santer it never appeared that way, but the second stage is vital. That is why I agree with Mr van Velzen: we must make sure that this work programme is understood by the public, and that it is important to the public; and we have to work with you to deliver that work programme.
We have made a good start with the hearing and after that vote tomorrow let the progressive forces in this House work with the Commission to deliver what the people of Europe want."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-14-Speech-2-125 | "Mr President, I should like to address matters of procedure and of substance with regard to the hearings of the candidate Commissioners. In my view these hearings were flawed because there was insufficient time available to the committees to pursue their lines of questioning. I speak from our experience on the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. Because we had to make time available to delegations from other committees, neither the members of my group nor our committee nor the members of the delegations had sufficient time to put all the questions that they wanted to candidate Commissioners Liikanen and Lamy. This is a matter for great regret.
The second point where the hearings were flawed was in the failure to hold indicative votes at the end of each hearing. I know there are different views on this issue but it seems to me that without an indicative vote the key element of whether Members feel the candidate Commissioner is competent or not cannot be determined exactly.
Let me come to the substance. I have mentioned two candidate Commissioners but there was a third who appeared before us, candidate Commissioner Busquin. It is no coincidence that this was a hearing where there were no delegations from other committees and we had more time to pursue questioning. I am afraid that Mr Busquin did not satisfy a majority of colleagues on the committee either with his answers on his part in past financial scandals or with his answers on his competence with the portfolio and whether he would have a sense of responsibility and leadership appropriate to the tasks facing this Commission. Fresh information has come to light since the hearing in
this weekend which casts further doubt on whether Mr Busquin was truthful in his answers to Parliament. I have asked the President to consider this matter. So, I am afraid he would be a flawed Commissioner, Mr Prodi."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-14-Speech-2-128 | "Mr President, one wonders what one can say in two minutes on the appointment of a Commission. I want to wish you all well: Mr Prodi, Mr Kinnock and everybody else who is taking on enormous responsibilities on behalf of the people of the European Union. They are enormous responsibilities because they relate to the way people will lead their lives over the coming decades. There are people in Europe killing each other because of differences over religion, ethnicity and nationality, there are people going to bed hungry, there are people sleeping outdoors and there are people without adequate health care. These are all problems that Europe has to solve in partnership, not only between the Commission and Parliament but also between the Commission, Parliament, the Member State Governments and the Member State parliaments. One of the things we should try and do over the next five years is to forge a closer partnership between national and regional parliaments and the European level.
If we are to develop a Europe in which our people have a share, we must give them a role in creating that Europe and sharing that Europe. The only way we will do that is if we give the social dimension of Europe – the social convergence that is needed in Europe – the same status as we give to monetary convergence and to economic convergence. We cannot create a Europe that the people will feel is theirs if we simply talk about economics and money all the time. We have to talk about social issues, culture and what concerns people in their daily lives. We have to demonstrate that the politics of this Union can solve their problems."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-14-Speech-2-135 | "Madam President, this is the first or maiden speech that I shall make in this Chamber and in the tradition of the House of Commons from which I came, I should normally spend a great deal of time talking about the beauty of my area. But time does not permit it and I shall simply content myself by thanking those who sent me here for doing so and saying that I will try and serve their interests as best I can.
I shall not vote for the Prodi Commission. Firstly, despite my fondness for my former parliamentary colleague, Neil Kinnock, my party and I made a commitment at the European elections that we would not support any Commission which had within it previous members. Although I do not expect anybody else to support that, I hope those who disagree will understand that in a democratic society when you make a commitment to people who elect you, you try and comply with that commitment when you get elected.
Secondly, I shall not vote for this Commission because I do not believe that in real substance anything has changed in the last few weeks as a result of the hearings which we have had. We have not had enough time to question Commissioners; we have not had enough time to follow up with an interrogatory process. There has been not one individual vote in any committee on any Commissioner, not one Commissioner has been forced to withdraw as a result of the questions as to his suitability and not one Commissioner has accepted any sort of responsibility for the events of the past. Because we cannot vote for individual commissioners tomorrow and because I cannot individually record my vote in this Chamber that my colleague Mr Patten would make a fine Commissioner for External Affairs, I am left with simply no choice but to vote against this whole Commission in order to send a message to Mr Prodi and his colleagues that if and when they are elected they will respond to this Parliament; they will accept that it can no longer be business as usual and that we have to change our ways if we are to give the people of Europe the confidence they must have in this Parliament and its institutions."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-14-Speech-2-150 | "Mr President, the sooner this transition period is over, the better for all of us: as soon as Parliament has confirmed the new Commission, competences can be transferred to the new Commissioners.
Firstly, I wish to state very briefly that the budget is a legal obligation of the Commission under the Treaty. The Commission-in-office must handle the budget - it has no choice but to do so.
I have only very few comments regarding the draft budget adopted by the Council: it proposes a cut of EUR 430 million in commitments and EUR 1.7 billion in payments. While these cuts are quite normal at this stage of the budget procedure, they are this year supplemented by a substantial redeployment of EUR 430 million in category 4 - external actions - to finance the Kosovo reconstruction of EUR 500 million.
Although redeployment appears necessary to finance this new priority, one must take account of the fact that too great a redeployment risks destabilizing the budgetary and political balance in external relations. Redeployment should be the main source of financing of the Kosovo action but it may have to be supplemented by other means.
As far as agricultural expenditure is concerned, the new Commission will come back at the end of October with new forecasts in its now traditional letter of amendment which has been agreed by the institutions.
I take note of the Council’s overall concern to improve the situation of the outstanding commitments by following most of the Commission’s requests. In category 2 - structural actions - where payments can be reduced due to the proposal to adapt the payment on account from 4 to 3.5%: this can be done without major difficulties.
Finally, however, I would like to draw your attention to an important inconsistency in the Council’s decision. The Council proposes to increase the Commission’s administrative expenditure by only 0.9% while it foresees an increase of 3.5% for the other institutions. The Council has achieved its reduction by assuming that the Commission would increase the number of vacant posts and thus realise important savings. This aim goes against what the European Parliament has wanted for many years and what the Commission has undertaken to do, namely to reduce the number of vacant posts.
All in all, the key to success in this year’s budgetary procedure is the financing of the EUR 430 million needed for the reconstruction of Kosovo and of Turkey following the earthquake. I am sure that the new Commission will look into this matter as one of the first priorities and come forward with a balanced proposal."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-14-Speech-2-151 | ". – Mr President, can I just make a point to our colleague at the back who came in on a point of order, which was not actually a point of order but a criticism. On this occasion the Commission is not presenting anything – it is the Council which is presenting its draft budget. And on an occasion like this the Commission is not necessarily the enemy - in fact it is quite a friend. The opposition is these people here! Let us not lose sight of the fact that a budget has been presented to us today.
In Category 4, the 10% across the board cut – I am now speaking for Parliament before it has decided this – I would assume is absolutely unacceptable. Yes, Kosovo is a priority; yes, we do want to make sure that funds are available for East Timor and earthquake victims in Turkey. But the way to do that is by a revision of the financial perspective. That will be our position, I am sure. Yes, we want a solution. We do not want confrontation between our two bodies but at the end of the day we want to make sure that development, other sections of Category 4 and external expenditure are not disadvantaged. If money cannot be spent then we will look at those areas where it may have to be reduced. But a 10% across the board cut is not the way to do it.
On Category 5, the sad part is that we still see no solutions being proposed by the Council on how to solve the problem of pensions within the institutions. I am sure my colleagues Mr Bourlanges and Mr Virrankoski will add to my comments. We look forward to our first reading next month when the Council will get a pretty good idea of our opinion of its draft budget.
That is no condemnation of the President-in-Office, for whom I have great regard. Also Mr President, as you said, this process has gone on for several months. A lot of people have been involved and a lot of hard work has gone into it. I want to name two people who have been very much involved. One is Mr Samland, the previous Chairman of the Committee on Budgets, who left Parliament at the end of the last mandate. He worked tirelessly right up to the end to make sure that we could get the cooperation between the Council and Parliament that we need to get the budget we all want in the year 2000. The other person I want to thank is Mr Liikanen. As Commissioner - or Commissioner-designate - this is probably the last time you will sit here on a budgets issue. We have not clashed over the last few years but have had opportunities to try and solve a lot of problems. You deserve the praise of this Parliament for the work you have done in the budgetary areas and especially in some of the areas where you have tried to change things within the Commission. I should like to wish you well for the future.
Mr President, that has got the nice bits out of the way. Let us now get down to the budget. Let us not get this debate mixed up with tomorrow’s debate on the supplementary and amending budgets 1, 3 and 4 for 1999 because, when the President-in-Office says that this spirit of cooperation is based on mutual trust (that is what I wrote down) between the institutions, I only have to remind the Council of what it did with supplementary and amending budgets 1 and 3 and our reaction to it. That had nothing to do with a spirit of cooperation and it certainly did not breed mutual trust.
I am reminded of a story I once told Mr Liikanen. Mrs Dührkop, when she was the rapporteur, likened the harmonious relationships to a symphony being played on a grand piano. It reminded me of a famous comedy duo in the UK – Morecombe and Wise – where Eric Morecombe was playing a grand piano and making an awful noise and André Previn said to him “You’re playing all the wrong notes”, to which he replied “I’m playing all the right notes, not necessarily in the right order”. We have to get the right notes between the Council and the Parliament playing in the right order if we are to have this harmonious relationship.
Madam President-in-Office, you reminded us of those areas where we did get agreement in the trialogues, about the letters of amendment in the autumn, about the commitment appropriations in the Structural Funds and about what our clear priorities should be. You also said that the budget should have the same discipline as national budgets. We have always considered that this Parliament’s Committee on Budgets and Parliament itself are extremely prudent. They do not go out of their way to make problems in the budget or to waste taxpayers’ money.
Our problems are caused in the main in Member States, where 85% of EU money is actually administered and 85% of our problems occur. If we had more cooperation with the Member States we would not have as many problems. Also, there are many Member States’ national budgets which are running deficits. That is one thing we cannot do.
On the different categories, on Category 1 I would agree with the President-in-Office when she said that agricultural expenditure should be based on up-to-date facts. That is why we agreed on an ad hoc procedure; that is why we agreed on the letter of amendment in the autumn. But for the life of me I cannot see why you have actually made cuts in Category 1. If we are waiting to find out what the latest situation is, why have we made reductions in Category 1 already? It just seems to be an exercise of taking money out of the system because that is the thing to do to please the Member States.
As for Category 2, we may have the commitment on commitment appropriations but we certainly do not have the same understanding when it comes to payments. Taking EUR 1billion from payments, once again, is just a burden for the future. The Member States have to pay some time. It is no use trying to dodge the fact or hide it away. It will not go away. That money has to be paid for sometime. We would argue that now is the right time and that decision should not be delayed.
Looking at the reductions made in Category 3, there are many areas where we will disagree and agree to disagree."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-15-Speech-3-027 | "Madam President, the Council Presidency’s tour of capitals has identified three areas about which the President-in-Office has spoken this morning: asylum and immigration, the fight against cross-border crime and the establishment of a European judicial area. I would like to deal with each one briefly in turn.
The political challenge in asylum and immigration is striking a balance between the need to safeguard asylum as an individual right and to ensure the proper protection of refugees and the desire to resist economic migration. Europe needs a common policy on migration. At the very least we need minimum common standards. Those must be based on the 1951 Geneva Convention and on the UNHCR guidelines. We must avoid the lowest common denominator approach which would lead to a downward spiral in the level of protection. The European Union must show that it will not become a fortress, terrified of infection from without, but that it will remain a refuge for the dispossessed.
Events in recent years show us how easily situations of mass influx of refugees can come about. We need a clear message from Tampere on disentangling asylum from the debate on migration. A temporary protection regime is fine but only in exceptional circumstances and must not be one which denies the right to individual examination of asylum claims. Let us make sure that we are not moving back to asylum at political discretion but that we still regard asylum as a human right.
(
)
In the fight against cross-border crime it is clear that Europol has a role. Let us get it going. But it is only part of the solution. There are other ways to strengthen police cooperation such as the idea of a European police staff college. And there are ways to strengthen judicial cooperation. For example, some of the ideas that have been put forward under the title “Eurojust”, bringing prosecutors and magistrates from different countries together to prosecute cross-border crime. We need to determine the precise role, powers and financial implications of Eurojust and the issue of accountability. We need to maintain a balance between the prosecution of offences and the protection of the rights of defendants.
Much has been said about making life more difficult for the criminal but harmonising offences and penalties is an ambitious project. It has been compared to the 1992 Single Market Programme. It merits study, but let us not make the best the enemy of the good. Let us also look at progress on mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters.
I would challenge you, President-in-Office, to define the European judicial area. It seems in matters of civil law to be about making access to justice easier. There are opportunities for concrete progress in cross-border litigation. We have already a certain degree of harmonisation: certain conventions are being worked on, for example, on driving disqualification. Much can be done on mutual recognition too. But when the European judicial area is looked at in the criminal field we are perhaps talking about operating as though there were no legal boundaries within Europe. When we deal with harmonisation of criminal law the key concept is full confidence in each other’s legal systems. Here we need common minimum standards and safeguards, for example, on the treatment of suspects in custody. We need a rigorous and transparent evaluation of criminal justice systems in the Member States. We need a form of inspection and evaluation to build confidence, perhaps similar to the Schengen test on border controls. We need to invest in judicial systems such as in the training of judges and magistrates. I would commend to the Presidency the proposal for a system of Euro bail where people could be granted bail while they await trial and serve the period of bail in their home state.
In conclusion, President-in-Office, the scale of the agenda you have for Tampere is wide, the contributions from the Member States are many and varied. Your ideas seem not yet completely formed so you will forgive us if we are sceptical about the prospects for success. We need the Justice and Home Affairs Ministers there if we are to have real progress. We need the European Parliament involved. That means giving us full access to documentation as the debate develops. Finally, we need from Tampere a summit that will carry public opinion, that will tailor its ambitions to the human and financial resources available but will give us guidelines to demonstrate the relevance of the area of freedom, security and justice to ordinary people
(
)"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-15-Speech-3-047 | "Madam President, speaking for the first time here I want to insist that this summit be more than a committee on public safety. It must have a balanced agenda.
The Treaty prescribes the creation of an area of freedom, justice and security, but the Tampere summit is in danger of turning only into a security summit. Of course we want prime ministers to provide protection from threats like organised crime, drug running, terrorism and sex crimes, but let them also focus on the threat of discrimination and racism. Let them also tackle the problems of banking secrecy and tax havens which provide cover for money laundering. They should seek to provide European citizens with protection from injustice so that those arrested away from home can get legal representation, interpretation and bail. Instead of trying to harmonise European legal systems, just start with getting cross-border justice for individuals caught up in expensive red tape. And while countering illegal immigration and abuse of asylum laws is important, governments must respect their obligations under the Geneva Convention to grant asylum to genuine refugees and treat them with compassion and dignity, not demonise them.
The Treaty stresses liberty and respect for human rights as fundamental principles. We should insist that the Charter of Fundamental Rights not only be drawn up with this Parliament as equal partner but also be legally binding and not just a pious declaration without teeth. Some of the rights we need as citizens are against our own governments, such as checks on our police, customs and intelligence services. Freedom of information ought to be a summit priority and so should ratification of the international criminal court and pursuing perpetrators of crimes against humanity.
The message we must send today is that Tampere must be a summit for citizens, not just the bureaucrats, and democratic accountability must increase.
Finally, if our national leaders want to set an example of justice and good governance let them disown their own foreign ministers who disgracefully want to put the Agency for Reconstruction of Kosovo in Thessaloniki. This shabby fix is the opposite of what the European Union should stand for."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-15-Speech-3-051 | "Madam President, the people that I represent have no confidence whatsoever in Commissioner Patten as far as law and order is concerned. Mr Patten has just recommended what could be called a terrorist charter for Northern Ireland. Our police, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, has had 302 of its members savagely murdered and 8 700 of its members brutally maimed. Yet Mr Patten insists that the police must be responsible to a new ruling body on which the IRA will be represented. If the Commission is going to adopt this sort of thinking in the field of crime and drugs etc., what will the future of this European Union be? It has within it the seeds of its own destruction."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-15-Speech-3-059 | "Madam President, may I congratulate the Finnish presidency on this initiative in which I fully support him.
I hope that at the end of the temporary conference all Member States will ratify the setting up of the International Criminal Court so that the war criminals who are so prevalent today throughout the world can be prosecuted. In July 1998, 83 countries agreed to the establishment of an international court at a conference sponsored by the United Nations in Rome. Only four countries to date have ratified the Rome Statute: Trinidad and Tobago, Senegal, San Marino and Italy.
Above all, the International Criminal Court will encourage states to investigate and prosecute genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity and will itself investigate and prosecute these crimes in certain circumstances. By addressing the issue of impunity and providing a fair forum for prosecutions, the court will help ease international tensions and promote peace and security, domestically and internationally."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-15-Speech-3-061 | "Madam President, the President-in-Office has said that if you were to ask the people in Member States what they want you would get a clear message. This Tampere motion is, I believe, part of that message. It is one example of the people’s agenda. If enacted at Tampere and enforced by Member State Governments it will show to some of our more Eurosceptic citizens that real progress is being made. Many of them are not really concerned about the extension of qualified majority voting, important as that is, but they are anxious for progress on citizens’ rights, progress on free movement, progress towards a real integrated Europe where people know and understand their rights and responsibilities.
You pointed out the importance of this agenda when we are moving towards a successful enlargement of the European Union, setting our own House in order. Freedom, justice, security and transparency before we enlarge is, I am sure many would agree, absolutely crucial. It is a Europe that builds on what we have in common and does not set up barriers to highlight our differences.
Earlier Mr Camre spoke against support for poorer countries. I say to him and others that you cannot have real prosperity and real security for 350 million people in 15 countries if you deny hope and similar rights to your neighbours. Walls, weapons and iron curtains are not the answer to asylum-seekers and refugees. That is why the success of the Tampere Summit and this resolution are so important.
Some UK Members on this side of the House may have reservations about one or two points but we fully believe in the principles of this resolution, the points that are practical and enforceable. I feel very optimistic that the Tampere Summit will not just be a positive step forward but will become a historically significant summit. I wish the Finnish presidency every success."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-15-Speech-3-062 | "Madam President, I wish to underline the point made by Mr Napolitano and Mr Voggenhuber that it is absolutely vital that this Parliament be fully and properly represented in the preparation of the Union charter of rights.
May I also say to Madam President-in-Office that subsidiarity must be as vitally respected at Tampere as in all aspects of the work of this Union. I represent an electoral region which has had an independent legal system with a distinct tradition in justice and home affairs for over 500 years. It is not a Member State itself, but we in Scotland now have again a parliament which legislates for our justice and home affairs. It is vital that this and other such regions are fully and properly borne in mind when policies are developed dealing with these matters.
Finally, I agree very much indeed with what Madam President-in-Office said about making rights effectual. It is no use having charters of rights and having rights enshrined in treaties if these are ignored in practice. It has been drawn to my attention, in the short time I have been in this House, that there are foreign language lecturers in Italy who for eleven years have had rights declared by the European Court of Justice effectively denied by a Member State of this Union. I hope that the Council and the Commission will take the strongest measures to ensure in this and other cases that we do not have rights and then see them rendered ineffectual by state action."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-15-Speech-3-089 | "Madam President, the time for speaking is drawing to a close and the time to decide is at hand.
From the outset of the recent period of crisis the ELDR Group has played a central role, leading from the front and insisting on greater parliamentary accountability on the part of the Commission as executive. All the trauma we have gone through will have been worthwhile if the correct lessons are learned and applied. We believe that the Commission, now to be voted, wishes to be more open, transparent, rigorous, reformist and accountable than any of its predecessors. We believe that the message is understood that such parliamentary accountability is both collegial and individual in nature. We believe the past nine months in and through the European Parliament represent a milestone in the democratisation of the politics of the European Union.
Today we vote in two parts: a political resolution and on the Commission. The political resolution supported by more than 500 deputies foresees a new accord between Parliament and the Commission for the new millenium. We have promoted and support this idea. We have insisted on emphasising greater transparency, greater access to documentation and the necessity for individual responsibility and accountability of Commissioners.
We are conscious of the delicate sensitivities and prerogatives surrounding these questions, but our bottom line is clear. In demanding these reforms we believe that they strengthen both our institutions in our common European vocation. The message should go loud and clear from this House today to the capital cities of the Union in particular, that the rules of engagement have changed utterly. Never again can the diktat or presumption of capitals with regard to preserving individual Commissioners be allowed to bring an entire Commission to its knees.
(
)
Collegiality cannot be a shield to cover all behaviour, including unacceptable behaviour. Reinvigorated by the crisis we have passed through I believe there is a new energy and that there shall be a new synergy between our institutions to put the Union to work. My group – the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Group – should vote unanimously for the Commission and its President. We are pledged to making a fresh start for Europe. Let the work begin.
(
)"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-15-Speech-3-092 | "Madam President, Commission President, 1999 has been a difficult year for the mainstream EU institutions in that problems which surfaced over issues such as the accountability about the administration of various EU initiatives had strained relations between the European Parliament and the Commission.
I would like to impress upon the new college of the Commission and all Members of the European Parliament that the events of this year must be put behind us as a matter of urgency. We must all reflect on the difficulties of the last twelve months in particular and learn from the mistakes that were clearly made. We must ensure that decision-making structures are put in place at EU level which will guarantee that all decisions are accounted for.
In the resolution tabled today by my political group, we stress that there must be sound management in the administration of all EU programmes and initiatives. Because the Commission is responsible for overseeing the day-to-day operation of so many EU-sponsored policies, it should take particular note of its Treaty obligations in this regard. The challenges facing the European Union are too great for institutional deadlock to hamper the Commission and the European Parliament in dealing with their legislative programme. The European Union cannot operate effectively unless there is cooperation and understanding between the Commission, Parliament and the Council. I am not interested in promoting European Union decision-making founded on institutional stalemate. I believe that the Commission too must recognise that the expanded remit of the codecision procedure means that Parliament has an equal say in the enactment of EU directives and regulations encompassing 38 different economic and social sectors. The codecision procedure covers a wide range of activities including those in the transport sector, regional affairs, social matters, employment initiatives, structural funding, consumer protection, public health and environmental concerns. If the codecision procedure is not operated in an effective manner, then inefficiency will take root in the internal decision-making procedures of the Union. That is the last thing we need at this challenging time.
The single greatest challenge facing the European Union is to prepare for the enlargement process with the accession of six new countries to the Union by the year 2004-2005. There are currently 37 different chapters of negotiation to be discussed between the Union and the new applicant countries. These are going to be difficult discussions and internal institutional reform is needed in the EU if the enlargement process is to be successful.
In conclusion, the Commission and Parliament must ensure that tough decisions are worked through in a spirit of understanding and common purpose. I hope that all of us have learned this lesson from the events of the last year. Our Group does have a group position. Each national delegation will vote as it thinks fit. The Irish delegation will vote for President Prodi and the Commission."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-15-Speech-3-099 | "Mr President, it is a disgrace at this vital time in the history of Europe that a shadow lies over the Commission. No matter how much Mr Prodi protests, he and his college are seriously flawed. Blackmailing threats of resignation indicate a weakness which is a running sore already and will develop into a festering boil.
If this vote had been taken before the elections I am sure the vote would have been somewhat different. As I have already stated in this House this morning, the people I represent especially have no confidence in Commissioner Patten. His insult to our honoured police dead and to our honoured police maimed is something we will not tolerate. Mr Patten may forget, we will not forget. Mr Patten may bury their heroism, we will see to it that their heroism still lives. Solemnly I salute them today in this House."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-15-Speech-3-102 | "Mr President, in the vote I registered an abstention. My reason for doing so was that the case for the appointment of this Commission needed to be proved “beyond reasonable doubt” and in my view, and that of my colleague Mr Hudghton, the correct verdict would have been “not proven”.
I recognise the quality and ability of many of the Commissioners and acknowledge that the majority in this Parliament has, on balance, decided to confirm the whole Commission. We shall therefore work with them gladly. However, I am still of the opinion that there are too many doubts about particular individuals and about the leadership of the Commission as a whole. These have persisted. I cannot, in all conscience, justify to my constituents in Scotland the casting of an affirmative vote today. On the other hand there is not yet compelling evidence to justify the total rejection of the Commission.
In these circumstances a positive abstention seemed to be the right vote."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-15-Speech-3-111 | "Euskal Herritarrok, the Basque Left, has voted against the appointment of the Commission even though we knew that Mr Prodi had succeeded in winning the confidence of the majority of this Parliament.
We know now that the new Commission most certainly does not have the confidence of the majority of Europeans. After this morning’s spectacle I doubt that Parliament has the confidence of most Europeans, in other words those who believe that it is still possible to build a new European Union in which freedom and justice are the guiding principles."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-15-Speech-3-121 | "My main consideration in passing judgement on the Prodi Commission is whether this team of 20 has convinced me of its ability to significantly restore public confidence in the European Union and its institutions.
Regrettably, following the individual hearings and the various statements of Mr Prodi, I remain unconvinced.
The strong pressure on MEPs to approve the new Commission, thus allowing a return to ‘normal’ business, must be balanced against the many doubts and reservations which surround aspects of the Prodi team.
Mr Prodi views the Commission as a Government for Europe. That concept is not one which I would be inclined to vote in favour of, but even if I did feel so inclined, I could not give a positive vote for this Commission-Designate to fulfil such a role.
I want to see real and radical improvement in management and financial control within the Commission. I want to see genuine change in the Commission’s attitude towards the European Parliament. I want a Commission which is seen to be relevant to the lives and aspirations of our citizens.
The only verdict which I can apply to Mr Prodi’s team is ‘Not Proven’ and accordingly register my abstention."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-15-Speech-3-122 | "Over the winter of 1998/99 the European Parliament came of age, bringing about the resignation of the Santer Commission and in so doing established its proper place in the European political order. I fear however we have failed as an institution in the manner in which we have scrutinised the Prodi Commission, which has been unstructured, insufficiently in-depth and inconsistent. That has made it impossible for me to endorse the Member States’ nominations.
Before the next Commission is scrutinised I believe Parliament must instruct the Rules Committee to draw up comprehensive procedures covering all aspects of a much more thorough and in-depth series of hearings.
Unless that is done we shall destroy public confidence in us and let down the European public whom I believe have not been well served by Parliament’s actions in respect of the Prodi Commission."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-15-Speech-3-124 | "My decision to vote against this Commission was not taken lightly. But having listened closely both to the debate here today, and to the answers we have been given from the Commissioners designate in the Parliamentary Hearings over the past few weeks, I still have a number of grave concerns and reservations.
There are two aspects to these concerns: on the one side, the political side, of course we could not expect a Green Commission. But what we did expect was the demonstration of a greater awareness of how to prioritise and implement key issues of social justice and environmental sustainability.
On the other side, the assessment of the Commissioners’ ability to live up to the enormous expectations that now lie upon them to introduce a very different kind of behaviour and culture in the new Commission, we did expect the demonstration of an ability to introduce genuine, far-reaching, radical reform.
And so, in order to be able to vote in favour of this Commission, I would need to be able to say that, as a bloc, these are Commissioners whose commitment to introduce exactly such fundamental reforms I can endorse.
I would need to be able to say that these are all Commissioners whose integrity and good judgement are beyond reproach.
I would need to be able to say that these are Commissioners whom I, and the citizens of Europe, can wholeheartedly trust.
I greatly regret that what I have heard and read over the past few weeks and months means that, for a number of Commissioners in the proposed new Commission, I cannot yet say these things.
And because I cannot say these things, I cannot justify to the electorate who voted for me a vote in favour of this new Commission."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-15-Speech-3-127 | "I will be voting for the new Commission.
The Commitments given by Mr Prodi to change the culture in the Commission to ensure more transparency and better financial management are very welcome.
Mr Prodi’s desire to pursue enlargement of the Community, to give job creation the highest priority and to work closely with a the Parliament on the Intergovernmental Conference are also encouraging.
The individual commissioners’ acceptance of their personal responsibilities and commitment to work closely with Parliament show they understand the new environment within which the Commission will have to operate.
The new Commission has not been given a blank cheque; they have been judged fit to be appointed. Their ability to do their job will be judged later. That judgement will be based on whether this Commission brings Europe closer to the people, tackles fraud and inefficiency within its own service and above all equips Europe for tackling crime, unemployment and social exclusion."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-15-Speech-3-138 | "Mr President, when I came in I was immediately confronted by three surprises. Firstly I saw you sitting there, instead of out here for our budget debate. The one great advantage of that is that because you are there and not here the Socialists now get more speaking time since you would have had speaking time in this debate. The second surprise is to see Commissioner Liikanen, after I praised him yesterday. I was about to welcome Mrs. Schreyer to her first debate and all of a sudden I see him there. The third surprise is the fact that there is no one here from the Council, because this debate is on SABs.
I say that with a lot of sadness because the Council deserves to be criticised over SAB1 and SAB3. I have said this at a trialogue meeting, we have said it in our committee and I now wish it to go on public record. The way the Council behaved over SAB 1 and 3 was nothing short of disgraceful. It was a slap in the face to this Parliament. For those who do not understand what I am talking about, I am referring to the timing of their submissions for both the supplementary and amending budgets, which meant that we would not have the chance to debate them in full. We will vote on them this week but it will be to all intents and purposes a formality. I hope it does not happen again. If I thought they were going to do the same thing next year, i.e. submit an SAB at the end of July, I would not hesitate to call a special meeting of the Budgets Committee within the 45-day timetable to make sure that we blocked it so that we could discuss it in full. It did nothing for the trust that we are trying to build up between the two institutions. It just led to antagonism and suspicion.
Having said all that, when it comes to SAB4 the speed with which the institutions have worked has been quite commendable. The Council took on board what we were asking and got it through within a week and tomorrow we will be voting on SAB4. This is indeed encouraging. We welcome the cooperation that has gone on in SAB4. We welcome the use of category 1 funds for external expenditure and we welcome that speed. However, two things need to be said about SAB4. One is that the 15 extra posts for OLAF are there, which we accept, but we need to stress that there has to be an SAB5. SAB5 should be imminent because of the Commission’s needs for payments but within the resolution that we will vote on we will insist on an SAB5 and an extra 15 posts for OLAF. This is a political decision which the committee and the Budget Control Committee have to make and the message that therefore needs to be taken to Mrs Schreyer, if not from you, Commissioner, then at least from the Commission services, is that we would want an early meeting with Mrs Schreyer to talk about the contents of an SAB5 to be placed before Parliament as soon as possible and, more importantly, to include the extra staff for OLAF."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-15-Speech-3-160 | "Mr President, can I put this debate in context? After the Indonesian invasion in 1976 the UN did not recognise the Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor. Let us get that straight for a start. Only the Australians recognised it and even they, after a while, decided that they were wrong, so legally we did not have to ask permission to send in an international peacekeeping force. However, we did. And now, at long last, they have agreed. But when will it go in? Hopefully, by this weekend. Who will head it? Hopefully it will not be the Indonesians. I heard on the television this morning that one faction within the Indonesian army was actually saying that it wanted to lead the multinational peacekeeping force! Fortunately the foreign minister had other ideas, but obviously there is warfare between them all at the moment. But whoever leads it, it must go in now, immediately, before we see any more atrocities.
They are happening on a daily basis. Churches and schools are burnt. People are hacked to death. Yesterday I heard of a nun who was told she was being rescued and she should not look at the church. She tried to see it and saw blood seeping in front of the church door, the blood of women, children and priests. What had they done? Nothing. And that was not an isolated incident. UN workers were attacked when they tried to move food and the army just stood by. If food and shelter cannot get through, there is going to be a humanitarian catastrophe, not just in East Timor, but in West Timor as well.
The latest story is that refugees were put on to ships and told they were being rescued. The ships then came back a short time later with nobody on board. That is genocide in anybody’s terms.
And that is why we have to have a war crimes tribunal: to bring these people to justice.
What else can be done? A military embargo yes, but it should have been done sooner. The Hawk jets from Britain should have been cancelled sooner. I am glad they have been cancelled now but it is a bit too late. The peace-keeping force must go in now. Humanitarian aid and human rights monitors for West Timor and East Timor must go in now but more importantly the Indonesian Government must be held to account."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-15-Speech-3-162 | "Mr President, it is not in a spirit of sterile recrimination but because of our concern and alarm about the way the situation is now developing that we feel compelled to recall and stress the direct and indirect responsibility of the United States of America for the massacres, the ethnic cleansing, going on unabated at this very moment in East Timor. We share some of the relief felt by many when the Clinton Administration, in an apparent turnaround, finally criticized the Jakarta Government and let the United Nations take control of the crisis.
Anybody in this House who is not familiar with Washington’s role in the tragedies in Indonesia and Timor, from 1966 to the latest genocide unleashed by the military on 30 August, should read the analysis published today by the Washington Post and the Herald Tribune under the banner headline ‘Pentagon defends Indonesian military contacts as useful’. We are reminded of the close personal friendship between the Chairman of the United States Chief of Staff, General Henry Shelton, and the butcher from Jakarta, General Wiranto. The top military man in the United States aiding and abetting the violence in East Timor and last Monday ordering his Indonesian pal to accept an international peace force. Mrs Halonen stated this morning that the terror unleashed on 30 August took the Council by surprise. It should not have. May we suggest that in order to avoid future surprises, the Council and Parliament monitor very closely the peacekeeping mission of the United Nations, the humanitarian aid plan by Europe, the integrity of any present or future programme designed to put an end to the suffering of the Timorese to guarantee their full independence and sovereignty free of any threat, interference or pressure by the Indonesian military and their American mentors."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-15-Speech-3-165 | "“Whether you live in Africa or central Europe or any other place, if somebody comes after innocent civilians and tries to kill them en masse because of their race, their ethnic background or their religion and it is within our power to stop it, we will stop it”."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-15-Speech-3-167 | "Mr President, what is happening now was predicted well before the vote. The people of East Timor were encouraged by the UN to go out and use their democratic right to vote and they are being persecuted for doing so. The international community was warned well in advance. What has it been doing for the last 14 days? It has sat and twiddled its thumbs, waiting for an invitation from Indonesia, the country that has been illegally occupying East Timor for the last 25 years, whose Foreign Minister has stuck his fingers up at the UN General Assembly when the issue was raised.
One-third of the population has been massacred and here we are waiting for an invitation from Indonesia. President Clinton’s hypocrisy, which has already been highlighted today, is unacceptable. Tony Blair’s wonderful new government, with its ethical foreign policy, has continued sending its arms to Indonesia. These are the hypocrites, the so-called moral police forces of the world who put profit before people. It is completely unacceptable.
What we want to see now is a complete arms embargo on Indonesia and also an economic embargo. We want an international peacekeeping force. We want to see independence for the people of East Timor, which is their democratic right. We want an end to the tyranny that has been perpetrated on the people of East Timor for the last 25 years with the help of EU countries, America and all these hypocritical people who want to sell arms to tyrants in Indonesia and other countries around the world. It has to stop. The hypocrisy of the European Union’s arms industry has to end and this is the best example we have had so far of what the end result is."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-15-Speech-3-174 | "Mr President, I began my military career as a British army officer in the mid 1960s, engaged on military operations against the Indonesian Army in Borneo in defence of the newly created State of Malaysia. It is perhaps appropriate that I should now begin my parliamentary duties with reference to Indonesia and another State that is in creation – East Timor.
It is over two weeks since the referendum took place in East Timor. The outcome of the referendum and the terrible consequences were very predictable. Yet the international community, with certain exceptions, seems to have been taken by surprise by the way in which this tragedy has unfolded. Quite clearly international pressure had to be put on Indonesia and many of us have called for the early suspension of World Bank and IMF financial assistance and the suspension of arms exports and military cooperation. We therefore welcome the albeit belated common position adopted by the General Affairs Council. If resolute action had been taken earlier, then maybe the Indonesian authorities would have responded differently.
The immediate need now is for the rapid deployment of a peacekeeping force and the delivery of humanitarian aid. I do not necessarily think it is appropriate for the Europeans to react militarily to crises in areas far from their borders. But the crisis in East Timor has highlighted the difficulties for Europeans in responding to yet another peacekeeping task. The fact is that there is little scope for this, even if it was desirable. Capabilities are limited. EU Member States do not spend enough on their armed forces and what they spend is often not spent well. Over the years the United Kingdom has developed a highly effective military capability and yet the United Kingdom armed forces are now desperately overstretched and most Member States of the European Union spend a smaller proportion of their GDP on defence than the United Kingdom.
The most useful European Union contribution in a situation such as East Timor is more likely to be civil rather than military. That is the right sort of focus for us in this situation. We heard from Mrs Halonen that the Commission has been asked to prepare a socio-economic programme for institution building in East Timor. This is most welcome but the programme will require early implementation once the security situation permits, coordination with contributions from other institutions and countries and very careful management to ensure effectiveness.
Finally, there is yet another aspect of this tragedy which we must not forget. Over the past few weeks the most horrific crimes have been committed against Timorese and others, and those responsible must be brought to justice."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-15-Speech-3-176 | "Mr President, this is a timely debate. As we speak, the UN Security Council has passed a resolution under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter to allow a peacekeeping force under Australian command into East Timor. It is two weeks too late. The UK, US, New Zealand, Canada, Philippines and Thailand have now committed manpower and material to the peacekeeping force. They are too late. China, Russia, South Korea and Malaysia have indicated their commitment to help. They too are too late. The international community has woken up at last. As usual it is, and always will be, giving too little too late.
Since the East Timor referendum, up to 10 000 people have been slaughtered for voting for independence. 300 000, including children, out of a total population of 800 000 have been displaced and made homeless, hiding without shelter, food and sanitation in the jungle. What surprises me is that the international community and the United Nations never manages to learn, to anticipate from the experiences of Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, and now East Timor. What is wrong with us? The international community, time and time again, is called upon to clean up the mess left by brutal tyrants, so-called ethnic cleansers and the genocide of dictators. Under the Montevideo Convention, we are compelled by international law to recognise these brutal regimes as sovereign independent states. Perhaps we should now reconsider this definition and encourage an international debate on whether democracy such as ours should give equal recognition, treatment and respectability to regimes throughout the world which refute democracy and the rule of law, human rights and good governance. Surely the time has come now to differentiate, to redefine, to tighten up the criteria as we do now in giving aid. If good governance is a fundamental prerequisite for development aid, why should good governance not also be a fundamental criterion for international recognition, bilateral relations and trade development? The IMF has recognised this recently in Indonesia and it is time that the European Union’s Member States also recognised it."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-15-Speech-3-177 | "Mr President, we were told by Council this morning that East Timor deserves our full support. We were told that we supplied observers that were crucial to the success of the referendum when the East Timorese said a very loud and very large “yes” to independence. We were told by the Council that the Commission is preparing social and economic assistance for a newly independent East Timor, all of which of course we welcome. But we are also told by Mrs Halunen that she was surprised at the terror that took place after the referendum. I am surprised that she was surprised. I was in Jakarta in August, as a special representative of the UNDP working with the Indonesian Parliament, the DPRK, on new rules for that parliament. It was clear to me then and more importantly to everybody else in Jakarta that firstly there would be a resounding yes in a referendum and secondly that the army, or at least large sections of the army, would try to subvert that process by engaging in and encouraging terror. We have seen that happen, but why we are surprised I do not know.
I welcome the peacekeeping force. I welcome the humanitarian aid that is going to go in to help the 200,00 to 400,000 refugees. I welcome the fact that we were told that EUR 8 million would be available for that humanitarian aid. But it must be delivered quickly. I accept that in the interim it may be delivered by air. We are told it is going to be dropped in by helicopters from 1,500 metres. If you remember the aid we saw being airlifted in and dropped to some of the Kurdish refugees from the air, it was not very successful. If I recall correctly, some of the refugees were actually killed. As soon as possible that aid needs to be delivered on the ground. We need to make sure that it happens within days rather than weeks.
I accept the need for the ban on arms. We need to stop arms sales to Indonesia and I welcome the four-month ban. It may be that it needs to be continued but at the same time we also need to be helping the Indonesians by providing them with assistance to ensure that very fragile democracy elected in the last general election is able to establish itself. Unless we do that in November or December we will be having a similar debate about Indonesia, telling each other how we knew it was all going to end in tears."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-15-Speech-3-180 | "Mr President, who can forget the tragic images of Burundi, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Bosnia-Herzegovina and more recently, Kosovo that are still fresh in our minds. We have now added to that list the ongoing humanitarian plight of thousands of displaced East Timorese as a result of the well-planned and systematic policy of killings, destruction of property, and intimidation carried out by the militia and elements of the Indonesian security forces.
In most of these situations it must be said that timely action by the international community based upon assessments and early warnings of situations could undoubtedly have saved many lives and greatly reduced human suffering and misery. I do not believe that anyone in this Chamber would deny that recent events in East Timor were totally predictable and therefore to some extent preventable. The international community, in particular the United Nations, has to ask itself some searching and probing questions. I also believe that we in the European Union must put our house in order.
Today, we have just approved the new Commission and in the light of recent events in East Timor, Kosovo and elsewhere I would like to address my remarks to the new Commissioner responsible for the common foreign and security policy. I would like to ask would he assure this Parliament that the establishment of a policy planning and early warning unit as envisaged under the Amsterdam Treaty will be given top priority? In addition, will he guarantee that this unit will provide the appropriate parliamentary committees with all the relevant information including analyses, recommendations and strategies on any potential crisis which should be monitored by this Parliament.
The provision of such information would greatly enhance Parliament’s contribution to the development of a more effective and cohesive EU foreign policy, which is long overdue. We must ensure that the EU responds urgently and effectively to potential crisis situations and thereby helps prevent the recurrence of the sort of tragedies that we have recently experienced in East Timor."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-15-Speech-3-183 | "Mr President, a feature of the current situation is the anger and the frustration of the men and women of all our Member States. They are angry and frustrated at the sclerosis that exists in the decision-making processes of the European Union and indeed the United Nations. It is time we got our act together and resolved these decision-making problems.
The President-in-Office here this morning declared that the Council was surprised at the events of the last two weeks. I cannot understand how the Council or anybody else could be surprised. Has no one in the Council been reading the paper for the last 25 years? Do they not know that we have armed the perpetrators of this genocide for the last 25 years? The people of East Timor believed us when we told them we would protect them if they voted and they came out in their thousands and thousands to vote for independence. We failed to protect them.
How many more times do we say “never again” before we actually take a decision to ensure that when we make a promise like that we will keep that promise and plan to keep that promise? It is not good enough for us to wring our hands and declare we are sorry. We have to make sure it never happens again."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-15-Speech-3-184 | "Mr President, you will note by the number of Irish people wishing to speak in the debate today that this is an issue very close to our hearts. For many years Mr Tom Hyland, an Irishman who has made this the cause of his life, has led international demands for action on East Timor. In Ireland we care very deeply about East Timor and we have been extremely active; as the President-in-Office noted this morning, our Foreign Minister, Mr David Andrews, was the special EU Overseer of the recent elections in East Timor.
But in the context of the current disaster there, Indonesia has become a symbol of the lengths to which a brutal, weak and unscrupulous regime will go to further its power and control over those it perceives as challenging its authority. Unfortunately this government has had many friends in this Parliament over the years and many EU governments have put the profits of their arms industries above those of the basic human rights of the unfortunate people of East Timor. Events of the past month have graphically illustrated what many have sought to highlight over the years about the reality of life in East Timor. The President-in-Office spoke very passionately this morning about her concerns but, as Mr De Rossa has rightly pointed out, these concerns were no surprise to a great many of us. Perhaps it is because East Timor is very far away and a very small country, that the crucial issues at stake in this dreadful catastrophe engulfing the country at the moment have been of little concern either to ourselves within the EU or, of course, to the United States. What we have seen is a brutal regime taking a terrible revenge on a small country that dared to say it wanted to be independent and we must support it."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-15-Speech-3-185 | "Mr President, as a little boy growing up in Portugal I collected Portuguese stamps and particularly remember the colourful and attractive ones from East Timor. The
or forgotten province of Portugal, as it was then known, conjured up a picture of a beautiful, remote Pacific island, an exotic mix of East and West producing a unique Catholic cultural heritage. Sadly, I have never been there but I feel passionately for the Timorese people suffering since Indonesia’s annexation in 1975 with almost one third being killed - an even greater proportion of deaths than in the former Yugoslavia.
The UN recognises the right of the Timorese people to self-determination and Portugal’s sovereignty in its territory. In the West we did not seek a UN resolution to bomb the former Yugoslavia over Kosovo which still remains part of Yugoslavia, and yet we have felt willing, for whatever reason, to avoid any military intervention on behalf of the Timorese in the past.
I have always believed that foreign military intervention should only take place in the national interests of the nation-states concerned, yet the serious deterioration and spiralling violence in the region demand action and meet the test of the new ethical foreign policy of which Portugal is a full Member State. As a Briton, I am happy to support Portugal in its attempts to secure a just outcome, not only because Portugal is Britain’s oldest ally, but also because Portugal should be given the opportunity to grant independence to all its colonies, including its last colony now, other than Macao, namely East Timor. We in Britain had that opportunity. We granted self-determination to all our colonies where it was legally possible to do so.
Human rights, if they are to be considered a
as over Kosovo, must be universally and consistently applied. Therefore I fully support and welcome the UN Security Council resolution for the establishment of an international peacemaking force involving willing and principally neighbouring countries such as Australia and New Zealand. This will enable the 78% of East Timorese who voted on 30 August to establish their own independent sovereign state and to look forward to a peaceful and prosperous future within their own homeland.
Lastly, but not least, I salute the courage of the East Timorese people.
(
)"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-15-Speech-3-186 | "Mr President, like other speakers in this debate I wish to draw the attention of this House to the appalling double standards and hypocrisy displayed throughout the tragic crisis now unfolding in East Timor by the British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook. When Mr Cook was appointed Foreign Secretary he launched an ethical foreign policy containing amongst other things a commitment to a stringent code of conduct on arms export controls. Nevertheless he has allowed Hawk ground attack aircraft to be exported to the Indonesian military in breach of his own ethical foreign policy and arms export guidelines. Because the contract had been signed by the previous Conservative Government, Mr Cook claimed it could not be broken. He even gave repeated assurances that contractual clauses ensured that jets would not be used for aggressive purposes against the people of East Timor. Now, in the face of spiralling atrocities in that country and hard evidence that the aircraft in question have been used in attacks on the East Timorese, Mr Cook has performed an amazing U-turn: last Saturday he finally cancelled the contract and introduced a temporary arms ban. We will never know how many East Timorese died as a result of his refusal to cancel this contract at an earlier stage.
This House has a right to an explanation from Mr Cook of how something which the UK Government insisted could not happen suddenly became possible. We should also ask Mr Cook why British taxpayers’ money was used to fund this scandalous episode and indeed, why the UK Ministry of Defence specifically intervened to ensure an invitation was extended to the Indonesian military to attend a major arms fair in Britain next week.
Again, only after international pressure has Mr Cook been forced to withdraw this invitation. We should insist that Mr Cook is brought before this House to provide us with an explanation on his extraordinary collaboration with the oppressive Indonesian regime.
(
)"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-15-Speech-3-187 | "Mr President, the only issue left to address at this stage, given the broad range of contributions from all sides of this House, is why we are surprised about what has happened in Indonesia, why we are surprised at the impotent response of the European Union to the tragic genocide of the last two weeks in East Timor. If we were unable to intervene and intervene promptly and properly in Kosovo, on our own doorstep, without weeks and months of prevarication and legal consultation to see what we could or could not do, how could we really expect the EU to respond as we would wish and the citizens of Europe would wish to the tragedy in East Timor?
What is it about the institutions of Europe – about the European Parliament, about the European Union collectively – that makes us unable to respond to the crises in the world as our people, our voters, our citizens would want us to do? We need urgently to examine why our response is always – as I said yesterday and others said today – too little, too late. We are a multi-billion pound, multi-billion dollar talking-shop, as far as the citizens of Europe and the world are concerned. We are never there when it counts. We always respond several months too late, we spend hours debating crises in this House and in other institutions, but we are not there, when it counts, as quickly as we should be. Why? Maybe the answer will come from the next two speakers.
Why is it always too little, too late? Why was it a surprise that there was genocide since the referendum two weeks ago? Why was the UN Council taken by surprise? We had guaranteed these people that if they exercised their democratic rights and voted we would protect them and see it out to the end. We failed, and failed miserably. The international community should hang its head and the European Union along with it.
What is wrong? What needs to be done to enable us to respond as we should? That is the only question that needs to be answered because we are too late now. Others have taken up our cudgels. Let us not be caught in this position again."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-15-Speech-3-192 | "Mr President, I was asked a question which was addressed to Mr Patten, who is responsible for foreign and security policy. He is not here today. He will assume office tomorrow. The Commission will have its first meeting on Saturday. In that first meeting the situation in East Timor will be on the agenda. There will be three basic issues: how to re-establish peace; what the urgent humanitarian needs are and how they can be met in the area; how to prepare a multi-annual programme to build institutions in East Timor.
As far as the ECHO’s activities so far and at the moment are concerned, Mrs Halonen, the Foreign Minister of Finland and President of the Council would like to say that the ECHO humanitarian aid office has been present in East Timor since 15 July. There have been six partners in East Timor. They were fully in action until 9 September when they had to be evacuated for security reasons to Australia. All these people are returning to East Timor as soon as the security situation improves. We hope that the recent UN Security Council resolution allows the situation to develop so that all the humanitarian aid activities can be restarted soon in East Timor."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-15-Speech-3-231 | "Mr President, I welcome strongly the fact that the 700 pages are going to be published. They are of course legally binding on the citizens of Europe. But what about the future when more of these laws are going to be passed in the Council of Ministers? They will be passed in total secrecy. The public in the gallery, we Members, the press cannot watch law-making going on. What is the attitude of the Finnish presidency towards law-making in secret, because at the moment the Council of Ministers is only matched by Beijing and North Korea in passing laws over citizens in secret? Should not it be in the open and will you do something about it?"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-15-Speech-3-243 | "Mr President, would the Council accept that the cost of maritime surveillance to Ireland is totally disproportionate to our size and population. I appreciate his point that under the 1995 fisheries legislation provisions this is taken into consideration, but does he support the provision of funding commensurate with the area to be surveyed by the Irish authorities?"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-15-Speech-3-247 | "Mr President, the introduction of the single currency, combined with better competition in the marketplace, has resulted in a substantial reduction in interest for those on variable rate mortgages. I want to emphasise variable rate mortgages. There are however, particularly in Ireland, a substantial number of borrowers on fixed rates, sometimes at interest which is three times higher than the current rates and which lending institutions are unwilling to adjust without substantial financial penalties. I would ask the President-in-Office if he is willing to have this matter examined, if not by the Council, by the Commission or indeed the European Central Bank. It is a very serious problem for a very large number of borrowers who are finding it increasingly difficult to meet interest rates which prevailed five, six and seven years ago at treble the rate which we have at the present time."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-15-Speech-3-252 | "Is the Council aware of the situation in Britain to which I have referred? If he is not aware, I would strongly suggest that the Council familiarises itself with this situation. I do not want to be alarmist in any way but the fact that the British Government has already acted is something which should be taken into consideration. In view of the fact that the Amsterdam Treaty accords the highest priority to the protection of human health and given the fact that the European Parliament now has powers of codecision under the Treaty can the Council assure the House that any proposal to be considered on the multi-use trial contact lens will be brought before the House for our consultation and approval?"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-15-Speech-3-256 | "I would like to thank the President-in-Office for his answer. However, he has told us nothing new. The purpose of this Question Time is to allow Members to raise issues of importance and try to get some information from the Council.
In my supplementary therefore, I would like a direct answer from the President-in-Office as regards the Finnish Presidency’s position firstly on reducing youth crime, secondly on ensuring that the right of Member States not to be forced to comply with a so-called liberal regime of drug use and drug policy are not diminished and thirdly, on ensuring that there is no diminution of the requirement for unanimous agreement on any changes in this area."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-15-Speech-3-270 | "Mr President, I should like to say, on my own behalf and on behalf of Mr Titley, that response is rather weak. As we are aware, the Council meeting in Cologne fully endorsed the need to include minimum core labour standards in the negotiations for the WTO millennium round. It is vital for our prospects of bringing the world ever closer in terms of these minimum core standards - which include an end to slavery and child labour - that we start this round properly. I hope, therefore, that the Council will take on board many of the issues which have been raised in this Parliament, both in committee and in plenary regarding such measures. I hope that you will take a stronger stance and come back with a stronger answer when you have considered the full implementation of your key negotiating standards. It is essential that you consider this particular element."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-15-Speech-3-272 | "I would like to raise a question which has a bearing on relationships between the European Union and the WTO, also affecting employment but concerning present compliance.
There are small and medium-sized enterprises throughout the Union which are still suffering sanctions imposed in the context of the banana war and this is because we have been slow to comply with the ruling; hence sanctions are still in force. This will cost jobs in very vulnerable parts of the Union and I would like an assurance that the President of the Council is in favour of securing compliance with standards of international law and preventing suffering by members of this Union from sanctions imposed under what have turned out to be illegal actions."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-15-Speech-3-275 | ") Mr President, I can assure the Honourable Member that the issue of core labour standards is a very important one for the country holding the Presidency, and we shall try to make progress in this matter. I would, however, like to point out that we must strive to find solutions that are positive for developing countries and which could thus gain positive acceptance. I must say that we will certainly have to consider inter alia
firmer commitment on the part of the Union in its own policy on aid to developing countries to support those very countries that are making progress in their own labour standards."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-16-Speech-4-012 | "Neil
Mr President, with your permission, indeed at the suggestion of the House, I would like to make a Commission statement on Kosovo. Naturally I value the work and the words of Mrs Pack and particularly the force and clarity with which she put a very convincing argument. I will respond properly to her report at the end of this morning’s debate.
Fourth, the European Union, and obviously the Commission, will also contribute to work in the other pillars: pillar 1 with UNHCR on humanitarian issues, pillar 2 with the UN and pillar 3 with OSCE on institution-building and democratisation.
We will strive to ensure full cooperation between the different participants where there are clear overlaps between civil administration and reconstruction.
Mr President, following the Council’s recent decision on the easing of sanctions relating to the Kosovo crisis the Commission is putting forward a proposal for the exemption of Kosovo and Montenegro from particular EC sanctions against the former Republic of Yugoslavia. The oil embargo and the flight ban will therefore be lifted.
Cooperation from all relevant authorities in Kosovo will obviously be vital in order to establish effective controls on end use and to avoid circumvention.
Mr President, in recent years fellow Europeans have again been perpetrators and victims of appalling violence and attempts at ethnic extermination, sometimes described, in a euphemism which bewilders me, as “cleansing”. As ever, the worst results of such horrors are suffered by the innocent and the effects will blight their lives for many years to come. I know this House does not need convincing, but as a direct and leading contributor to relieving suffering and rebuilding normality and as a coordinator of the efforts of others, the European Union must make the maximum possible commitment. In those and other efforts, by working with people of all ethnic backgrounds we are for them and also working for the purposes and values that bind us together. In giving help as humanitarians, we hope that we are giving an example as Europeans too.
The Commission welcomes the fact that international civil and military administrations have been established and have begun the very difficult task of rebuilding in Kosovo. It calls on all parties to respect Security Council Resolution 1244 and the military agreements and undertakings in full and hopes that complete KFOR and UNMIK deployment will be completed without great delay.
The Commission supports the creation of a democratic and multi-ethnic Kosovo and deeply regrets the continuing ethnic violence. It condemns, in the strongest terms, violence perpetrated by any ethnic group and calls for maximum efforts to secure the reconciliation and cooperation which are essential to stability and security for all in the region. The Commission’s roles in the massive efforts to restore infrastructure and civil society in Kosovo will be of interest to the House. Broadly, there are two such roles: engagement in the major reconstruction programme and collaboration in the framework of UNMIK coordinating initiatives with other international donors. Clearly the first element will be discussed, particularly as this House debates the report by Mrs Pack, and I therefore highlight just a few of the relevant elements at this juncture.
Firstly, a total budget of EUR 137 million is foreseen for 1999 under the Obnova Programme of which EUR 46 million has been committed and implementation is under way. However, the Commission counts on the active support of this Parliament, which I am sure will be forthcoming, in obtaining both the remaining EUR 92 million for 1999 and the additional funding which will be required in the coming years. At present we estimate that some EUR 500 million will be needed in 2000 and EUR 500-700 million needed in 2001 and 2002.
Secondly, efficient implementation will obviously be of crucial importance. The Commission proposes, therefore, the creation of a locally established reconstruction agency to ensure the effective application of the Community’s reconstruction programme in Kosovo.
Thirdly, the creation of the agency must clearly be well prepared and a taskforce has therefore been set up for that explicit purpose. The taskforce has programmed and is implementing the first EUR 46 million tranche of reconstruction assistance. Landmine clearance, customs and the procurement of essential supplies for rehabilitation of housing, public buildings and, in particular, Mitrovica Hospital are the main focus of attention. Later tranches will concentrate on preparing roads for winter conditions, municipal twinning in which assistance from Member States is being requested, and subsequently public utilities, public buildings, economic reconstruction and institution-building.
The second element of the Commission’s involvement goes beyond the implementation of Community assistance and extends to the wider international effort in Kosovo. It naturally includes a variety of activities. I refer to some of them for purposes of illustration. Firstly with the other participants in reconstruction and the major international financial institutions, the Commission is involved in damage and needs assessment. Indeed the Commission is conducting the only province-wide methodological assessment of physical damage. The initial results of that exercise relating to damage in housing and local infrastructure were issued at the conference arranged by the Commission and World Bank donors last July. A more comprehensive report, focusing on large-scale infrastructure, will be completed by the end of this year.
Secondly, the Commission shares responsibility for donor mobilisation with the World Bank and at that July conference of donors over EUR 2 billion was pledged. A second conference is scheduled for next month.
Thirdly, as the House is aware, the European Union has a special responsibility for reconstruction within the United Nations Civil Administration, UNMIK. These activities are organised in the so-called Pillar 4 which is headed by a Commission official, Mr Dixon. Thanks to the strenuous efforts made by Mr Dixon and his colleagues, Pillar 4 is working well, though faced with enormous problems due to the legal and institutional vacuum in Kosovo. The current priorities are putting the banking system in order, working closely with other pillars and KFOR to provide essential supplies, shelter and transport in advance of winter, preparing with the World Bank and the IMF a simplified budget and working on fiscal issues and drawing up with the World Bank a medium-term investment framework to be presented to the next pledging conference."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-16-Speech-4-039 | "Mr President, it is true of course that politics is the only profession in which it is possible to lose your virginity more than once! As a maiden vice-presidential speaker, I am in that position again in my life.
As the House is aware, the Member States agreed to set up the agency’s headquarters and general services in Thessaloniki. The Commission has entered a reservation against this decision. As far as the Commission is concerned, the establishment of the agency in Pristina is not a mere detail of its proposal. It is a basic requirement for the efficient management for the programmes and the achievement of the agency’s objectives.
Disputation which causes delay is obviously not acceptable in view of the need to find a rapid solution to the problem and the Commission is therefore open to a compromise which maintains those objectives of speed and effectiveness. The Commission has already sent a document to the Council presidency and to Parliament in which it proposes a clear functional division of the agency services and staff between Pristina and Thessaloniki, with all the operational services concentrated in Pristina and the agency’s director based there at its centre of operations.
Finally, I should like to thank Parliament on behalf of the Commission for its amendments. The new Commission will obviously study them closely. I emphasise, however, that the Commission and Parliament have the same objective: to maximise the speed and efficiency of the Commission’s efforts on the ground in Kosovo for the people of the region.
As a new Commission, we would like to take a short time to look at the situation and your amendments, in order to be as sure as we can be that we get things right. I am certain that the Council will wish to do the same.
It is essential to involve the people of Kosovo in the reconstruction process and to ensure effective coordination with non-governmental organisations. Budgetary transparency is clearly necessary, as Parliament proposes to draw a clear distinction between the contribution from the Community budget and contributions from other sources and to distinguish between expenditure on physical reconstruction and on institution-building.
Finally, Mr President, the Commission would be in favour of Parliament being consulted before any decision by the Council on extending the agency’s activities to other regions of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. That would enhance the role of Parliament, which already receives a quarterly report on the agency’s activities and has the important task of giving discharge to the agency’s director for the implementation of the budget.
I am sure that full advantage will be taken of the slight pause that it is generally agreed is needed if we are to achieve our objective of a speedy and efficient aid effort for the benefit of and with the assistance of the people of Kosovo.
In response to what has been a very high-quality debate, I am extremely pleased to be joined by my new colleague, the Budget Commissioner, Michaele Schreyer, whose presence is evidence of close interest in this issue and its financial and budgetary implications. It is extremely useful that Mrs Schreyer has been here today.
I would like to thank very much the rapporteurs and members of the various committees who have given such thorough and urgent attention to the crucial issue that is before the House now. I would also like to thank them for the quality of their contributions and the commitment they have shown in offering their opinions and submitting the report by Mrs Pack.
As the House will know, the Commission proposal essentially concerns the setting-up of an agency to implement the Community’s reconstruction programmes, initially in Kosovo but later, when circumstances allow, in other regions of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia like Serbia and Montenegro. Clearly the agency’s mandate does not cover assistance in the other countries of former Yugoslavia or other Balkan countries because this structure is the specific European Union instrument for the reconstruction of Kosovo. It is designed to maintain the European Union’s necessary control over the reconstruction programme and to safeguard its independence and right of initiative in the process. The agency’s work must be clearly associated with the European Union and not diluted in the broader activities of the numerous bodies that are dealing with Kosovo and the region. That is not for any reason of insularity; a clear division of tasks is essential in order to ensure proper accountability.
The Commission’s proposal reflects the need to set up an instrument for the rapid, decentralised and efficient management of reconstruction aid in a way that takes account of the urgency of the situation and the exceptional efforts that are required. Honourable Members repeatedly have drawn attention to those realities in this debate and indeed on many other occasions. The Commission’s initiative takes past experience into account and, in particular, the difficulties encountered in the first phase of reconstruction in Bosnia which, as the House has rightly recalled again this morning, led to delays in implementing those programmes. The Commission’s proposal to set up a European Agency for reconstruction is largely based on Parliament’s recommendations on reconstruction in Bosnia - recommendations which rightly underline the need to decentralise the management of aid by increasing local staff numbers and to provide for mechanisms that are better adapted to the urgency of the reconstruction requirements.
I would like to make particular reference to certain aspects of the Commission proposal relating to the agency’s structure. Following the request to set up an agency made by the Cologne European Council, the Commission’s proposal is largely based on the model of all other existing European agencies: a structure with its own legal personality and decision-making powers and with the Member States represented on a governing board. Such a structure will enable reconstruction to be managed by means of specially adapted procedures which are unlike those used in the Commission’s departments. It will enable staff to be recruited specifically for the requirements of reconstruction and for a period of time, as Mr Bourlanges sought, that is limited to the tasks in hand. The agency will employ staff in ways that are subject to statutory provisions for carrying out public service tasks which the technical assistance office should not and cannot take on.
As is the case with all other existing Community agencies, the Commission proposes that Member States be represented on the governing board so that their presence ensures full coordination of the European Union’s activities with those carried out in the field by Member States. It could encourage Member States to use the agency to implement their own programmes. Furthermore, the participation of Member States in the governing board will make it possible to ensure that once the annual programme is decided by the Commission, all the rest of the decisions related to projects will be taken on the ground without referring back to the management committee composed of Member States in Brussels. Regardless of the proposed competences of the agency, I would like to make it quite clear that the Commission will continue to exercise its powers and fully assume its responsibilities. The agency will not be empowered to determine policy guidelines or to approve the reconstruction programmes. It is the Commission that will take, and will be accountable for, the decisions on the programmes to be carried out by the agency.
Mr President, the location of the agency’s headquarters, as this morning’s discussions again made evident, has led to some controversy in the Council as well as in this House. The function of the agency is to ensure efficiency and speed in the management of aid. That involves decentralising management and establishing effective cooperation with other operators from the international community in Kosovo. Pristina has, therefore, been chosen by the Commission as the location for the agency’s headquarters. That is where the provisional administration of Kosovo is based and all the agencies and organisations responsible for reconstruction in the region are located. It is Kosovo that is to be reconstructed.
Logically, therefore, the agency should have its operational base there, although in arguing for that option, everyone will, I am sure, bear in mind the very persuasive points that Mr Cohn-Bendit made in today's debate about previous experience."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-16-Speech-4-044 | "Mr President, I understand the import of Mr Sakellariou’s inquiry and normally I would have been very happy to have given him explicit answers to his two very important questions. I am sure he is old enough in this Parliament – I am speaking of his experience of course and not his age – to understand why at this juncture I could not. I am certain that my colleagues who are specialists in this area will be pleased to give him the information he seeks on a future occasion."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-16-Speech-4-049 | "Mr President, it is a great pleasure to speak on Palestine. It is extremely important and it is a subject in which I have been very interested for many years. Mrs Morgantini has produced an excellent report which I and my group support and the two amendments are very important because they ask for an annual report and for access to the sites and information on the aspects of the financing.
I should like to raise a few points. One is that we are helping 3.5 million refugees. I accept that these are people in refugee camps now and I hope that the European Union will play a very positive role in helping them to rehabilitate once they come across from neighbouring countries into Palestine for resettlement. I hope the European Commission will take the initiative, with the close cooperation of Parliament, in being more of an active player in the Middle East and not take a back seat and let the Americans lead.
When we look at the aid we are giving, EUR 40 million, that is not a lot of money. I accept it is quite a large part of the EUR 120 million that are being given and 85% of our budget of about EUR 40 million per annum is for education, which I consider the right way forward. We are helping to educate half a million children.
I hope that this proposal will be acted upon quickly because as Mrs Morgantini pointed out there is urgency, teachers are losing their jobs or not being employed and education and medical help is essential. I hope that the Commission will do its best to speed this on.
Mrs Morgantini has really covered this subject extensively. I do not want to waste Parliament’s time and I thank the President for giving me the opportunity to speak on this subject."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-16-Speech-4-053 | "Mr President, it is my pleasure to comment on the fact that in this short debate we have had three maiden speeches including that of Ms Schröder who, at 21 years of age, is the youngest Member of this Parliament. It is evidence of the fact that young people are extremely interested in politics. At 21 she is seven years younger than I was when I went to the House of Commons. I can only offer the hope that Ms Schröder matures better than I did and I am sure that she will.
Can I begin by expressing the Commission’s gratitude for the thorough report by the Committee on Development and Cooperation and for the support given throughout the consultation procedure for the Commission’s efforts to conclude the Tenth Convention between the Community and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine refugees in the Near East. In particular, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Morgantini for her work. The constructive involvement of Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, and Committee on Budgets also deserves thanks, and I will in a moment comment on the amendments proposed by the Committee on Budgets about which Mr Khanbhai spoke.
Since 1972 the Community has signed nine conventions with UNRWA governing the EC contribution to the organisation’s regular and food aid budgets. The tenth triennial convention covers the period 1999 to 2001 and provides for a contribution of EUR 120.82 million to UNRWA’s regular education and health programmes. It also allows for the annual negotiation of the contribution to the food aid budget. That EUR 120 million includes a 5% annual increase which reflects the operative principle of indexation that takes account of inflation and population growth. That arrangement has governed previous European Union contributions under the successive conventions and has been repeatedly praised by the United Nations Agency because it prevents erosion in the value of the Community’s contribution.
The Commission has made efforts to improve and to clarify the Convention being considered before the House today in order to make its application more transparent and also to take into account the relevant agreed provisions in the European Community-United Nations global arrangement. Other innovations in this convention including Article 4 on payments, Article 8 on visibility of the Community’s contribution, Article 9 on arbitration and Article 12 on entry into force, all aim at enhancing transparency and accountability.
I would like to advise the House that the Commission cannot accept the two amendments proposed by the Committee on Budgets for two reasons. Firstly, the purpose of the draft Council decision is not to regulate an interinstitutional information request. It is to approve the text of the EC-UNRWA Convention and to authorise the Commission to sign it on behalf of the Community. Secondly, the obligation to inform is inherent in the Commission’s responsibility to implement the Community budget. The annual report submitted by UNRWA will certainly be provided to Parliament as well as to the Council.
Progress on this issue is now urgent. UNRWA is facing a severe cash shortfall and we, as donors, have to do our utmost to accelerate the procedure to help out UNRWA and ultimately the Palestinian people. The House will be conscious that, in the context of the Middle East peace process and the Oslo peace accords, the refugee issue was specified for final status talks. Under those accords, the parties were supposed to have negotiated the final status issues by 4 May this year but sadly that has not happened. Let us hope, however, that the signature of the memorandum in Sharm el-Sheikh will reinvigorate the peace process and ensure that the outstanding issues on final status are tackled without great delay."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-16-Speech-4-054 | "I conclude by saying that until the refugee issue has found a just and comprehensive solution, the Union’s support for UNRWA, as a provider of para-governmental services in the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria, to alleviate the very difficult lives of 3.5 million Palestinian people in the refugee camps, is absolutely crucial. Far from taking a marginal role, the European Union, and therefore, the European Commission will sustain a strong engagement to ensure that the conditions of those people are significantly improved."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-16-Speech-4-058 | "I would like to thank the Vice-President of the Commission for the warm welcome and I understand we are both political people."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-16-Speech-4-062 | "The next item is the vote
***
***
***"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-16-Speech-4-064 | "I have just been informed that Dr. Carlos Roberto Reina, the President of the Central American Parliament, and his wife have arrived in the distinguished visitors’ gallery. We are delighted that they have been able to join us today and I would ask the House to welcome them to the gallery."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-16-Speech-4-066 | "Motion for a resolution (B5-0110) by Mr Napolitano, on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and Mr Watson, on behalf of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs on the establishment of the Charter of Fundamental Rights
***
Motion for a resolution () by Mr Watson on the Extraordinary European Council meeting on the area of freedom, security and justice
***"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-16-Speech-4-069 | "I appreciate why you are making this request, but I am afraid the Rules are very strict and I cannot allow it.
***
Report () by Mrs Pack, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, on the proposal for a Council Regulation (COM(1999) 312 – C5-0062/1999 – 1999/0132(CNS)) amending Regulation (EC) No 1628/1996 relating to aid for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, in particular through the setting-up of the European Agency for Reconstruction"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-16-Speech-4-070 | "Mr President, the Liberal Group would like to withdraw Amendment 32 because it has been replaced. I would like to ask for a split vote on Amendments 8, 10, 14 and 18 because that would allow us to vote for more of the amendments that Mrs Pack has put forward. In view of the very high quality debate we had this morning, that would be very helpful, but only, of course, if you would allow it."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-16-Speech-4-071 | "I always try to be helpful and I understand that new Members are only just learning the Rules. The Rules are very clear about when we can allow a split vote, a separate vote, or a roll call vote. There are timetables for all these things which your group secretariat really should advise you of. While I would like to help, I am afraid I cannot."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-16-Speech-4-072 | "Mr President, perhaps Mrs van der Laan meant a separate vote for each paragraph and not a split vote. That is different to a split vote."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-16-Speech-4-073 | "You are absolutely right but equally we have rules about separate votes and the same ruling applies."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-16-Speech-4-075 | "You are long-standing Member of the House and you know that we can take points in relation to the conduct of the vote but not political points. And certainly not another round of speeches which you are in danger of starting."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-16-Speech-4-077 | "Mrs Pack – can you just clarify one point because neither I or the Secretariat were clear. Do you wish to postpone the final vote or refer the matter back to committee? The two are different – we need to know."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-16-Speech-4-079 | "Let me suggest that what you want is to delay the final vote."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-16-Speech-4-084 | "Discussions are already under way in relation to how the EU budget for the year 2000 will be disbursed. Initial budgetary plans which have been forwarded to the European Parliament for its consideration have included within them a recommendation that monies for road safety campaigns in Europe be reduced by £1.5 million (EUR 1.9 million). Per annum, this will mean in practical terms a reduction in the overall annual budget for road safety campaigns from EUR 9.9 million to EUR 8 million.
This is a truly unacceptable state of affairs. It is hard to believe that in the fifteen countries of the European Union as many as 7,500 lives are lost simply because people do not use seatbelts in the front seat and in the back seat. Every year in the European Union around 45,000 people die and about 1.6 million are injured as a result of road traffic accidents.
Ever since the enactment of the Amsterdam Treaty on 1 May this year, the European Parliament has power of codecision in the whole area of transport policy matters. Other EU institutions will not be permitted by the European Parliament in the future to recommend in any shape or form a reduction in the budgets available for road safety campaigns.
On a more national front I welcome the strategy of the Irish Government to reduce road deaths and injuries by 20% before the year 2000. The Road Safety Campaign which is being put in place includes the following matters: more speed cameras, more breath tests, a penalty point system, stricter enforcement of seat belt law."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-16-Speech-4-086 | "Mr President, I do not have to tell you what a beautiful and vulnerable coastline the west of Scotland presents. Certainly it is one which is particularly vulnerable and this week we have heard yet further alarming reports of leakages from Sellafield which will damage the coast of Galloway, the Firth of Clyde, Argyle and beyond. It is vital that action of this kind be taken as quickly as possible and I am delighted to have had the opportunity of voting for it today."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-16-Speech-4-093 | "Mr President, on behalf of the Labour members of the Socialist Group I wish to inform you that we were unable to vote in favour of the Tampere resolution in its final form.
This is not because we do not sympathise with many of the things contained therein but we felt that some things were in danger of overloading the agenda of this summit and might cause it to fail. There are other issues that were examined in this resolution which should be more properly dealt with in the forthcoming intergovernmental conference to revise the Treaties.
For these reasons we felt unable to support the resolution in its finally amended version."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-16-Speech-4-100 | "That concludes the vote."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-16-Speech-4-104 | "Mr President, with your permission, I would like to make a Commission statement on the effects of the financial crisis in Russia and on matters relating to corruption and money laundering. As the House will know, some stability has been achieved in the general financial situation in Russia since the dramatic fall in the international exchange value of the rouble in August last year. Indeed, since the beginning of this year, there has been some encouraging news with the recovery in industrial output, mainly as the result of import substitution, relatively tight controls on inflation and a stronger balance of payments position, produced mainly by a sharp rise in the price of Russia’s oil exports.
There is also growing cooperation between the relevant Commission and Russian officials in customs and anti-fraud activities. The House will be only too aware of the sophisticated skills of international criminals in taking advantage of different legal and regulatory provisions across the globe and infiltrating economic and financial systems regardless of national frontiers. We are therefore faced with a worldwide problem that is not confined to Russia. Obviously combating it requires closely coordinated international responses and the Commission is ready to play its full part in that.
Russia must nevertheless take whatever action it can to put its own house in order. The Commission therefore hopes that the Russian authorities will respond to the present situation in a convincing way and it is vital that those authorities cooperate fully with the ongoing investigations in Europe and in the USA. The Commission notes with approval that the authorities have decided to send a high-level mission to the USA to liaise with investigators there, I think that is actually happening at the present time. Clearly the internal investigations in Russia into these fraud allegations should be actively encouraged.
The Commission is concerned, however, that the questions raised have been met by only routine denials and have not been properly addressed in Russia. Against that background, timely action by President Yeltsin in signing into law the Russian draft legislation on money laundering would be reassuring to the international community. Ratification and implementation of the relevant Council of Europe Convention is also essential.
In addition, the Commission would like to see a speedy resolution of the problems in the Russian banking system, which is obviously at the centre of concerns about corruption. Confidence in that system needs to be restored quickly and decisively as a major contribution to the achievement of something like normality.
In addition, at the end of July, agreement was reached with the IMF, and other financial institutions, on the resumption of direct loan assistance, and soon afterwards there was an agreement in the Paris Club on rescheduling debt service payments due on Russia’s sovereign debt. Talks are now under way in the London club of private-sector creditors. The Russian economy has consequently gained a breathing space in the run-up to the
elections in December and the presidential elections next summer.
However, by itself, none of this is enough to revive an economy which remains very fragile with rising unemployment and levels of poverty. Much more effort is therefore needed from the responsible authorities to promote sustained recovery over the medium-term. Adoption by the
of the budget proposed by the government for the year 2000 will be a significant test. In addition to severe structural problems like lack of investment, the public debt, particularly foreign debt, has grown rapidly and at present it is not clear how the authorities intend to service that debt burden.
With reference to the more specific issues of the flight of capital and money-laundering, I would like to say the following. The Commission is aware of the current media speculation and the growing worries about the misuse of international assistance funds provided to Russia. Clearly we must await the outcome of ongoing investigations in Europe and the United States of America, and the Commission is naturally following the matter closely.
In the meantime, the decision about a response to the speculations and the allegations about misuse of assistance funds is primarily a matter for the IMF, the World Bank and the G7 countries, since they are obviously the main suppliers of direct financial assistance. Everyone should of course be mindful of the fact that the Russian authorities are responsible for repaying the principal and the interest due on such assistance. Moreover, the latest IMF assistance will be cancelled out by debt-servicing payments due to the IMF by Russia. It will therefore be a book transaction without any substantial transfer of money.
Meanwhile Community assistance is, as this House will know, primarily delivered through the TACIS programme which is centrally managed from Brussels. The funds concerned are predominantly used to pay EU firms to provide technical expertise and advice for Russia. Only a very small proportion of the funds therefore goes to Russia. Indeed it is only EUR 4 million out of the total of EUR 140 million. That EUR 4 million is obviously directly managed by our representation in Moscow.
In addition the Community food supply programme for Russia, that was launched earlier this year, is subject to very close monitoring which involves, amongst other things, checks on the use of the funds generated by the sale of relevant food products on local markets. Moreover, Russia does not currently receive Community loans, and the lending mandate of the European Investment Bank for countries outside the European Union does not extend to Russia.
However, the issues which deserve close attention are not confined to alleged misuse of international funds. They extend, in the Commission’s view, to the massive outflow of capital from Russia which has in turn obviously contributed to the low level of internal investment and therefore impeded economic growth. The Commission has always made it clear to Russia that reversing capital flight urgently and fundamentally requires a more appropriate investment environment and better protection of investor rights in Russia.
For some time, the Commission has recognised the link between capital flight and corruption and criminality in Russia and we also understand the cumulative threat these conditions pose to the country’s transition to a democratic system and a market economy governed by the rule of law. The House will be aware that criminal activity thrives on institutional weaknesses and the fragility of efforts to consolidate the rule of law. That is why the Commission has made, and will continue to make, useful efforts to assist Russia in its arduous transition by actions like targeting technical assistance at combating money-laundering and organised crime and supporting efforts to advance the rule of law in general. One example of such activities is a study into Russian institutional and regulatory requirements in combating money-laundering that will be launched later this year."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-16-Speech-4-107 | "Mr President, can I associate myself with Mr Swoboda’s remarks. I had not intended to speak in this debate but I have listened to a very carefully prepared statement from the Commission and I thank Mr Kinnock for that. It correctly sums up what I believe is a very dangerous situation developing in Russia.
What we need at the moment is stability and further investment to allow Russia to develop. What is happening is the exact opposite. I was in Moscow last November with a group from this Parliament which had gone there to evaluate the need for humanitarian aid, and it became obvious that the country is just not able to put itself in order. We as a European Union really do need to take some political initiative to try to help the Russians get their economy back on track.
The Central and Eastern European countries that were former members of the Soviet bloc have been able to pull themselves together, and improve their economies and their peoples’ standards of living. This was because we put ownership and the laws of property ownership high on the agenda. That is not the case in Russia and the difficulty there, I believe, arises because no one has the responsibility to own anything and therefore take control of their own economy. I hope we can therefore take some sort of political initiative to try to make sure that country puts its basic law into proper order."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-16-Speech-4-110 | "Mr President, the news that we are seeing at the moment alleging misconduct by the Russian Central Bank comes as very little surprise to many of us. It has long been evident that the large sums of money provided to prop up the national level of the Russian economy have not produced the desired effect and that the top-down approach might have appeared simple, but it can be less efficient in the long term.
We are aware that the gap between rich and poor has become a chasm, that the people of Russia are losing faith in the ideal of democracy and that the infrastructure is crumbling and workers are not paid. The West might have done better to have paid the teachers, doctors and miners directly, perhaps. If we are to invest further in the Russian economy we have to find the means to support and develop local economic activity - as our colleague has just said - which meets people’s needs and provides a sense of stability and involvement. There are many examples of that being developed in areas of social exclusion in the world’s poorer countries at the moment, from which we can learn.
The emphasis on money laundering and crime is only part of the issue. We need to look at how to develop internal investment. The example from the West is that you bring in other people to do the investing and they take the cash with them. So perhaps we would do well in this House to look at how we talk about issues such as the repatriation of profit to countries producing it, rather than simply extracting the cash as well as the natural resources."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-16-Speech-4-114 | "Mr President, I should like to begin by congratulating Commissioner Kinnock on his second term of office, which I am sure will be even more distinguished than his first.
In relation to this particular problem, while we must not underestimate the damage that crime and organised crime can do to Western society. It is important where Russia is concerned that we try to get beyond the headlines. After all, to be blunt, crime is a fairly normal occurrence throughout the history of Russia. There is nothing new about it. We must not forget that Russia is potentially an extremely rich country. It has huge natural resources from gold to oil to agricultural land, and yet production has gone down 50% since 1989. The key problem is capital flight, whether it is legal capital flight or illegal capital flight. After all, the money which stays in Russia, even if it is on the black market, has an economic effect. Capital outflow is now about USD 25 billion a year and yet foreign investment is less than USD 3 billion and falling. To be quite honest, if the Russians are not prepared to invest in Russia what chance is there that anybody else will do so? We must not lose sight of the fact that any public money we can give is a mere drop in the ocean. The key to Russia’s salvation is private investment. It is that area that we ought to focus on.
The answer lies within Russia itself. It has to implement proper economic reforms. We have to have a viable and fair taxation system. We have to guarantee modern democratic law and law enforcement.
Industrialists have made it clear to us – for example, in the EU/Russia industrialist round table – that they want to invest in Russia. After all, given the potential, there is a killing to be made in Russia with the right investment at the right time. But repeatedly they all say the same thing: it is corruption that discourages them, investment conditions are very poor because there is no viable long-term tax system, laws are constantly changing , the infrastructure is poor and, most importantly, property rights, including intellectual property rights, are weak and confused. Those are the areas we have to focus on.
I recognise that in the current atmosphere it is difficult to justify EU technical assistance but we must continue that process because of the importance Russia has for us for security reasons as well as economic reasons.
I am glad to hear what Commissioner Kinnock says because it is important that we focus on a few areas: not only economic improvement but clearly, what we also have to aim at, improvements to civil society which will underpin economic reform and the social aspects.
I would therefore like the new Commission – and I ask Commissioner Kinnock now – to make an overall evaluation of the efficiency of the TACIS programme and then to report back on how they will improve the programme for the year 2000 budget so we can have greater confidence when we vote in support of the TACIS programme."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-16-Speech-4-122 | "Mr President, the earthquake that struck Turkey in the early hours of 17 August was the worst in over half a century in a region that is prone to such shocks. There were at least 40,000 casualties and we extend our deepest sympathy and the hand of support to Turkey at this tragic time.
The European Union has responded to the disaster with some EUR 45 million of emergency humanitarian aid in addition to bilateral aid from a number of our Member States. We must insist on urgent implementation of this Community assistance. The immediate need is for practical material assistance such as prefabricated housing, generators and specialist vehicles and equipment. The release of a further EUR 150 million in European Union aid will require the support of this House.
In due course, given the fact that the European Union is a major contributor of humanitarian relief, it would be most useful for the Commission services and ECHO in particular to explore possibilities for improving the effectiveness of relief organisation in disaster situations. In addition, the Commission’s joint research centre should examine ways in which more effective warning might be given of seismic activity. However, we do not feel there is justification at this stage for the creation of some sort of new European research institute for this purpose.
Mr President, amid the tragedy there is one encouraging sign. What was also buried in Izmit was some of the enmity between Greece and Turkey. Greek rescue teams were among the first to provide assistance in Turkey, a very positive and humane gesture that was reciprocated by Turkey when not long after Athens too fell victim to earthquakes. There have been many, other often low-level, gestures of rapprochement between Greek and Turkish people in recent weeks. Many of us wish to see progress in the resolution of the various issues which stood in the way of Turkey’s candidacy for the European Union. This requires generosity and flexibility on all sides.
Out of the tragedy of Izmit let us hope for positive and permanent improvements in the relationship between the European Union and Turkey."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-16-Speech-4-125 | "Mr President, we all sympathise with Turkey after the traumatic experience it has been through. We must, however, strive to see that out of this trauma comes something of a catharsis, so that civil society is reinforced by its great efforts to cope with the aftermath of the earthquake crisis. The Turkish Government should be made far more accountable to the needs of the citizen, and the forces of reform such as Mr Selçuk, President of the Court of Appeal, and his colleagues must be everywhere stimulated and supported. Such a cathartic effect would certainly allow us in the European Union to formulate a fresh approach to our relations with Turkey and to develop a more positive collaboration in a spirit of true solidarity, and Greece must show itself to be a willing partner in this project."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-16-Speech-4-132 | "Mr President, could I say how grateful I am to the honourable Members from all parties for putting down motions for resolution on the tragic effects of the earthquakes in both Turkey and Greece. I also join honourable Members in offering the deepest sympathy of the Commission to all who lost friends and loved ones and all who have suffered injury in the terrible disasters in both countries.
The recent earthquakes, as several honourable Members have commented, were obviously unmitigated tragedies but once again they showed that the human capacity for mercy can be greater than any long-standing divisions. In the international effort for Turkish victims, the Greek Government gave instant support. When the earth trembled in Athens, the Turkish Government was one of the first to send relief workers and equipment. Let us hope that what we have seen graphically demonstrated, indeed movingly in this Chamber this afternoon, and the genuinely humane gestures undertaken by both Greeks and Turks in recent weeks, will lead to the strengthening of relations between the two neighbours and between Turkey and the European Union.
It is clear that nothing can heal the grief. Practical help can, however, ease some of the misery. The Commission took speedy action to try to assist the Turkish people and its government in their efforts to deal with the catastrophe.
The first priority, immediately after the earthquakes, was obviously to try to rescue and care for survivors. To this end, and in parallel with the systems provided by Member States and the wider international community, the Commission delivered EUR 4 million for first aid services and equipment through ECHO in two tranches. In addition, following a visit by the Finnish Presidency and Commissioner van den Broek to Turkey on 26 August, a financial package of EUR 30 million is currently being assembled to help with the current emergency and rehabilitation activities.
To permit swift utilisation of the funds, the EUR 30 million will also be allocated through ECHO. Emphasis will probably be put on temporary dwellings and repair works for essential public infrastructure like schools and hospitals. A more precise picture of needs will result from the joint assessment mission similar to the one that has just been called for, I would presume, that is being undertaken in the disaster areas by ECHO, the Commission’s representation in Ankara, the United Nations and the World Bank acting collectively. In the medium to long-term, reconstruction needs will clearly have to be addressed after comprehensive damage assessment. Meanwhile the Commission envisages the use of the following instruments to support further rehabilitation and reconstruction works.
Firstly, from 2000 onwards, Turkey should receive a share which reflects its important reconstruction needs from the MEDA 2 funds. Secondly, as this House will know, there are two regulations before the Council and this Parliament that will underpin the European strategy for Turkey. Those regulations foresee a total of EUR 150 million for Turkey over a three-year period which the Turkish Government regards as being of significant help. This week’s General Affairs Council committed itself to adoption and implementation of the regulations as soon as possible and asks the European Parliament - this is the Council speaking - to take this into account in their consideration. I hope that this House will seek to expedite its consideration of the legislation which has been here since last spring as far as my knowledge extends. I hope, therefore, that the honourable Members directly engaged in that consideration will not further delay their work.
Thirdly, the European Investment Bank is asked to make a special effort – we think around EUR 600 million worth of lending - to support reconstruction needs. Plainly that will require an additional allocation from the guarantee budget line.
In addition to these developments, the Commission envisages the possibility of acting in coordination with the IMF in granting Turkey macrofinancial assistance geared towards maintaining the reform process under what are evidently difficult conditions.
We trust that these short, medium and longer-term support initiatives will be of sustained help to the people of Turkey and we are sure that people right across the European Union will join us in hoping that the arduous task of restoring communities and morale will be successful.
As the House will know, and as we have heard from several honourable Members in their statements and speeches in the course of this afternoon, the people of Greece also suffered tragic deaths and damage in recent earthquakes and further tremors. As this Parliament will also recognise, there are no funds on the budget line for emergency aid within the Community. There is, therefore, little that the Commission can do to give material support to the efforts of the Greek people and its government in the short-term. However, together with the Greek Government, the Commission will look into the possibilities of reallocating some of the unused Objective 2 resources for reconstruction support in Greece."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-16-Speech-4-143 | "The Commission is following the situation in Dagestan and the related issues in Moscow referred to by Mr Wiersma very carefully. Naturally we deeply regret the loss of many lives and the displacement of nearly 40,000 people from their homes as a result of military activity in the Caucasus region.
Current information is that Russian troops appear to have secured most, if not all, of the villages occupied by the invasion forces from Chechnya. As the House will know, this was the second major incursion from Chechnya since early August. Fighting still continues in the border region. According to reports available to the Commission, the invasions have not gained any general support amongst the population of Dagestan. At present it is not clear whether and to what extent Islamic extremists from outside the region have incited or financed the incursions.
For the moment, therefore, the Commission, in common with others in the international community, calls on the Russian authorities to use proportionate force both in fighting on the territory of Dagestan and in hot pursuit operations across the Chechen border. We also call on the Chechen authorities to prevent such incursions being launched from their territory.
We also share parliamentary and public concern about what realistically seems to be the terrorist bombings in Moscow and, as recently as this morning, in Volgadansk. The Commission joins with the Finnish presidency in expressing its sympathy to the Russian authorities. We await the results of the official Russian investigations into the blasts before attributing the blame for these atrocities to any particular group.
The Commission is reassured to note official statements from Moscow that neither the crisis in Dagestan nor the Moscow bombings will be treated as a cause for declaring a state of emergency and thus postponing the forthcoming
elections. At all costs all parties must ensure that the current situation is not allowed to destabilise Dagestan, cause destabilisation in the longer term, or lead to greater political instability in Russia as a whole.
Mrs Schroedter raised the question of a hearing with my colleague, Mr Patten, in the Foreign Affairs Committee. I will certainly pass on her comments. Knowing Mr Patten, I am sure he will respond with alacrity."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-16-Speech-4-164 | "Mr President, the ageing dictatorial dinosaurs which stalk across the African sub-continent are dying and a new dawn of democracy is appearing. But in one country, a dinosaur has presided over a regime responsible for widespread human rights violations for 32 years. President Eyadema would be my first candidate for bringing before the new International Criminal Court. The situation there is grave. We know about the deaths at the time of the elections. We know about the human rights activists tortured in jail every day. We need to use the office of the EU facilitator to sort that out, to get an agreement between Eyadema and the opposition parties to take Togo to democracy. We call on the Council which will be meeting to make sure that the office for the facilitators is given the resources that it needs in order to be able to do that job.
Cooperation between the European Union and Togo should only be resumed when Togo fully complies with the provisions of Article 5 of the Lomé Convention. In the meantime we should be supporting independent media and civil society groups to bring what help we can to the population."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-16-Speech-4-167 | "Mr President, I must say that, as I listened to these very high-quality debates in the course of this afternoon, I reflected again on the maxim that if the state of domestic affairs makes you depressed, the state of international affairs will make you desperate. None of us can succumb to such pessimism and that is why strong concern and demands for action have been voiced in this democratic House. I very much welcome that. It shows that there are much better and more lively alternatives to simply surrendering to hopelessness, which is sometimes a temptation, both for political representatives and activists and indeed for the more general public.
I now turn to the situation in Iran, to which attention has again been drawn by resolutions before this House.
As the House will know, the Commission views the human rights situation in Iran with deep concern, which we share with this House. In the comprehensive dialogue between the European Union and Iran, questions directly relating to human rights are always raised by the European Union representatives. Whilst the Commission does not have any bilateral contractual relationship with Iran or representation in the country, we associate with the
made by the European Union troika. The treatment of members of religious minorities in Iran, particularly the Baha’is, was raised by the Union troika during the meetings with the Iranian Government last December and in May this year. That pressure will be maintained.
To come to the specific points relating to violations of human rights raised by Mr Zimeray, Mr Morillon and Miss Malmström, I would like to say that a Union troika
concerning the death sentences on four students, which incorporates the views expressed by this Parliament, is being prepared by the Finnish presidency. The Commission is also concerned about the trial of 13 Jews from Shiraz on charges of espionage. The Union has made a number of representations on the subject, both through the troika and bilaterally.
It is evident that the recent developments in Iran reflect the internal power struggle between moderate reformists and conservative hard-liners. The efforts of the conservatives to regain the initiative and undermine the government must realistically be regarded as a preface to the parliamentary elections which are due to take place next February.
Meanwhile the Commission considers that particularly in the period leading up to those elections, the policy of the cautious opening of relations with Iran through the comprehensive dialogue, should continue as a way of encouraging Mr Khatami’s government and the supporters of reform, many of whom are showing considerable courage in their efforts for change in extremely difficult and dangerous circumstances.
I now move to the issue of Togo. As the House will know, the European Community suspended development cooperation with Togo in 1992. Despite some shifts in the political situation since then, I regret to say that the prerequisites for the resumption of development cooperation and the full normalisation of relations with Togo – respect for democratic principles, the rule of law and human rights – are still not adequately fulfilled. However a certain political momentum towards political reconciliation has been created through the Lomé framework agreement that was reached between the government and the opposition in July of this year.
The progress was made possible through the facilitators provided by the European Union, as Mr Watson just said. The Union, therefore, intends to support continued action by the facilitators as well as projects that are related to the full restoration of the rule of law and respect for human rights.
The Commission welcomes the positive will for progress that was demonstrated by the government in opposition in the framework agreement, but substantial further progress – for example, properly conducted legislative elections that are anticipated in the next year – is required before we can consider resuming regular cooperation.
The Commission shares the particular concern for the resolution of the general human rights situation in Togo that is expressed in motions before this House. It is obviously very disturbing that the offences against human rights reported recently by Amnesty International have largely been confirmed by other sources. It has, however, not yet been possible to verify some of the most serious allegations concerning large-scale killings. Further investigations would therefore be welcomed by the Commission.
The House will know that wherever problems relating to human rights occur the United Nations system provides for a number of follow-up mechanisms to promote improvement in the situation. Such measures could, in the view of the Commission, be considered in the case of Togo and it would appear that they would certainly be justified.
Can I first of all turn to the debates on Kosovo and the various tragedies attending that sad part of the world? The Commission fully shares the concerns expressed in the draft resolutions before the House, both in relation to the continuing ethnic violence in Kosovo and the earlier so-called disappearances and the detentions. We naturally also join Members of this House in strongly condemning violence, no matter which ethnic group is the perpetrator or the victim, and we actively support efforts by UNMIK, KFOR and OSCE to establish law and order in Kosovo. The Commission obviously shares the deep concern of this House about the fate of the many civilians who are still missing. We are therefore directly involved in efforts to determine which of the missing people are still held in Serb prisons and which have been killed during the war and the circumstances in which they died. The Union is consequently providing support for forensic investigations into alleged war crimes, and earlier this week the General Affairs Council’s conclusions expressed deep concern that the question of several thousand persons - overwhelmingly Kosovo Albanians - who have disappeared remains open.
Finally, on numerous occasions, the Commission has condemned the gross failure of the authorities of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Serbia, to respect accepted international norms of humanity and minority rights. That apparent contempt for international obligations is one of the main impediments to improved relations between the former Republic of Yugoslavia and the European Union and an impediment too to the reintegration of the former Republic into the international community. That impediment is likely to stay, as long as the Serb authorities pursue their present policy.
I move now to the resolution relating to the situation in Burma. The Commission, as the House will know, strongly deplores the continued violation of human rights by the military authorities in Burma: in particular, the oppressive treatment of ethnic minorities, the persecution of Aung San Suu Kyi and other NLD members, the denial of basic trade union rights and the use of forced labour, the prohibition of freely functioning parties, the countless arbitrary arrests and the continuing state violence. We also share concern about the treatment of European Union citizens who have been arrested because of their public engagement in democracy movement activities in Burma. In April this year the European Union common position strengthened the October 1998 policy decision by covering transit visas and including a ban on tourist visits by people associated with the Burmese authorities. The Commission supported that action and assists the democracy movement and refugees in Burma, including of course by providing financial support for the Brussels office. The Council is currently reviewing the common position and its extension, as honourable Members said in the debate, should be decided before the 29 October.
The Commission has made it clear that although Burma has become a member of ASEAN the European Union cannot agree to Burmese participation in the EC/ASEAN Agreement. We use every opportunity to press our Asian partners to urge the Government of Burma to enter into a substantive dialogue with the opposition, led by Aung San Suu Kyi, and with the ethnic minorities and to change its policies radically in order to respect human rights.
Members are aware that Aung San Suu Kyi recently renewed her call for more comprehensive international economic sanctions against Burma, including unilateral sanctions, whilst the present regime controls the country that she loves.
The Commission participated in the recent EU troika visit to Rangoon which was undertaken with the aim of clearing the way for the establishment of a political dialogue with Burma as provided for in the Council conclusions of 26 April. The objectives of establishing political dialogue are to explain the European Union common position on the human rights situation and on the absence of the rule of law and democracy in Burma and to assist in creating conditions that would be conducive to political dialogue between the governing SPDC military junta and the democratic opposition and representatives of the ethnic minorities.
The European Commission remains committed to maintaining the pressure upon the SPDC, formerly known as the Slorc. Meanwhile the international situation continues to deteriorate and no meaningful response has been made to the repeated international calls for the Burmese authorities to take steps towards the promotion of democracy, human rights and national reconciliation.
The Commission therefore continues to support the renewal of the common position next month and the strict enforcement of the resulting pressures and sanctions."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-16-Speech-4-175 | "Mr President, may I again express the Commission’s thanks for the way in which Members have drawn attention to this very important issue this afternoon.
The Commission considers that the European Union, together with the rest of the international community, must take decisive steps to contain the repercussions of the crisis in the Great Lakes countries which in a variety of ways, as Members have said, threaten the security and stability of the whole of Africa. European Union policy is therefore based on the view that the results of the Great Lakes conflict must be dealt with in their three main dimensions: regional, bearing in mind the interests of the neighbouring countries; national, taking account of the interests of the government, rebel groups and democratic opposition; and local, concerning community clashes due to ethnic rivalries and severe social pressures.
In this context the Union is undertaking significant mediation and dialogue promotion efforts at the different levels of the conflict and the Commission is ready to contribute to the success of the Lusaka ceasefire agreement in the following areas. In terms of political support, the European Union intends to continue and to encourage the efforts already undertaken by our special representative for the Great Lakes to facilitate the necessary degree of dialogue between the different factions involved in the DRC conflict. The Union intends to continue the promotion and financing of mediation efforts, notably those of the President of Zambia, that made the Lusaka agreement possible in the first place. That is necessary in order to try to maintain the commitment of the signatories to respect their obligations. The Lusaka agreement foresees an inter-Congolese national debate to allow for the reconciliation of the differing political forces in DRC and to pave the way for a new political disposition in DRC. The Commission is also ready to finance the mediation efforts necessary to bring about that national debate.
Secondly, amongst the efforts that we are undertaking to make, are those related to support for the peacekeeping operations to be carried out by the United Nations and the Organisation of African Unity. Several Member States are contributing to the 90 United Nations military observers who are deployed in the capitals of the region and at the military headquarters of the rebel groups in order to oversee the implementation of the Lusaka agreement. These activities should also support the Joint Military Commission that is in charge of organising the deployment of a peacekeeping or peace enforcement force. The United Nations Security Council still has to decide, of course, on the nature of such a force. It will then be possible for the Union to consider whether and how to give relevant support.
Thirdly, in terms of economic and development support, the commitment of the Commission in the Lomé Convention framework could and should be reactivated under two conditions: Firstly, improvement in the security situation in the DRC and secondly, an outcome of the national debate which provides a stable political disposition in the DRC in which the essential elements of the Lomé Convention are respected. The reconstruction and development support of the Commission should then focus on the following areas: firstly establishment of the rule of law and the democratisation of national institutions; secondly, demobilisation and socio-economic reintegration of the belligerents; thirdly, restoration of the environment, especially in the Kivu and Orientale provinces; fourthly, reconstruction of transport infrastructure; and finally improvement of health and sanitation facilities. Naturally I would also have sympathy for the call made by, amongst others, Mrs Maes for a strict suspension of the gun-running and arms trafficking that are continuing to feed conflict in the region and frequently originates here in the European Union.
Finally, humanitarian aid is obviously a continuing need and the Commission Humanitarian Office (ECHO) has deployed around EUR 55.5 million this year.
Our efforts to achieve support and lasting stability will continue, and naturally we will also continue to seek to keep this Parliament fully informed because we value greatly the commitment to our joint objectives in securing stability and continuing peace in this sorely troubled region."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-17-Speech-5-007 | "Madam President, with reference to a point I made in the debate on Tampere on Tuesday, it has been brought to my attention by my colleague, Mr Camre, that remarks that I attributed to him were not what he intended and the translation into English, and I believe French, was the exact opposite of what he intended to say. My criticism of him was perhaps unfair. I would just like to put that straight and I have now done so."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-17-Speech-5-011 | "Madam President, I do not want to criticise but to praise the people who put together this quite extraordinary building. When you move into a new home, there are always problems.
There are problems, Madam President, but I appreciate that you,Mr Priestley and the group who dealt with the complaints from the last session recognise them. There seems to be a culture of complaining among the Members. How many of them had such lovely offices as we have here – and we are only here for four days a week. We have beautiful offices, fully equipped. Of course they need one or two things done to them, but if we constantly complain, we will get nowhere.
Having said that, I should like to make one request. In Brussels, there is a Members’ bar – as is traditional in parliaments throughout the European Union. I would like to see a room here where just Members can go to talk amongst themselves in private.
As regards the car-park, I have had difficulty once or twice in finding my car but I found it in the end. I did miss a vote during the week because of the lifts, but I recognise that in due course these matters will be resolved.
I must say that I admire the technicians and other people who have been criticised here. They have taken a lot of stick and have been hurt unnecessarily in many ways. I want to pay tribute to them and all the workers who put together this wonderful building.
(
)"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-17-Speech-5-016 | "Madam President, it is the same point. If you speak very close to your microphone most people cannot hear what you are saying. It is an indication of what is wrong with the system. It is exactly the same in the committee rooms. It is the distance of the speaker from the microphone. We need to hear what the interpreters are saying. I believe Mr Seppänen is absolutely right."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-17-Speech-5-018 | "Madam President, there are certain quaint eccentricities in the operation of the building and in its catering, for instance, coffee not being served during sessions, no white wine available by the glass, the fact that the pizzas taste like cardboard and the fact that the newspaper shop is about as far away from the entrance where Members come in as it is possible to be.
Nevertheless those are things we can deal with. The design of the building is not entirely to my taste. The designer clearly must have had Breughel’s Tower of Babel in mind. But I accept that you, Mr Priestley and the people of Strasbourg have made enormous efforts to try and cope with these. I agree with Mr Andrews that inevitably there were some teething problems. The biggest remaining problem is the lifts, which seem to have a mind of their own. If you run very fast – which does not help the handicapped – you might get in before someone inside it closes the door in your face because they are fed up with stopping on every floor.
Nevertheless, the building is a comparatively good one. It is cheap compared to the House of Commons in London, where nearly FRF 1 million has been spent on a desk.
My main complaint is not about the treatment of Members but about the treatment of staff. It seems to me that whoever has been making these decisions has treated the staff, in some cases, rather shabbily. Certainly the committee staff who work with me now have to fit three people, three desks and chairs, three telephones and three sets of papers into a room that used to be used by one Member in IPE I or IPE II. This is not an effective way of making sure that this institution works properly and effectively.
The last point I would make is that in many cases we have been blaming the building when it is the politicians we should be blaming. The building is here because of decisions made at the Edinburgh Council by Mr Major, who institutionalised our constant peregrinations between Brussels and Strasbourg – beautiful as this city is – to the detriment of our efficiency as an institution that is meant to be working on behalf of the people of the European Union.
(
)"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-17-Speech-5-021 | "Madam President, while I welcome many of the improvements that have been made, I want to make a point concerning the management side: we would very much welcome some recycling facilities, given the sheer amount of paper that appears every day, much of which is not kept. We would like people to look into that please. There is an issue that was raised with me by a number of assistants who were refused entry to the public gallery even though there was space. We quite understand that the public has to have priority – it is their building too. But we would ask that when there is space our assistants should be allowed access: it is not always convenient for them to be in our offices if we have visitors.
Finally, a minor point that was raised with me by a colleague who had to leave early. Could we have water provided during the sessions? People here find the atmosphere in this building very dry, not just politically, but in environmental terms, and we would very much welcome that provision."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-17-Speech-5-023 | "Madam President, I concur with my colleague, Mr Ford, that of course if we only sat in Brussels, we would not be here debating this building. That underlines the problem that we are confronted with the enormous task of managing two buildings across the European Union. Nonetheless that is the task that the Council has decided that we must undertake. I would, therefore, like to thank the services, Mr Priestley in particular, and all his staff for the strenuous efforts they have undertaken to make this building work. This week this building has worked. While there have been problems, our parliamentary business has not been hindered by the defects and this is thanks to the efforts of Mr Priestley and others.
There are significant design defects, particularly in relation to access. It is not an architecturally welcoming building particularly to people with disabilities. That is going to be a real challenge for us all to overcome. On the whole, a lot of the resistance is due to the fact that people just do not like change. They do not like unfamiliar surroundings. In my view, it is not appropriate to discuss our own internal business at a full parliamentary session here in the European Parliament. We need to find, perhaps, a less formal form of ongoing dialogue with you and Mr Priestley and his services to discuss the issues of accessibility and other issues relating to the internal organisation of this Parliament. This session is an illustration that the dialogue between ordinary Members and the administration is perhaps not working as effectively as it could be.
In conclusion, putting all this in perspective, yes we have problems as Members. Our staff have problems too, but this is nothing compared to the problems faced by those we represent. I hope we all bear that point in mind."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-17-Speech-5-034 | "Mr President, I am sorry to have lost the opportunity to bend Madam President’s ear. I wanted to ask her to plead with Air France not to switch, as is rumoured, its flight from City Airport to Gatwick – that is if the flight works, because this week it was cancelled. I wanted to thank her for being willing to give her personal attention to these matters.
If we are navel-gazing and examining our working conditions and those of our staff this morning, it is not a question of comfort and convenience, but because we want to be efficient as elected representatives and in spending taxpayers’ money. Strasbourg is indeed a beautiful city. If I was a tourist I would have no problem spending one week out of four here, it would be delightful. Many parts of this building are impressive and beautiful, although it is also, in my opinion, grandiose. I concur with what has been said about waste and the need for recycling and energy saving and I believe that we must practice what we preach both in the area of health and safety and energy saving.
I would like to raise three particular points. First of all I am unhappy that we have lost one-third of our offices to an unnecessary bathroom. Please could I get mine removed and have extra office working space instead? Secondly, in the ladies toilets we are faced with constant flooding, and it is particularly unfair on the cleaners who have to constantly go round mopping up. As far as I can see, it is a very simple problem of excessive water pressure so the water spills everywhere around the basin and on to the floor. Could someone reduce the water pressure? Finally, could we start the session on a Thursday at 2 p.m. instead of 3 p.m. and have the votes on urgencies at 4.30 p.m. This would mean that I could catch the 6 p.m. flight, assuming of course it still exists, to City Airport. This might help a lot of people if we could leave on Thursday night instead of Friday.
I am conscious of the fact that it costs, I think, around EUR 200 million a year extra to have this travelling circus and I am indignant that the European Parliament is unable to decide its own place of work. We are wasting taxpayers’ money and we are not as efficient as we ought to be as elected representatives. I take my job seriously and I am sure all my colleagues have also come here to work, not to treat this place as a club, but to actually do their jobs as elected representatives. I want to be able to go back to my constituents and tell them that I am an efficient representative."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-17-Speech-5-035 | "Thank you Mrs Ludford. Let me assure you and all colleagues that notes are being taken of this discussion this morning. It will be brought forward as a series of proposals to the Bureau, and Mrs Breyer, if she is still here, should recognise the fact too that everything that has been said will be taken note of and will be fully discussed."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-17-Speech-5-037 | "Mr Posselt, we are dealing with the problems of this building and not the problems of the agenda of the House. Can we please deal with the matter in hand. You have had well over a minute already. Can you make the point please?"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-17-Speech-5-040 | "Mr President, I am one of those who would very much like to thank you, Mr Priestley, the ancillary and administrative staff. There have been problems but we have been treated with extreme kindness and courtesy. I would like to register my thanks for that. When problems arise they get solved.
Like other colleagues I should like to say that the energy efficiency issue is terribly important and ought to be concentrated on.
I should like to mention just two minor areas that need improvement. Even though I have something like six doctorates from five countries - most of them honorary, I have to admit - the instructions on how to use the telephones and how to set up the voice mail are nearly unintelligible.
Office supplies - staplers, paper clips and little things like that - are very hard to come by. If those who have got the franchise for the newspaper shops could be encouraged to stock up with the kinds of things that efficient offices need. That would help us all."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-17-Speech-5-042 | "Thank you Mrs van der Laan. The Secretary-General informs me that you will get a written reply to that specific question regarding the budgetary costs and the financing."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-17-Speech-5-043 | "Mr President, I am going to raise a few points, but my main point is on smoking, again. I have raised it several times with the President before and also with the Quaestors. I have been asked to write in but I thought it would be worth raising it here as well.
As an asthmatic who has grave problems when I come into contact with a cigarette at all, I am finding it extremely difficult to move around this building. It has got a little better since the last time we were here. At least in the corridors people are not smoking. But I cannot get in and out of the hemicycle without encountering cigarettes. So I cannot do my work properly. I have to cover my face with paper towels and run through to my office. I had serious asthma attacks here. I cannot carry on with the smoking in this building. I should be grateful if you could actually do something about it so that at least outside the hemicycle I and other people like me do not have to encounter smoke.
In the restaurants there is supposed to be a no-smoking area. It is not observed and also the no-smoking area is through the smoking area in all the restaurants. So if I want to get food I have to queue up in the smoking area or someone has to bring it to my office for me.
I would also like to see exit signs in case of emergency. When the bell went off yesterday several of us did not even know where the stairs were."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-17-Speech-5-044 | "I personally have a great deal of sympathy with your remarks. The Quaestors have been asked to look at this again so that they can tighten up the regulations within the building. There will be a notice going to all Members regarding smoking and what they can or cannot do within the building. So I think you are making some progress."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-17-Speech-5-046 | "I understand that we may be able to have a discussion with the Council of Europe to see if it is possible to negotiate some sort of arrangement with them, but you should recognise the fact that we no longer, technically, have access to that building because we do not pay any rent for it any longer."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-17-Speech-5-050 | "Thank you Mr van Dam. I do not know where you were when you discovered that."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-17-Speech-5-052 | "Thank you very much. If you have trouble getting into the garage, think of me coming from the United Kingdom with a car and the steering wheel on the other side which is even worse."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-17-Speech-5-054 | "Mr President, as a new Member here, I am not rising to criticise the architecture and decoration of the building, although quite clearly I could. I agree with those other Members who think it is absolutely awful, but that is a matter of individual taste.
I wish to add my voice to the many comments that have already been made and say that I find it absolutely incomprehensible that we are even here in the first place, when we have perfectly good offices, meeting rooms and chambers in Brussels and that it is absurd that the whole “Euro-circus” has to come traipsing down to Strasbourg for three, possibly four days a month (5 days this week – I do apologise). European taxpayers have read the extensive press coverage about this building and they possibly think that we are all mad. Those people who are in favour of building Europe should not be surprised that the public treat it with great scepticism. Regarding the costs, I would like a letter from Mr Priestley outlining the costs. Perhaps we should publicise it a bit more, although I suspect that would get us into even more trouble with the electorate. My main plea is that since a treaty change was required to bring us here in the first place, surely we can all lobby in our political parties, our Governments, to get a treaty change to take us away and spend the money on something useful that the people would appreciate."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-17-Speech-5-055 | "Mr Callanan, that process has being going on for many years and has not been successful."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-17-Speech-5-056 | "Mr President, in my first speech in this Chamber, I had hoped to speak about linking the banks of lifts electronically to make them more efficient, about ventilation in the bathrooms, about the air conditioning and about the dog-sick carpets in the bar areas. But in the interests of time, I will pass that by.
I would like to respond to the first floor speaker today who asked if any Members had previously had better offices; we had such fine offices here, had we ever had better ones? Well I certainly had a better one before I gave up the day job a year ago, and every single Member of this House has a much better office in Brussels. That surely is the key point. The reason for all the carping and complaints about this building is, as my colleague, Mr Callanan says, that actually we do not want to come here and we want to stay in Brussels. We ought to get that sorted out.
Just one very brief suggestion for improving the general ambience of the place as long as we do have to come here. Our President, earlier on, said that we would look at the decoration of it. This building is full of dead spaces and blank walls which are extremely tedious and unfriendly and inhuman. I believe that the art museums of Europe have many more pictures and art works than they are able to display. They have cellars and vaults full of pictures for which no display space is available. Why does this Parliament not contact some of these museums and say that we can provide large spaces of wall on which some of these pictures could be displayed. I suggest that this would be a vast improvement in this building."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-17-Speech-5-059 | "I am assured that we will have one badge by the end of the year but your point about the cleaning staff is well made. I understand that already they have been told not to use the main lifts and should just be using the service lifts. But that does not seem to be happening.
We have a time problem. Before you all rush to go, the Secretary-General has agreed that, because so many of you are still on the list of speakers, we will treat any letters that come in rather like an explanation of vote which will be published in the Minutes of today, provided you get your letters in by the end of next week so that you can make your point."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-17-Speech-5-060 | "Mr President, I should like to say one thank you and make four short points. The thank you is to the President, Mr Priestley and his team, and our Quaestors for the way they have taken up the points we have been raising since the last meeting. There have been many improvements which we have noticed, not least the very helpful guides who are around to help us when we get lost.
The four brief points: the first is air conditioning. Mrs Lynne may have problems with smoky air. I have problems with no air in some of the meeting rooms. I hope they can get that right. If they can get it right for our offices, it should be able to work in our meeting rooms too.
Secondly, when we leave this Chamber we are met with a scrum. I would like to see the area outside the Chamber deemed to be part of the Chamber so that no cameras, assistants, lobbyists or members of the public block us from reaching our offices. The area around the back, including the bridges across to the lifts should be seen as part of the Chamber, and not accessible to the public.
Thirdly, concerning the lifts, I have been stuck twice in a lift – which might not surprise you if you look at me. The first time somebody jumped up and down and the lift started again. The second time somebody found a bit of plastic, put it into a hole in the wall and that seemed to start the lift up again, but it might have fused the whole system.
Lastly, I ask that the flexes and loose wires in our offices be looked it. This is a health and safety at work issue. When I spin round on my desk chair to access my email I am entangled in a mess of wires. One of these days there will be a puff of smoke, a loud bang and one of your Members will light up like a Christmas tree."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-17-Speech-5-062 | "I am afraid that we still have 20 people on the list of speakers, so you are not alone. The Secretary-General has agreed that he will take written letters from you that will be published later."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-17-Speech-5-064 | "I am sorry, but I have no control in a debate like this over how long people are going to speak."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-17-Speech-5-066 | "I will certainly pass that message on to the President. I thank all colleagues who have stayed this morning. The Conference of Presidents decided how long the session would be. We have well overrun the time. It is very important that we note for the future that this has been a fairly successful session. Perhaps we need to do it again."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-17-Speech-5-068 | "I declare adjourned the session of the European Parliament."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-17-Speech-5-073 | "I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague James Provan on his excellent chairing of the debate which was the first I attended with him presiding and which proved to be an interesting and useful exercise with the aim of improving the conditions of our working environment.
I would like to state that, although like many members I too regret the travelling circus between the various homes of the European Parliament, I am perfectly satisfied with my office design in Strasbourg, particularly if a lockable filing cabinet is installed as promised. I also value the luxury of a private toilet, unlike Baroness Ludford. However, I would like to make a strong plea for the urgent installation of a powerful extractor fan in the toilet to avoid the embarrassment of what might happen if a visiting guest to one’s office avails himself of the toilet shortly after the member has used it (this problem also exists incidentally in the Brussels office toilets)!!
I also regret the lack of TV monitor screens in the bar and restaurant areas which should be available to members having a coffee break to follow the debates in progress and, if due to speak, to time their entries back into the chamber appropriately. Could it be deliberate policy that TVs are not there to ensure that members stay in the chamber rather than hang around in the bars watching the debates
Lastly, I dislike the garish design and colour scheme of some of the carpeting in the bar areas, reminiscent, as pointed out by another Member, of a cheap night-club rather than the desired dignified atmosphere of this house. Similarly the beautiful cream coloured carpets used in some of the committee rooms I predict will be irreversibly stained and soiled within 3 months and rendered unusable, making it a very poor and impractical choice of colour and ultimately a waste of resources."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-09-17-Speech-5-074 | "1. "Request to speak" system
Several are out of order.
They are very slow to come.
They overload too easily.
Programming should be improved.
4. Dining Room IPE IV
Service is extremely slow (this may be due to the distance between the dining room and kitchen or perhaps there are not enough waiting staff).
The food is less interesting than IPE 1 dining room (especially no buffet).
The room lacks character (layout and design should be improved).
5. Quiet sitting areas outside hemicycle
More chairs and tables are needed.
This does not seem to work. I registered my request by pressing a button on the console but was not registered on the speakers list. As a result, I had to revert to waiving my arms!
6. Bars
These need to be accessible quickly and without a scrum.
7. Fire Escape
What do we do
8. Flights to Strasbourg from Scotland
Flights via Brussels - overbooking.
Flights via Paris - lost luggage, tight connections.
Flights via London City - cancelled flights.
Flights via London Heathrow - none.
2. Lifts - C Bank
These lifts still do not appear to be working smoothly.
Link call buttons to all four lifts: one has to press two buttons to call lifts.
Programming should be improved.
The lifts are slow to arrive. They stop at floors unnecessarily, overload and jam.
The outside glass of the building is dirty. There is also miscellaneous dirt on the concrete beams.
3. Lifts - Glass near hemicycle (Access to press, radio and TV rooms)"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-04-Speech-1-017 | "Madam President, under Rule 111 of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, I propose an amendment to the agenda of this part-session to include a statement by the Commission about the French Government’s refusal to lift the beef ban and its decision to stop UK beef crossing its territory, which is a vital route into Spain and Italy.
I should be grateful if the statement could be followed by a short debate as provided for under Rule 37.
The Commission agreed that British beef is safe. Scientific evidence proves that British beef is safe. The French Government, as far as I know, has no new evidence. Stringent safeguards are in place in the UK, yet one state – France – is going to opt out of the Commission ruling. It will damage the internal market if this state of affairs is allowed to continue; it will damage the credibility of the Commission and it will further damage British farmers.
BSE has already cost the UK GBP 1.5 billion in lost exports. British farmers have been patient for the last two-and-a-half or three years during the negotiations. They have abided by the rules. They have even destroyed animals with no sign of BSE. At long last the beef ban was lifted. Now they are confronted with a new attack on their industry. We need an urgent statement and debate. I hope time can be made for this."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-04-Speech-1-019 | "I understand, Madam President, that there was one speaker in favour of the suggestion, and another speaker, who has just resumed her seat, putting forward the idea that there should be a debate on this matter at the end of this month in the second October part-session. Are you going to put both propositions to the vote?"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-04-Speech-1-021 | "Mrs Roth-Behrendt did not keep to the subject. We accept the importance of a debate in Parliament on food safety but the proposal made was for an urgent debate on the question of whether a Member State has the right to decide for itself in accordance not with Community policy but with what suits its own political aspirations at a particular time.
This is a very urgent matter and deserves to be debated as a matter of urgency, because it is a threat to the free market. If other Member States then proceed to behave in the same sort of way, this could lead to individual items being banned in every Member State in the Community at different times, and there will be no guarantee that the single market, which we worked so hard in this Parliament to bring about and to consolidate, will work properly. I agree with the proposer of the motion that this is most urgent and should be discussed here immediately."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-04-Speech-1-030 | "Madam President, I have a request for information about a matter of order. I am not sure if one is entitled to make an explanation of vote at this stage in this debate, but if so, I would like to say that I think, from the point of view of people in Scotland, it is a great pity that we will debate food safety tomorrow, without including a case where a Member State is defying the Community judgement on food safety. That is why I voted for that motion."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-025 | "Madam President, it is very appropriate that the issue which – in restrospect – did so much to blemish the reputation of the last two Commissions should be the subject of the opening debate for this new one. I welcome what President Prodi has said today. The citizens of Europe have the right to know what they are eating, where it was produced and by what means, and to have these things clearly indicated and labelled. Of course, all of us believe that where other countries’ products are concerned; but we also need to know it about our own.
When I asked the Commission representatives in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection a couple of months ago about the reported illegal recycling of sewage sludge into animal feed in some Member States, nobody could define for me what sewage sludge was, where it was being used or why. Two separate directorates of the Commission were there – the then DG XXIV and DG VI. Everybody looked at everybody else. I would like to hear from Mr Byrne today, using this small example initially, whether he has got to the bottom of this problem. We are not talking here of a practice of which no-one knew the dangers before. It is a disgusting procedure. We need to know why and how it has been allowed to happen. I hope Mr Byrne, when he comes to reply, will be able to tell us.
What we need is the ability to act quickly where the law is not upheld. In the dioxin scandal, for example, what is needed, it seems to me, is not so much a mad rush to ban a whole range of products – RVOs and so on – as the possibility of discovering whether these things are new pollutants or simply products which have become polluted. It we can find that out we are on the way to a better scrutiny of the products themselves.
A food agency, which some have doubts about, is to me as credible and as necessary as an environment agency, about which there were also doubts at its inception. It would provide a benchmark for all Member States. For those whose precautionary legislation is defective it would be a boost and a buttress. For those who now set high standards, as I believe my own country does, it would be a reassurance that we are all toiling in the same vineyard and on the same level cornfield. The tragedy is that in areas where we have a rudimentary common policy, through the scientific committees and the new Veterinary Office in Dublin, some Member States still break ranks.
We have had a relentless drive to achieve full safety methods in beef production in my country, quite rightly after BSE. That led to the end of the beef ban in August of this year, but not, apparently, in France. I would like to know now from Mr Byrne how he proposes to validate Community decisions based on scientific advice – as the lifting of the beef ban was – when they are flouted by a Member State.
Safety issues simply cannot be allowed to degenerate into shabby national politics at the will of any Member State. I would like to know how the White Paper will ensure coherent safety standards, proper labelling and precautionary advice. We want to see these things implemented in the three-year target period that he has set for himself. It would be disastrous if we were left with the politics of retribution and recrimination where we could move towards common European standards. It would be absolutely ludicrous if we were to go into the next WTO round unable to set out clear standards ourselves which are the framework of the precautionary principle. If we do that we are left exchanging insults on the basis of self-interest and ignorance. Europe can surely do better than that."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-038 | "Thank you, Mr President. I have listened with interest to the debate today. I have listened with interest to the things which Mr Prodi has said in the past about how we can reach a solution to the crisis with food safety within Europe. One conclusion comes immediately to my mind which I do not hear Mr Prodi addressing, and that is the implementation and enforcing of existing legislation. Forget about creating new agencies, forget about new rules; why are you not looking much more seriously at implementing and enforcing the existing legislation? If you had done that, then we should not have had a dioxin crisis in Belgium. Mr Prodi really has to think about that and perhaps produce proposals for that before Christmas.
Central to the solutions that he is proposing is the food agency. We have to remember, Mr Prodi, that when this Parliament has looked at this problem of a food agency in the past, we have not been absolutely sure about whether this is the right way forward. However we, like you, are prepared to listen and consider it. But I have to say to you that we will have to ask you some very hard questions before we can be satisfied that you are moving in the right direction.
The first question will be whether it is a food and drug agency or a food safety agency that you are proposing? The second will be how much power you will devolve from the Commission to this new agency, and perhaps to some of the existing agencies, so that they can do their job better and assist the food agency in solving the problems regarding food in Europe? How will you ensure the accountability of these new agencies? Would you consider, for example, hearings held here in the European Parliament to choose the directors of those agencies? There are many issues that we want to hear from you about, Mr Prodi. We would like to hear from you today about them. We definitely want to see them in your White Paper.
Finally, Mr President, I would say that there is already a confusion in the minds of parliamentarians about who is responsible inside the Commission for key elements of this problem. We have Mr Byrne responsible for some issues and Mrs Wallström responsible for others, particularly as regards GMOs. You must resolve those issues inside the Commission before you take steps towards creating a food agency."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-044 | "Mr President, food safety issues have quite rightly dominated much of our thinking and that of Member States in recent years. I welcome today’s statement and debate as a recognition of the continuing need for action. It is right that public bodies and politicians, whether in local authorities or governments, should play a part in regulating food production and processing. The European Commission and we in the Parliament, too, should do all in our power to ensure that consumers Europe-wide can have confidence in their food purchases.
The BSE problem is one case where, at a European level, stringent conditions were put in place in relation to the export of UK beef. These conditions were met, resulting in the recent lifting of the ban which has had such a major effect on agriculture and related industries in that country. This came as a long-awaited sign, bringing some relief to our hard-pressed farmers.
Can it be acceptable then, given that the European Union body responsible judged it the right time to lift the ban, that individual states, without producing and publishing a clear justification in terms of food safety, should maintain the beef ban This decision by the French government last week comes as a particularly bitter further blow to Scotland’s beef farmers, whose herds are predominantly grass-fed and did not have a BSE problem in the first place."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-048 | "Mr President, I tried yesterday to get a Commission statement on the French refusal to lift the beef ban but unfortunately the proposal to change the agenda was rejected.
We need urgently to know what steps the Commission is taking against the French. The British farmers are in crisis at the moment. GBP 1.5 billion worth of exports has been lost in the UK because of it. Commission scientists say they are satisfied, so why are the French flouting the rules? They have no new scientific evidence.
The BSE crisis happened because the previous government reacted too late to the problem. They closed their eyes to it. Cows should never have been fed the remains of other cows, but it was not just a problem in the UK. Britain is vigilant now. Since 1996 no cases of BSE in the eligible age group – that is 6 months to 30 months – have been discovered. Some other countries cannot say the same. They do not have to adhere to the same rules.
It is time we had a level playing field. Hygiene standards in the UK are second to none, and the ban must be lifted across the EU, including France."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-056 | "Madam President, Commissioner Prodi, Commissioner Byrne, the BSE and dioxin crises coupled with the ongoing controversy regarding genetically modified foods have combined to seriously undermine consumer confidence in the safety of food. Furthermore, inept handling of these issues by the respective governments and the EU itself has seriously undermined public confidence in the ability of politicians to deal with crises in the food chain.
For these reasons, I welcome both Commissioner Byrne’s commitment to make food safety his number one priority and also the statement by the Commission President, Romano Prodi, in this House on 23 July, when he said that one of the first tasks of his Commission would be to restore consumer confidence in the safety of food products. Hence this debate. Commissioner Byrne, I may add, is to be commended for his prompt action in agreeing to produce a White Paper on EU food law later this year and also to tighten up the EU’s rapid alert system for food emergencies.
However, I would urge the Commissioner to go the extra mile: if he and his colleagues are determined to regain the confidence of consumers and the food industry in the EU’s food safety structures, then he should establish a European food agency along similar lines to the US Food and Drug Administration. Such a body could take responsibility for the Commission’s present inspection and enforcement functions in relation to the food hygiene, veterinary and plant health legislation. It could also have responsibility for the rapid alert system itself. It could be given the role for the authorisation process for GMOs and genetically modified foods while also maintaining a monitoring brief on genetically modified foods throughout the EU. Health promotion campaigns on nutrition and diet and the ability to initiate research into food allergy and food-borne disease could also come within its remit.
I would argue that the list of possible functions is by no means exhaustive, and its accountability could also be ensured if it were required to produce an annual report and if its officers regularly appeared before the Parliament’s Environment, Public Health Consumer Policy and Committee.
I would urge you, Commissioner Byrne, to give serious consideration to the establishment of an independent food agency along these lines. Such an initiative would, in my view, restore not only consumer confidence in food but also public confidence in the EU itself."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-059 | ".– Mr President, in July of this year the House expressed its grave concern over the Belgian dioxin contamination and urged the Commission to act urgently to address the whole issue of food safety. It is both welcome and reassuring that from the very outset the new Commissioner, Mr Byrne, has demonstrated an unequivocal commitment to restoring consumer confidence in the food industry. The review of EU animal feed legislation in the wake of the recent series of scares is most welcome as it goes to the root cause of problems that have arisen.
I am pleased that the review will address key areas of concern to Parliament in its July resolution, such as sufficient controls in the animal feed production chain, a register of all animal feed producers, traceability of ingredients in animal feed and the setting of dioxin limits.
Coming from a region that depends heavily on the fishing industry, I want to refer to Commissioner Byrne’s proposals on dioxin levels. It is important that scientific testing look at the dioxin/PCB level of compound feed as an end product, rather than the dioxin level of just one ingredient such as fish oil. In this regard, proper consultation of the fishing and aquaculture industries is not only desirable, but absolutely necessary and essential so as to avoid any detrimental consequences for the fishing industry that may be caused by levels not scientifically justified.
The damage done by the dioxin scare is immeasurable, both in terms of shattering consumer confidence and the economic consequences of tarnishing the image of key industrial sectors and export generators. Producers, traders and the entire agri-food business have felt the effect. The Commission’s determined effort to restore consumer confidence by putting effective control mechanisms in place is clearly welcome. Consumer protection must have absolute priority in all measures regarding food safety.
Mr President, I should like to apologise to the House for being absent when my name was called earlier, and to thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak. Could I say to the President and to the sessional services that it would be helpful if there were monitors in all the meeting rooms to ensure that we were fully
with what was happening in the House."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-061 | "Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, let me say at the outset how pleased I am to have an opportunity to address you this morning on this important issue. This is a very timely debate and I am happy that it is taking place at an early stage of the Commission’s life. I am particularly happy of course to have my friend and colleague, the President, here with me to discuss these issues with you.
The first one relates to the dioxin issue and the Belgian authority’s involvement in that.
As many of you are aware, the tests that have taken place in Belgium have indicated that in one per cent of the examinations there was a small residue of dioxin and that this dioxin was present not as a result of the animal feed – what the tests were originally designed to determine – but rather from background industrial pollution.
It is reasonable to draw the conclusion, as many of you have, that if it exists in Belgium, there is a risk that it may exist in other parts of the European Union or, indeed, in other parts of the world.
I drew the Agricultural Council’s attention to my concern about this and informed the Council that it was my intention to add to the Residues Directive two further substances that are contained in the list of substances at Annex I. The two substances I intend adding are dioxin and PCB. In addition I informed the ministers that I wished to have monitoring take place in other Member States to determine the existence and levels – if any – of dioxin as a result of background environmental factors. I am happy to tell you that the ministers were very receptive to these proposals. I expect movement on this in the relatively near future.
The second issue that was of concern to me and to which I drew the ministers’ attention was the existence of sludge in foodstuffs. Some of you have mentioned this morning the importance of feeding stuffs. The common factor in a lot of these crises in relation to food, whether it is BSE, dioxin or sludge, is animal feeding stuffs. That is why I have focused on this issue as being an important one for examination and remedial action.
I pointed out to the ministers that there appears to be an argument being advanced that there is some ambiguity in the feeding stuffs legislation in relation to sludge. I am not satisfied that such ambiguity exists. I have said so. I expect Member States not to include residue in feeding stuffs. I pointed out to them that it is my belief that consumers are shocked by this development.
(
)
I got a good reception from the ministers and they approved of the views that I put forward to them. I expect there to be progress on this front also.
In relation to the sludge issue, in the event that there is continuing difficulty on this and that an argument continues to be advanced that there is ambiguity, I will have no hesitation in bringing forward legislation to resolve any ambiguity that may exist.
Lastly, I drew the ministers’ attention to the question of GMOs and feedstuffs. I propose to bring forward another feed directive in relation to this matter. It is the best way to deal with it. I informed the ministers of that fact also.
We speak a lot about consumer confidence, but I would like to say once again that consumer confidence is not an objective in itself. The real objective is to achieve food safety as one of the pillars of public health policy. I have been giving some thought to how this can be achieved, and that is why I have made the proposal that we should bring forward a White Paper on food safety. I am pleased that this has been welcomed by you here this morning. The White Paper will contain an examination of important issues that have been raised by you, such as the control of the food chain, the reinforcement of controls, the labelling of foodstuffs, and the improvement of the early warning system so as to ensure that there is full transparency in the rapid alert system and in the early warning system.
The final issue I want to address this morning is the question of international trade and the relationship with the World Trade Organisation. All of you know that Articles 152 and 153 of the Treaty, as inserted in Amsterdam, give the portfolio for which I have responsibility considerable horizontal rights in relation to the examination of all Community policies. My belief is that it is essential that we focus – as President Prodi has said – on health issues and food issues as being of primary importance when we consider matters of international trade.
I look forward to discussing all these issues with you in the future and, specifically, as I have already said, at the Environment Committee later this month.
(
)
A number of you have mentioned that there is not the degree of accountability or the degree of openness or transparency in relation to the rapid alert system that we would all like to see, and I intend to address that in the White Paper.
We have had quite a lot of discussion on the issue of a food agency. Its model is not yet fully determined, its shape has not yet been finally realised, but we have given some considerable thought to this already. I believe that we can have an agency that is independent, that gives scientific advice in an independent way, and yet at the same time can achieve the degree of accountability that all of you here as parliamentarians require and deserve. I believe that these two concepts are not mutually exclusive. They can both be achieved if we design the shape of the agency carefully and in a proper manner. And, of course, I look forward to discussing that with MEPs at the appropriate time and I look forward to the meeting that I will have with the Environment Committee later this month when this issue will be discussed further.
Greater transparency for consumers is absolutely essential. I will also be addressing the issue of traceability. Many of you mentioned this issue and it is, of course, of enormous importance.
There are a number of other issues that we would like to touch on. I am conscious of the amount of time I have available to me and I would like to point out that I will be discussing all of these issues in more detail with you at the Environment Committee meeting later in the month.
First of all, there is the issue of the controversy that has occurred recently in relation to the ban on UK beef. Let me say at the outset that I have received preliminary advice on the report that has been presented by the French authorities, and this advice leads me to the conclusion that there is no new evidence contained in that report that has not already been considered by the Scientific Steering Committee of the European Union. Bearing this in mind, I have sought to have an urgent meeting between officials from France and the Commission, and this will be taking place this week.
I have also, last night, sent a letter to the French authorities asking them to reply as a matter of urgency to me, and to set out whatever background evidence they may have that led them to the conclusions that they appear to have reached. If there is any new information contained in the reply from the French authorities, that of course will be referred by me immediately to my own scientific advisers and I will seek an urgent analysis from them of these matters. The preliminary advice available to me so far is that no such new information is available, but I wish to see if we can resolve this difficulty which has emerged over the last couple of days in a diplomatic and an amicable manner. It is for this reason that I wrote the letter last night and asked for the officials to meet one another.
Finally, I want to bring you up to date on the meetings which I had with the Agriculture Council last week in Brussels. I should say that this was the first occasion when a Commissioner with the responsibility for food safety attended the Agriculture Council. At that meeting, there were three issues that I focused on and I would like just to briefly refer to them with you this morning because these are issues that many of you have identified as being important."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-065 | "I would like to begin by extending my gratitude to the European Parliament for bringing up the important theme of AIDS in developing countries and by discussing the conclusions of the International Conference on AIDS in Africa which has just taken place in Lusaka, Zambia.
Countries are looking for incentives as part of the solution for people to lower their risk and vulnerability even in the most difficult situations. Countries have to decide about sustainable and fair financing. In addition the international community, including the EU, can assist, for example by lowering the cost of condoms and providing clean needles and essential drugs. This should include those drugs that can have sizeable effects on reducing HIV transmission from mothers to children and those that provide primary health care especially for the poorest, most affected and most vulnerable.
Having mentioned condoms, it must be said that this is one of the best and safest ways of preventing the spread of the epidemic. Some people express moral reservations about using and promoting this type of prevention.
However, I would like to underline that, given the size of the public health problem we are facing, the interests of the population at risk must be given priority over dogmatic positions of principle. It is most encouraging that an increasing number of developing countries have already given priority to the interests of their population, but there is still a long way to go.
AIDS must be even more at the core of our development and poverty reduction efforts. We know that higher inequality is associated with higher HIV infection. This is especially so in the case of inequality between men and women. AIDS spreads more widely where women depend on men’s earnings, are unable to read and have limited legal rights to divorce, inheritance and child custody.
The EU, jointly with its international and national partners, has been generous and timely in its response to the AIDS pan-demic in several developing countries. Our support has not, however, always gone to the most effective interventions, and has not yet reached the level needed to have the impact required. We will therefore continue to work with developing countries to ensure that the available knowledge, and our funds, produce better results in the future.
However, only a joint action can reach the level required and we will therefore step up still further our efforts to coordinate with all those involved.
Finally, the Commission welcomes the SADC Heads of States’ Declaration on HIV/AIDS, which was signed in Lusaka. We ourselves look forward to finalising, as soon as possible, the signing of an extra financial package for the regional AIDS Action Plan in the SADC region (EUR 5m) as well as an additional all-ACP regional initiative on AIDS for another EUR 20m. These additional resources may appear meagre in view of the problem; however, it should only be seen as an extra effort, providing a further catalyst to EU and global commitments to confront this devastating epidemic.
We must all work together in this effort.
The Commission is very concerned about the devastating effects of AIDS in the developing world and the apparent inability to stem the epidemic drastically and provide appropriate care for all those affected and infected. The statistics and analysis show convincingly that developing countries and the global community cannot ignore the AIDS epidemic. In developing countries, where 90% of all HIV infections occur, AIDS is reversing hard-won gains in improving the quality of life. In many hard-hit countries AIDS has already reduced life expectancy by more than ten years.
AIDS is also rooted in and exacerbating poverty and inequality. Its effects are especially devastating for the poor, who have the fewest resources with which to cope.
I should like to highlight some of the efforts made by the Commission and in particular some of the new initiatives envisaged. The Commission has been confronting AIDS since 1987 with widely-debated AIDS policies, strategies, actions, finances and, last but not least, through global and country partnerships. By the end of 1997 the EC had committed a total of EUR 200 million to HIV/AIDS projects in most developing countries. We are eager to do more both by providing more money, and by working with the countries, our Member States and international partners to devise effective strategies that curtail the spread of HIV, cushion its impact on the health sector and provide care for those already afflicted with AIDS.
However, we cannot confront AIDS without first acknowledging that it threatens every country and that each country has a core responsibility and potential to protect its populations through political leadership, sufficient resources and effective and equitable strategies. Country after country has ignored the AIDS epidemic, denying that the behaviour that spreads HIV occurs within its borders; and country after country has been proved tragically wrong.
It is particularly important that the authorities of these countries should be clear in their calls for prevention of the spread of the epidemic. Hiding the facts will do no good. The populations must be clearly informed of the danger they are in and about the possible prevention measures. Here I am thinking especially about the younger generation.
The latest post-Cairo-plus-five international conference on population and development debated the subject of sexual habits and rights, particularly of the young. It is necessary to focus more on this vulnerable part of the population if prevention measures are to have an improved effect. But political leadership and recognition of the problem of AIDS is only the first step. Our joint response to the epidemic must also be sufficiently wide and fair. Poor people and poor countries face many pressing problems besides AIDS, and government and international resources are scarce and even declining.
In a typical developing country it costs as much to treat one AIDS patient for a year as it does to educate ten primary school students for a year. Balancing these worthwhile objectives is difficult but essential. Therefore all partners should play an appropriate role and do so in genuine partnership.
This has been the spirit of the EU’s response in the past and will also be at its core in the future."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-072 | "Mr President, it is now over fifteen years since the disease we all now know as AIDS came into the public domain. Though the number of people suffering from HIV has stabilised in recent years in Europe, the problem of AIDS is still a very real one particularly in the more deprived and disadvantaged urban areas and of course, within the African continent.
A recent study carried out by an organisation in my constituency called Cáirde points to the fact that 80% of people who contract HIV in Ireland are in receipt of welfare payments. Social exclusion and inadequate income, and living in a disadvantaged or deprived area, are all factors explaining why HIV as a disease mainly affects the more deprived communities in urban Ireland. There is no room for complacency when it comes to the issue of combating HIV and AIDS. Again according to the report of Cáirde, in Ireland almost 3 000 people are HIV positive, and a further 3 000 people are affected when one considers the family members and children of those who are HIV-positive. Medical treatments are certainly improving; however, they are not inexpensive and one year’s treatment for HIV illnesses costs an average of between IEP 12 000 – 14 000. Public information campaigns must be supported both within Ireland and the European Union, because prevention is the best cure in such matters. While medical treatments are improving, and while standards of care, standards of treatment and the cost of such care are paramount in our concerns, if one can prevent transmission of such diseases, then we may go a long way to reducing the number of those affected.
I believe that the European Commission, the European Parliament and the national member governments should redouble their efforts to publicise the public health information campaign; this should be done either via the respective Departments of Health or through voluntary groups who play such an important role in helping those who are affected by such diseases.
As a member of the Development and Cooperation Committee of the European Parliament, I recognise that AIDS is rampant, particularly on the continent of Africa. Health and education programmes must be targeted at the African continent where the AIDS plague is out of control."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-075 | "Mr President, the HIV epidemic so far has very often been described primarily as a health-related problem. Indeed the health implications are serious. In less than two decades, a very short time in the world of infectious diseases, AIDS has become the leading cause of death in sub-Saharan Africa. But the implications of this epidemic go far beyond the health sector. The loss of young men and women in the prime of their lives is devastating as regards economic development and productivity, education, agriculture and a whole host of socio-economic spheres. Hard-won gains in terms of development are being eroded and even reversed as a consequence of this epidemic. Reference has already been made in this debate to the demographic consequences. Countries where the population grew by 3% or more just a few years ago will experience negative growth. If a comparison is allowed, I believe that what several countries in sub-Saharan Africa are going through is something similar to the Black Death in 14th century Europe.
Mr Nielson referred to the response so far. There have been efforts at international level, I agree, but far too limited. I welcome Mr Nielson’s suggestions for the budget to be topped up, but more has to come. What is needed in the first instance is more money and support in terms of financial resources. Here the international community can do a lot. Then we have to bring about – and this is primarily the responsibility of the countries concerned – more openness. The whole area of HIV prevention has been surrounded by too much silence. There has even been a stigma attached to it. In such an environment prevention through education is difficult. In such an environment people are discouraged from seeking testing and counselling.
Let us hope that the recent conference in Lusaka represents a turning point. What is needed in the future is more funding, more concerted effort and more openness.
I have personally followed very closely efforts within the international community over the last couple of years to bring about a more concerted fight against HIV/AIDS. A joint programme, UNAIDS, was established a few years ago. It has done some good things, but efforts within that programme have been undermined by shrinking budgets within the UN system.
It is my absolute conviction that the European Union has to take a much stronger lead in international efforts in terms of AIDS and HIV prevention. Our aid budget is considerable. We ought to allocate a gradually bigger share of that budget in support of HIV prevention. If we are serious about development we have to do this. Otherwise all our other efforts in the area of development will be very much in vain.
I have four specific questions to ask the new Commissioner. Firstly, are you willing to work hard to ensure that a permanent increase in the Union budget will be allocated for HIV prevention? Secondly, are you willing to make sure that whatever the European Union does in this field is well coordinated with other donors? In few areas, I believe, are coordination and cooperation more necessary than here. Thirdly, are you willing to make sure that efforts go beyond the health sector, realising that the socio-economic and developmental consequences are so serious? Last but not least, are you willing to seek partnership with the pharmaceutical companies, on the one hand, to speed up work to try to develop a vaccine and, secondly, to make medicines more accessible to the poor of this world?"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-076 | "Mr President, my thanks to the Commissioner for his statement. In 1998, Commissioner, 530 000 children were infected with the AIDS virus in Sub-Saharan Africa. The startling contrast is that 1 000 children in total were infected by the virus in the whole of Western Europe and North America during that year.
So we have to ask the question: why does such a discrepancy exist Why are there such stark contrasts in terms of the sheer scale of the poverty of people’s lives in Africa and, of course the resulting lack of proper health services, education, and AIDS treatments. Of course, as others have said, the neglect of Africa has very severe economic consequences. These include the suffering and death of productive members of their societies and, very importantly, the diversion of women away from employment towards the role as carers, and the diversion of resources in families and communities from savings to care, and indeed, as I am sure you are aware, to the endless funerals that you can witness in countries like Zimbabwe if you stand on a street corner.
The time has come to invest in programmes that target more effectively the health needs of the people in Africa. It is, of course, ironic, as we mentioned in the Development Committee yesterday, that the Budget Committee voted last week to cut the budget line on reproductive health care and HIV/AIDS work by half from EUR 25 million to 12 million, and that we are now discussing the need for investment in this area. In rich countries, anti-retroviral therapies are extending the lives of significant numbers of people in wealthy nations. But I have to say that these solutions will never be affordable or accessible to the tens of millions of the world’s poorest people.
I welcome the fact that the European Commission is placing increasing emphasis on giving resources to support the development of an AIDS vaccine. Only last week, as I am sure you are aware, the British development minister announced a very large investment in research for that vaccine. Early clinical trials will begin in January 2000 in the United Kingdom, and afterwards in Nairobi. In countries like Zimbabwe where 20% of the population are positive, vaccines, in my view, are the only hope.
Meanwhile, in the short term, women are the key to progress. Adolescent girls in Sub-Saharan Africa are 6 times more likely to be infected than boys of their age. In a recent study in Kenya 25% of girls between 15 and 19 were HIV positive and 4% of boys. Women are literally silenced by ignorance, fear and stigma. Gugu Dlamini announced in a rally in Johannesburg last December that she was HIV positive. A week later, she was beaten to death by neighbours who said that she had brought shame to their community. That kind of situation, President, shames us all."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-078 | "Mr President, there is also one matter I would like to raise, and that is the relationship of drugs to this problem. We are looking at Africa but we must also look around us, to our own local societies. Northern Ireland is on the periphery of this Union and it is a peripheral part of the Union and yet we are seeing the start of a terrible spread in our country, greatly linked to drugs trafficking.
Whether this Parliament likes it or not, when laws are violated there is always a sad reaping to the violation of law. The Bible says that if you sow to the flesh, of the flesh you will reap corruption; and that is a fact that has to be faced. Nevertheless, there must be infinite compassion for those who have been stricken. I am glad that my own church has a programme to that effect and is working hard on it. There must be compassion. We must sit where these people sit, we must recognise the circumstances that they are in, and we must do everything in our power to seek to help them in their dire plight.
It is a tragedy that this Parliament is meeting today in the shadow of the fact that our Committee on Budgets is cutting down on aid. We should be doing our best to get more finances to deal with this problem."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-100 | "Mr President, my congratulations also to Mr Lange, who has shown real interest and enthusiasm in presenting his report and his amendments following on for Mr Robles Piquer. I am pleased to see our new Commissioner, Mrs de Palacio. We look forward to working with her and we hope she will soon share, if she does not already, our enthusiasm for renewable energy.
Together with the SAVE Programme, we have in ALTENER II a way of showing the public of Europe that there are rational ways to meet the challenge of climate change: energy efficiency and renewable sources of energy. We are asking Member States to pledge their commitment to the encouragement of renewable energy – and they all say, individually, that they have this commitment – by signing a Charter on renewable energy – the EURENEW Charter. This would symbolise the added value of working together in the EU on society’s wishes and needs.
Of course, the environmental benefits of renewable energy are obvious. But Mr Langen wisely reminds us of the enormous potential for European industry. One needs only to look at Denmark. And I fully support his call for the European Renewable Energies Export Council to be strengthened. Sadly, we lost one of the driving forces with the sudden death, earlier this year, of John Bonda, but others will carry on his work in the Export Council. I must say I am very pleased at the vocational training element of ALTENER II. That is to be welcomed. The budget is clearly inadequate and has to be increased if this programme is to be properly effective. I hope that an indication can be given by the Council in time for the appropriate changes to be made in the first reading of the 2000 budget. The emphasis on information dissemination in ALTENER II is very important indeed, and I look forward, if it is available yet, to looking at the Agores Centre on the Worldwide Web which is clearly intended to bring together all sorts of information on renewable energy so that everyone can look it up and can be kept up-to-date.
Alongside ALTENER, and the research into renewable energy in the 5th Framework Programme, which we hope will be very significant, we need urgent flanking measures such as the “feed-in directive” for the electricity market. I hope we will hear more about this shortly from the Commission. The White Paper raised expectations, and we look forward to the exciting campaign for take-off with its 1 million PV systems, its large windfarm, its biomass and most exciting of all its 100 communities where all the electricity will come from renewable energy. There is nowhere in the whole of European Union where renewable energy is not relevant, whether it is Lapland or the Islands of Greece.
The ALTENER II Programme will work and can work in every Member State and of course, outside the European Union in applicant countries, for example, as well as in the Mediterranean countries where the potential is huge. Renewable energy should become the symbol of what is sensible and progressive about Europe. This programme will help us obtain that symbol."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-104 | "Mr President, I should like to congratulate Mr Langen, the rapporteur, on his report on the adoption of the multiannual programme for the promotion of renewable energy sources in the Community, Altener II. A number of people have made critical comments about the nuclear programme in the Community. Fusion power is perhaps technically renewable energy, nevertheless this is not what we are talking about here. This is a report that originated with the Commission proposal in November 1997 which the last Parliament considered at first reading, in the Robles Piquer report, in February.
Now with the Treaty of Amsterdam we have moved over to codecision and we are having a second reading here today. The major thrust of the report is the demand for the doubling of the amount of renewable energy to 12% by 2010. This is something we clearly support in the Socialist Group, but I am not entirely sure that commitment is accompanied either by the political resources – which is one of the reasons we are asking for the campaign to encourage and foster renewable energy – or, more importantly, by the financial resources. The amount that is being allocated is far too small in my view and does not add up in terms of achieving a doubling. We have EUR 80 million allocated: EUR 30 million for 1998-99 and EUR 50 million for 2000-2002. It seems to me, firstly, that the amount available is far too little and secondly, if we are expecting a doubling of the amount of renewable energy, there should be a sharp increase in the amount of money being made available over a period of time.
In fact, even this may not be allocated given that Amendment No 5 to Article 1(3) (new), actually says that the amount of money might have to be reduced if it is inconsistent with the financial perspective for the period in question.
I welcome Amendment No 6 to Article 2(e)(a) (new) about the need to encourage the export of renewable energy technologies from the European Union and to encourage the European Renewable Energies Export Council.
In conclusion, a number of short points: renewable energies cannot be shoe-horned into the current thinking of energy suppliers, who are trained to see energy production as always being large scale and costing hundreds or thousands of millions of euros in terms of each project. Many will be small, community-based schemes which will be site-specific, whether using wind, waves, solar power, combined heat and power or even biomass. That means, if we are to encourage lots of small schemes, that we need even more money.
Secondly, if we are serious about exports we should also pay some attention to renewable energy sources in which we in the European Union have a technological lead, which is not necessarily the case here. One of which I am aware of is ocean thermal energy conversion that uses the temperature difference between the cold bottom waters of the tropics and the warm surface waters. We have a lead in Europe but we are not encouraging that. If we want to export these technologies we need to make sure that the resources are available."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-109 | "Mr President, I should like first of all to welcome Commissioner de Palacio to this House today. I look forward to working cooperatively with her. I cannot, however, let the information that I have just received about the nuclear accident in South Korea go unrecognised. I was very shocked and saddened to hear of the deaths of 22 workers, apparently as the result of a heavy water accident. That underlines what we are trying to do here today and the need for changes in energy policy and in the budget for energy policy.
I should just like to add two technical points. We have, on legal advice, improved the comitology amendments. Therefore we have replaced Amendment No 5 by a new Amendment No 13, and Amendment No 11 by a new Amendment No 12. This was on legal advice to improve the original amendments. I hope that will be acceptable to everyone.
SAVE is the only Community-wide programme dedicated to promoting the rational use of energy. SAVE II focuses on the non-technical elements, helping to build energy efficiency infrastructure, and therefore does not pay for hardware investments. The purpose of the programme is rather to create an environment in which investments and energy efficiency will be promoted and where energy efficiency will be recognised as a market opportunity. We have heard about the difficulties of competition and renewable energy, but energy saving also saves money and, therefore, is a good investment all round.
The SAVE programme was thoroughly and positively evaluated in 1994. I congratulate the Commission on the way it was run: credit where credit is due. This House gives kicks to the Commission when it sees programmes badly run. When a programme is well run and has been evaluated as such, we must also give it credit.
The evaluation highlighted SAVE as a valuable policy instrument to promote energy efficiency but stressed that a clear and consistent strategy for pilot actions was required; that dissemination of results is the key to long-term success; and that long-term effectiveness requires better on-going monitoring and impact analysis. The evaluation also showed that SAVE actions will also indirectly lead to the achievement of the objectives of the non-nuclear energy R[amp]D programme through the creation of a positive environment for the dissemination and implementation of new technology in renewable energies.
The amendments proposed by this report are a direct result of this evaluation. Energy efficiency means lower consumption, the conservation of non-renewable energy sources and reduced dependence on energy imports, but most of all it means lower levels of environmental pollution from harmful substances such as CO2, one of the major causes of the greenhouse effect.
The European Parliament has often underlined the importance of energy-efficient actions and the Council has also emphasised the need for energy savings and a reduction in CO2 emissions in a series of resolutions. However, these announcements have been followed up by very modest proposals. The energy savings targets will, in all likelihood, not be achieved by the means foreseen in the SAVE II programme.
As the Community has so far not been able to agree on what is probably the most effective instrument for the reduction of greenhouse gases – namely, the taxation of energy consumption – the Commission and the Council regard the SAVE II programme as “an important and necessary instrument”. Why then make cuts in an already low budget? That is why I have restored the budget figures originally proposed by the Commission which were fully justified.
Bearing in mind the expected increase in the energy CO2 emissions and the low budget allocated to SAVE II it is rather unlikely that the internationally agreed objectives for reducing emissions could be achieved by this programme. However, under the energy framework programme SAVE II offers an opportunity to reverse a trend. Since at Member State level progress has stagnated, the responsibility for achieving energy efficiency targets and meeting reduction commitments now lies with the Community. The Finnish presidency has therefore announced an action plan for energy efficiency during the second half of 1999. It is very welcome and important.
The Commission argues in favour of setting a Community energy efficiency target. Given the approximately 1% annual improvement in energy efficiency in final consumption achieved so far, the Commission calls for a target of reducing energy intensity in final demand by a further percentage point per year. Given our commitments, as already underlined, it is incomprehensible that the Commission could confine itself to such a target. A goal of a further one-and-a-half percentage points should be set in order to develop additional savings potential. As you know, Parliament agreed this at first reading."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-111 | "May I congratulate Mrs Ahern on so enthusiastically taking up the work which Mrs Bloch von Blottnitz began. Energy efficiency is one of the few obvious contributions towards the attainment of the targets set for the EU in Kyoto. By saving energy, we produce fewer CO2 emissions and other pollutants. We also make our businesses more competitive. We can create thousands of much needed jobs and we can allow gas and electricity suppliers to make their money in a more sensible way by selling the services which energy gives us – warm homes, cool fridges and machines which work – rather than selling increasingly large amounts of gas and electricity.
The main area in which work is needed is actually that of domestic householders. They use more energy than industry and they use it in a profligate way. That is why many of the measures in SAVE II are aimed at households – better design of houses, more economical household appliances and effective education programmes.
Unlike Mr van Velzen, I support very strongly the rapporteur’s amendment raising the percentage of savings to 1.5% above what would happen anyway. We only have to look at the progress in some Member States, including the Netherlands, to see that this is a perfectly attainable percentage.
I am convinced that the use of regional and local networks like Federene, Energie Cities and Islenet is one of the most effective ways in which to bring about change, and I hope they will be specifically encouraged in SAVE II as they were in SAVE I. It is important, of course, that we monitor SAVE II and that its achievements are quantified. Our committee will shortly be putting in place a mechanism to ensure that we monitor all spending programmes very closely. SAVE II could be an example of how funding can be used in other EU programmes such as structural funds and funding for third countries.
The budget again is inadequate. This programme is not enough on its own either. I hope, Commissioner, that you will persevere with the philosophy behind the rational planning directive. I am pleased that you have done so so far, and we look forward to your next communications on energy efficiency.
It is very good to start the work of this new Parliament with programmes which can make a difference, both to the environment and, of course, to the competitiveness needs of our Member States. Like ALTENER, SAVE II is one of those programmes."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-121 | "Mr President, last Saturday, I was privileged to be at the opening ceremony of the Rugby World Cup in Cardiff, the capital city of Wales where I come from and Wales actually won! All around that rugby ground there are adverts for South African fruit companies and for South African airlines. We were entertained by singers from South Africa and I thought then how far we have come from those dark days of Apartheid when so many of us, including myself and perhaps one or two of the Commissioners, called for sanctions and boycotts against Apartheid in South Africa. Now, the institutional racism and legalised bigotry and prejudice has been swept away and recognition of that momentous achievement now determines the European Union’s relationship with South Africa.
But, I think we all have to acknowledge, Mr President, that we have had five years of protracted and tortuous negotiations on everything from apples, pears and asparagus to cut flowers, fish, wine, port and sherry, but eventually now we see an agreement and hopefully, a signing on Monday in South Africa. I would like confirmation from the Commission that will in fact be the case.
The European Parliament and Joint Assembly have played a positive role and have offered encouragement and critical analysis and it is very appropriate that this Parliament is the first parliament to give assent to the agreement. Some Members States of the Union soon forgot the commitments made to Nelson Mandela in Berlin in 1994. It was difficult at times to understand why the response by some Member States was lacking in generosity and understanding. South Africa’s GDP is half that of Belgium and only 0.6% of the world GDP. And yet the negotiations repeatedly stalled because Member States of the European Union allowed sectoral interest to override any need to support South Africa. At the time of the United Kingdom’s Presidency, Philip Stevens, who writes a column in the Financial Times, observed that the European side has been consistently devious, destructive and above all, shamefully protectionist. From the outset, it has sought to hold South Africa hostage to its own subsidised farmers.
Let me now summarise the essentials:
The asymmetric nature of the trade agreement is crucial and involves the systematic elimination or reduction of tariff barriers and other duties. Europe will open up its markets to 95% of South Africa’s exports over ten years. South Africa will open its markets to 86% of European Union exports over twelve years.
This agreement is unique in that it includes the agricultural sector which, of course, is of immense importance to the South African economy. It also acknowledges the potential damage which subsidised agricultural products can do to South African markets, and actually allows South Africa to impose a special safeguard clause in the event of any threats to their own domestic agricultural industry. However, I see running through the agreements the protectionism which unfortunately still characterises the common agricultural policy of the Union. It is also my view that this agreement should not be seen as a model, particularly for ACP countries currently involved in the new post-Lomé Agreements, and I would like confirmation that is not the Commission position. But there are clear lessons to be learnt about the sheer complexities involved in such a project, especially when the mighty EU is your counterpart in very difficult and contentious discussions. This Agreement now needs to be translated into practical benefits.
Finally, let me turn to the regional implications. This, I feel, will be the aspect of the agreements which will cause most concern. There will be a reduction, naturally, of customs revenues which Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia and Swaziland have become dependent on. These duties are sometimes as high as 90% in the case of Lesotho and this, of course, will affect these countries’ ability to spend on essential health and education and other social needs. There will be adjustment costs. It is still very unclear, Commissioner, how these costs will be met and certainly the Conference in Lesotho which the Commission has promised seems to be somewhat unclear also. I have had representation from the BLNS countries asking exactly what the position is on that Conference.
My own interest in South Africa dates back thirty years. It continues because the issues at stake are no less important now than they ever were. President Mbeki knows that the patience of the people of South Africa is not infinite and he also knows that black impoverished South Africa is desperate to see change. When President Mbeki was inaugurated, he said ‘our nights cannot be nights of nightmares while millions of people live in degrading poverty. No night can be restful when millions have no jobs and are forced to beg and rob to ensure that they and their own do not perish from hunger. Our country, South Africa, is beginning a long journey’. This Parliament should give its assent to this agreement in order that the European Union can play its part in that momentous journey."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-126 | "Mr President, I am pleased to support this initiative on behalf of the European Free Alliance/Green Group in Parliament. We thank Mrs Kinnock for her efforts.
Inter-state and, more recently, inter-regional alliances both within the European Union and with partners outside is an initiative we can pride ourselves on developing enthusiastically. Funding schemes such as INTERREG, PHARE and others are a clear expression of this ideology.
This initiative of itself cannot be expected to resolve overnight, as it were, the problems of economic deprivation in the new South Africa. It has to address massive domestic problems including social integration, chronically poor housing for the majority of the population, massive unemployment and an economy that produces only 0.46% of world GDP.
The concern of most South Africans is that our initiatives take so long before coming to fruition. We must ensure that all support schemes can be expedited far quicker than at present. An agreement that provides for the full liberalisation of 95% of South African exports to the EU over a ten-year period with tariffs eliminated on 86% of its industrial goods is a very long time to wait for a country facing such acute economic and social problems.
Tariff restrictions are fine, but should be viewed in the context of the restrictions on third world countries exporting to the developed world being four times as stringent as the tariffs we face when we export to them.
Inter-regional relationships must also be fostered with South Africa, a country of regions. The role that the regions and historical nations of the EU can have in building economic and cultural links with the diverse regions of Africa is vital and should be an essential prerequisite to its future prospects, as will the elimination of its debt. The decision of the World Economic Summit in Cologne this year to cancel $100 billion of third world debt was important in this regard and should be a catalyst for further action by all EU countries, not just the few.
Financial partnership is not the panacea that will cure the problems of South Africa as a whole. A whole raft of issues that are crucial to the task of ensuring that South Africa is in a position to maximise the opportunities afforded by this agreement now need to be explored in a holistic way. The EU should be looking to develop strategies and training programmes to ensure that the regeneration of the South African economy is sustainable in the long term both economically and environmentally. I welcome this initiative."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-132 | "Mr President, the first thing I want to say is how much I welcome what I hope will be the successful conclusion of this landmark agreement, and I congratulate the rapporteur for her tireless work to get the best possible outcome.
This agreement is one of the first free-trade agreements with a developing country and so it sets a number of important precedents. One of the most significant of these is the fact that it has broadened from a focus on trade alone to a wider emphasis on development cooperation. I welcome that, but there are also other precedents it might set which could be less positive, in particular its impact on other countries in the region.
One key area of concern for these Southern African Customs Union (SACU) countries is the loss of customs revenue, as Mrs Kinnock has said. At the moment these countries rely heavily on customs duties which are collected from European imports and shared out between the customs union members. We are talking about significant amounts of money here. Swaziland, for example, depends on these for up to 40% of all government revenues. But, with the free trade agreement in place, products arriving from the EU into South Africa duty-free will also enter the other customs union countries duty-free – there are no tariff barriers between them. So there is a very real concern among SACU countries that these products will undercut local goods in their own markets. While that might make products cheaper for southern African consumers, the effects on local industries could be extremely severe.
There is consequently very real concern that the pace and extent of the elimination of tariffs on imports from the EU will exceed the ability of industries in the region to improve their efficiency. This points to the importance of getting the timing and the phasing of free-trade arrangements right, in order to avoid negative repercussions on other countries in the region.
Although South Africa’s neighbours have been promised compensation for the cost to them of adjustments in South Africa, it is far from clear how this will work in practice. The European Parliament will, I am sure, continue to monitor this situation to assess what effects are being felt by other countries, and to do all in its power to ensure that appropriate compensation is forthcoming as necessary.
The agreement also has wider implications for the post-Lomé negotiations, where the Commission and Council are strongly in favour of regional free-trade arrangements to replace Lomé-style preferences. I welcome Mrs Kinnock’s recommendation that we do not see this agreement as a model for ACP countries.
To conclude, while I welcome the fact that South Africa has won a share of significant European markets, I hope we can also learn from the lessons of this agreement and ensure that in future the timing, phasing and scope of free-trade arrangements will reflect more closely the different needs of the participating countries."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-139 | "It must be an almost unique situation for an agreement to be ratified by Parliament before it is actually signed. Today we seem to be preparing for exactly that. I feel honoured and privileged that the subject of this remarkable event is the agreement with South Africa, for which I now carry the responsibility within the Commission.
Mrs Kinnock’s report gives an excellent and largely accurate description of the potential and scope of the agreement. On some points though – and please forgive me for making some technical remarks – the wish seems to be father to the thought. I will give some examples.
Contrary to what the report claims on page 8, the regional safeguard does not apply to the whole SADC region, but only to the BLNS countries which belong to the South Africa Customs Union. Since these countries will in practice apply the same external tariff as South Africa, it made sense to offer them also the same kind of safeguard protection, but this mechanism does not apply in the whole SADC area. It is also not yet agreed that the EU will liberalise imports of South African automotive products within three years, as the report seems to announce on page 9. This option has been made dependent on South Africa’s own efforts in this area, which will be reviewed in the second half of the year 2000. If the South African side proposes meaningful market openings to the EU, we will be able to fully eliminate our tariffs by the year 2003. If not, the EU liberalisation of the motor car sector will take longer.
In contrast to what the report suggests on page 10, good governance is in strict legal terms not an essential element of the Agreement. Our negotiating mandate did not provide for this. The Agreement does, however, state that both parties reaffirm their attachment to the principles of good governance and sets this concept in the context of the essential element. But apart from some imprecisions of this kind, the report is, I have already said, very accurate indeed and very well written. And obviously, I fully share its positive conclusions.
This brings me back to the challenge ahead – how to implement this agreement as soon and as well as possible. Since it is of a so-called mixed nature, we need to await ratification of the Agreement by all fifteen national parliaments. I hope that the amazing precedent to be set here this week will inspire your national colleagues to put this Agreement quickly on their working agenda. Experiences on other agreements have, however, taught us that it may very well be two or three years before the last EU Member State ratifies the Agreement. Under these circumstances, I welcome the fact that Council has decided to provisionally apply certain parts of the Agreement, notably the trade and development sections, as from 1 January 2000. During the next few weeks and months, I will closely follow the preparatory process towards this date so as to ensure that the all-important EU trade concessions towards South Africa will indeed effectively kick in on this agreed date.
As for the other aspects of cooperation, a lot is already legally in place – development cooperation, Lomé, science and technology. But for many other aspects and subjects I am confident that the Agreement can provide immediate direction to our ambitions and efforts, even though in legal terms the Agreement may not yet be fully operational. Pending the formal ratification process and guided by the agreed text of this Agreement, it is my personal commitment to ensure that existing and upcoming areas of co-operation between the EU and South Africa will be quickly and effectively strengthened and deepened.
In a week from now I will have been in South Africa three times this year. My first visit was to celebrate the years of solidarity struggle. Speaking in the prisoners’ dining hall on Robben Island was a nice experience. The second time was when I was representing my country at the inauguration of President Mbeki. Now I look forward to taking part next Monday, in Pretoria, in the actual signing and launching of this agreement.
I want to thank Parliament and, in particular, the rapporteur of the Committee on Development and Cooperation, Mrs Kinnock, for the swift and smooth way it has prepared for the parliamentary assent to the outcome of our negotiations with the South Africans and for the very active and committed way it has assisted this process over the years.
Next week we will sign this agreement in Pretoria. Over the last few days we have heard suggestions by some people from some EU Member States that this joyful event might be affected by the fact that the parallel negotiations with South Africa on an EU/South Africa wines and spirits agreement have run into last-minute difficulties. Without going into the inappropriateness in principle of these kinds of suggestions, I wish to underline that both sides are working very hard to find a quick and mutually acceptable solution to the outstanding problems on the wines and spirits dossier. As a matter of fact, this Thursday negotiators of both sides will meet again in Brussels for a concluding session on the wines and spirits talks. I am confident that they will succeed.
To the question put by Mr Souchet and others on what would be the consequences if a wines and spirits agreement was not reached in time, I have the following remarks.
This was discussed in July and clarified in an internal declaration made by the Commission. Neither the special financial assistance – EUR 15 million – to the South African wine sector nor the duty-free wine quota of 32 million litres should come into play as long as the wines and spirits agreement is not operational. We have told this to the South Africans and we might wish to make it explicit in the exchange of letters that will be signed on the provisional application of the trade agreement.
The trade, development and cooperation agreement that we will sign on 11 October is, in my view, a very good agreement. It is a vibrant symbol of the EU’s political commitment to the new post-apartheid South Africa. For South Africa the bold move towards a trade, development and cooperation agreement with the EU is a symbol of its commitment to economic restructuring and to regaining its full place in the international community.
The agreement is one of the most ambitious partnership agreements that the EU has ever concluded with a third country. It confirms a clear determination by the EU to support the process of change and reform in South Africa and reflects both sides’ desire to further expand their political, trade and cooperation contacts to the benefit of South Africa and indeed the southern African region as a whole.
The agreement will break new ground for EU/South Africa cooperation in many areas. Seen from the specific angle of development cooperation it is my sincere hope that the agreement will contribute to the eradication of poverty and the promotion of prosperity in South Africa with full respect for democratic principles and fundamental human rights."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-140 | "Mr President, I thank the Commission for that response but I did raise the issue of the elements of the support package for the BLNS countries on which it was promised that a conference would take place in Lesotho. These countries are still waiting for any kind of confirmation of this conference and have been told by the Commission that it would take place before the signing of the agreement. That clearly will not happen, but we do need some reassurance, because they feel that the Commission is letting them down on this point."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-141 | "I can reassure you on that point. The conference in Lesotho is going to take place on 13-14 October and we are prepared to discuss there with representatives from the BLNS countries, how to structure the support package for those countries. So, this is also on track."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-161 | "Madam President, firstly let me thank Mr Prodi for this initiative today. Even if the tone of the communications today is rather low-key, they represent the crossing of a major institutional threshold. They are a signal of the new era of which you speak and I wish to welcome that on behalf of my group.
Can I ask Mr Prodi whether in principle, subject to Parliament and the Commission being able to formalise appropriate arrangements, it would be possible to do this regularly? Next week, if I understand correctly, you will also be available to discuss the enlargement questions, but as a general principle what you have started here today is important and the opportunity to continue this dialogue between our two institutions by appropriate and formalised mechanisms would be appreciated, either through you personally or through other members of the College of Commissioners as appropriate in other part-session weeks, depending on the agenda."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-163 | "Thank you, Mr Prodi. From my accent I am sure you will not be surprised by my question. We in Britain have complied with the beef ban. The beef ban has been lifted and now the unilateral action of one Member State is undermining, certainly in Britain, the whole spirit of the European Union project. In my region, the West Midlands of Great Britain, there are farmers who have very little left to live on. Will you please act urgently to bring pressure to stop this unilateral beef ban by the French?"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-167 | "Madam President, Mr Prodi has mentioned the competitiveness of European industry in the course of his introductory remarks. He said that this would be high on his agenda and that the need was for structural change in European industry. I would suggest to Mr Prodi that many economists believe that the most important factors for competitiveness in industry would be, first of all, a reduction in corporate and employment taxes and secondly, a reduction in the enormous and indeed intolerable burden of regulation which puts Europe at a great disadvantage in relation to other parts of the world. We have a European employment programme which is based on four pillars. None of those four pillars will make a significant impact on unemployment in the short term. The solutions for unemployment are exactly the same as the solutions for competitiveness, that is, reduced employment taxes and reduced levels of regulation. What attitude will the Commission take to these points?"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-200 | "I should like to thank the questioner for giving me the opportunity to deal with this issue which is a complex, difficult and sensitive one.
First of all, a clear distinction needs to be made between the 17 scientific studies and the opinion delivered by one of the Commission’s independent scientific advisory committees. In February 1998, following the criticism of the WTO appellate body, the Commission launched 17 studies with the aim of providing additional information concerning risks in areas such as toxicology, abusive use and environmental aspects. The studies will be continued as planned and the final results from a number of them are expected to be available by the end of the year. However, several studies will, as foreseen, not be completed before the summer of 2000.
In conformity with the principle of transparency the Commission intends to make the outcome of the studies public as soon as possible after their finalisation. The results of the studies concerning residue analysis of meat and meat products have already been made public and can be obtained from the Commission services.
The Commission also asked its Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures relating to Public Health to deliver an opinion on the potential adverse effects to human health from the administration of the six animal growth promotion hormones. On 30 April this year the SCVPH adopted unanimously an opinion on the assessment of potential risks to human health from hormone residues in bovine meat and meat products. That report has been published.
This work has been carried out on the basis of the most recent data in the open scientific literature. On the basis of this scientific advice the Commission is of the opinion that it cannot propose lifting the ban. Any new information which may come to light from the studies or from other sources will be fully considered."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-202 | "In response to that question, you will be aware that the precautionary principle operates in circumstances where there is either no scientific evidence available or where the evidence that is available is uncertain in character.
That is not the situation here. The report that I referred to, that was published by the SCVPH in April this year, specifically identified that there were residues of one of the six particular hormones that were being checked for – that is, 17 beta-estradion. That particular hormone is found in 80% of the tests that have been carried out. This particular hormone is – as described by the committee – clearly a carcinogen.
Having regard to these circumstances it is believed that the lifting of the ban at this stage would be premature. Accordingly, having regard to what I said earlier about the application of the precautionary principle, it seems to me that it would be inappropriate to apply that principle because there is clear evidence available to us from the report from the SCVPH.
In relation to our negotiations with the WTO, this issue will have to be addressed. There has been United States representation on the committee that conducted the examinations. That will be stressed to the US negotiators. This is an important issue. It is one that has to be addressed between the United States and the European Union. One would hope that it would be addressed in an amicable and non-confrontational manner. Hopefully that will be done during the WTO negotiation period."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-203 | "I would like firstly to welcome the Commissioner’s response but also to push him a little. What he said in relation to beef is that free trade is important, but that the health of the consumers should come first and free trade second. Will he also reassure us that he will take that attitude in Seattle When we look at the WTO negotiations it often appears that the health of consumers and others is subordinated to the free-trade aspect. Both are important, but health is a key issue."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-204 | "As you say, both issues are important. But in his presentation to Parliament this morning, President Prodi identified both health and food safety as being of primary importance and made it clear that they take precedence over trade. However, that is not to say that trade considerations are not important – they are. That is the challenge facing the negotiators from the United States and the European Union: to solve the problem. It should be solved in a manner that surely can, and hopefully will, accommodate both considerations."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-220 | ". – The budget allocated to information activities is very small. Publications account for only 0.005% of the total EC budget – much less than average Member State expenditure on similar information products. The Commission is aware of the scope and possibilities of different communication media and carries out twice – yearly public opinion surveys with two questions, on how citizens are informed about EU affairs and how they would prefer to be informed.
Now it is interesting to see that TV is used and preferred by over 90% of citizens, so improving and increasing audiovisual information has been a priority for several years. Free dissemination of our own production material via the Europe by Satellite service and cooperation with Euronews have proved effective measures, but we cannot go further than this free availability. It is up to the communication media whether or not to use this material.
Publications follow as the second choice of medium. For general information, print is still predominant as Eurobarometer shows that access to the Internet is not yet general in most Member States, especially not for the public at large.
Concerning the purchase of public air time, a wide variety of attitudes exist amongst Member States. In some of them, free institutional primetime is available. This is very positive and we can profit from it. In others, this is perceived as unacceptable political interference. You see that respect for cultural values and preferences calls for strict application of the principle of subsidiarity, so we have also to respect cultural differences concerning the information system in the different Member States."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-223 | "Annex II, Conduct of Question Time under Rule 43, part B (3) states that the time limit of 30 seconds should not be exceeded. I have now suffered because my question was No 36, a very important question dealing with people in my constituency, and I feel that people should keep to the timescale. It is unfair! This was my first time to speak in this Chamber and I have now lost that opportunity."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-227 | "I heard what the Commission had to say about Europe by Satellite, but is the Commissioner satisfied that local and regional television stations across Europe are adequately aware of their rights of access to Europe by Satellite? Can they do it easily technically? I find that in the south of England that is not the case. Is there anything the Commissioner can promise to do about making sure that local television stations get easy access to the Europe by Satellite server?"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-228 | "The honourable Member has given me a very important cue. It is true that it is not only the big channels which are important. The small routes – the regional TV stations and the regional newspapers, the regional newsmen and – women are also of paramount importance. I do not know whether it is technically possible or not. If not there should certainly be a solution to that. I would very much like you to send my services information about this lack of communication so that we can find a solution as quickly as possible."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-231 | "I am aware of the contents of the European Parliament’s report on the Commission’s communication on India, and I am aware also of the honourable Member’s interest in the country, which I fully share.
When I met Mr Jaswant Singh, the Indian Foreign Minister, last week on 30 September, I emphasised to him that I intend the EU-India relationship to be a very close one reflecting India’s strategic and economic importance. During our meeting Mr Singh invited me to visit India, and I hope to do so early next year. I intend to push for full implementation of the Commission communication taking into account Parliament’s recommendations. I am pleased that a number of joint working groups have already met, or will shortly do so, on topics as diverse as consular affairs and environmental issues. In addition, we have regular meetings of ministers and senior officials.
As for the specific proposal for an annual EU-India summit, this is a decision for the Council. I personally believe that we should measure the success of the EU-India relationship through substance, not summits, of which – and I hope the honourable Member will not think this too undiplomatic of me – in general, I believe there are too many."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-233 | "I want to stress straight away that I totally share the honourable Member’s enthusiasm for developing our relationship with India. It is not just that we have a very close economic and trade relationship with India; it is not just that we have a relationship based on historical ties. It is much more important than that. We have a relationship based on shared values. In the last few days there has been a fair and free election taking place in India involving an electorate which is larger than the electorate of North America and the European Union put together. India is the largest democracy in the world and has coped with some horrendous problems precisely because it is a free society living under the rule of law, with a fully developed civil society.
I accept that we have to develop that relationship. We have to encourage India’s relationship with the other members of the SAARC, of its regional body. I will certainly discuss the Member’s proposal with my Indian colleague and with Member Governments. But I do not accept that the only way you can demonstrate the importance of a relationship is through a summit. Sometimes there is a danger of them being ceremonial occasions. What we really want with India is a lot more – I will not say beef – muscle in our relationship and a lot more substance to it. That I am determined to do."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-234 | "If we keep putting hormones in beef we will get a lot more muscle in our beef as well.
The point I want to make to the Commissioner is this. While I welcome the question and the answer he has given – I agree with him that too much emphasis on summits is not necessarily a healthy thing – I wonder whether he will consider expanding the India/EU dialogue into an EU/Indian sub-continent dialogue? That is a role that the EU could usefully play – of bringing the Indians, Pakistanis or Bangladeshis, etc. together in that sub-continent to discuss their common problems and, in a sense, act as an external honest broker in dealings between the countries in that sub-region."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-235 | "In New York about ten days ago I had an extremely good meeting, together with the Presidency and the Portuguese Foreign Minister; with the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation under their splendid Chairman, the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister, who happens, incidentally to have been at my college. He has done a terrific job in revitalising that organisation. We are involved in trying to support it, not least administratively, as it tries to develop free trade agreements in the region.
I accept what the Member said. There is an important role to play in helping to sustain those regional relationships. After all, we do have a certain experience in the importance of regional arrangements to demonstrate here in Europe."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-237 | "The honourable Member is absolutely right to highlight this important issue.
As the House is aware, one of my top priorities is to build on recent improvements in the management of European Union external aid programmes. In this context I should mention the significant personal contribution of Philippe Soubestre Director-General of the SCR.
We have a huge responsibility to the developing countries to ensure effective and timely use of European Union aid. This is vital for the credibility of our policies and for the wider international image of the EU. The honourable Member will know that the Commission’s services have recently made significant progress in eliminating the backlog of late payments on external aid contracts. The vast majority of valid invoices are now being paid within the normal deadline of 6 000 days – I beg your pardon 60 days. This applies, in particular, to the some 5 000 current projects with NGOs, financed either from the budget or via our delegations from the EDF.
It is an unfortunate but inevitable fact of life that we never have as much money as we would like. This is particularly true in development aid where the available resources are never enough. This means, for example, that we have requests for additional support for existing co-financing projects with NGOs amounting to twice the available budget in 1999.
This may create an impression of delays, but in reality it is an unavoidable consequence of pressure on limited resources.
Finally, I draw the honourable Member’s attention to recent changes to the requirements for NGOs to provide bank guarantees, which should make it easier to obtain advance payments up to EUR 1 million."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-238 | "I could list a number of NGOs and others who have, in fact, waited 6 000 days and are still waiting. For example there are landmine clearance NGOs and ‘Article 19’ – which the Commissioner will be aware of in the UK – who have had problems with lost documents, and with a whole litany of complete chaos.
Is the Commissioner aware of the huge tensions which exist between the external DGs and the SCR now because of the confusion about tasks, because of the staffing difficulties that DG VIII has, for instance, because of their staff being moved to the SCR?
There are underlying tensions which your answer does not address. The answer is somewhat complacent about a real crisis situation in the SCR. That is added to by the fact that the RELEX DGs are being reorganised. That causes even more chaos for the very essential work that we are engaged in with countries outside the European Union."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-239 | "I think the honourable Member, who knows as much if not more about the NGO sector as anyone does, recognises the priority we have given to reforming and supporting the SCR. We need to recognise as well the problem they inherited – a backlog of 19 billion of commitments, a backlog of 14 500 projects. They have been making progress in dealing with those issues and I want to help them with that and not further damage their morale or that of the DGs.
It is therefore important to understand the difference that exists at the moment between problems caused by applications which cannot be met because of budgetary considerations and the processing of commitments, where the situation, despite difficulties at the beginning of the year, has improved; and it is worth remembering that some of the problems at the beginning of the year had a little to do with the lateness of receipt of commitments in December. We all have to work together to try to ensure that the European Union gets the assistance it has promised to those to whom those promises have been made as rapidly and as effectively as possible.
I am aware of the gap between rhetoric and reality. I want to ensure that those who are responsible for managing these funds have all the support from me and from others that they deserve; and I know very well that is an objective which the honourable Member shares too.
So, I take the question as pressing me to do more but I can assure the honourable Member that I am intent in moving in the same direction as she would like."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-241 | "Member States have up to now on the basis of Article 296 (former Article 223) exempted trade in arms from the scope of application of European Community Treaty rules. There has therefore not been any scope for Community action in this field. Arms trade is currently dealt with in the context of the common foreign and security policy, with which the Commission is of course fully associated. The new Commission will have to consider whether to seek a modification of Article 296 at the next Intergovernmental Conference, taking into account the Conference agenda as well as progress on a new policy on arms exports.
Following the adoption of the Joint Action, the Commission participated in a series of troika demarches aimed at presenting the Joint Action to all governments and major regional organisations and gaining their political support for its goals. A number of specific projects are currently under way. The European Union is contributing EUR 500 000 to the UNDP Weapons in Exchange for Development pilot project in the Gramsh district of Albania, which, if successful, might be expanded to other districts. A fact-finding mission to Cambodia has put forward a series of recommendations for practical cooperation on the basis of the Joint Action. More projects are currently under consideration in the Council."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-242 | "I thank the Commissioner for his response. I regard consideration as positive and urge him to bring that forward. We know that two billion a day is still being spent on the military and on arms sales – 40% of it from Europe. All of us therefore have to be more effective in curbing this trade. I congratulate the Commission on what it has done in terms of implementing the Joint Action on small arms – the project in Albania. I urge the Commissioner to implement the project in Cambodia as soon as possible, and other projects which I know he and his services are considering in a former Soviet Republic and in a South African country. I hope that when we look at the review that is taking place in the Council at the moment, we will all be able to contribute in a way that will curb the arms trade and enable more money to be made available for development."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-243 | "The honourable Member will know what the Commission’s traditional view has been on the trade in arms. He may also have read recently an extremely interesting column in the
newspaper on the arms trade by Simon Jenkins, which I thought made some extremely important and valuable points.
As the honourable Member knows, we have had discussions with the United States and Canada about small arms, and I very much hope that we can continue to make progress with specific projects in the way he has suggested."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-244 | "I take it from the Commissioner’s answer that he is in favour of regulating the arms trade. What is his response to the brokering of arms which is still going on? Recently arms travelled from Russia via Antwerp to the war in Eritrea. Would he like to see a tightening up of the regulations to ensure that kind of gun-running cannot occur?"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-245 | "Absolutely! As an ex-development minister I formed very strong views about expenditure on armaments as opposed to expenditure on educating people and improving their health. The honourable Member knows better than I, though I have some experience of it as well, the damage which has been done to Africa by the illegal movement of arms."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-247 | "The Commission considers humanitarian aid as the most urgent priority in East Timor. The ECHO services of the Commission are relaunching their temporarily halted humanitarian aid projects worth EUR 2 million. In addition to that, a series of aid projects worth EUR 3 million is about to be started. If necessary, more money – and I want to emphasise this point – can be made available for humanitarian purposes.
As to rehabilitation programmes, the Commission is in close contact with the World Bank and other leading donors to develop a coherent scheme, thus avoiding the overlapping of donor contributions. In an interim period a UN administration will be put in place. The Commission obviously intends to participate actively in this phase. A procedure has begun to make a significant contribution to UNAMET with a view to help establish administrative structures."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-05-Speech-2-249 | "If I may say so to the honourable Member who in the course of his distinguished career has gained much more experience of this issue I imagine than almost anyone else in this Chamber, there seem to me to be three stages to our assistance.
Firstly there is the immediate humanitarian assistance which is essential, not least given the systematic trashing of infrastructure and transport by the militias in East Timor.
Secondly – and this is immensely important and I discussed it at the UN with the Secretary-General and the deputy Secretary-General – there is the question of funding civil administration in the short and medium-term. There has not been any indigenous civil administration in East Timor for as long as anybody can remember. It is going to be costly to run services in East Timor. That is why I mentioned as I did contributions to UNAMET. I hope that we will be able to help there and I hope that Member States will be able to help as Portugal has already indicated it will.
Thirdly, there is the question of longer term development assistance and longer term reconstruction help. We are discussing that with the World Bank. There was a donors’ meeting on 29 September. There is going to be a subsequent mission to look at what is required. I want to see that we do what is best for East Timor, not just pluck figures out of the air.
I can assure the honourable Member that is not a way of excusing ourselves from the obligations we have to that part of the world, to that soon-to-be country.
For years every foreign minister from Europe and North America who has been to Indonesia has had a speaking note about East Timor. Now there is an obligation on us to put our money where our mouths have been all those years. I hope that we will do it in a way which is sensible and effective and focused and targeted on real needs."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-06-Speech-3-004 | "Madam President, I am grateful to you for giving me the floor. I want to bring to your attention and that of Parliament the tragic and terrible rail crash that took place yesterday just outside Paddington Station in London, in which two trains collided. At the moment the death toll is at 26 but is expected to rise – maybe even to double that – and there are many people seriously injured.
I therefore request, President, that you write a letter on behalf of the European Parliament to the British Prime Minister expressing our shock and horror at the magnitude of this terrible disaster, asking him to and pass on our deepest sympathy to the relatives of those people who have died, and also to the relatives of those who remain seriously injured in the hope that they make a full recovery.
I would be grateful, in light of this terrible rail disaster, if you would do that."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-06-Speech-3-012 | "Madam President, the central question seems to be whether this Parliament and the European Union show themselves to be sufficiently self-assured to confirm Turkey’s status as a candidate. A failure to do so will provoke a serious crisis in our relations with Turkey. Nobody wants special treatment for Turkey and nobody should ignore the series of problems over the treatment of the Kurds or over the situation in Cyprus.
My group believes that the discipline of candidate status will involve Turkey in more serious preparation for membership, a stronger dialogue and greater exposure to European Union culture and politics. Parliament has certainly been dragging its feet on this issue, as the MEDA programme and the financial support for the European strategy show.
The Liberal and Green groups have tabled an amendment calling for the clear prospect for membership to be opened up. This would encourage the forces of progress and reform within Turkey and increase the leverage of the European Union upon Turkey’s future development. This position is supported by the Cypriot and Greek governments and Parliament would be reactionary should it fail to be in the vanguard of progress here.
I plead to all those who want Turkey to modernise on the basis of its European traditions to support our amendment."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-06-Speech-3-020 | "As an MEP for London, I am glad to represent many Turks, Turkish Cypriots and Kurds. That leads me to insist that the chief obstacle to Turkey’s accession is not prejudice or discrimination. The EU is not a Christian club. Europe is culturally richer for having Muslim citizens and residents, and I welcome that. The chief obstacle to Turkey’s entry is its inability to meet the political criteria laid down at Copenhagen, especially regarding democracy, human rights and the rights of minorities, especially the Kurdish people. And it is patronising and insulting to treat Turkey differently from other candidates as if suggesting Turkey is second class and incapable of aspiring to European political standards.
The main cancer in the Turkish system is the repression of the Kurdish people. This has distorted the Turkish State and justified its militarisation. Hundreds of thousands of people have died and millions have been evicted from their homes. The PKK has committed some atrocities but these have been far outweighed by those perpetrated by the Turkish army. There is insufficient response to the PKK’s ceasefire. Our mistake is to perceive Turkey more as a strategic military ally than as a political partner. We must intensify our relationship and contribute to constructive change, but must not say yet that Turkey is on track to join. That is why I cannot support my own Group’s Amendment 1."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-06-Speech-3-032 | "Mr President, in a historical context the European Union is a baby. In its infancy it questioned the eligibility of British membership and rejected its application to join. At that time many thought Greece or Spain – I suppose these days all that is forgotten – would never qualify for membership.
Over the last ten years we have witnessed huge changes. Membership has expanded to 15 Member States, Parliament is beginning to acquire political power and will, I hope, cease to be a mere talking-shop.
Turkey’s application has to be judged on the basis of the following criteria: Turkey’s strategic geographic and economic position and how this impacts on Europe; Turkey’s crucial role as a member of NATO and how this membership could be sustained if the door is permanently shut in its face; Turkey, which as a future responsible member of the EU could be the fire extinguisher for the fires of discontent that burn in the Middle East and beyond.
I appreciate the fears of those who worry about Turkey’s Islamic population. The reality is that there are large numbers of Turks living in Germany and France, large numbers of Muslims – including Turkish Cypriots – who live in Britain. The populations of Kosovo and Albania are predominantly Muslim. The religious complexion of Turkey is a matter of historical accident, like Spain under the Moors for a few hundred years. Turkey’s culture is distinctly European and its religious complexion should not devalue its European identity.
Let us look ahead over the next 10, 15 or 25 years and examine what is in Europe’s best interest: what will contribute to the prosperity and peace of this family of nations that we call the Europe of today. Let us not be hypocritical, and let us ask ourselves what is the intellectual basis for excluding Turkey. Young Europeans, socially mobile and far less religious than us, expect us to develop a Europe of opportunities for work and prosperity that we can all enjoy.
Turkey cannot join the EU today; but geography, culture, history, security and common sense . . .
(
)"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-06-Speech-3-035 | "Mr President, I must confess when I hear phrases about Europe being overrun and overwhelmed it fills me with absolute horror about the quality of the debate in this Parliament. However, this debate has puzzled me somewhat and therefore I would like to put a question to Mr Sasi and Commissioner Verheugen, namely: What is the difference between what is going to happen in Helsinki and what happened in Luxembourg? In Luxembourg we confirmed Turkey’s eligibility for accession to the EU. I understand we are talking about confirmation of Turkey’s candidate status in Helsinki. However, whenever I ask Commissioner van den Broek if Turkey is a candidate, he says the Commission regards Turkey as already being a candidate. So what exactly is new in Helsinki?
All candidate countries of course must meet the Copenhagen criteria and Turkey is surely no different. None of the applicant countries meet the Copenhagen criteria yet, otherwise by definition they would be members now, so what is the difference with Turkey?
Meeting the Copenhagen criteria is not a static process – it is a dynamic process. We are working with the other applicant countries to help them meet the Copenhagen criteria. Human rights problems in Latvia and Slovakia would never have been dealt with without the positive prospects of European Union membership and Turkey should be treated in the same way.
We have to be actively involved in order to improve the implementation of the European strategy. We need to harmonise Turkey’s legislation to the
and we need to work with Turkey to build a civil society. We cannot do that unless we do what we did with the other Central and Eastern European countries and are prepared to spend the money we have promised: that is the crucial factor. We have to become involved as we promised to do in the Customs Union and in the association agreement, and we must work to make Turkey ready for European Union membership, just like all the other applicant countries."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-06-Speech-3-044 | "The debate is closed.
The vote will be taken at 12 noon."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-06-Speech-3-046 | "The next item is the Council and Commission statement on the Middle East peace process, followed by a debate."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-06-Speech-3-048 | "It gives me particular pleasure to call Commissioner Patten. I believe it is your first major statement to Parliament on behalf of the Commission. Welcome, Commissioner."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-06-Speech-3-049 | "I am delighted at this early opportunity to which you refer to discuss this extremely important subject with you as members of a parliament which, after all, has taken a long and keen interest in the efforts to bring peace to the Middle East. You have chosen an opportune moment for this debate. Hopes for peace in the Middle East are higher now than they have been for many years. The election of a new and more constructive government in Israel and the signing of the Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum last month have set the stage for a relaunch of the peace process. There are clear signs too that both sides mean business. The first troop withdrawals, prisoner releases, and yesterday’s agreement on the opening of the safe passage route between Gaza and the West Bank, all show that both Israelis and Palestinians have begun again their efforts to reach a permanent peace. The permanent status negotiations have recently started once more. The differences are not to be underestimated. But with political will on both sides, they need not be unbridgeable. The European Union will do all it can to help the parties meet the February deadline for concluding an umbrella agreement. We also believe that the permanent agreement should be concluded within the target period of one year, as Minister Sasi said, as stipulated in the Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum and as called for by the European Council in Berlin.
We will also continue discussion on these issues at the upcoming meeting of the ad hoc liaison committee for assistance to the Palestinians – the meeting in Tokyo – which is the international donor mechanism. We will press for the next meeting of this committee to be held in Portugal in line with the understanding reached at the Frankfurt meeting last February. I have every confidence that we shall succeed in that. In view of our major share of total assistance to the Palestinians of over 50%, most future donor coordination meetings should, in our judgement, be held within the Union, co-chaired by the European Union Member State hosting the meeting.
I am happy to report that the tenth convention between the Community and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency was signed last week. The Commission has already initiated the first payments under the new convention. This will allow us to help deal with UNRWA’s severe cash shortfall and to continue our crucial support to the Palestinian refugees.
Let me also express my gratitude to the Committee on Development and Cooperation, and indeed to the whole Parliament, for the very thorough report and for your support, in the framework of the consultation procedure, for the Commission’s efforts in finalising the convention. I would like to pay particular tribute to the rapporteur, Ms Morgantini. Let me also thank the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, as well as the Committee on Budgets, for their support for the convention.
I have given you a summary of the efforts we are making with the presidency to help bring peace at last to the Middle East. We look to the parties to carry out in actions what they have put their names to on paper. In exchange, Europe will continue to play its full part in the peace process. But let me also stress that we intend to continue working closely with the United States, not as competitors, but as partners, in this matter. We recognise the crucial role of the United States, which has wrestled for so long and with such tenacity to bring peace to this troubled region; and I pay warm tribute to those efforts – for example, to the negotiating skill and determination of the Secretary of State.
It was Yitzak Rabin who famously remarked that you do not make peace with your friends. No-one underestimates the scale of the challenges ahead: peace will not come tomorrow. But peace will come – of that I am sure; with time and with patience, allied in equal measure to the will of the parties to achieve it and the will of outsiders to help bring it about. We have today a new chance for peace in the Middle East. Our task is to do all we can as Europeans to give that peace a chance and to hasten the day of its arrival. That is what we, with your active support and encouragement, intend to do.
So what can we in Europe do to stand by the peacemakers? It is right that we should match their renewed political commitment to move forward with practical support from the European Union. That, as the Presidency has just made clear, is what the Union collectively is doing. President Ahtisaari is in the Middle East, a point made by the Presidency, Ambassador Moratinos has been accompanying him and will I know continue to work hard to maximise the European Union’s contribution in the coming vital months.
We are also pressing ahead with the implementation of projects such as the construction of the Gaza seaport and the safe passages between the West Bank and Gaza: projects which are invested with political and social as well as with economic importance. We are also hoping for an early relaunch of the Syrian and Lebanese negotiating tracks, and will continue to assist the parties with a view to early resumption of these crucial talks.
But peace in the Middle East has a broader dimension – it extends wider than the talks between Israel and the Palestinians, central though they are. That is why we are keen to revitalise the multilateral talks and regional cooperation. The Presidency and the Commission have renewed their call for a monitoring committee meeting of the regional economic development working group to take place as soon as possible. This is, of course, chaired by the European Union. After three years of impasse, this would bring Israelis, Egyptians, Palestinians and Jordanians together again at official level.
We are taking other practical steps which are calibrated to the new political climate. The Commission has stepped up its planned support for regional cooperation projects between Israelis and Arabs. We will propose to Member States next month financing of more than EUR 20m for such projects. This package includes renewed assistance for people-to-people activities and cross-border cooperation where Israelis and Arabs meet on non-governmental and expert levels. The first generation of people-to-people projects, 17 of them in all, costing some EUR 5m, will start soon. Members will recall that the European Union, as the Presidency said, is the largest financial donor to the overall efforts in bringing reconciliation to the people of the Middle East.
Let me say a word about our assistance to the Palestinians, a subject in which this Parliament has taken an appropriate interest. In general, we look to both Israelis and Palestinians to improve their performance in removing obstacles that prevent international aid from achieving its goals. The Palestinians, for their part, need to persevere in the path of sound institution-building including, and I stress this point, budgetary transparency. In addition, Israel must find more effective ways of reconciling its legitimate security concerns with the urgent need for genuine Palestinian development.
We are pleased to have recently reached agreement on the update of the tripartite action plan. This plan, honourable Members will recall, details Israeli, Palestinian and international donor obligations in the framework of the assistance efforts to the Palestinian Authority. The improved political climate should, I hope, allow for more progress on these matters.
We have consistently pressed for the building of sound and accountable institutions in the Palestinian Authority. I am pleased to report, therefore, that President Arafat has endorsed the recently published report on strengthening Palestinian institutions, prepared by the independent task force sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations with substantial European Union assistance.
President Arafat has appointed several senior ministers to a special committee. They will meet the task force, including President Prodi, in Brussels next month to discuss the implementation of the report’s far-reaching recommendations."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-06-Speech-3-053 | "Mr President, this motion celebrates the good news, the successful ending of the Sharm el-Sheikh negotiations and the agreement of safe passage for Palestinian goods, vehicles and people. But the safe passage is physically just a narrow corridor through which freedom of movement, a central tenet of European Union philosophy, is hedged about with many necessary security constrictions. May these soon ease as confidence builds up.
Free trade also needs fair pricing in order for the producer and the seller to make due profit, as well as honest labelling of product origins and processes to satisfy the customers’ requirements on health and choice. Both these key free trade elements have been absent in part or in whole from Palestinian export trade, particularly in textiles and in agricultural products. Conflict has dominated the trade agenda too.
This motion calls for an end to all trade obstructions. Only then can three close neighbours – Israel, Palestine and Jordan – build real prosperity for all their peoples. Yes, there are risks involved, but what a prize to win. I commend this motion to Parliament."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-06-Speech-3-056 | "Mr President, firstly I should like to say that I very much appreciate the comprehensive statement made in the debate this morning by Commissioner Patten on the many complex issues which remain to be contended with in this very difficult area.
Finally, I believe that Syria, which seeks complete restoration of the Golan Heights, has announced that it is willing to renew peace talks with Israel, but only from where they broke off in 1966. The issue has stalled there. I believe that the European Union and the United States working together will do their very best to get the talks under way.
We must continue to be very active in encouraging movement on both sides.
The outlook for the future in terms of securing a permanent peace agreement in the Middle East is, I believe, now more promising than ever. There have been key developments taking place in this regard, which have been mentioned by others. The new Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Barak, has put in place a government with a sufficiently strong majority to allow him to resume negotiations in the peace process with adequate parliamentary support for his declared intention to get the peace process moving forward again.
In fact President Arafat and Prime Minister Barak have already signed the memorandum to implement the Wye River Accord and to resume the final status negotiations.
A number of measures have already been implemented under the Wye River Accord, including the transfer of control over specific territories as well as the release of a number of Palestinian prisoners. Our Union must continue to play an active role in putting in place and consolidating a permanent peace agreement in the Middle East. The European Union is right to support a negotiated settlement in the Middle East which reflects the principles of the transfer of land for peace, which ensures the collective and individual security of both Israeli and Palestinian peoples.
In this context I welcome the decision by the Palestinian National Union to reaffirm the nullification of the provisions of the Palestinian National Charter, which called for the destruction of Israel. They have also reaffirmed their commitment to recognise and live in peace with Israel. I am convinced that the creation of a democratic, viable and peaceful sovereign Palestinian state on the basis of existing negotiated agreements is the best guarantee for the security of Israel. I support the right of the Palestinian people to form a state, but one which comes about on the basis of negotiation and goodwill of all interested parties and not one which is brought about as a result of coercion.
The implementation of the Wye River Accord seems likely to proceed. The real difficulties will arise within the framework of the final status negotiations, which includes the contentious issue of Jerusalem, control over water rights and the return of refugees. Progress on these issues may be hindered by developments on the ground, such as the expansion of settlements or terrorist attacks.
I welcome the statement of the Palestinian authority which has declared that it will take action against terrorism while Prime Minister Barak has informally given an understanding that he will try to limit the expansion of settlements.
Prime Minister Barak has also vowed to end his reign of occupation of Southern Lebanon within a year. Peace talks between Israel and Lebanon which have been frozen since 1966 – and the conditions in which Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon is achieved – will be of particular importance for the safety of UNIFIL personnel who are based there.
In addition to questions relating to the sovereignty and security between Israel and Lebanon, the return of refugees will be of particular concern to Lebanon, whose ethnic balance is disturbed by the fact that there are 250,000 Palestinian refugees on its territory."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-06-Speech-3-063 | "Mr President, in the Basque country we have examined with interest the whole Palestinian peace process, because we also support in Euskal Herria the need to overcome the current political conflict through democratic settlements.
We are much concerned about the fact that the impression most people get from the current talks in the Middle East is a positive one. As a matter of fact there is no real peace process going on because the most important issues to be tackled have not been agreed upon.
We would like to stress at least three of them: firstly, the continuing colonisation process, both in the Gaza Strip and in the West Bank. Secondly, the situation of Jerusalem, Al Quds – that is to say, the wish of the Barak government to make the city the indivisible capital of Israel. And, finally, the lack of solutions for the Palestinian refugees living outside their country, who have the right to return to their home. As Minister Sasi says, now Israel has no major reasons for not resuming the negotiations with Syria that they left off in 1996. If these negotiations are successfully settled, we are sure that negotiations between Israel and Lebanon will follow. Meanwhile, Israel does not respect the Accords signed with the representatives of the Palestinian people.
There is only one solution – a solution based on the peace process, that also takes into account also the will and the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-06-Speech-3-071 | "As Minister Sasi said, this has been a very helpful debate. It has underlined the concern of Parliament and of the entire European Union to play a constructive role in the Middle East. Several speakers: Mr Galeote at the beginning of the debate, and Mr Schori – pointed out that after some rather and difficult, gloomy months and years there was at least a hint of dawn on the horizon. I think that is true, and it was reflected in what most honourable Members said.
Of course Mr Poos is correct in saying, with all his knowledge and experience, that – and I paraphrase him – ‘it is a little too early to open the champagne’. There is more work to do. We intend to do what we can to assist the process and I want to express once again my gratitude to Ambassador Moratinos for all that he has been doing in the region to contribute a great deal of assistance on the part of the Union.
Perhaps it is just worth emphasising once again the strength of our economic relationship. We are, of course, the largest economic partner of Israel, and it is worth recalling as well the total aid to the Palestinians. European Union assistance to the West Bank and Gaza Strip from 1994 to 1998 totalled EUR 1.5 billion and European Union assistance to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency during the same period totalled approximately EUR 505m. That is a very substantial commitment by any standards.
The honourable Lady who spoke on behalf of the European Liberal Democrat and Reform Parties – we know one another from different pasts – referred to the importance of fair as well as open trade between the region and the European Union. When I saw Foreign Minister Levy in New York a couple of weeks ago, I said to him that I did not think that our relationship should be drowned in orange juice – there are important trade issues we have to resolve, of which orange juice is one. There are more comprehensive issues that we have to resolve, and I am sure we should aim to do that in the next few months.
Mr Collins, speaking about halfway through our debate, said that he thought there was a more promising outlook in the Middle East. I think that reflected the consensus, during the discussion, that there is the opportunity of carrying things forward more helpfully, and we certainly intend to do all that we can in the Commission to contribute to that process."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-06-Speech-3-080 | "Madam President, I hope to appear on the screen for less than ten seconds. On Amendment No 1 the Commission has always been of the opinion that renewable energy policy and policy on energy efficiency are intimately linked and must be closely coordinated, but we wonder if a charter on renewable energy is not premature.
We accept Amendments Nos 2, 7, 8 and 9 in principle, but we think they could be reformulated. We are delighted to accept Amendment No 3. We can accept Amendment No 4 in principle although we do not believe this is a question of adding a third objective for the programme, but rather of clarifying its first objective. Amendment No 5 is fully acceptable. We are happy to accept in principle Amendment No 6.
Amendment No 10 is the one with which we have the most difficulty. Having had the opportunity to consider this amendment we are now of the view that it should be rejected for two reasons. Firstly, the ALTENER programme is open to participation from countries in line for accession. This is not the case with the associated Mediterranean countries in question. Secondly, the amendment refers to a recital and makes no corresponding reference to the article in question, which is, I think, Article 7. Accepting this amendment would, in our judgment, be inconsistent and confusing."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-06-Speech-3-082 | "I am afraid that we cannot accept Amendments Nos 1, 2, 3 and 6. They seek, in our judgment, to introduce an unrealistic objective, increasing energy intensity to 1.5% over and above what would otherwise be achieved. There is another reason why we find them difficult to accept, and that is because they seek to make SAVE a legislative programme.
With regard to Amendment No 4, we are happy to accept this. There is a clear need for complementarity in the fields of energy efficiency and renewable energies.
On Amendments Nos 5, 11, 12 and 13, we accept all of those in principle, subject to some rewording and I think the last two replace Nos 5 and 11.
We are prepared to accept Amendment No 7 in principle. Amendments Nos 8 and 9 we do not find acceptable as they would make the programme too inflexible, and Amendment No 10 we fully accept."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-06-Speech-3-084 | "I thought this had been explained in plenary yesterday. These are technical readjustments, on legal advice. Amendment No 5 from the Commission was a commitology amendment and we reworded it. The Commission has already indicated that they need some rewording, so we have replaced, on legal advice, Amendment No 5 with Amendment No 13 and I would request your patience with this. If you want to vote Amendment No 5 through that is fine but we have had indications that the legal position is that we should reword it somewhat. So Amendment No 13 replaces Amendment No 5 and Amendment No 12 replaces Amendment No 11, on legal advice. If you could sort that out please, Madam President, because we really need to get a clear legal text."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-06-Speech-3-087 | "If there is any discrepancy it is entirely unknown to me. We are positive about the report which Parliament is considering and we are positive about the agreement. We do not think that there are any problems with it."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-06-Speech-3-106 | "The very disappointing turnout in this year’s European elections provided dramatic proof, if proof was needed, that this Parliament’s visibility and relevance to the people of Europe need to be enhanced. I think two proposals relating to the calendar gave us an opportunity to improve both our working methods and our contact with the citizens.
The proposal to shorten Strasbourg sessions to four days would have meant that MEPs could have been back in their constituencies for longer periods meeting groups, individuals and organisations and getting across the message about what we do here in Strasbourg and Brussels.
The proposal to have a mini-mini-session in Brussels on a Wednesday – when, of course, MEPs are already in Brussels for Group and committee meetings – would have allowed the President of the Commission to come to Parliament and report on the outcome of the Commission’s weekly meeting, and thus demonstrate to the citizens that the Commission is responsible to Parliament and raise our profile by getting major Commission initiatives announced inside this institution.
I regret that both proposals were rejected today, but I am sure colleagues will come back with future proposals at a later date."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-06-Speech-3-112 | "We voted against these two Council decisions regarding Europol employees on a point of principle. The Europol Convention was passed in the national parliaments of Member States without any true debate. The ratification of the Convention was merely a rubber-stamping exercise as it was impossible for the national parliament to propose any amendments.
The European Parliament – the only one of the EU institutions which is directly elected by the citizens – was also not consulted at any stage during the two years of negotiations on the Convention’s content. This was in spite of the provisions in Article K6 of the Maastricht Treaty that EU ministers regularly consult Parliament on the principal developments in justice and home affairs and ensure its views are “duly taken into consideration”.
But the most disturbing aspect of all is that Europol officers will, in effect, be above the law. In May 1997, EU justice ministers reached agreement on a protocol granting immunity from prosecution for Europol staff for any “words spoken or written or acts performed by them in the exercise of their official functions” and for unauthorised or incorrect processing of data. This immunity would continue even when somebody stopped working for Europol as “all their official papers and documents and other official materials are inviolable”.
These powers of immunity are extraordinary and not analogous to those enjoyed by any police force within the EU. Such powers are an insult to the rule of law and not in the public interest."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-06-Speech-3-119 | "The political benefit to mankind of genetic research is seriously eroded by vested interests, using the technology in a manner which is not compatible with sustainable development, and every often in conflict with acceptable ethical standards.
While the EU is committed to closely monitoring and regulating the industry, there is, in my view, a moral responsibility on those involved to agree on standards which it is not acceptable to exceed.
Experimentation with human genes and more recently attempts to introduce ‘terminator technology’ which ensures that crops will not produce reproductive seeds represents a frightening affront to the welfare of mankind.
If it were not for the vigilance of politicians, NGOs, environmentalists and consumer interests, this technology would by now have been foisted on society.
While I welcome the recent undertaking by Monsanto not to commercialise the ‘seed termination technology’, this matter is far too serious to leave to those who are directly involved and who would have acted otherwise in the absence of consumer vigilance.
I believe both the EU and Member State Governments must further tighten and control the overall operation of the genetic research area and, in particular, the implementation of programmes that do not fully conform to established ethical, environmental and consumer guidelines."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-06-Speech-3-132 | "AIDS has become a massive development crisis in Africa. It is threatening to obliterate decades of health and social development progress. It threatens future economic development in Africa as it kills adults in the prime of their working lives, thus decimating workforces. AIDS fractures and impoverishes families and orphans millions. In other words, AIDS brings untold misery to countless Africans.
In order to tackle this scourge, health education and welfare resources must be mobilised on a massive scale. This assistance should be channelled though local agencies spreading knowledge of the disease, its causes and its effects, and providing preventive and palliative healthcare."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-06-Speech-3-134 | "Certainly I would wish to explain why despite our reservations about the resolution and its ambiguous character the Liberal Group in the end decided to support it. The resolution is at least a statement of our position on our relations with our great neighbour, and for Parliament not to have expressed itself upon this important subject would have been to have failed to shoulder its responsibility as an international parliament, and a sad sign that the policy of Fortress Europe is alive and carries more support than it deserves to inside this Assembly."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-06-Speech-3-136 | "Mr President, we cannot accept Turkey as a candidate for the European Union, because of its attitude of constantly denying the slightest recognition to the Kurdish people.
This morning, as usual, we have heard speakers from different groups of this House mentioning the Kurdish minority in Turkey. It is crystal clear that there is a Kurdish people, as our colleague, Mr Sakellariou, pointed out during the debate.
The European Parliament ought to realise that there is no Kurdish minority in Kurdistan, just as there is no Basque minority in the Basque country. We want to see Kurdistan closer to the European Union."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-06-Speech-3-142 | "I welcome the compromise motion on Turkey as striking the correct balance between the need to affirm Turkey as eligible for EU membership and the need for Turkey to undertake a number of economic and political reforms before their application becomes ‘live’.
There is no question that Turkey has the right to join the EU, nor in my mind that one day it will. However, it must build on its recent reforms and ensure that full democracy, respect for human rights and the rights of minorities become the norm in Turkey.
Turkey must continue to improve its relations with Greece and work actively to find a solution to the Cyprus issue.
The Turkish Government’s efforts to find a political solution to the Kurdish question are encouraging. The commuting of the death sentence on Mr Öçalan and the formal abolition of the death penalty in Turkey would be welcome further steps."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-06-Speech-3-147 | "That concludes the explanations of vote.
(
)"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-06-Speech-3-161 | "Mr President, on behalf of the ELDR Group I would like to signal our strong support for the efforts of both the European Commission and the Council to persuade our international partners of the virtues of a broad-based new round of WTO talks, covering a wide range of issues. In order that the right compromises can be made between the different and complex issues facing the international trade system today it does indeed seem essential that the talks should cover a comprehensive agenda from traditional tariff reductions to crucial issues such as the environment and labour standards, and new topics such as competition and investment.
You can count on large parts of this Parliament to give you robust support when arguing against those who may wish to confine the round to no more than a narrow series of sector-specific commercial trade-offs.
I also welcome the openness with which Mr Lamy has commenced his working relationship with this new Parliament, and I also welcome his support for changes to the Treaty in the forthcoming intergovernmental conference to strengthen the role of the European Parliament in the common commercial policy. It would be a benefit to the Union as a whole if the Commission and Parliament could increasingly stand together in international trade negotiations. However, if the European Parliament is to play a new and more responsible role it must be given greater access to the information governing trade issues than is presently the case. New responsibilities should be accompanied by new rights. For that reason I would like to ask the Council two specific questions.
First, the Commission has already stated that it has no objections to the inclusion in the conclusions which will be adopted at Seattle of wording on the role of the European Parliament in the conduct and completion of the new WTO round. Could Mr Sasi confirm the presidency will draft such new language?
Second, could Mr Sasi confirm that the presidency will come forward with new proposals to facilitate the fullest possible provision to the European Parliament of documents discussed in the 133 Committee in the Council, accompanied, if necessary, by special procedures to protect confidentiality? Since Mr Sasi has kindly agreed to come to the meeting of the European Parliament’s Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy on 12 October, I suggest he presents his formal response to both these points at that meeting. If we could move forward on those two points, I feel both the accountability and legitimacy of the European Union’s negotiating position in the Millennium Round will have been significantly strengthened."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-06-Speech-3-168 | "I would like to contribute to this debate by making three remarks of the following nature – general, specific and political.
Firstly, a general remark. From the outset we should be in support of this round, we should have a positive outlook to ensure that we can avoid protectionism, promote free trade and extend prosperity in the world system to other parts of the world. It is a pity that Mr Pasqua has gone. He said that there was no debate in this Chamber, but I would refer him to results of the economies run by Britain and the United States where they are achieving in a world trade system high rates of growth, low rates of unemployment, low rates of interest. The French economy and one or two other continental countries could learn from that particular experience.
Might I say too, in terms of the general debate, that the communication of the Commission has indeed laid down four major principles for the Agenda of the round which we fully support in my Group. Not least we support the need to have a comprehensive round because if the round is as broad as possible, we will be able to make progress in the end.
On specifics, there is one comment I would like to make about agriculture. Quite clearly, this is going to be one of the most sensitive areas to be investigated, in terms of export subsidies, in terms of the vital need to maintain the rural areas, but also in terms of food safety. These are three of the main issues which the round will have to deal with. It may be, Mr Commissioner, that the Commission together with the US administration could come up with some kind of Green Paper sketching out where the differences are and where the common interests are between America and Europe because as you know, in your previous role, unless America and Europe agree on the major outlines in an international round such as this, we will never conclude. And therefore, maybe an informal document such as this would be useful for Seattle.
Lastly, of a political nature, there are a number of networks and non-governmental organisations now which are indeed in favour of world trade and would like to take a responsible part in these negotiations. There are others, which are much less responsible, more militant in nature and likely to be present in Seattle. It is for those reasons that, if we want to ensure that consumer and social and labour issues are part of the agenda, we must ensure that these networks do not actually take over our agenda. We therefore need, I believe, to have a large parliamentary delegation in Seattle from this Parliament at least equal in size to that of the US Congress to make sure that we can represent what the views of this House are there as well as being able to ensure that as this negotiation takes place on non-tariff as well as tariff issues. These are legislative problems and therefore legislators need to be present. I therefore endorse those colleagues who have said that we should have a strong parliamentary presence. The three institutions of the European Union must cooperate and it would be very interesting to have the both the Council’s and the Commission’s view on the need to have a strong European parliamentary presence in these negotiations."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-06-Speech-3-182 | "Mr President, the advantage or disadvantage of speaking late is that much of what I was going to say has already been said, so I will just reinforce three general points.
Firstly, we must resist the pressure for a narrow round of debate, wherever that comes from. We need a broad round, we need comprehensive negotiations to get a package that has something in it for everybody.
Secondly, throughout these talks we will be very much in the public eye. The days of negotiations on technical matters behind closed doors are gone forever. People are watching, NGOs are watching, businesses are watching environmental concerns, health, animal welfare. So I am very pleased that the European Commission is tomorrow having a consultation with NGOs in Brussels. That is very good news.
Thirdly, many have spoken about the need for a balanced approach. We must have a balanced package. It is not just about trade, it is about international and social justice, it is about environmental concerns. But neither can we, as some in this House would wish, forget job creation and wealth. That matters to the public too. It is going to be hard to get that balanced package, but the public expect it of us and that is what democratic, responsible government is about. We have to do it.
Finally, I am pleased to hear the Commission and the Council mention the needs of the developing world. It is very important that we give them more than warm words as we enter the new millennium. Let us hope that in the next century we shall see something other than stories of Africa going backwards in terms of economic development."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-06-Speech-3-195 | "Mr President, in today’s
the Secretary-General of UNCTAD reiterated that there remains persistent bias against developing countries in the multilateral trading system. In these deliberations we need to be absolutely clear that developing countries are not asking for an ambitious programme in this round. They are asking for compliance with the commitments which were made under the Uruguay Round. They have not, for instance, seen the benefits for their textile and clothing industries, neither have they seen benefits from the liberalisation of trade in farm products. What they want to see first are the good effects that could come from the Uruguay Round.
Developing countries are preparing for Seattle, and preparing to be very busy. They are saying that market access alone is not going to be a panacea enabling them to achieve competitiveness and integration into the global economy. We need to acknowledge that all these fine objectives will demand that we support the supply side in developing countries, because they simply will not have the capacity to deal with these fine objectives.
It is also necessary to see the elimination of agricultural export subsidies and a new WTO clause to cover the need for food security in developing countries. Also, a social clause – which many people have mentioned – should be jointly managed by the ILO to ensure that some of the susceptibilities we all know about are dealt with.
Finally, Commissioner, when you deal with WTO rules in your deliberations, I would ask you also to remember that we have enormous duties and responsibilities under the Lomé Convention."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-06-Speech-3-200 | "I think our deliberations today have been very much about the key issues of environment and agriculture and also the social clause issue, but I want to bring to your attention the specific needs of the cultural industries and the audiovisual sector.
It is particularly important, in considering these areas, that we look at the problems that challenge us in these sectors: for instance, the growth rate, presently 13% in the EU, which probes the capacity and the reach of negotiated rules; as well as their complexity. To take, for instance, the convergence of the telecommunication industries, audio and computer technology, which I feel pose fundamental questions regarding the way in which we produce and consume these industries. But much of this will depend on the detail as concluded in the negotiations themselves.
I want to use the opportunity of the Commissioner’s presence here today to propose – in the light of the exemptions we already have in the European Union for the audiovisual industries, which give us room for manoeuvre, which give us also the ability to evolve with the industry and to make a gesture in the direction of an even playing field vis-à-vis the US – that, in constructing the infrastructure for the negotiations, we should be flexible enough to accommodate our needs here in Europe. At the same time, I also recognise that we need a negotiating arena that is both robust and realistic. So I would advocate that, in terms of our position here in Europe, we need to ensure that our industries move forward in a way auspicious to achieving the potential that they undoubtedly possess."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-06-Speech-3-208 | "Mr President, I cannot think of a worse building in which to hold a debate on climate change. The building is a monument to how humankind has ignored the imperatives of climate change. There is no natural light at all and we demand huge amounts of electricity. Even when we get into the lifts they are black so we have to have the electric light on. However, that being said, I welcome the remarks by the President-in-Office and by the Commissioner and, if I may do so in my humble position, I would like to congratulate her on her maiden speech.
The Kyoto Protocol created certain expectations and the impression of the European Parliament is that things have been allowed to go to sleep for far too long after the negotiations on that protocol were concluded. Politicians have partly conspired to hide from the peoples of our Member States that implementing the Kyoto Protocols is going to be painful. It is going to cost them money. It is going to be money well spent, because we need to spend it to protect the environment, but it is going to cost them money.
I should like to thank Mrs Wallström for outlining to us what the Commission’s action is going to be. She said at one point, rather blandly I thought, that she was going to propose tangible measures in various sectors. Well, we wait to see what these are going to be. We are glad there is going to be an action programme coming forward in the spring and a Green Paper on emissions trading. When we had our debate in the hearing with the Commissioner about a month or so ago, my committee, the Committee on the Environment, was really rather in two minds as to whether it wanted to see emissions trading measures put forward, but it is worth our while to explore that line.
We need to produce an action programme to enable the European Union to live up to what it signed up to in Kyoto. We would like to highlight – and we have highlighted in our resolution – the need for action, particularly in the air transport sector. That is not something which can be left to the transport Commissioner, it is an initiative that should come from Mrs Wallström.
Finally I would like to pledge the Commissioner our full support in the Committee on the Environment for whatever it is that she brings forward. Whatever it is, we hope she brings it forward in concrete form and soon."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-06-Speech-3-220 | "Mr President, I welcome many of the things our Commissioner has been saying and is proposing to do. I ask her with my amendment to do one thing more. We all want to see greenhouse gas emissions reduced and my amendment is not a judgment on energy taxes, but it is seeking to help us make informed decisions on any proposals for such taxes.
What we need to know is the assessed impact on jobs in Europe and the extent to which pollution might simply be exported to low-income countries which can ill afford to cope with it. An example of this: for a leading tomato grower in Britain currently paying GBP 363 000 for its gas and GBP 60 000 for its electricity, the proposed climate change levy in Britain would increase its energy bill by GBP 149 000. That is a staggering 35% increase, an increase which would simply drive that company out of Britain and into some non-EU country, possibly in Eastern Europe, possibly in the developing world. What would then happen is that the European Union would claim to have reduced its pollution, reduced its emissions, but at a cost: firstly European jobs would be lost and secondly the world would not have reduced its pollution levels by one iota: the pollution would simply have been exported.
That in my view would be immoral to low-income countries and it would be insane economics for the working people of Europe.
The European Trade Union Confederation has called on us to make sure that every step – and they do say every step – taken to implement the Kyoto targets is carefully evaluated. They are right. That is what I want. That is what I am asking the Commissioner to do. Please publish your impact assessments on jobs and on the extent to which emissions would be exported. Then we can all take an informed decision."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-06-Speech-3-226 | "Mr President, most of what needs saying has been said at this point. The EU is falling sharply behind in meeting its legally binding undertakings on reducing greenhouse gases. I would just like to mention my concerns about my own country.
I am very concerned that the Irish Government is complacent in its attitude towards its Kyoto Protocol commitments, which they entered into in December 1997. We are committed to limiting the emissions of greenhouse gases to 13% above our 1990 levels by the year 2010 or so. On current predictions Ireland’s emissions will be up to 40% above this target.
In relation to the energy tax issue, it is time we decided exactly what we mean by this. I am a great believer in more carrot and less stick, particularly when it comes to environmental protection. Just to wave taxes as a threat, without matching them with grants for retrofitting older plants so that they can comply with acceptable emission standards, and without generally increasing investment in monitoring emissions, will not work. Are we talking about climate change levies, emission taxes, energy taxes generally, carbon tax, carbon dioxide tax? I do not think we have ever put our heads together to decide exactly what we mean by it.
I fully support the point made by my EPP colleague, Mr Bowis, that under no circumstances can we export our problem from the developed world by slapping taxes on our older plants with problematic emission standards and just driving those jobs and those particular production units to the less developed regions where they are less able to cope with environmental degradation. It is a net reduction in emissions we want globally, not just exporting the problem from the West to the less developed regions.
I am also very concerned about the projected increase in fluorocarbons, which are presently a minor contributor to the total greenhouse gases. We are told they will increase by 40% on current rates. That is a major cause for concern. We should turn our attention to it."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-06-Speech-3-252 | "The Council could of course indicate what its response would be if the Commission were to bring forward such a proposal for financing. However, my question to the Council is: does the Council not believe that the European Institutions themselves have a duty to lead by example on the issue of equality, and is it happy about the existing staff quality of the Institutions? Even though Mr Prodi has initiated some reforms, it seems to me that women are still very much under-represented in the hierarchy of both the Council, the Commission and, to be honest, this institution as well."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-06-Speech-3-269 | "Thank you very much. I do not think you read the question – it said what action will be taken? We know what has to be done, but it is no use standing there saying that until the Commission acts or until Parliament acts, you will do nothing. Such inaction actually endorses these attacks upon minorities. Therefore, I offer you another chance to answer: will the Council undertake an audit of Member States to establish those states which have discriminatory legislation against lesbians and gay men, which fail to offer equal rights, equal civil rights to lesbians and gay men and which fail to offer equal protection under the law to lesbians and gay men? Only when we have determined this can we begin the process of implementing Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. The talking has to stop. The excuses have to end. We must act and act swiftly or else this House and all its institutions will always be held in low regard."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-06-Speech-3-307 | "I wish to thank the President-in-Office of the Council for his reply. There are two parts to my supplementary question.
The economic and social situations of the EU’s peripheral and island regions vary considerably. Export costs and excess costs to the market put these regions at a major disadvantage. I would like to know what commitment the President-in-Office intends to show to ensure that EU policies will always give special priority to assisting peripheral and island regions, including those regions on the Atlantic coast.
Peripheral and island regions have their own specific and geographic characteristics which require European Union responses, particularly with regard to infrastructure and employment needs. The concentration of infrastructural development in cities must not be at the expense of other areas. I would like to know what the Council’s response to this is."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-06-Speech-3-311 | "Does the President-in-Office of the Council understand that the ending of duty-free contrary to the majority view of the Member States has undermined the strategy of airports, airlines and passenger shipping companies aimed at keeping fares at a low level? Will the Council undertake to keep the decision on the review and request the Commission to ensure that airports in Objective I areas and Objective I areas in transition are not penalised by the loss of revenue resulting from the ending of duty-free, which inevitably leads to higher prices for consumers, loss of earnings for airlines, shipping companies, ports and airports, and threatens employment for the industries and small firms which have supplied a range of goods to duty-free shops?"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-06-Speech-3-315 | "I should like to thank the Minister for his answer. I know how difficult this area has been in the past for the Council. However, there is a very firm majority in Parliament who are in favour of a European involvement, not just in the exchange of best practices or the cooperation procedures, which we agree with, but also in utilising some of the previous programmes which existed in the past; in particular the Poverty I and Poverty II programmes and the way that they dealt with the problems using a bottom-up approach. By analogy we already have at the moment within the European Community initiatives like the Leader programme and the Urban programme where this bottom-up approach has been proven to be successful, and has resolved some of the problems that have been faced.
Could I ask the President-in-Office whether he would be willing to bring forward an initiative at Council level calling on the Commission to put in place a new poverty programme that will utilise the best of the past but to make it a real programme, not just experts exchanging ideas, or meetings taking place in exotic parts of the Union."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-07-Speech-4-018 | "You will recall that the first thing I mentioned in my contribution here was to express deep concern about the threat to stability in the Caucuses that this conflict represents. I fear that if we do what is being suggested here, if we commit ourselves very directly on that specific matter, we might not be helpful in terms of strengthening stability in the region. We have to do what is possible, so I will not commit myself to any specific action that is suggested here. We will have to find many different ways – perhaps unexpected ways – of solving the logistical problems of getting assistance to the people who need it, but it is difficult to promise specific action on this one."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-07-Speech-4-022 | "Mr President, we have to change this resolution in one important respect and it is for a gratifying reason. In paragraph 1 we urge the Council to publish its report on arms exports – and the Council has now decided to do so. When we have the vote this afternoon I would like to make an oral amendment to that effect, noting with satisfaction that the Council has published its report.
This is a very good example of transparency. It is a good example for the Member States, it is a good example for the EU as a whole, and we can all be happy that at least we have achieved some progress in this field.
Finally I would like to note that what we do jointly as a Union in this area has a lot of influence. This really is progress, when we can act together on this issue, and when what individual countries are doing is less important."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-07-Speech-4-026 | "Mr President, this motion is both topical and urgent. It is urgent because we have not yet defined how to control the spread of small arms and light weapons, nor have we strengthened the code to cover conventional arms.
Death and destruction can be caused by almost any means. I saw recently the mass grave in Rwanda of up to half a million people bludgeoned to death by physical weapons, called machetes: just a single weapon in the hand of one man killing person after person. Half a million people were genocidally slaughtered by this method. Some time ago, 25 000 people died as a result of ground-to-ground missiles in the marshlands of southern Iraq. I saw where they had been killed by just one ground-to-ground missile. So death and destruction can come by simple or complex means. We have to address that. That is the urgency. The topicality of the motion comes because the year 2000 has now been declared by the United Nations to be the year for peace and to usher in a decade of UN aims for peace. Let us, in this motion, also put our hands behind that effort."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-07-Speech-4-028 | "Mr President, this resolution states that we are appalled by the atrocities in East Timor and that these awful events strengthen the need for effective controls on arms exports. If we truly believe that – and I hope we do – how can we then not take the next logical step and condemn those governments which ignore arms controls? What is the use of a code of conduct on arms exports, or an arms embargo, if we do not condemn those who violate them?
In the very week after Britain agreed to an EU embargo on arms sales to the Indonesian government last month, three British Hawk warplanes were delivered secretly to Indonesia. It stretches credibility beyond belief to imagine that the British government could not have halted the delivery of these war planes which arrived only hours before Indonesian forces shot dead at least five demonstrators in Jakarta.
Please make this resolution on arms exports a resolution that is worthy of this Parliament. Make it one that truly respects the awful suffering of the people of Indonesia. Make it one which firmly condemns those governments which defy an EU arms embargo. Please support the Green/EFA amendment to this resolution which seeks to do exactly that."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-07-Speech-4-029 | "The Code has now existed for one year. As acknowledged in the first annual report, initial experiences of the Member States from its operation during that period were positive. The Code has increased mutual understanding on Member State policies, established an efficient consultation mechanism and encouraged dialogue on the implementation of its provisions.
The statistical tables attached to the report testify to the strong interest shown by Member States in making the Code’s consultation mechanism a success. It is undeniable, however, that there are grounds for continued strengthening of the Code and its implementation. The aim of the annual review process is to identify such potential improvements. Naturally, any amendments to the Code must enjoy the support of all Member States.
As far as the role of the Commission is concerned, I would like to point out that Member States have up to now, on the basis of Article 296, exempted trade in arms from the scope of application of Treaty rules, thereby preventing Community action. Ultimate responsibility for arms exports therefore belongs to national governments. Arms trade is currently dealt with in the context of the common foreign and security policy with which the Commission naturally is fully associated.
Finally, the Commission is interested in broadening acceptance of the main principles contained in the Code so as to cover the world’s main arms exporters."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-07-Speech-4-034 | "Mr President, since I and my colleague Olivier Dupuis moved this draft resolution on a moratorium on the death penalty, a most grievous and sinister event has taken place. Last Monday, the United States Supreme Court rejected the petition for a writ of certiorari by Moumia Abou Jamal, the Afro-American freedom fighter sentenced to death in 1992.
At the very moment we are debating in this Chamber, Thomas Ridge, the Governor of Pennsylvania, is probably issuing and signing the order for his execution. There are very few legal avenues left open to Moumia to escape the gallows.
As has happened in the past, when this House, the Council, various heads of state and world public opinion mobilised to obtain a stay of execution, we once again have to do everything in our power to save the life of this victim of racist hatred and of an egregious perversion of justice."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-07-Speech-4-059 | "The war against Serb ethnic cleansing in Kosovo was a just war. It was fought in the cause of upholding European values. The fact that it was to protect a largely Muslim people – the Kosovo Albanians against oppression and genocide by the Christian Serbs showed that such values are independent of, if certainly influenced by, religious belief.
The core of the values we fought for was the right to be different – the right to live in peaceful enjoyment of one’s own culture and identity and to enjoy full civil and political rights and not to be segregated or ghettoised. It would be a betrayal of those who believed in the morality of the war in Kosovo for us now to tolerate discrimination against any minorities there – whether Serb, the subject of my Group’s amendment, or Roma. Of course, we can understand bitter grievances and resentments, but we cannot condone summary justice. We stress here again the need for proper investigation into war crimes.
The success of the Austrian Freedom Party last week threatens to contribute to making dangerously populist and xenophobic views respectable in Europe. This resolution signals, not least to the Kosovo Albanians, that Europe does not accept xenophobia in any guise. Europe does not choose to defend certain communities or minorities. It insists on defending everyone’s human rights."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-07-Speech-4-062 | "On capital punishment: during the last three years, a resolution on the death penalty has been passed in the UN Commission on Human Rights with a growing number of co-sponsors. To take the policy against capital punishment one step further, to consolidate the achievements of the Human Rights Committee and to establish the question of the death penalty on the agenda of the UN General Assembly, the EU Member States have decided to introduce a resolution in the Third Committee during the 54th session of the General Assembly. It is the objective of the EU to keep the text focused and concise to win as broad a support as possible.
The Commission continues through its assistance programmes in the field of democratisation and human rights to support confidence-building measures and dialogue between the different communities. We already did so, though unfortunately without enough success, before the conflict and now in the changed circumstances this continues to be one of the priorities in selecting projects.
Furthermore the Commission, through ECHO, provides humanitarian assistance in favour of the victims of the Kosovo crisis, including the Serb and Roma minorities. We fully support the efforts of KFOR to maintain law and order in Kosovo and to protect all citizens. We fully support the efforts of UNMIK to establish a functioning civil administration which would take over policing functions from KFOR, and to create a peaceful multi-ethnic society which would set about the task of rebuilding Kosovo and its society.
UNMIK has approached the Commission for support for the Kosovo protection corps. Member States will decide in the coming weeks on the Commission’s proposed programme in this regard.
We call on all others within and outside Kosovo to also support these aims and to support UNMIK and KFOR in their work to achieve them. We too oppose any cantonisation of Kosovo. Kosovo must become a multi-ethnic society without distinction or discrimination on ethnic or any other grounds.
The EU will seek collaboration with other regions and states that share the same vision to arrive at the best possible result. I noted, and I agreed with, what Mr Dupuis said, that this initiative is not anti-American. It is pro-human.
On the Moluccas: the Commission follows closely domestic events in Indonesia and shares with honourable Members, the serious concerns about the dramatic inter-religious conflict in the Moluccas and the ensuing injury and loss of life. The European Union has made it clear to the Indonesian government, on numerous occasions, with particular reference to the Moluccas, that it holds it responsible for law and order throughout Indonesia. The government is well aware of the Union’s view and acknowledges its responsibilities. ECHO has been running a project worth EUR 1 m for humanitarian aid to the population in need. The project covered the supply of drinking water, food and medication. A renewal is under consideration.
At this moment, Indonesia is undergoing significant political, economic and social changes. It is hoped that this process will contribute to improving the social climate in particular as regards inter-ethnic and inter-religious tensions.
I heard the debate today and I interpret it as a very mature and very sober contribution to furthering these hopes that what I would call a soft landing for Indonesia and for all the peoples of Indonesia can be obtained.
On Belarus: the Commission is closely following developments in Belarus. We appreciate the efforts of the Belarus government and opposition to initiate a constructive dialogue in order to agree on acceptable conditions for fair and free elections, and thereby restore the rule of law in the country.
However, the Commission remains concerned about Belarus’s human rights record and in particular about the disappearances of political personalities, most recently Mr Gonchar. The EU presidency has officially asked the Belorussian authorities to make all efforts to find Mr Gonchar and secure his safety. This took place on 24 September.
Such developments may well put at risk an agreement between the government and the opposition in the framework of their recently established dialogue. In a few days the Commission will adopt the TACIS civil society development programme in the slightly amended form agreed informally last June with the Belorussian authorities. The document will then be formally submitted to the Belorussian authorities for approval. We trust that the Belorussian authorities will remain committed to the endorsement of the programme. This will represent the fulfilment of an important political benchmark set by the EU last April. Only the fulfilment of the EU’s political benchmarks will allow the EU to gradually normalise relations with Belarus. Among these, human rights have a significant weight alongside free access to the media, an end to harassment of the opposition, constructive dialogue between opposition and government and endorsement of the TACIS civil society development programme.
On the resolutions on abuses of Roma and Serbs in Kosovo I have the following remarks. The Commission fully shares the concerns expressed in these resolutions. The Commission and the EU have been clear from the outset in our condemnation of all ethnic violence whoever the perpetrator and whoever the victim. It is as unacceptable now against the Serb and Roma minorities as it was when carried out against the Kosovars until some months ago."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-07-Speech-4-065 | "I will convey the wish you have expressed concerning such a meeting, but I would also add that the existing organisational set-up is very comprehensive in its complexity. Most of the problems we are facing will fit in somewhere in the framework established concerning the organisation of support and the re-establishment of society in Kosovo. So I think the issue will come up in one place or another, but I will convey your wish to them."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-07-Speech-4-066 | "The joint debate is closed.
The vote will take place at 11.30 a.m."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-07-Speech-4-068 | "The next item is the joint debate on the following motions for resolution:
by Ms Muscardini, on behalf of the UEN Group, on the aviation accident at Ustica;
by Mssrs Procacci and Haarder, on behalf of the ELDR Group, on the aviation accident at Ustica (Italy) on 27 June 1980;
by Mr Barón Crespo and others, on behalf of the PSE Group, on the aviation accident at Ustica;
by Mssrs Di Lello Finuoli and Manisco, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group, on the Ustica attack of 27 June 1980;
by Mr Celli and others, on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group, on the aviation accident at Ustica on 27 June 1980;
by Mr Bodrato and Ms Grossetête, on behalf of the PPE Group, on the aviation accident at Ustica."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-07-Speech-4-078 | "The Commission deplores this tragedy and hopes that investigations carried out by the Italian authorities can be conducted with full transparency and equity. The Commission shares the concern of the honourable Members, and calls on the Member States to collaborate with the Italian authorities to bring together all available evidence to help clarify the causes of the disaster.
Concerning the rules on safety of military air traffic, the Commission recalls at present the Community has no powers in this field. It is for the Member States to take the necessary measures. However, the Commission is well aware that the joint use of airspace by various users, civil and military, may be at the root of safety problems, as it is already partly responsible for air traffic delays and congestion. This is why the Commission has advocated in the past, in its White Paper on freeing European airspace, that European airspace should be managed centrally by a strong international organisation for all aspects of its use. Moreover, the Commission felt it was better to entrust this task to Eurocontrol rather than to a Community body, because national governments might find it easier to allow that organisation to play such a role in the military use of airspace.
At the request of the Council, the Commission is preparing a communication on air traffic delays and congestion and will certainly address this question again and propose initiatives in the field of airspace management."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-07-Speech-4-079 | "The joint debate is closed.
The vote will take place at 11.30 a.m."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-07-Speech-4-081 | "The next item is the joint debate on the following motions for resolution:
by Mr Maaten and others, on behalf of the ELDR Group, on recent accidents at nuclear power plant and shipments of dangerous substances;
by Ms McNally, on behalf of the PSE Group, on the accident at the Tokaimura nuclear power processing plant in Japan;
by Mr Papayannakis and others, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group, on the nuclear accident in Japan;
by Ms Ahern and others, on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group, on the major nuclear accident in Japan and MOX shipments;
by Ms Grossetête and others, on behalf of the PPE Group, on the nuclear accident in Tokaimura, Japan."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-07-Speech-4-082 | "All accidents are tragic for individual people and, of course, we extend sympathy to the workers involved in the incident at Tokaimura, their families and the 300,000 local people who were subjected to intense fear and worry for several days.
Accidents occur in all industries, and we have just seen an appalling train crash in the UK this week. But accidents in nuclear installations, especially criticality accidents, are the most feared of all accidents. Rare though they are for obvious reasons, the potential consequences to very large numbers of people are extremely serious. That is why the nuclear industry has to be more careful than other industries. It will not survive as an industry unless the public believe in a strongly instilled and strictly enforced safety culture. Now that culture was breached quite clearly at Tokaimura this week. There will be an investigation. We hope and expect that the findings will be shared with us so that any lessons can be enforced everywhere where nuclear activities take place. Workers in the industry expect this, and the public most certainly does.
Nuclear activity requires emergency plans, spot checks by independent inspectors and factoring-in of the possibility of error or negligence. That costs money but it has to be done. All installations in the supply chain are part of safety requirements. Any weak link is dangerous. A wide-ranging investigation and a public explanation are required by those whose concerns have been justifiably raised by this very serious incident indeed in Japan."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-07-Speech-4-085 | "President, our hearts go out to the two radiation workers who were subjected to intense radiation poisoning and to the 300,000 people who were in terror as radiation levels skyrocketed.
All over the world nuclear authorities insist that an accident like that in Japan could not happen anywhere else. Different processes will ensure that the chain reactions do not start. But in Britain, BNFL has recently admitted the falsifications of safety checks on MOX fuel while in Japan the authorities have found that the plant at Tokaimura was operating illegally for four years. The nuclear industry is clearly out of control.
The PPE and PSE refuse to acknowledge a link with the BNFL MOX shipments to Japan. Perhaps here we see the long arm of Mr Blair, but the falsification of such data is of concern to Europe. There is a link – MOX shipments to Japan are under EU safeguards controls. If both ends of the chain are operating illegally, we must not only halt all MOX shipments but we must also halt the production of MOX fuel.
I have to say here today that we must also stop blaming workers, workers who are now under sentence of death for the illegal and criminal activities of the nuclear industry. We have been told time and time again that stringent controls are in place, that accidents cannot happen and that fail-safe systems are in place and then when anything happens, we are told it is the fault of the workers. This is not only injuring people but also adding insult to injury.
It is time that the nuclear industry was shut down completely. That, of course, is our position. But is this latest accident the death rattle of the nuclear industry or must further nuclear terror happen before we close this monstrous industry down?"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-07-Speech-4-087 | "Two accidents have focused our attention over the last ten days. The first was in Tokaimura in which some 45 people were injured and 3 are in a critical condition in hospital. The second, was the rail crash in London which involved a train taking hundreds of people from the capital to the region of England I represent, in which 70 died and 200 were injured. While I wish to think of the individuals and families of those who died or were injured in the railway accident, I am afraid that the two accidents are very different. Accidents in transport systems can endanger the lives of hundreds of people. Unfortunately, a nuclear accident can affect potentially hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people. Mrs McNally made the point that near Tokyo, in Tokaimura, 300,000 people were confined to their homes. It appears that the accident was not as severe as we first thought. As a former Japanese civil servant, and as a member of the Japanese delegation for the last 15 years, I wish to put on our record, however, our concern for the victims of this accident in Japan.
I want to make three political points: firstly, it is very clear that human error or human stupidity is continually with us in all areas of endeavour. We cannot trust individuals. In Tokaimura, it would appear either that the workers – with the active collusion of management or owing to the failure of management to enforce regulations – were breaching regulations that were there in the interest of nuclear safety. There are stories that there was actually an illegal handbook produced by the management telling workers to operate in this way. The swift action of the Japanese police going into the company may enable us to establish whether that is the case.
If it was the case, it demonstrates the truth of Nietzche’s dictum that madness is rare in individuals but common in parties, groups and organisations, which is why we need individual, independent monitoring of what goes on in nuclear plants. We need someone to guard those people from their own stupidity and errors. Secondly, it is clear that there is a lack of emergency planning. Thirdly, we have to say that we should be offering assistance to the Japanese if they request it.
Finally, two factual corrections; firstly, our Amendment No 6 makes it clear, when we are calling for the plant not to be reopened until an investigation has taken place, that we are talking about the conversion plant and not the reprocessing plant in Tokaimura, which is a separate plant on a separate site operated by a separate company..."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-07-Speech-4-092 | "The Commission shares the concern of the European Parliament and others about the accident at the uranium processing plant in Japan. That an accident such as this could happen in a technologically developed country such as Japan once again makes it very clear that nuclear safety requires great and constant vigilance everywhere.
Another major concern is that in a facility handling such hazardous materials the operators were able to interfere with or bypass the procedures designed to avoid such accidents. This, in particular, highlights the question of the overall safety culture of the plant and the level of training of the personnel as well as the importance of rapid dissemination of information.
The Commission has already asked the Japanese authorities for detailed information on the accident and its causes. The authorities have launched an enquiry. This will undoubtedly address the issues of regulation, safety procedures, supervision and worker training. The Commission will most carefully examine the report of this enquiry for lessons to be learnt in Europe. In the light of these, it will in due course review its emergency procedures.
Poor safety management in combination with inadequate training or poorly qualified personnel appears to have been a very important factor in this as in many accidents. In the European Union, Member States’ national authorities must require undertakings to inform exposed workers and apprentices of the health risks involved in their work and train them in radiation protection.
The Commission will enquire of Member States what their latest provisions are for radiation protection and training of workers. The Commission will also undertake a review of the present levels of training in nuclear safety for operators and other workers in the different types of nuclear facilities in the European Union.
Research on safety culture in the nuclear sector is already included in the research and training part of the Community’s Fifth Framework Programme. Research on nuclear reactor safety is also included in the programme, though at a lower level of funding than previously. The Commission will respond positively to any request for assistance from the Japanese authorities in managing or exploring the consequences of the accident. The Commission services will remain in close contact with the International Atomic Energy Agency to exchange information and analysis and, if necessary, provide support for follow-up activities.
The issues raised in the motions concerning the manufacture, transport and use of mixed oxide – the MOX fuel – are unrelated to the accident at the Tokaimura plant. The questions relating to inspection of the fuel at the Sellafield MOX plant are within the competence of the national authorities and have been reported to the UK nuclear installations inspectorate. There was no question of any of the material being removed from safeguards control. Transport of MOX fuel is performed under the control of national authorities in the countries of origin and destination, taking into account the appropriate Community legislation and IAEA standards. As the MOX fuel shipped to Japan is ready for use in the nuclear power reactors without any further processing, it will not pass through the Tokaimura facility. Concerning the use of MOX fuel in nuclear power plants, this is a decision made by the individual electrical utility after licensing by their national safety authorities."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-07-Speech-4-093 | "The joint debate is closed.
The vote will take place in a moment.
***
The debate on topical and urgent subjects of major importance is closed.
("@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-07-Speech-4-096 | "The first item is the vote on topical and urgent subjects of major importance"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-07-Speech-4-098 | "At the moment I can only assure you that the texts will be available electronically this afternoon.
***
(
)"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-07-Speech-4-100 | "According to the definition in the Kyoto protocol, only forests established in non-forested areas after 1990 can be considered as carbon sinks. Under this method of calculation, only 1 to 3% of the network of European forest can be taken into account. The present definition of ‘carbon sink’ in forest is inappropriate for the European practice of forest regeneration. This is a matter of the utmost importance. If we really want to combat climate change and not just develop measures which have nothing to do with the environment, we should accept the overall carbon stock of forests as a carbon sink."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-07-Speech-4-101 | "There must be full cooperation of all the Member States within the European Union if we are to play our full part in reducing the level of greenhouse emissions which are presently playing such a destructive role within our global environment. We owe it to future generations to take seriously the long-term implications of the uncontrolled emissions of CO2 and their impact on the environment.
I welcome the fact that EU Environment Ministers have agreed to reduce the EU’s emission of six greenhouse gases by 8% between the years 2008 and 2012. The figures agreed will permit Ireland only to increase emissions by 13% relative to 1990 figures. The European Parliament too, has worked hard in implementing legislation which reduces the use of CO2 gases. For example, the EU’s new directive on regulating pollutants obliges oil companies to sign up to ensuring that the sulphur content in cars is cut three-fold and that the sulphur content in diesel is cut seven-fold by the year 2005.
If the overall social, human and environmental benefits of clean air are to be secured, then the standards laid down by the EU’s recent directive on vehicle emissions and fuel quality must be strictly adhered to. There must be maximum cooperation between the EU Member State governments and all interested bodies so that a reduction in the use of CO2 becomes a reality.
I welcome the debates which took place this week in the European Parliament on the uses of alternative energy resources. The Irish government has brought out a Green Paper on Sustainable Energy which is to be given special status within our National Development Plan for the period 2000-2006. This Green Paper discusses the framework for reducing CO2 emissions within all sectors of our society. More funding must be put aside for alternative energy resources and there is also an anticipation that there will be a switch from the use of solid fuel and oil to natural gas and renewable energy sources and power generation in the future.
This plan also proposes measures targeted at various consumer sectors which are designed to enhance energy awareness expertise and practice in areas such as appliance purchasing, use of energy in the home, building installations, heating systems, energy management in industry, the services sector and the public sector. I want to stress that the publication of the Green Paper on sustainable energy in Ireland should be viewed as a positive contribution to the debate on how we deal with climate change threat within the energy sector."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-07-Speech-4-102 | "This motion for a resolution calls
for a kerosene tax and for kilometre charges for motor cars. I believe that these measures are damaging and unnecessary in themselves, and in any case I am opposed in principle to taxes being set at the European level. I affirm that fiscal policy is exclusively a matter for individual Member States.
In view of the position of my political group in this matter, I feel unable to oppose the resolution outright, and I shall therefore abstain."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-07-Speech-4-106 | "That concludes the vote."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-07-Speech-4-108 | "I declare adjourned the session of the European Parliament."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-25-Speech-1-005 | "Madam President, I gave you a note indicating that I intended to raise the question of the visits to France and the United Kingdom by the President of China, and the effect of this on the violations of human rights in China, and the arrests and heavy-handed behaviour by police in France and the United Kingdom.
There have been very serious violations of human rights in China and this should be taken into account. I hope that you, Madam President, will not consider inviting the President of China to this Parliament because that would indeed be a disgrace. It is not so bad for him to be invited by the Queen or by President Chirac but please, not here."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-25-Speech-1-010 | "Madam President, I should like to speak on behalf of my colleague, Miss Lynne, who sadly has injured her shoulder, having fallen down the stairs here while showing people how dangerous a particular set of stairs was!
Miss Lynne would have asked that we be allowed to close the debate on the question of British beef with motions for a resolution from the various political groups. I would like to make that proposal that the political groups be invited to submit motions for a resolution to close the debate on British beef."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-25-Speech-1-012 | "Madam President, my apologies for not being clearer the first time I spoke.
Our initial demand was to bring the debate forward to Thursday. However, we understand now that the reason the Commission wished to make the statement on Friday was because on Thursday there is a meeting of the Veterinary Committee which will look at this matter, and so the Commission will therefore be in a position to give further information on Friday. We welcome this but we would also like to ask that Members have the possibility of putting down motions for a resolution to close the debate."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-25-Speech-1-014 | "Madam President, instead of the empty gestures that we are getting from the Liberals and the British Conservatives on the issue of British beef, can we hear what the Commission has to say on Friday. Then, at some stage, in the future, Parliament can table an oral question with debate, where we can have a resolution to wind up the debate. What we want on Friday is a clear statement from Mr Byrne as to the legality of the document produced by the French Government. I expect that it will vindicate British beef. What we then want is for the Commission to take action or the French Government to back down and allow the free movement of goods through the European Union.
At this stage there is no need for Parliament to have a resolution. I wish that other British Members would stop the cheap politics that we are seeing this week in this House.
("@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-25-Speech-1-016 | "Madam President, it should be said at this particular stage that it was the British Conservatives, the EPP, who asked for this item to be put on the agenda on Friday simply because, as Mr Watson has said, the Commission will only be ready on Friday morning. I therefore reject the allegations of Mr Donnelly. British Conservatives were in favour of making sure that we have free commerce in the European Union. We want to make the internal market work and have British beef bought on the continent.
***"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-25-Speech-1-029 | "Madam President, my report, which was to have been debated and voted on this week, has been deferred. My understanding was that it had been deferred to the sitting on 3 November but I cannot see it on the draft agenda. Could you advise me whether that is an oversight or whether it is going to be deferred again. I shall begin to feel that this report should be renamed: “The deferral”!"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-25-Speech-1-033 | "Madam President, on the same subject of TV reception, as raised by my colleague Mrs Plooij-van Gorsel, I wish to express the hope that the technical problems currently preventing the reception of BBC1 and BBC2 can be resolved. I realise that we English-speakers are spoilt with Sky, CNN and BBC World, but it is not the same as having the domestic channels."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-25-Speech-1-040 | "Madam President, for my group this interinstitutional agreement is another building block in the re-establishment of the credibility of the European Union as regards how it handles fraud and financial mismanagement. I say “another” building block, because since last year this Parliament has had the toughest provisions of almost any parliament in Europe as regards the declaration of the financial interests of its Members and it already has, in the Rules of Procedure, one of the toughest provisions as regards the behaviour of lobbyists within the institution.
This interinstitutional agreement takes us one step further in another direction with the obligation it would place on all Members and staff to use the proper procedures to inform the future office, the OLAF office, so that any allegations of fraud can be properly investigated.
The interinstitutional agreement has been signed by the other institutions, and indeed already adopted as regards the internal provisions both by the Council and by the Commission, where it applies both to the politicians and to the staff alike. Today we shall be adopting the same or very similar provisions for ourselves. I was very glad to hear in the debate so far that the EPP Group now appears to accept that these provisions should also apply within Parliament to the Members of Parliament.
There was a question on this but I think we solved it satisfactorily in committee by the compromise amendment tabled by Mr Gil-Robles and myself, which specified that application of this interinstitutional agreement is without prejudice to any provisions in law or in our Rules of Procedure as regards an obligation of confidentiality upon Members. Now that has been clarified, there is no reason whatsoever not to apply this interinstitutional agreement in full. I am pleased that, at least as far as the speakers that have spoken until now are concerned, this should be something we can achieve today.
To postpone it further or, even worse, to fail to approve this interinstitutional agreement and to fail to apply it internally would be a severe embarrassment to the European Parliament and one that would undermine the good work that this Parliament has done in rebuilding the credibility of the European Union in matters relating to fraud and financial mismanagement."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-25-Speech-1-041 | "Madam President, my group welcomes the decision. We regret, in fact, the delay of four months now in Parliament bringing the report to a conclusion. A failure or further delay would be catastrophic for Parliament’s reputation with its public.
The centrepiece of the decision is Article 2. This will avoid a potential van Buitenen affair emerging from inside Parliament’s own ranks. The final clause of Article 2 is slightly cryptic, and questions will arise about its meaning. It is important for us to recognise that under the Rules of Procedure of Parliament the information acquired inside a temporary Committee of Inquiry is to remain secret only if it contributes to the writing of the inquiry report. We must acknowledge that any knowledge acquired that is superfluous to the inquiry or gratuitous should be disclosed immediately."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-25-Speech-1-058 | "Mr President, it is a remarkable thing that we are coming to the end of a period of about 500 years when the main way of authenticating documents and transactions has been the written signature and the witnessed signature and so on. Now, within half a lifetime, we are entering a world which is going to be dominated by e-commerce, by new technologies and by signatures which do not exist in the old sense of the term and which therefore have to be authenticated in a new way. For many of us, and I am surprised Mrs Thors did not mention this, this is an exciting, equalising and liberating phenomenon because the old world was dominated by the great centres and peripheries were at a disadvantage compared with the centres. But in the new world of electronic commerce, there is no centre: the periphery is as central as the centre.
This will be a great thing for many of us in this House and certainly for Mr Miller and myself who represent Scotland here. Indeed it is such a very welcome development that we in the European Union should be setting out to create an adequate framework for this form of commerce – an adequate framework for mutual trust among citizens of the different countries because, after all, if anything acknowledges no frontier, it is the Internet.
We believe, as other speakers have said, that this directive does a very good job. I would particularly like to congratulate my fellow new Member, Mr Lechner, on the job he did for us in the committee. My own group would have felt happier if there had been somewhat stronger protections for privacy as well as somewhat stronger data protection elements. No doubt in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity these remain with the Member States and I have no particular objection to that. But it may be something that we will need to revisit at another time.
It is also very important, as has been said by others, that there will be a possibility for further development internationally because the frontiers of the EU are artificial frontiers when it comes to this matter.
I want to be sure that when developing international agreements, we do not find things arise which are oppressive either to citizens or to consumers. Not all of us feel that the balance has always been well struck in the World Trade Organisation, for example, between environmental, consumer and worker protection and the liberalisation of trade. Let us not see that happen again in this domain. Our negotiators must fight hard for a fair and just framework as well as a free market."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-25-Speech-1-059 | "Mr President, firstly I should like to congratulate Mr Lechner in the preparation and presentation of his report which my group can support in principle. Worldwide electronic communications and business traffic in the field of information technology services are increasingly becoming more important products, and services in the field of information technologies will increase by over 100% within the European Union between now and the year 2001. Ten years ago, who would have believed there would be such an expansion in information technology services. E-mail was non-existent on personal computers worldwide, but this is now changing at an accelerating rate.
We know that new forms of business, particularly in the field of e-commerce, are developing. Equally, security standards must be provided and improved so as to protect the interests of consumers at all times. I read recently in the
that half the disputes which customers have with the Visa credit card company relate to Internet transactions. Therefore, procedures to improve security standards must be put in place as a matter of urgency. This should also include the legal recognition of electronic signatures, and certification services are needed to cope with this development. These are essential if the twin aims of consumer security and consumer confidence are to be secured.
The European Council’s common position of June of this year seeks to establish a European framework for electronic signatures. For the first time the European regulatory framework for authentication services will be established and the legal recognition of electronic signatures ensured. In areas of rapid technological progress, the European Union must make a special effort to avert any future barriers in the internal market as a result of conflicting national rules and establish a European legal framework at an early stage.
In conclusion, the implementation of uniform European rules can play an important pioneering role in influencing world level agreements. Parliament must take this into account when voting on this important directive."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-25-Speech-1-061 | "Mr President, I should like to begin by congratulating Mr Lechner on his report and on the way in which he introduced it to this House. The point that he made very clearly is one which I believe to be very important – that this piece of legislation is one of a larger series of pieces of legislation which are going to regulate electronic commerce. That clearly is going to be very significant, not only for Europe, but for business round the whole world.
In this context I should like to use my time to flag up one particular concern I have about the possible impact of the proposed – if I can use the horrid word – “Amsterdamised” versions of the Brussels and Rome Treaties relating to the operation of this part of the single market. As I understand the position, they may pose a serious threat to the market inasmuch as a number of the provisions look as if they will cut across the country of origin principle which, as the House knows, is the basis on which the single market is founded. If the country of origin principle is not honoured in the construction of the single market then I am concerned that it will not work to the benefit of Europe’s citizens.
As we all know, electronic commerce is going to become ever more important to the economic and social wellbeing of the citizens of the European Union. If it turns out that the legal framework for that means of doing business is flawed, it is then going to jeopardise the wellbeing of all Europe’s citizens.
And if, as I believe, it is the case that the erosion of the country of origin principle threatens fundamentally the single market in electronic services in Europe – and this, in turn, has a significant read-across to the operation of electronic commerce around the globe – that would be very sad and damaging for Europe’s citizens. It is something that we, as representatives of those citizens, should strive our utmost to ensure does not happen."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-25-Speech-1-064 | "Mr President, I too would like to congratulate Mr Lechner on the way he has presented the report and I particularly commend him for not trying to add too much to what was basically a sound directive. There is always the temptation for rapporteurs to add some new aspects but he has wisely resisted that temptation.
I made my first speech in this House back in July in commending the initiative of the Finnish Presidency in giving priority to information society issues. It is a particular pleasure to be able to make some comments on the directive which we are discussing today and to build on what a number of colleagues have said: in that this is a crucial measure in that it is the first of a series. The way we deal with this in this House, in the Commission, in the Union, will be very important for the development of electronic commerce in the future. In making this closing contribution I want to think ahead about the implications of this for other directives and also to request to the Commission in particular to make sure that this first directive is very closely monitored in the way that it operates in practice.
As my colleague, Mrs Berger, and a number of other speakers pointed out, there is a certain amount of flexibility given to member governments as to how they implement this directive. We want to make sure that they do not add provisions to this directive, make it too restrictive, or too intrusive so that it will choke off the development or the use of electronic signatures and thereby hold back the development of electronic commerce itself. That, after all, is what we want to achieve with the legislation that comes here. We want legislation that will encourage the development of electronic commerce from the consumer’s perspective and encourage businesses to move into this new age of directly connected business.
Electronic signatures will be very important in giving consumers that security to encourage them to take on electronic business. I therefore ask the Commission to make sure that they monitor this aspect of the directive at the level of national governments to make sure that it is working effectively and achieving its aims of encouraging consumers and businesses to participate in the electronic revolution.
The second and important aspect of this directive is that it has been made technologically neutral. It is not the job of politicians to determine technological solutions. We are living in a very fast-moving world, where new products are developed in months, come to the market very quickly, are on offer very quickly and accepted by consumers very quickly. We must make sure that our legislation does not close off technological options or inhibit engineers and software engineers from developing new products. Again, this is something I would like to ask the Commission to monitor carefully.
The final – and I think crucial – point for the development of electronic commerce across the Union is that we must provide a framework that encourages smaller businesses to get involved in electronic commerce. If we do not encourage the small businesses, the micro businesses, to take advantage of the immense power of this technology to open up international markets quickly and cheaply, to enable them to offer new products in a very simple and effective way direct to the customer, then I suggest that we will have failed. Again, we must look at how this directive operates in small- and medium-sized businesses and in particular, to pick up on the point of my colleague, Lord Inglewood, we must ensure that the changes in the overall legal framework do not have the potential to frustrate the entry into electronic commerce of smaller businesses.
I commend this legislation. I leave those pointers and I hope that the Commission will pick them up in moving forward into this new era of framework legislation for electronic commerce."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-25-Speech-1-065 | "Firstly I should like to thank the European Parliament for the very encouraging and supportive approach taken on this matter. I must say for the first time in this Parliament that I have agreed with all the speakers. It has been very constructive and different viewpoints have been presented here. In particular, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Lechner, on his constructive report.
Thank you for your cooperation. I hope that this kind of rapid consensual cooperation can be taken by us with many new initiatives in the same field which are already now in Parliament or expected later this year and next.
The progress in Parliament has also been of symbolic importance for future issues in the same area. The rapidity of the technological change is such that we need to strike a balance between rapid procedures and flexible legislation. Otherwise, we shall not be able to meet the requirements of the huge changes we see every day in the information society in its different sectors.
The directive which is on the agenda today deals with the use and legal recognition of electronic signatures. This is very important, as has been said so many times today. Doing business electronically is increasing rapidly both for companies and for consumers. The Internet will be pervasive in Europe in a matter of five years or so. We can expect half of the European population to be connected to the Internet by 2005 and not only via PC, but increasingly via mobile communication devices. That was the message everyone received from Geneva Telecom two weeks ago.
The use of electronic signatures is an important means of ensuring authenticity in the future electronic world. Without it there will be no safe electronic communications for European citizens. In fact, even further growth in Internet usage may even be slowed down due to the growing concerns of security and privacy. The bottom line is that without security and trust there will not be a notable shift towards commercial and financial transactions on the Internet.
This directive is not designed to regulate everything, neither is it meant to replace the market. It offers legal recognition of electronic signatures where currently only the paper form is recognised, thus providing for more security in the market place. Furthermore, it secures the internal market for electronic signature products and services. But there is also a considerable international dimension to this initiative. The Internet and e-commerce are global by nature. Therefore, other international organisations like the United Nations and the OECD are increasingly active in the field of electronic signatures. Almost all US states either have an electronic signature law in place or are preparing one. Japan is also drafting a law in this area. Hence, having a harmonised European legal framework in place would strengthen Europe’s position in the international context.
We also need this directive to avoid divergent approaches in Member States’ law, as has been mentioned. Today, all EU Member States agree on the importance of electronic signatures to ensure security and trust in electronic communication. This is good news. We can build on this by avoiding obstacles to the free circulation of electronic signature products and services within the internal market.
As to the amendments proposed, the Commission can accept them with the exception of one. We have a problem with Amendment No 6 because, according to our interpretation, it goes against the Treaty because the Treaty provides that these kinds of proposals must be submitted to the Council. In that context the European Parliament is not mentioned.
All in all, I want to repeat that I am very pleased about the high degree of consensus between the positions of the Commission and the European Parliament.
It is in the interests of all of us to support the fast progress of this matter. With this aim in mind, I should like to suggest that Parliament reconsider Amendment No 6 in order to avoid an unnecessary conciliation procedure. In this context, the Treaty does not leave room for interpretation."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-25-Speech-1-069 | "Mr President, I am now putting on a different hat to present my report to Parliament. I would very much like to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market for entrusting me with this job a week after I assumed my mandate, and I see a number of colleagues are here in support.
To conclude, Mr President, the final element of this proposal is the committee procedure for maintaining and enhancing the technical nature of this directive, and I referred to this earlier. Parliament, at second reading, proposed a change to the commitology arrangements but, in the light of the Treaty of Amsterdam, I have not recommended that those amendments be supported. I am proposing that the Council and Commission’s proposal for a regulatory committee be endorsed. This issue will come up when we discuss Mr Ferri’s proposal later.
In conclusion, I commend this proposal to the House. It is a sensible, straightforward single market proposal with a number of important features and I hope it will have your unanimous support.
I will try to make this a simple presentation. It is an important piece of single market legislation that establishes uniform technical requirements on a key component of the motor vehicle fuel tank. The proposal achieves four important objectives. The first is that it introduces uniform test standards for plastic fuel tanks; that covers all types of motor vehicles, both cars and commercial vehicles. Some of you may be aware that plastic material is increasingly being used across the motor industry and this uniform test standard will allow designers to concentrate on meeting one single standard, instead of having to divert their efforts to meet a whole range of different standards.
It is often felt that these technical directives may not mean a great deal to consumers, but I must point out from my experience as an engineer in the car industry that if we allow engineers to concentrate on making safer and cleaner vehicles instead of having to meet a whole series of different regulations, that in the end will be very beneficial for customers and users. That is the first objective.
The second is the provision for the technical requirements to be extended in future through a regulatory committee procedure to introduce new standards for fuel tanks containing gaseous fuels. This is an important and forward-looking proposal because gaseous fuels are increasingly being used – and I refer for example to things like liquefied natural gas and petroleum gas – and there is also the prospect of hydrogen becoming a fuel in the future. This is a sensible measure; yet this relatively straightforward technical measure has already taken 18 months to get to this point of second reading. That does not seem to me to be a very sensible use of administrative time. That is the second point.
The third point is that it provides for type-approval to be extended in cases where motor vehicles are fitted, after they have been built, with additional fuel tanks for additional fuels or additional larger tanks. That again is increasingly important for safety.
Those three principal objectives were in the original proposal that came from the Commission to Parliament on first reading and has subsequently resulted in the common position. Parliament, at its first reading, was particularly concerned to add an important extra objective, namely to address the problem of diesel fuel spillage on the highway, which has been posing an increasing safety hazard for road users, particularly riders of motor cycles.
Parliament proposed that this should be addressed. This was rejected by the Commission, but the common position from the Council did contain this measure. This fuel spillage has resulted from inadequately fitted fuel filler caps, and the directive that we are now putting before you, with Parliament’s amendments at second reading designed to tighten up those provisions, addresses this question by requiring motor vehicle fuel tanks to have positive closure mechanisms so that the cap is always securely closed.
We have added recitals explicitly setting this out as an objective of the legislation and tightening those technical requirements to make sure that provision is effective. I am sure that will have the full support of the House.
In presenting that to you, I would like to say that this is not the only solution to the problem and our committee wishes to draw attention to the need for other committees to address this safety hazard through the forthcoming emission directive for heavy commercial vehicles and also through vehicle test standards, to make sure that faulty fuel filler caps are picked up, either in roadside or annual testing of commercial vehicles."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-25-Speech-1-071 | "Mr President, I congratulate Mr Harbour on his first report. For a new Member he has done very well on this. He gave a clear explanation of what the report is about. I would like to pick up on a couple of the aspects he touched upon. These relate to the question of safety. Safety was pertinent to this report all the way through. At the very end it picks up the question of safety of two-wheeled vehicles.
Perhaps not many people here realise that there are more accidents involving motorbikes in the vicinity of roundabouts than anywhere else on motorways or roads. Why is that? It is because of diesel spillage. Mr Harbour recognises that in his first amendment. He states quite clearly that diesel spillage is a danger to users of two-wheeled vehicles.
So we have to look at why there is more spillage of diesel around motorways. It is because of missing caps or ill-fitting caps on fuel tanks. As these commercial vehicles go round roundabouts the fuel tends to spill out and motorbikes following closely behind skid on the greasy surface that diesel leaves. Therefore, the second amendment tackles this whole question of the ill-fitting caps and, sometimes, no caps at all. I congratulate him on that.
I should also like to point out that motorcycling is enjoying a boom at the moment. There is a revival in motorcycling. I do not know why. I look around this room and see that most of us are probably approaching middle age. Maybe some of us hanker back to our younger days and fulfilling the role of Dennis Hopper in the film
. I do not know, but anyway motorcycling is enjoying a revival. I welcome that, and if there is increasing usage of motorcycles on the roads, then we have to make those roads safer. Therefore my group will fully support Mr Harbour’s report."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-25-Speech-1-072 | "Mr President, first of all I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Harbour, for the deep analysis of the common position, and also his very concise presentation of the issue here today.
This draft proposal for a directive is aimed at establishing construction standards to be respected by manufacturers of fuels tanks for the purpose of EC type- approval. In particular, the idea is to introduce into Council Directive 70/221/EEC new provisions for plastic fuel tanks for motor vehicles. The provisions will cover such matters as impact resistance, mechanical strength, fuel permeability and fire resistance. In fuel tanks, safety is of paramount importance, especially when new technologies and materials are introduced.
The draft proposal links up directly with the technical requirements of Regulation No 34 of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, relating to the prevention of fire risk and in particular to the provisions for plastic fuel tanks. The report proposes two amendments, both related to diesel spillage, which may be a serious hazard to motor cyclists, especially in combination with a wet road surface, as has been mentioned here. We fully agree that this is a serious problem from both safety and environmental points of view and the Commission can accept the two amendments.
To summarise, the Commission can accept all the proposed amendments."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-25-Speech-1-081 | "Mr President, I am sorry to be taking up so much of colleagues’ time but it shows the interest we have in each other’s measures.
I want to commend Mr Ferri on his report and, in particular, his emphasis on the road safety aspects. My concern is that I believe these aspects are so important that I certainly would not like to see this directive held up because of arguments over commitology. It seems to me that this directive is too important for that. I know Mr Ferri feels very strongly about commitology but it seems to me there are much broader issues. This links in with my own report, as I mentioned earlier.
It is quite clear from Mr Ferri’s analysis that we are talking in terms of motor vehicle legislation not just at a European level, but at the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe level which has, for many years now, been accepted within the motor vehicle industry as setting a whole range of global standards. Increasingly we are entering into dialogue with the United States and Japan about global technical standards for motor vehicles. Indeed in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, of which I am also a member, we will shortly be considering a report on that subject.
It seems to me that to just look at the commitology aspect of this particular directive now and to hold up this measure is not the right way of proceeding. We have to think about how we are going to address the whole issue of considering and approving global technical regulations and the European Union’s input into them. This is something we really need to ask the Commission to consider.
We also need to consider our own approach. It is quite clear, looking around here this evening, that there is not an overwhelming interest in these technical directives among Members of the European Parliament. There are some enthusiasts here with an interest in addressing these issues and we have to think about ways in which we can have an input into these technical processes. We must let the Member States and the Commission make their proposals and then look at some of the key initiatives and put forward the point of view of the citizens, the businesses, the road-users and drivers across the European Union.
I do not think we have got that balance right. We need the safety benefits of Mr Ferri’s directive but we also need to take a much broader look at how to handle the move towards global technical standards in a crucial industry for the European Union."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-25-Speech-1-086 | ". – Mr President, can I again thank all my colleagues in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market for their assistance in producing this report.
The first reading of this report went through Parliament earlier this year – in April I believe – and that report had two aims similar to the aims of this report. The first was the free movement of cableway installations. That is central to the whole concept of the single market. But this can only be done – and I stress “can only be done” – where we have harmonisation of safety standards. I would add that each Member State remains responsible for overseeing that. So the central point initially was the free movement of cableway installations.
The second point was the safety of cableway installations. Earlier this evening I spoke about safety – the safety of two-wheeled vehicles on the road. We in the European Union should be concerned about all aspects of safety in all modes of transport, not just two-wheeled vehicles, four-wheeled vehicles, trains, planes, boats or whatever, but also in relation to cable cars and cable installations. We have to be concerned about safety.
That brings me on to the amendments which have been tabled here by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. Amendments Nos 1, 2, 3 and 5 clarify the position with regard to all persons utilising cableways. In the past, this has been a grey area but hopefully now, with the introduction of those four amendments, we will have clarified the position for all persons using those installations.
Amendment No 4 is basically a tidying-up operation, as the earlier paragraph was out of date. Amendment No 6 takes out the question of mining which is the subject of separate legislation. Amendments Nos 7, 8, 9 and 10 simplify the safeguard clause. If we had agreed fully with the Commission text we would have had three unwieldy safeguard paragraphs. By doing it this way we have one simplified paragraph. Amendment No 11 again highlights safety aspects. Amendment No 12 is again a tidying-up exercise.
I commend this report to you. It highlights the whole question of safety within the European Union; it is an area we should all be concerned about and, as such, I would hope that the Commission and Council will accept it."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-25-Speech-1-089 | "The draft directive before the European Parliament concerns the safety of the persons carried and the free movement of cableway equipment and installations. In ordinary language, the installations concerned are the cable cars, the funicular railways and ski lifts used in mountain resorts, all used where access is difficult. It goes without saying, as has been said here, that these are very important issues.
I should like to thank the parliamentary committee and in particular the rapporteur, Mr Miller, for the excellent work carried out during the second reading. The Commission is happy to accept all the amendments. For one thing, they are designed to clarify certain provisions of the common position, in particular, regarding its scope, and are therefore welcome.
Secondly, the rapporteur has proposed adding mining installations to the exclusions. This seems justified given the particular nature of such installations which are subject to very specific rules and regulations.
The Commission also agrees that this matter should be part of the report to be drawn up by the Commission four years after the directive enters into force.
The adoption of your report will constitute a decisive stage in the process leading to the long-awaited implementation of this much-needed directive."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-26-Speech-2-006 | "Mr President, on behalf of myself and several other MEPs, while I fully respect the solemn nature of today’s formal sitting, I wish to make a point of order under Rule 19 out of concern for human rights given that the Colombian President’s visit today is restricted to his parliamentary address until a formal dinner with heads of political groups.
Bearing in mind that the Colombian Government’s own public defender reports one massacre for every day this year and that the Commission of Colombian Jurists attribute 78% to paramilitaries with the knowledge of the official Colombian forces, will you, as President of this Parliament, in your private talks ensure that you discuss issues of human rights. Will you in particular ask when the law passed in June this year requiring crimes against humanity committed by the Colombian military to be transferred to the jurisdiction of civil courts will actually be implemented. Will you ask why instances of forced disappearance, extrajudicial execution and sexual abuse have been excluded from that law. Will you find an appropriate way to report back to Parliament on the responses given.
I ask this in the spirit of successive resolutions on human rights in Colombia passed by this European Parliament and in support of brave human rights defenders working under the threat of violence and of death."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-26-Speech-2-016 | ". – Mr President, I should like to extend our congratulations to the rapporteur, Mr Bourlanges, and to the Chairman of the Committee on Budgets, Mr Wynn, on the way these proceedings have been conducted.
Regretfully I cannot offer congratulations to the Council for their part in this process. The message the Foreign Affairs Committee has taken from the Council is that they believe we can only pay for Kosovo by taking money out of the hands of those who are even worse off than those in Kosovo. We want to rob the very poor in order to pay the slightly less poor. We want Africa to pay for the Balkans. I do not believe that is the message the EU should be sending out to the rest of the world.
To find the EUR 500 million for Kosovo the Council has proposed an across-the-board cut of 10% in Category 4. Some cuts are even worse. For humanitarian aid, line B7-21, they are proposing a 20% cut. They are cutting EUR 70 million from NOVA: in other words, a 40% cut in assistance to Bosnia, so Bosnia has to pay for Kosovo. We are cutting support for the Middle East peace process just at the time where there is hope for a long-term solution to that process. What sort of political message is the European Union sending out about its commitment to that process?
Of course there has to be financial responsibility and we have to set priorities, but a 10% cut across the board is not a proper setting of priorities. It is an exercise in indifference and irresponsibility. No wonder the EU’s reputation at the moment is not very high with the public.
There are two other areas that the Foreign Affairs Committee would like to draw your attention to. First, we would like to see proper funding for the Royaumont Process, particularly ensuring that it is a Pillar I activity, not a Pillar II activity. Hence we propose that we should set up a line on the Stability Pact and take some money away from the Meda line in order to pay for it.
Finally, we would also like your support for the conflict prevention network, set up as a result of Parliament’s work, particularly the work of Mr Rocard. Now that we have a similar organisation in the Council its work is even more important. I would urge your support for increased funding.
I urge that financial prudence is not made an excuse to drive more people down into poverty."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-26-Speech-2-017 | ". – Mr President, I would like to thank the Budget Committee and Mr Bourlanges for their work. I am grateful to the commitment that they have shown in the fight against fraud in the European Union and, in particular, with the extra commitment they have made – an extra EUR 9 million has been voted by the Budget Committee for OLAF. This will allow for the creation of an extra 50 to 75 new posts in the year 2000 on top of the 30 new posts voted for in the supplementary and amending budgets.
I should remind you that OLAF needs 300 posts to carry out its duties. This was endorsed by the report of the Committee of Independent Experts. Let us not forget that there are raised expectations in terms of the public’s attitude towards reform of the European institutions. It is essential that OLAF is given the appropriate resources. I should like to remind the Commission that we will not allow OLAF’s independence to be compromised by budgetary gains – a little note there for the future. I am disappointed that the Council Presidency has not referred to this. Are you committed to the extra 75 posts or not? I would be grateful for some kind of feedback on that. You need to show the same commitment to fighting fraud as we are within the European Parliament.
Another issue for the Budgetary Control Committee is the use of technical assistance agencies. In its budget guidelines for the year 2000, Parliament called for the phasing out of the agencies. And for the Commission to provide it with an assessment of its staffing needs. That has not been done. The Budget Committee has entered expenditure on logistical support and technical assistance in a separate section, with 90% of those appropriations in reserve. The Budgetary Control Committee would support this approach. It is absolutely right that those appropriations should not be released until the Commission has defined those categories of tasks that need to be outsourced. We look forward to receiving that information from the Commission.
On another matter, in 1999 there have been large under-spends in the Community initiatives, the cohesion fund and many other areas. In some cases this is the second or third consecutive year when there has been a large transfer away from particular lines. This demonstrates the need for Parliament to monitor budget implementation more closely throughout the year. The subject committees must take more responsibility for monitoring the budget lines within those areas. If we do that then we can feed that into the budgetary process and make sure that we are more on track during the course of the year."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-26-Speech-2-021 | "Mr President, I took over the job of committee draftsman following the heart attack of Mr Desama who was originally to have done the work for the committee. We hope he will soon be back with us.
My thanks and congratulations to Mr Bourlanges for his painstaking work on behalf of the Members of Parliament. The Committee on Industry covers 120 budget lines – so you can see our task is fairly complex! We cover the energy programmes, those relating to industry, including small and medium firms, the research programmes under the framework programmes which of course amount to more or less 60% of the internal policy expenditure of the European Union, and the trade and technical assistance lines.
As far as the energy lines are concerned, we were sorry that the Committee on Budgets did not follow our line in increasing the expenditure for Altener and Save. Those are renewable energy and energy efficiency programmes currently in conciliation. If we get, as expected, an increase as a result of conciliation more money will, of course, be asked for next year.
As far as research is concerned, and after very many long discussions with Mr Bourlanges, I am interested to know what he intends to do. We, in the Industry Committee, do not want the research programmes broken down into dozens and dozens of lines, one for each key action. But we do want to monitor each key action. I think we have reached an agreement with the Commission that information will be provided to us at intervals and in a form that allows us to monitor that spending in the way we want to.
I am also sorry that the Committee on Budgets did not approve moving the training of the nuclear inspectorate in the former Soviet Union from the external policy to the energy line where that training could be done far more efficiently. We have made this argument very clearly and we will make it again.
As far as monitoring is concerned, we intend in our committee to take one member responsible for monitoring each of the 120 lines. They will be expected to follow the spending, to look at the way the projects are organised, to visit the projects and to be in a position to let us know how things are going."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-26-Speech-2-022 | "Mr President, I would like to thank my colleagues on the Budget Committee and the Budget rapporteur in particular for the good cooperation we have had with them in this first reading. That is code for saying that the employment committee got pretty much what it was looking for in this first reading and I am grateful for that.
Others have referred to the Structural Funds. We are broadly happy with the fact that the Budget Committee agreed with our recommendations, so I would like to look instead at a number of subcategories of lines. One that is important to the Employment Committee is that of Social Dialogue. There we have ended up with EUR 4.5 million more than the European Commission were looking for initially. That I think is more in line with the tasks that we are facing in that important area and it includes appropriations to involve representatives from accession countries in Central and Eastern Europe which we think is very important. We have less than we wanted on B3-4003. That is a cause of disappointment because it is an important area with the expected implementation of the European company statute and, we hope, progress on the general framework for information and consultation of expenditure. We are happy that what we were looking for in relation to NGOs has been agreed in the first reading. This, we think, is a very important area – the idea of developing civil dialogue. I am particularly pleased that funding will continue for the NGO platform which I think is an important part of developing civil dialogue.
Employment, of course, is one of the most important issues from the point of view of the Employment Committee. And here, with budget lines B5-502 and B5-503, we have combined some EUR 24 million more than the Commission’s original proposals. We think that is an excellent outcome. We are looking to implementing the employment chapter from Amsterdam and making progress in relation to the macroeconomic dialogue agreed at Cologne. We are therefore grateful that we have the funding to move those important issues forward. Two slight problems in conclusion, President. One is that we still have no enduring legal base for NGOs. I hope the Commission and the Council will make progress on that, otherwise the civil dialogue will end at the end of next year. That would be catastrophic.
The other difficulty relates to technical assistance and the funds that have been transferred into the reserve. I hope that the Commissioner for Social Affairs will act quickly to provide the information necessary to release 50% at second reading."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-26-Speech-2-023 | "Mr President, firstly I congratulate the rapporteur of the Committee on Budgets on the work he has done this year. I also thank Mr Wynn for the cheerful way in which he conducts the Budget Committee, a new experience for me. The rapporteur has done very well given the constraints he has been under this year. Whilst the budget lines under the responsibility of the Committee of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy are not great in monetary terms, they play a vital role in facilitating the development of the Union’s policies, and particularly in bringing closer to the Union and realising the needs and desires of the ordinary citizens.
The Budgets Committee rapporteur has acknowledged a number of points we have made and has enabled us to maintain spending in most areas and develop it modestly in one or two. I cannot thank the Council in the same way when I examine their PDB. They have to give greater priority to the interests and needs of citizens.
Utilising the amounts determined last year through the conciliation on the Whitehead report, the consumer affairs budget lines will continue to build confidence amongst the public, reassuring them that we are not just a Europe open for business but are also campaigning for citizens’ rights as consumers. The additional monies granted for the additional posts in the Veterinary Health Office in Dublin will reassure our citizens that we are taking steps to protect the quality and safety of the food on their plates. The new health responsibilities put into the Amsterdam Treaty can be developed using the additional monies granted on the health budget line. I particularly welcome the possibility of developing new strategies for dealing with mental health problems and neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and CJD. Equally, as we come to the end of the fifth action plan on the environment, the monies available to begin development of the sixth action plan are most welcome.
If I have a disappointment, it concerns the rapporteur’s approach to the various agencies of the Union, set up by the Commission. I was the only draftsman, along with Mr Bourlanges, to meet the representatives of the agencies and I heard good arguments for increasing monies available to those agencies for the work they are doing with the applicant states of Eastern and Central Europe and for bringing on to the market orphan drugs that are so vital for a relatively small number of people with diseases difficult to treat. I feel that perhaps more consideration could have been given to the arguments they made. I am very disappointed the rapporteur of the Budgets Committee did not accept the validity of the arguments as I have done. I can only hope that in the following years we can address the problems they have identified."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-26-Speech-2-026 | ". – Mr President, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy and Transport and Tourism I would like to endorse warmly the approach adopted by the general rapporteur, Mr Bourlanges. In particular I would like to thank him for the attention he has paid to liaising with my committee over recent months and our predecessors in the past year.
My committee has advanced five budget priorities: Objective 1, 2, Interreg, transport safety and sustainable mobility. I will deal with the regional policy priorities first. I agree with the general rapporteur’s comment that the cuts to Structural Fund appropriations are completely unacceptable. So what are the cuts proposed by the Council? The Council is proposing that the payment appropriations are cut by EUR 433 million for Objective 1, EUR 95 million for Objective 2 and EUR 33 million for Interreg. This Parliament enthusiastically endorsed the Agenda 2000 Structural Fund programme. We expect the new Structural Fund programmes to be launched in the coming year with a flying start. This simply will not be possible if these cuts proceed. The Council is advocating a reduction in advance payments to new programmes to just 3.5%. In contrast, this Parliament has previously considered that advance payments at the time of first commitment should be in excess of 10% of total funds.
In our view, if these cuts proceed regional regeneration will be put at risk. Existing programmes will stall before they are transformed into new programmes. Momentum will be lost. Inevitably the poorest communities in the poorest regions will suffer the most. The bottom line is that new jobs will not be created and existing jobs will be put at risk.
My committee has proposed 100% restoration of these three budget lines to the level of the provisional draft budget. This EUR 561 million increase in Structural Fund appropriations will allow us to honour properly historic commitments and ensure the new Agenda 2000 programmes hit the ground running. We also endorse, incidentally, the proposed 20% entry into reserve pending the successful outcome of our discussions over the guidelines.
I will now turn briefly if I may to transport and just say to members that I hope they are able to support the Committee on Budgets’ moves to restore the cuts to the transport safety line and the cuts to the line on sustainable mobility.
I would like to conclude by thanking all my colleagues on the committee for the support they have given me through this budget process."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-26-Speech-2-027 | ". – Mr President, this is the third occasion I have been asked to be draftsman for the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport. It is not an easy job, there is never enough money, but it is one I would rather do than be the general budget rapporteur. I would like to add my thanks to those already expressed to Mr Bourlanges for the support he has shown to the Culture Committee.
Culture has not come out of the budget process as well as it wished, but we are doing rather better than the Council of Ministers’ proposal and have figures close to the 1999 level.
Our main education programme, Socrates, and the programmes of Youth and Culture have been mauled by the Council of Ministers. I would say that the EUR 238 million proposed for Socrates is simply not enough to do a sensible job. Last week I met the Committee of British University Vice-Chancellors. They told me that no-one – student or university – gets involved in Socrates because of the money. They do it because they believe in Europe and they want to make the single market work. But we have to ask ourselves, are the figures now so low as to make the objectives unrealistic? Let us hope that the conciliation procedure taking place tomorrow will recognise the need to give a higher priority to Europe’s students and increase the funding.
The total for our share of the budget is approximately EUR 600 million, a lot of money until you divide it by 370 million people – less than 1% of our budget, not a bottomless pit. In the year 2000, the EU will spend less than EUR 2 per citizen on education, encouraging young people to participate in exchange programmes or to acquire knowledge of different languages and cultures, on informing its citizens about the future developments of the Union while supporting our audio-visual industry. Of this scant EUR 2 support for Europe’s cultural heritage will be less than 20 cents. The call for the millennium must be EUR 1 per head on Europe’s culture.
What we are currently engaged in is tokenism and symbolic expenditure only. Even there we manage to get it wrong. I do not criticise individual staff, but I receive too many complaints from prestigious organisations like the European Youth Orchestra, the European Youth Parliament, the Yehudi Menuhin Foundation – renowned organisations doing a wonderful job for Europe and our young people. Not one of those organisations covered by budget lines 3021 or B3-2005 has received a single euro yet in 1999 for their budgets. Can we make the millennium the year when our systems work. Mr Prodi, Mrs Reding and Mrs Schreyer, we are relying on you to do it better this coming year.
I will finish by telling you a story. I live in a small village in Hampshire with a population of 2 500 people. My wife is the chairman of the parish council. I asked her what she spends on cultural, sports and social activities for the village. They spend EUR 50 000, or EUR 20 per head. So if anybody comes to me for European support, I tell them they are much more likely to get realistic support from their village council than they are from the EU."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-26-Speech-2-039 | "Mr President, like others who have already participated in this debate I should like to congratulate the rapporteurs, but in particular Mr Bourlanges. In his opening remarks, he clarified for us the perspective for the 2000 budget in putting forward the idea that we have to have more programmes, we have to have more countries and we have to have less money. There seems to be a contradiction here which, in the longer term when we come to enlargement, when we come to a new intergovernmental conference, we are quite clearly going to have to resolve in the context of our budget procedures.
For my part, I would like to focus my remarks on three aspects which concern the running of European policies and the attitudes which we have taken in Parliament in previous years to these aspects. This is in the particular context of the Commission. We, as a parliament, want to make sure that accountability is seen to work for those who elected us and to make sure that we have value for money in the running of the programmes.
The first item in internal policy refers to information policy. In the last Parliament we wanted to make sure that we had proper functioning interinstitutional cooperation. We made progress in that respect by making sure that in terms of the general information lines, in terms of the specific campaigns, we had good cooperation on both sides. But we did not arrive at a common framework for this interinstitutional cooperation as we in Parliament had wanted.
There is some degree of concern at some of the initial moves the Commission is now making in its information structures which we in Parliament will keep a close eye on. In particular, we had asked in the last Parliament, and indeed in previous Parliaments, for the Commission and Parliament offices to work closely together in the Member States. I have put down an amendment, our group has put down an amendment, to make sure that we can have a report from the Commission on how far this has gone. There are still one or two countries where the Commission and Parliament are separate in terms of structure and we need to be particularly vigilant in instances where more than 75 or 80% of the appropriations go into paying for salaries and buildings rather than adequate information policies.
Secondly, in terms of external policy, particularly in terms of Kosovo, the hearing we organised a few days ago with the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Budgets, was very revealing to me, in particular the fact that this is not a short-term commitment. We had evidence from Mr Bildt, Mr Kouchner, Mr Hombach and then from all the other agencies, that this is a long-term problem we have in front of us. We must, therefore, make sure not only that we get proper coherence between the agencies working on the ground but also Madam President-of-the Council, that we do not take decisions which mean that we are spending money futilely because of a Council decision that we must have some people removed some 100 miles away in another place. We must make sure that when we come to Mrs Pack’s report later this week we take the right decisions and that the Council understands Parliament’s feelings on that.
In the longer term, we must ensure that we have vision and – as you said Commissioner – we need to have the idea of building civil society in the longer term, not just as some kind of short-term project. Kosovo and stability in the Balkans must be a long-term project. It is us, as Europeans, who have to take that responsibility. We cannot expect others to take on that particular responsibility for us. I therefore welcome the idea of a working committee between the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Budgets. We must make sure not only that funds are properly spent but that the ideas which are coming through are properly coordinated.
Lastly, in terms of administration policy, there are the Technical Assistance Offices. I would underline what Mr Böge said to the Council. The Council has been absent from this debate on discharge. With nonchalant ease, they have gone through approving the 1996, the 1997 discharge, and it has been up to us in Parliament to press for change at every turn. Therefore in terms of EU reform we are right, as a parliament, to say that we do not wish to see new posts until we know where the posts are going. What are the real needs of the Commission?
Secondly, we are right to say that we should not have Technical Assistance Offices performing tasks through temporary officials in what are meant to be permanent posts for the Commission. We must find some way of having a dialogue between the institutions over the next 12 months to make sure that these reforms take place and that we have the right kind of criteria for making sure that we are getting value for money from the staff. Otherwise – and I will end on this proposal: we must start cutting programmes if we do not have the proper staff resources available to run them, because ultimately we must make sure that these processes are accountable and we must make sure that we get value for money in the system."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-26-Speech-2-040 | "Mr President, I speak on behalf of the Socialist Group in relation to the Virrankoski report. Firstly, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on a very good approach to this issue and to say that the Socialist Group broadly agrees with the matters he has raised.
On the issue of staffing, which affects all the institutions, we take the view that we have to find a balance between financial prudence and the ability of the institutions to do their job properly. As we have just heard, there is a danger of the institutions taking on new tasks which they are unable to resource properly. Mr Virrankoski has just about got the balance right. We would have liked to be a bit more generous to Parliament in terms of staffing resources.
On the European Parliament section of the budget, we firstly welcome the fact there has been a marked change in attitude between the Bureau and the Budgets Committee. As someone who sits on both, perhaps I can comment on this. The way in which the Bureau and the Budgets Committee have worked together to come to a compromise on Parliament’s budget has been very constructive. I want to highlight just three issues within Parliament budget.
One is the issue of the Members’ Statute. There was a suggestion that we should put money on the line for a Members’ Statute. The Socialists rejected this idea, not in any way to weaken our approach to the Members’ Statute; through our comments we indicate we strongly support the notion of a Members’ Statute but believe it is now up to the Council to respond to Parliament’s proposals in this area.
Similarly with political parties, the Socialist Group strongly supports the notion of European political parties. But you simply cannot put money on the line without having an idea of who is going to qualify for this money, what purposes the money is going to be used for, and so on. Parliament has produced an excellent report – the Tsatsos report – in this area. It is now up to the Commission to bring forward a proposal on how we might implement the proposal for a European political party. Once that happens, again the Socialists would be happy to negotiate the idea of putting money on the line.
Finally, and perhaps something that you and I, Mr President, take a personal interest in, the notion of regional offices. The Bureau of Parliament last night decided that Edinburgh, Marseilles, Milan, Munich and Barcelona should all have regional offices. We have put money in the reserve in the budget. When we come to second reading, I hope we can release that money from the reserve and get on with implementing the policy of regional offices. They are vital in terms of Parliament’s strategy of bringing Parliament closer to the people.
The only other institution’s budget I want to talk about specifically and briefly is the Court of Justice’s budget. My view, and I am sure the view of many in this House, is that justice delayed is often justice denied. It is quite clear that the Court of Justice has not had the resources to carry out its tasks properly. The Council has made a limited gesture in terms of improving staffing of the Court. Parliament wants to go further. I hope we will support the rapporteur’s proposal here. In particular, delays in interpretation and translation are causing major problems for the Court. We should do all in our power to resolve this. The Virrankoski report does that.
I turn briefly to the Bourlanges report which is outwith my own remit. I put on record my support for Mr Bourlanges’ approach to the 2000 budget. He is absolutely right to reject the 10% across the board crude reduction in development lines. It is true, as the Council says, that some development lines have not been used well. It is true that some suffer from underspend. But simply to say that we cut them all by 10% is a very crude mechanism. The Council needs to make a more refined proposal before we come to second reading. At the moment, the rapporteur is absolutely right. Money for East Timor, Kosovo and other emergencies like Turkey, has to come from new money unless the Council makes a more refined proposal.
To pick up Mr Elles’ last point on the Technical Assistance Offices, again, the Council has been silent on this. It was the root of the problem with the Santer Commission. What the rapporteur has said in his report is absolutely right on this issue. Again, the Socialist Group gives him 100% backing."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-26-Speech-2-049 | "Mr President, it is customary to congratulate and thank the rapporteurs and I will do that as chairman of the committee, and there are three of them – let us not forget that. First of all, Mr Virrankoski who has done a thorough job. He came to this position halfway through the year; his attitude has been exemplary and he really deserves the congratulations of Parliament, not just the committee. Secondly, Mr Pittella who, as a new member, came to the committee and has made quite a significant point about the phasing-in of the ECSC funds. It is quite an innovative approach and he should be congratulated. And while we are giving out congratulations I shall also congratulate the Commissioner on her speech which was politically realistic. Well done Commissioner!
But the main congratulations go to Mr Bourlanges. When Mr Bourlanges began he said it was the first time he had had 15 minutes to speak in Parliament, and my immediate thought was “yes and that will not be long enough”. Sure enough it was not long enough – he exceeded it by almost a minute and still had not said half the things he wanted to say. Mr Bourlanges, I congratulate you on your approach to the budget. It is fair to say there has never been a dull moment. You are pragmatic, innovative and, most importantly, serious. That is shown in your attitude towards the BATs. You may well be known as “BATman Bourlanges” although I cannot quite see you with a cape and mask, wearing underpants outside your pants, but you have done an extremely good job on the BATs!
This first reading is predominantly about the asterisk amendment concerning Kosovo, the Morocco fisheries agreement, East Timor and Turkey, which was mentioned by the rapporteur. I have to stress this point quite clearly to the Council and – to a lesser extent – to the Commission because I think they understand. We take the interinstitutional agreement extremely seriously. There are forces within this Parliament which would quite happily see it scrapped tomorrow but as far as I am concerned my job – and the job of Parliament
is to defend the agreement which we made earlier this year. We have shown that we are prepared to do that. If we were against it the Category 3 ceiling would have been exceeded, and on that point, incidentally, all three institutions have a problem with the amount deemed necessary for codecision lines such as Socrates. This is not just a problem for the year 2000, it is an ongoing problem. Can I say to both the presidency and the Commission that this is something we need to find a solution to together and quickly.
The amendment for Category 4 should not be seen as Parliament just flexing its muscles. I hasten to add this is not a threat – though that may sound like a contradiction of something I have to say a little later on. But I do not want the Council to see it as a threat. We do not want the Council thinking that we think we have them “by the Balkans” so to speak; we are not trying to squeeze them too hard, though that may be the wrong phrase to use. It should be seen as an invitation for our two institutions to sit down and agree a solution. That is what we should be aiming to do, President-in-Office.
We look forward to the proposal from the Commission which will come forward next week. In the light of what Mrs Schreyer has said, I look forward with anticipation. I hope the Council can do the same. But I do need to stress to the Council that this is not the Grand Old Duke of York marching his troops up the hill, just to march them down again. This is not just some act by Parliament to mount a show of force, but at the end of the day Member States will put pressure on individual Members whose parties are in government to get us to change our mind. Things do not work like that because of the majorities that now exist within this Parliament. If we do not get an agreement on the revision of the Financial Perspective especially, I am fairly certain that Article 272 will be invoked. There is no doubt about that and Council should be in no doubt about that whatsoever. That it is not a threat, it is a statement of intent.
Let me reiterate the philosophy of two of my predecessors: Mr von der Vring and Mr Samland. I want the Council to take back this message. What we are fighting for is Parliament’s rights, we are not fighting for money. It is about the rights of this Parliament and that is the message they have to understand through and through. Once they understand that message I am quite sure that the discussions we should and will have will be fruitful. I know the political constraints that Member States are working within, we are all serious about – as you put it – the principles of cost efficiency and rigour. We abide by those same principles but in this instance, after what Parliament has fought for over the years, this revision of the interinstitutional agreement, a revision of the Financial Perspective as outlined in the interinstitutional agreement, is extremely important to Parliament. I hope that is understood."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-26-Speech-2-053 | "Mr President, there is one financial matter of importance to Ireland which I would like to focus on during this wide-ranging debate on the budget. This relates to the continuation of the European Peace and Reconciliation Fund for the period 2000 to 2006. As a Member of Parliament for the constituency of Connaught/Ulster I certainly welcome the decision of EU leaders taken in Cologne this year to ensure the continuation of this programme.
Peace and Reconciliation has been successful. I believe it was a wise and sensible decision to continue this programme. For the border county region which I represent it will be worth something in the region of IEP 80 million. But my primary concern relates to the transitional period between the ending of the existing programme and the commencement of the next programme. It is important that transitional financial arrangements are put in place so as to guarantee that those organisations who oversee the fund can smoothly make the changeover from the existing programme to the new programme.
In conclusion, I believe a roll-over will ensure the retention of the excellent staff on both sides of the border who have played no small part in ensuring the success of the programme."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-26-Speech-2-067 | "Mr President, in the time available I want to refer to just one particular line in the budget which is the school milk scheme where the Commission has proposals to reduce the allocation from EUR 96 million to EUR 53 million. In 1997 Ireland for example received over IEP 1.4 million from the European Union for the administration of the school milk programme. As a member of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development I fully support the scheme, both now and in the future. However, I am disappointed that reductions are being made in the overall budgetary allocation but I hope that the European Council, when it comes to reviewing the second reading of the EU budget for the year 2000, will take on board the recommendation of this Parliament that it should increase the funding for the programme to EUR 67 million or IEP 53 million in next year’s allocation."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-26-Speech-2-072 | "Mr President, this is my first budget. I should like to begin by thanking Mr Wynn and Mr Bourlanges and the other two rapporteurs for simplifying a very complex process for me.
I believe that the European Union is changing. The institutions are having to become more representative. In that spirit, we should be trying to bring the European budget closer to the electorate. It is crucial for the citizens of the EU to know what their stake in the EU’s policies and operations really is, what they are paying and what they are paying for. Increased transparency will be the key to the future success of all EU institutions. That means assessing every budget line to see how it benefits the citizens of Europe.
Given the commitment in the Treaty of Amsterdam to incorporating the interests of consumers into all other policy areas of the EU and the derisory level of the consumer budget, which stands at a quarter of one percent of total EU spending, there is a need to begin by making sure that valuable programmes such as the school milk scheme are safeguarded. This is not the case in the draft budget as my colleague, Mr Hyland, said earlier. The draft budget for the school milk programme throughout Europe has been reduced by 50%. This cut is a drastic measure for a programme that has benefits for both consumer and producer alike.
The reason I feel strongly about this budget line is that it has an impact on the long- and short-term health of people, it addresses social deprivation issues and it impacts on the economy and jobs in my region. I do not have any difficulty with the reform of the CAP if it means cheaper and safer products for the consumer. I know that people are concerned about paying for subsidies that increase prices for them as consumers.
The response I had from the Commission in the Budgets Committee was initially quite disappointing. They said that social issues are not within the original remit of the programme. But it now emerges from the Trialogue meeting last week that the Commission will be proposing an increase of EUR 31 million. I welcome this. I must say that I am disappointed that the Council is not here because I would like to know if they will support this. People out there are not concerned about the finer points or headings of the subsidy. What matters to them is the impact and the positive benefit of policies, such as this one.
I accept totally the need to streamline and introduce efficiencies in the management of this scheme and others and to improve value for money, but a more effective way in terms of amending the budget would be to outline improvements and provide an implementation plan for the future.
The Commission, in estimating spending, should look at funding in its totality. I call on Members to support this endorsement and amendment in Thursday’s vote."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-26-Speech-2-088 | "I have great pleasure in presenting the first annual report of the European Central Bank to the European Parliament at today’s plenary sitting. Almost ten months have passed since the euro was successfully introduced and the European Central Bank took over full operational responsibility for the single monetary policy. Many of us feel that, with the launch of the single currency, the process of European integration has gained a new quality. Indeed, the transfer of a core competency of the modern state, namely monetary policy, to a truly European and independent organisation such as the ECB must be regarded as a historic event which marks an unprecedented degree of economic and political integration within the European Union.
The ECB has also been asked to publish reports featuring national data relating to countries participating in the euro area. The publication of such data, however, would, in our view, be misleading since the single monetary policy cannot be directed at country-specific situations. On the contrary, the Eurosystem must take a euro area-wide perspective in its assessment of the economic situation in general and the outlook for price stability in particular. Publication by the ECB of detailed reports for each country participating in the euro area would run counter to the necessary creation of an area-wide perspective in the conduct, discussion and thinking of monetary policy. However, it should be recognised that the national central banks of the Eurosystem continue to produce their own regular reports that address national economic and financial developments in some detail.
I should now like briefly to expand upon another issue which I know is of fundamental concern to the European Parliament, namely the contribution of monetary policy to the general economic policies in the Community. The Treaty provides for a fundamentally sound allocation of objectives and policy instruments between the monetary and governmental authorities in Europe. The Eurosystem is responsible for maintaining price stability. To this end, the Eurosystem has adopted a monetary policy strategy that is forward-looking and acts promptly to address threats to price stability. The Treaty also states that, without prejudice to its primary objective of price stability, the Eurosystem shall support the general economic policies in the Community.
By maintaining price stability, it is our firm belief monetary policy makes the best contribution it can to achieving a high level of output and employment in the medium-term. Price stability has beneficial effects on general economic performance – including growth and employment prospects – through many channels, of which I should like to mention the following.
First, in an environment of price stability, the market mechanism will allocate resources more efficiently to their most productive uses. Markets function most effectively when relative price signals are not distorted by fluctuations in the general price level.
Second, a climate of price stability reduces the inflation risk premia in interest rates, particularly in longer-term rates, and thereby improves the conditions for financing investment.
Third, lasting price stability serves the interests of social justice and helps to protect the weakest members of our society, such as pensioners and the unemployed, who depend on fixed incomes and who cannot protect themselves against the costs of inflation with other assets, such as property or shares.
Broad agreement exists that there is no long-term trade-off between price stability and economic growth. Attempting to use monetary policy to raise real economic activity above its sustainable level will, in the long run, simply lead to ever higher inflation, but not to faster economic growth. Such an attempt would simply forfeit the benefits of stable prices, which I have just outlined, and would therefore prejudice growth and employment prospects over the medium term.
While the contribution it makes through maintaining price stability must not be overlooked, monetary policy clearly cannot solve the serious structural unemployment problem in the euro area. Other policy areas have the instruments needed and are thus responsible for solving the structural problems. Decisive action in this field is certainly required to improve growth and employment prospects.
Safeguarding sound government finances is a means of strengthening the conditions for price stability and achieving strong sustainable growth which is conducive to employment creation. In this context, the Stability and Growth Pact sets the right incentives for the conduct of sound and disciplined fiscal policies across all participating Member States. In addition, structural reforms in labour and goods markets, as well as a moderate development of wage costs, can best address the root causes of currently high unemployment in Europe.
The clear division of policy responsibilities I have just described enhances the credibility of monetary and economic policies in Europe, increases transparency and facilitates accountability. It provides the proper incentives for the policy-makers in individual policy areas. If all parties concerned respect the fundamental allocation of these responsibilities and act accordingly, the achievement of the objectives of all policy areas will be the natural outcome of their individual policy choices.
The smooth transition to this new era of European integration and the successful operational start of the ECB was the outcome of several years of intense and thorough preparation. The Annual Report of the ECB gives a detailed account both of the final preparatory work conducted by the Eurosystem in the run-up to the introduction of the single currency and of the main economic and monetary developments within the European Union in 1998 and in the first few weeks of 1999.
In this regard the Eurosystem supports the idea of a dialogue between monetary policy and other policy areas in the form of an open exchange of information. However, such a dialogue should be clearly distinguished from any attempts to coordinate policies
so as to achieve a certain “policy mix”, which would blur the fundamental responsibilities I described. Such coordination would tend to decrease accountability, reduce the transparency of the policy framework for the public and increase uncertainty about policy actions, potentially threatening to destabilise the economy. Finally, the debate on a “balanced and appropriate policy mix” should not be used to deflect attention from the structural reforms that are so urgently needed to address the euro area’s serious structural unemployment problem.
One other matter, which is addressed by your committee is the ECB’s contribution to financial stability, and in particular the question of the provision of emergency liquidity to financial institutions in distress. Allow me to explain some of our main considerations in this regard. The main guiding principle within the Eurosystem with reference to the provision of emergency liquidity to individual financial institutions is that the competent national central bank would be responsible for providing such assistance to those institutions operating within its jurisdiction. The ECB does, however, have to be informed of this in a timely manner. In addition, in operations of relevance to the single monetary policy, the decision-making bodies of the Eurosystem will be involved in assessing the compatibility of the envisaged operations with the pursuit of monetary stability. In the case of a general liquidity crisis resulting from a gridlock in the payment system, for instance, the direct involvement of the Eurosystem could be expected.
For the markets it would be sufficient to know that there is a clearly articulated capability and willingness to act if really necessary. It is not common practice amongst central banks to disclose the conditions and practicalities of emergency liquidity assistance arrangements. In particular, there are typically no official documents describing the conditions under which emergency liquidity would be extended or what procedures would be followed. Indeed, ex ante commitments would be counter-productive in this field, since they would restrict the ability of the central bank to act to contain systemic disturbances with unforeseen features. Moreover, this policy of “constructive ambiguity” can limit the associated problem of moral hazard.
Finally, I should like to turn to a different issue which has also been raised by the European Parliament on several occasions, namely the question of cross-border retail payment services in the euro area. The ECB is aware of the criticism that has been expressed with reference to the low level of efficiency and high costs involved in the processing of such payments and it fully shares the concerns expressed by the European Parliament in this regard. The current situation is particularly unsatisfactory in the area of cross-border credit transfers, whereas the situation in the area of cross-border card-based payments raises fewer concerns.
As you will be aware, one of the basic tasks conferred upon the Eurosystem by the Treaty is the promotion of the smooth functioning of payment systems. However, the involvement of central banks in retail payment systems is, in general, less pronounced than in large-value payment systems, mainly because retail payment systems entail significantly lower systemic risks. Nevertheless, the Eurosystem is concerned with efficiency issues related to cross-border retail payments.
At present, the performance of cross-border retail payment systems is clearly lagging behind the policy objectives of Economic and Monetary Union and, indeed, behind the expectations of many European citizens and small enterprises. After the introduction of the euro banknotes and coins on 1 January 2002, these differences in service levels for national and cross-border payments within the single currency area will become even more apparent.
Against this background, the ECB strongly advocates the creation of a single payment area in order fully to reap the benefits of the single currency. In order to give a clear signal to the banking industry and the public, the ECB published a number of objectives in September which it expects the industry to fulfil and which should contribute towards substantial improvements. The current inadequacies are linked, in part, to the still predominant recourse to correspondent banking and the lack of adequate interbank infrastructures. More efficient funds transfer arrangements have been set up in recent years, but they are too fragmented and economies of scale are very limited. One pre-condition, therefore, for achieving a substantial enhancement in the processing of cross-border retail payments is undoubtedly the fact that the banking industry must implement common technical features in the processing of funds between banks.
However, this is unlikely to be sufficient. The banking industry must also improve substantially its internal procedures for processing cross-border payments, as well as its communication with the customer. This, in turn, requires a more extensive use of automation and standardisation. In this respect, I should like to draw attention to the standards agreed within the framework of the European Committee for Banking Standards, which I consider to be of particular importance. The ECB is organising meetings with all parties involved in order to bring the implementation of the standards forward.
Once the conditions related to interbank processing and internal procedures have been met, it should be possible for the banking industry to decrease substantially the price of cross-border credit transfers and to reduce the execution time to that needed for domestic payments plus one day.
The ECB expects the banks in the euro area to achieve substantial improvements by 1 January 2002 at the latest. The ECB will act as a catalyst for change and will, together with the national central banks of the Eurosystem, discuss these issues with the euro area banking industry in order to play a supportive and coordinating role in this regard. At present, an operational involvement of the ECB does not appear to be justified since there are already some indications that the general appreciation of the problem by the private sector is now increasing. The ECB will, however, closely monitor further developments in this area and will inform the European Parliament and the general public about the progress achieved.
Since the information contained in the annual report is of a self-explanatory nature, it might be more useful if I concentrate my remarks here and now on some of the issues addressed by the draft resolution prepared by your Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. After that I shall be happy to answer any questions you might have.
I should like to start by commenting on the discharge of the ECB’s accountability
the European Parliament. The Treaty establishing the European Community contains various provisions to ensure the democratic accountability of the ECB, one of the cornerstones of which is certainly the presentation of the Annual Report to the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. However, apart from this annual exercise, the ECB and the European Parliament have established several other contacts.
First and possibly most importantly, I should like to mention the regular hearings held by the European Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Within the scope of these hearings, which – in line with the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure – take place on a quarterly basis, I provide detailed explanations regarding both our assessment of current economic and monetary developments and the decisions taken by the ECB. Transcripts of these hearings are published on the websites of both the European Parliament and the ECB. Moreover, the European Parliament has invited members of the Executive Board of the ECB and of the staff to participate in additional hearings on a number of specific issues, including the external representation of the Eurosystem, the preparation of euro banknotes and statistical matters.
Furthermore, the ECB also had the opportunity to welcome delegations of members of the European Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to its premises in Frankfurt. We attach great importance to these visits and will be pleased to continue to host such events. However, since these visits to the ECB are of a more informal nature, it goes without saying that they have to be considered as an additional tool for communication between the two institutions and cannot be seen as a substitute for regular public hearings at the European Parliament.
In setting up its communication policy, the Central Bank decided to go beyond the transparency requirements of the Treaty. Thus, while the Treaty requires the ECB to publish a quarterly report on its activities, the ECB has decided to publish such a report on a monthly basis, the Monthly Bulletin, which gives a detailed presentation of economic and monetary developments.
In addition, there are a number of other communication tools that the ECB regularly uses. First, let me mention the extended press conferences that the Vice-President and I hold immediately after the first meeting of the Governing Council every month, transcripts of which – including transcripts of the questions and answer session are also accessible via the ECB’s website. You, of course, are aware of the broad range of publications that the ECB has issued on specific subjects related to its fields of responsibility. Our communication policy gives clear priority to maintaining and enhancing the credibility of the Eurosystem and confidence in the euro, both of which – credibility and confidence – are crucial elements in the successful conduct of monetary policy. In this context, one should always bear in mind the fact that the Governing Council acts as a collegial body, and that all decisions have to be communicated to the public in a clear and consistent way. Speaking a common language is particularly important for a central bank operating in a monetary union comprising several countries. Contradictory indications about the decisions taken by the ECB and the underlying reasons might trigger unwarranted market expectations and increase uncertainty, thereby running counter to the very objective of being transparent with regard to the conduct of monetary policy. I should like to stress that the information provided at the press conferences held after the meetings of the Governing Council, together with the analysis contained both in the ECB Monthly Bulletin and in the other channels of communication comes very close, in substance, to the publication of “summary minutes”. In view of the broad variety of publicly available information issued by the ECB, it is my firm belief and conviction that the ECB can stand comparison with other central banks in the field of transparency.
In this context, I should also like to comment briefly on the request to publish the ECB’s internal forecasts. First, it would, at this moment, clearly be premature to consider such a step since the Eurosystem – that is, the ECB and the eleven national central banks – has yet to gain experience with its forecasts. More time will be needed before we can assume that all the technical issues have been addressed properly, and the publication of forecasts can be considered without endangering the ECB’s credibility. I am confident, however, that we can achieve this in the course of next year. Let me also emphasise that the role of the ECB’s internal forecasts in the decision-making process should not be overestimated. Such forecasts constitute one piece of information made available to the Governing Council, but certainly not the only one. The role of our internal forecasts within the monetary policy strategy of the Eurosystem therefore differs from the role of inflation forecasts in a strategy of direct inflation targeting. Finally, I should like to recall that the Monthly Bulletin – especially in its extended quarterly version – provides a forward-looking analysis, including reviews of the outlook for price developments."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-26-Speech-2-089 | ". – It is an honour to be chosen as the rapporteur for this important report. This is the first occasion on which the European Parliament has given its views on the progress of the European Central Bank and in this context it is my pleasant duty to congratulate the ECB and Mr Duisenberg, as President, on its success so far.
Thirdly, we encourage the ECB to fulfil its role on the international stage as one of the three main pillars of the international monetary system.
Finally, I very much welcome, too, Mr Duisenberg’s taking up of a point in the report about the need to reduce the costs of cross-border payments, particularly for smaller payments which affect individual members.
Mr President, if the euro is as great a success as I hope and expect, it will play its part in revolutionising the European economy. By completing the single European market it will give Europe’s consumers more choice of goods and services, of higher quality and at lower prices and will, therefore, spur greater increases in living standards. It will provide jobs in expanding industries which is the only sure guarantee of future prosperity. Although I have no doubt that the ECB will face many difficult challenges in the years ahead, I am pleased to report that so far it has risen to the challenges it has faced with considerable
. We can look forward to a future which builds on its recent success.
The launch of the euro itself is a truly historic moment in the life of an extraordinary undertaking. It represents a substantial technical achievement and the many officials involved deserve our thanks and our appreciation.
Clearly it is still early days in terms of judgement on the results of the ECB’s mandate but here, too, we can already point to many positive signs, not least that investors are prepared to lend euro area governments their money at very low rates of interest. This is a real vote of confidence that the ECB will continue to deliver price stability and will not allow an inflationary erosion of people’s savings.
It is very much in this context of overwhelming support for the objectives of the ECB and of praise for its achievements so far that my remaining remarks should be seen. Only if the ECB is open about the way it reaches its decisions will it be able to retain support in bad times as well as in good. It may achieve its objective of price stability but without openness it will not be clear whether that objective has been attained by design and can therefore be repeated in future or by lucky accident which may therefore require some improvement in its methods of working.
The committee was also struck by the fact that other central banks have moved more rapidly in recent years towards greater openness. The US Federal Reserve, the Bank of Japan, Sweden’s Riksbank, the Bank of England all publish the individual votes of the committee that decides interest rates. They all publish forecasts, they all give information about the nature of the debate within their governing councils. In all of these respects – objective measures of transparency – the ECB lags behind normal international practice.
The committee therefore proposes, firstly that the ECB should publish a summary minute giving both sides of the argument, for and against monetary actions. Secondly, the ECB should publish a six-monthly forecast of economic developments in the euro area. Mr Duisenberg’s remarks to us today are particularly welcome in that respect because he has promised that he that will do just that within the next year. Thirdly, the ECB should discuss on a regular basis developments in each of the Member States of the euro area in order to have a positive influence on price and wage developments which must, as Mr Duisenberg rightly pointed out, differ from Member State to Member State. Finally, the committee may request that the President appears following each significant monetary action. These measures would do much to foster a culture of transparency.
The committee was unable to support a call now for the publication of votes as is in the Liberal group amendment today. It was felt that a young institution should have time to find its feet. Most members felt that publication might intensify the public pressures on governing council members to vote in line with their national interest. Similarly, the committee did not support the Liberal position that it would be useful to publish the ECB’s econometric models of the euro area, partly for fear that they may be abused.
The committee also rejected the Greens’ view as expressed in their amendment today, that the price stability mandate should be altered to take account of the difficulties faced by manufacturers alone if their prices fall. The amendment from the EPP, however, clarifies the paragraph and should, in our view, be supported.
Mr President, I would like to highlight briefly some other points that we make. The first is to thank Mr Duisenberg again for his assurance to this House that the process of cooperation between the ECB and the national central banks is now adequate, even in the case of a serious crisis in which a euro area financial institution may need to be supported. I would also like to stress the committee’s view that the ECB should bring pressure to bear on those Member States which rely excessively on short-term debt, as this can present dangers, particularly during a financial crisis."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-26-Speech-2-106 | "Mr President, nine months after the euro’s launch and with enthusiasm for its future role as the major international reserve currency dimmed as the result of exchange rate weakness, it cannot be heralded as an unqualified success. It remains to be seen if the “one-size-fits-all” model of interest rates will work in countries like Ireland, without causing large tax rises and damaging the popularity of the Euro-project.
Nevertheless I applaud the aims and coherence of the Huhne report as a basis for defining accountability of the Central Bank, on which I should like to say a few words, particularly on the issue of transparency and accountability.
Some may question why I, as a British Member, should like to speak on this issue. I would like to point out that Britain and the British Conservative Party – to which I belong – have never been hostile to the euro as a currency for those Member States which genuinely wish to join, as we are all bound together through our membership of the single market so that a collapse in confidence for the euro would affect us all, whether we are in or outside the EMU. For this reason it is vital that the Central Bank enjoys the confidence of the financial markets. We live in an era of massive capital flows and foreign exchange markets. Some £300 billion is traded every day in the City of London. A collapse in the credibility of or belief that the Bank would not be prepared to pursue an anti-inflationary policy at all costs could have severe repercussions economically throughout the whole Union.
I believe that only the Central Bank, for instance, should pronounce when necessary on foreign exchange target zones for the euro, to avoid conflicting messages being given to the financial markets. It is also vital, in my opinion, that the Bank be encouraged to follow the example of other leading central banks, such as the Federal Reserve in America, and make transparency a central feature of all its activities. I regret, therefore, that attempts to require the Bank to publish the names of those present, the voting on monetary actions, after a grace period of some two years and the publication of the ECB’s econometric models were defeated at committee stage and have not been put before this House today.
It was also confusing yesterday to hear that Mr Issing, the ECB’s chief economist, reportedly stated in London that the Bank would not publish economic forecasts for Euro-land, perpetuating a culture of secrecy. I welcome Mr Duisenberg’s clarification on this issue today. I believe that any confident central bank would welcome the opportunity for its members to be challenged on the fundamental assumptions underlying their decisions. But particularly in the ECB’s case, as it does not have the track record of the mighty Bundesbank and could quickly lose the confidence of the financial markets if it is reluctant to protect itself through greater transparency.
Openness to criticism is not a weakness but a strength. As a doctor I know that advances in medicine are often achieved only after rigorous scrutiny and challenge in peer review journals. The Bank has to learn to operate within the same spirit. I also believe that the financial markets and the people of Europe will expect no less of this new Central Bank and that this Parliament should be relentless in the pursuit of an open and accountable European Central Bank for the near future."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-26-Speech-2-113 | "Mr President, Mr Duisenberg, we MEPs, as we have stated a number of times this evening, have a unique role to play in relation to the single currency because this Chamber here is the only place in which the people of Europe can have any democratic input into how their new currency is run. We must not shy away from addressing the difficult issues which surround Europe’s single currency, because if we do so we will be letting down those people who elected us to this Chamber so recently.
Mr Duisenberg, in my view, you have a more or less impossible task because you have to set a rate that is suitable not only for the booming economies of Ireland and Spain but will also suit the faltering economy of Germany. Still less would it be possible to fix a rate which would also suit the persistently divergent economy of the UK. But none of us here doubt the importance of your role because a domestic Euroland government faced with reviving a faltering economy has very few weapons at its disposal. It has no power to set interest rates, no power over exchange rates, little power over government spending restricted by the Stability Pact and, if many people in this Parliament had their way, it would have no power over its own tax rates.
The governments have very few cards left to play with and not for nothing has it been said that the euro could lead to a recipe for stagnation. But we should not be surprised at the limitations on the powers that are left to the domestic governments in Euroland because it has never been a secret of those founding fathers of the single currency that what they had in mind was the creation of political union and a united states of Europe. I welcome your frankness, Mr Duisenberg, in making clear the very big political leap which has been made by those countries which have already entered Euroland.
But anyone who denies the existence of this political agenda – which subsumes the single currency – in my view is either deluded or dishonest, because it is a very real agenda. We saw that very recently, articulately presented to us by President Prodi when he said that we now face the best opportunity to unite Europe since the fall of the Roman Empire. Clearly, Mr Prodi had in mind the replacement of an ancient hegemony with a new economic one. But political union may not just be the idle dream of a few federalists. When you share a joint bank account with your neighbour you are affected by the actions and the spending decisions of your neighbour. You legitimately need some control over their actions. There is a very strong argument for saying that the single currency cannot function properly unless there is increased political integration and political union. That is one of the many reasons why the British Conservatives are campaigning vigorously to persuade the UK to keep its own currency and to keep the pound and to stay out of the single currency."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-26-Speech-2-114 | "Mr President, I shall start in English because I must address my congratulations to my British Conservative colleagues for their steadfastness in fighting the euro to the last penny of Japanese investment in their economy or any other investment in their economy. I shall continue in Greek."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-26-Speech-2-120 | ". – Mr President, in my introductory statement I already approached many of the issues which have been again brought forward in Parliament this afternoon. So if you allow me, I will try to formulate my answer by grouping together many of the issues that have been raised in Parliament and produce a comprehensive answer, or at least some remarks.
The wording of the resolution may be interpreted as suggesting that when the current rate of inflation is below 2% then the Eurosystem would be under an obligation to support the general economic policies of the Communities. In contrast the wording “without prejudice” clarifies, and it is intended to do so, that the Eurosystem is under no obligation to act in this mechanical fashion if it believes that doing so might jeopardise price stability in the future.
I ask Parliament to take that into account.
Regarding the suggestion that there is too much emphasis on price stability, the formal answer is that it is our mandate. Also, I would like to repeat that we do not overestimate the impact that monetary policy can have – what it can and cannot do. It is my firm belief that monetary policy can and will influence the movement of prices over the medium-term but not in the short-term. That is why we have a forward-looking strategy. The direct impact of monetary policy measures on employment and growth is very limited indeed. That is borne out by research which we did at the institution where, as Mrs van den Berg indicated, I previously worked.
Turning to the current situation, I should like to repeat that the monetary policy strategy of the Eurosystem, which has been made very clear to Parliament, is based on two pillars, both designed to be forward-looking over the medium-term. The two pillars are: the reference value for monetary growth, M3, and a broadly-based assessment of a wide range of indicators and their impact on the primary aim of price stability. That broadly-based assessment is one that encompasses a wide range of indicators, of course including developments in the real economy, movements in employment and unemployment, an assessment of movement of the exchange rate in so far as it has an impact on price levels in the euro area. That is our strategy. It is forward-looking. Of course we look at the current developments in inflation also as one of the indicators of what we think is going to happen in the future, but it is certainly not true that we only look at the current inflation rate, as implied in the draft resolution.
You will understand that I will not join Parliament in the debate on what decisions might be taken in the short-term on interest rates, although that decision has been alluded to by various Members of Parliament. In Parliament it has been said by various Members that if interest rates were to be raised that would choke economic growth and the growth of employment. But please remember that when you are driving a car very fast and you want it to go forward, but maybe a little slower, you can either step on the brakes or you can lift your foot a little bit from the accelerator. There is a difference. Raising interest rates in a certain situation might be more akin or related to lifting your foot from the peddle as opposed to braking the momentum of the economy and in that way going slower. We all want to go forward.
Mrs Peijs wanted a very clear answer on frontloading. I hope to be as clear as I can on banknotes. The Eurosystem, early on, made it clear to the public at large that frontloading over a short period would not be a problem provided it could be ensured that the money frontloaded to banks, for instance, or other organisations is not brought into circulation before 1 January 2000 – into general circulation that is. We formulated that by saying that banknotes may be frontloaded provided there are legal or contractual guarantees at the receiving end which ensure they will not be brought into circulation before 1 January. There would have to be contracts or legal provisions or contracts with retail organisations or banks. Then it would be possible.
On coins – you will be aware I do not have responsibility for coins, this is a matter for the finance ministers – the big difference is that it is virtually impossible to get that same guarantee as far as coins are concerned because coins are generally put into circulation by the retail sector rather than by the banks. To have such a guarantee would be impossible. Another large difference is that it is very easy to try to make a counterfeit banknote with modern photocopying techniques which is the reason why the precise features of the banknotes to come will be widely published but only very briefly in advance of their introduction, so as to reduce the danger of counterfeiting and confusing a public which is not yet familiar with the notes. It is much more difficult to counterfeit coins.
I have touched upon all the major issues that have been raised today on banking supervision. It is well known that the Treaty gives very little responsibility to the European Central Bank in the area of banking supervision. Our task is to promote financial stability and the stability of the financial markets. We monitor banking supervision, but this is not one of the tasks of the Central Bank. We are fully involved in the further development of rules. Mr Goebbels said that the ECB should be: “a bit less reticent about international exposure in all the various fora”. The ECB is now fully involved in all discussions in all international fora on the future of what is now called the “financial architecture” in the world. The ECB is fully involved in all discussions of the G-7, of the G-10, of the OECD. We have a permanent representative who is very actively engaged in discussions at the IMF. In December there will be the first meeting of this new Group of 20 at the initiative of the G-7 countries, consisting of the G-7 countries and a few emerging market representatives. The ECB will be there. We will also participate in that dialogue.
As Mrs van den Berg has asked, we do participate in the macroeconomic dialogue but just as in the Netherlands, the Central Bank participates in the dialogue but does not agree to a compromise on its policy in order to get a concession in another policy area. There will be no
policy coordination but there will be an extensive and, I hope, critical exchange of information of all the partners involved, including the ECB.
First of all the issue of transparency. Although I realise and I am grateful that the desire to have the votes or minutes published by the Governing Council does not appear in the motion for a resolution which will be voted on tomorrow by your Parliament, in this discussion a lot of attention, much more than I expected, was paid to the phenomenon of transparency, culminating in publishing the vote. I would like to emphasise that when you talk about and require transparency you have to indicate precisely what that means. What does transparency mean? I would warn against what I might call mixing up transparency with publishing the vote.
As far as transparency is concerned, which I define as giving to the public or Parliament as much information as possible about developments in the economy, about monetary developments, about the outcome of the deliberations of the Governing Council, I believe – and I said so in my introductory statement – that the European Central Bank can look squarely in the eyes of any central bank in the world. For example, there is our publication immediately after the meetings of the Governing Council of the considerations which have played a role in the Governing Council’s ultimate decision whether or not to change interest rates. That is done about one hour after the decision has been taken. We give the arguments for and against certain decisions there. I believe that you will find no central bank in the world which is more transparent than we are.
The only thing we do not do is we do not publish votes. Apart from the fact – and this may be somewhat embarrassing – that we virtually never vote in the Governing Council, so there is nothing to be published, I will not repeat all the arguments against this which I have brought before this Parliament on earlier occasions, but one has to remember that the decisions of the Governing Council of the Eurosystem are made in a collegial way and there is one decision only which emerges.
The arguments for and against it are published in the press conferences and in the Monthly Bulletin after the meetings have taken place but there is one decision. One always has to bear in mind that every word that is spoken by me or any other member of the Governing Council about economic developments and about the decisions which are taken and in what direction sets in motion immediately billions of euros across the world. It is always a signal to the market and it takes effect almost simultaneously with the utterance of the opinion.
On forecasts, Mr President, I do not need to say more than I have already said in my introductory statement. There will come a time when we will publish forecasts, either bi-annually or tri-annually. I do not yet know the precise form. We are actively investigating this question but we simply are not ready yet and we do not have enough data or know the models which ultimately we will use. We have not yet reached a degree of stability which would make it responsible for them to be published now but, as I said in my introduction, I am confident that in the course of next year we will publish forecasts.
To avoid one misunderstanding, it has been asked repeatedly here “why do you not take an example from the Federal Reserve system which publishes forecasts” and I believe it is also a consideration behind the motion for a resolution. That must be a misunderstanding because what the Federal Reserve system publishes twice a year in its Humphrey-Hawkins testimony for the Senate is a range of figures for a few indicators, the range being the range of the individual forecasts of members of the Federal Open Market Committee coming from the regional Federal Reserve banks. That range, the forecast with which they come once every six weeks to Washington, is published. Forecasts are also prepared for the FOMC meeting and in particular for the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve system, forecasts prepared by the staff of the Board of Governors. They are the forecasts which are used to underpin the decisions that the FOMC takes at any particular moment in time. Those forecasts are not published. And I already made some remarks in my introduction on the relativity of forecasts, even if they are published, for the decision-making process.
Various Members of this Parliament have questioned whether the ECB places too much emphasis on prices and too little on growth and employment. At least that is how I have understood the question; that was the signal that was given to me.
Firstly, the Treaty of the ECB makes it literally mandatory for the ECB to give primary attention to their primary objective, which is to maintain price stability. The Treaty says “without prejudice to price stability”, that is only when price stability, I should say, is guaranteed, should the ECB in its policies support the general economic policies of the Community. There is another small remark I would like to make, Mr President, but it is important in the context of the motion for a resolution. I believe the Treaty language is a little misrepresented. In the resolution it says “providing that this price stability is attained”. The Treaty says, and not without reason, “without prejudice to the objective of price stability” – and that is of great importance in economic terms."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-26-Speech-2-126 | ". – Mr President, there were actually a number of proposals made by the evaluation. One of them had to do with ECHO moving more into the area of development cooperation, in a sense staying longer in a post-conflict situation. I do not think this is how to do it – we will end up over-stretching the resources very rapidly because new conflicts keep coming up. So we need to have a balanced approach, drawing on the resources in our development cooperation in general but making sure that they go in when ECHO goes out.
It sounds easy but it is not that easy. In general it is necessary to combine these things and many are not able to do it. A very big problem is that individual countries although good donors do not have the resources to stay a long time in many conflicts. This is where the European Union has a special capacity and also special responsibility. It is extremely important that we, at a certain point, become very good at managing this transition gap."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-26-Speech-2-128 | "First, we are not planning or expecting any change concerning distribution, as between NGOs and UN organisations and other organisations, driven by our management or policy We respond to appeals and crises and use whichever organisation is able to do a good job in the specific circumstances. We do not have a fixed, preconceived idea of who gets what. Concerning the NGOs, we have found very few changes to be necessary. We know that in practice, in daily operations, we will have to streamline procedures as much as possible but, in general, this has not been seen as a major issue in the whole evaluation process.
Moving on to the next question, on reforming or changing the regulation, I already made it clear in my opening remarks that we think it is possible to make many important and necessary changes within the existing regulation. We will come back to that. We are not closing the option of changing the regulation but this will be taken up in a much broader, long-term process – the one I mentioned concerning the policy part of our response. For the time being we will work on the basis of the existing regulation. We think this gives enough scope for the changes that are needed.
Regarding the codecision aspect of this, in responding to the evaluation, I have deliberately avoided saying anything concerning that issue. How codecision will eventually be hammered out in terms of relations between Parliament, the Council and Member States in decision-making on humanitarian activities is something that needs to be discussed further and perhaps negotiated. But I did not want to open up a discussion on that because following up the evaluation is not a problem I have to deal with.
Concerning the identity of the operation, I distinctly mentioned the logo and the discussion. The consultants recommended that we should give up the specific ECHO logo. This is one point on which I feel we should not follow their recommendation. But we have to strike some kind of balance. To put it in a nutshell: visibility is fine, feasibility is better. There is, in some cases, a risk that pushing the logo too much creates friction and reduces the willingness to cooperate smoothly on the ground. Somewhere we have to find a balance. But I did not want to back down as far as visibility is concerned. We owe it to our tax-payers, the European public. Certainly there is no reason why we should hide from the beneficiaries who it is that is actually helping them."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-26-Speech-2-133 | "Mr President, could I ask the Commissioner whether he considers that this evaluation risks putting structures in place which actually endanger the possibility of us of being able to react in a crisis as quickly and as effectively as he suggests we should? secondly, Commissioner, let us take for instance a case study such as Sierra Leone: You talked about the clear distinction between humanitarian aid and long-term assistance. Could you give me your analysis of what stage one part of your work will take over from the other in the case of Sierra Leone?"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-26-Speech-2-134 | ". – No, to the first part of the question. I do not see that anything we are suggesting here would actually endanger our capacity for quick action. We are not moving towards creating a rigid system and the special character, the ability to act and the identity of ECHO as such, are all something I find important in order to avoid ECHO, as a humanitarian relief organisation, becoming involved in the very cumbersome decision-making machinery of the Commission in general. We are not heading toward the kind of problems that you ask about here.
Regarding Sierra Leone, it is very difficult to say. The main thing is to what extent it is possible to mobilise enough donors; it is not just what we do ourselves. There must be a critical mass of donors who are willing and able to make a more long-term effort in a given country, so coordination is extremely important here. We have to be able to deliver our share of it and phase out crisis-based ECHO presence, replacing it with the post-conflict presence of a more long-term character of our development resources.
If others do not participate, it will not work, so part of the answer to what we have to do now is to be more active in the discussion from case to case – within groups of friends of Sierra Leone, to take one example – trying to organise a more coordinated response to moving away from the immediate crisis demands.
One case that illustrates where we should be careful not to end up is that the UNHCR is still today funding and managing primary education in Rwanda. Nobody else is ready to pay for it and that is why they are there. They are doing a respectable job but it shows that the international system and who does what becomes distorted if the normal donors do not demonstrate a readiness to play their traditional role. This is where we hope to be able to push the international discussion in a better direction than hitherto."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-006 | "First of all I should like to say that the Commission shares the presidency’s positive point of view on the outcome of the European Tampere Council. We would like to warmly congratulate the Finnish Prime Minister, both for the preparations which preceded the meeting and for the way in which he personally chaired its proceedings."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-007 | "Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the conclusions reached in Tampere combine a strong political message on the priority given to the construction of an area of freedom, security and justice with the concern to define priorities which concentrate on those issues which directly affect the daily lives of Europe’s citizens.
The Commission is looking at its own role and proposes to act by responding to the ambitious action plan for fighting money-laundering, which involves changes both in the Union’s position towards the rest of the world, and also at the level of legislation in each Member State.
However, Madam President, Tampere did not fully meet all of the Commission’s expectations. Without wishing to criticise the positive results which, to a large extent, have just been highlighted by the President-in-Office of the Council, I cannot help admitting that on some points, the Commission is rather disappointed. The Commission regrets that the European Council has not accepted the idea of a single asylum system which represents, as we see it, something to aim for, but also the urgent necessity of dealing with asylum issues in a collective and coherent way. The Commission will not stop making proposals which will allow us to dispel any possible fears that a centralised asylum system may bring about in some Member States.
Similarly, I regret the fact that some Member States were reluctant to support the idea of a European refugee fund, even though the Commission made it clear that this fund would not involve any new or additional expenditure. The lessons drawn from Bosnia and Kosovo reinforce our conviction that it is crucial to persist in explaining our aims, which we hope will happen before the end of the current year, specifically in the context of preparing the 2000 budget.
Tampere did not allow the idea of a European Public Prosecutor to be adopted yet, even one who would be limited to protecting the Community’s financial interests. I would like to suggest that the next debate on the Intergovernmental Conference might be a good opportunity to take up this idea of ours once again.
The Heads of State and Government have thus set themselves the obligation to respect the solemn commitment they made in Tampere. The Commission, on the basis of dialogue and cooperation with the European Parliament, is prepared to do everything necessary in order to create an area of freedom, security and justice which, above all, achieves balance between its three components: freedom, security and justice.
The letter that President Romano Prodi wrote to the European Council highlighted our main concern which was that Tampere should not be a restrictive summit. This objective was achieved. The Commission is particularly pleased with this fact. And I would like to emphasise that the steadfast affirmation of the untouchable nature of the Geneva Convention as a basis for constructing a European asylum policy is something that merits our backing and applause.
We are pleased with the commitment given at the highest level to working in partnership with countries of origin and transit countries in confronting immigration issues. We are pleased with the far greater emphasis given to fighting the trade in human beings than to action against its victims in relation to illegal immigration. The Commission backs the clear affirmation of the importance of prevention in the fight against crime, whether it is financial crime, crime in the cities or juvenile crime, and notes that its efforts to give special prominence to the rights of victims of criminal activity have been recognised.
The Commission agrees with the proactive view of the establishment of a European concept of access to justice as an instrument for people to exercise their right to free movement without obstacles of a legal or administrative nature. It is also necessary that this right to free circulation should now be accompanied by the legislative measures which are necessary for us to be able to achieve it as quickly as possible.
The Commission is pleased with the establishment of the principle of harmonising, as fully as possible, the rights of citizens originally from third countries, but who have lived for a long time in the Union, with the rights and duties granted to citizens who are nationals of the Union’s Member States. We realise that we will have to move forward with specific proposals in this area.
Finally, the Commission would like to single out the establishment of the clear priority given to fighting racism, xenophobia, and all forms of discrimination, which are laid down in Article 13 of the Treaty, as being a very positive move.
Similarly, the Tampere conclusions tackle, in an appropriate way, the strengthening of cooperation between police forces and between judicial authorities in order to protect and preserve the freedoms of Europe’s citizens. The conclusions do this in a way which is necessary in order to respond to citizens’ legitimate concerns about security and about the judicial guarantee of their rights, as is fitting in a Union which claims to be founded on the principle of the prevalence of rights and of the law.
I would like to highlight, in this regard, the principle of mutual recognition of decisions and sentences, which all Member States should contribute to by adopting common definitions and penalties against certain criminal activities which transcend borders,. This would cover areas such as organised crime, illegal drug trafficking, the trade in human beings, or crimes against children. I would also like to highlight the establishment of the EUROJUST network which is, without any doubt, the beginning of the construction of a European Judicial system which will be an instrument of support and monitoring for EUROPOL’s actions in guaranteeing security within the Union and which will also be an instrument for protecting the rights of European citizens."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-011 | "Madam President, this summit was highly significant and its outcome better, less repressive, than expected. We will look back in amazement at how much more progress Europe made on cutting red tape on goods and businesses than it did on people. This must now change quickly. But Parliament is not yet a full partner and that must be our goal over the next few years.
It is unacceptable that Europe’s directly elected representatives are, despite the presidency conclusions’ stress on democracy, marginalised in the creation of the area of freedom, security and justice. May I say how much I believe the voice of Parliament is strengthened by the ability of four groups to agree on the resolution put forward today.
I can only pick out a few points, but firstly: refugees. We welcome the reaffirmation of the full and inclusive application of the Geneva Convention, and credit is due to the Finnish presidency for this point. It is very important that the common EU asylum system – which ought, however, to be a single system and incorporate EU funding – should not be based on the lowest common denominator. We must also be very careful not to whip up racist prejudice and we look forward to proposals based on Article 13 to combat racism.
On individual rights, some progress was made but not enough. We very much welcome the reiteration of how important it is to legislate to give legally-resident third country nationals rights as near as possible to those of EU citizens. This is now urgent.
We also need tangible progress on the rights of EU citizens to move freely and reside elsewhere. It was a pity nothing was said at Tampere about rights to access information and documents despite transparency being cited as one of the important principles.
In the area of access to justice we need mutual recognition to be accompanied by common minimum standards and it would have been good to see something about the rights of people to get bail when they are criminal defendants in a state other than their own.
We look forward to the body preparing the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which it would be appropriate for a representative of this Parliament to chair, producing a document which can confer direct rights on EU citizens and enable them as individuals to enforce their rights in the European Court. It is appropriate to give governmental authorities greater cross-border powers to pursue criminals but the use of these powers must be supervised by the European Parliament and the European courts so that civil liberties are entrenched and robustly defended."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-014 | "Madam President, I believe that the EU leaders’ recent meeting in Tampere in Finland was a very successful one. It was the first such meeting since the European Parliament ratified the new College of European Commissioners and the new President, Romano Prodi, has stated many times that he is deeply committed to involving Parliament in more decision-making in the future. This new interinstitutional approach within the European Union was certainly in evidence at the Tampere Summit. EU leaders had extended an invitation to you, Madam President, to attend the meeting: a recognition of the importance of the European Parliament as an institution.
I fully agree with the statement issued by the EU leaders when they expressed their deep regret at the failure of the American Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. This treaty is a cornerstone of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation efforts, and without it, the prospects for progress in nuclear disarmament are considerably reduced. The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty is in the interest of all States worldwide, and the European Union is correct to restate its deep commitment to bringing the treaty into force at the earliest opportunity possible. I welcome the restated commitment of President Clinton to ratify this treaty as well as his renewed commitment to the maintenance of the US moratorium on nuclear testing.
Earlier this year the European Council in Cologne decided to establish a chapter for fundamental rights which will bring together in one comprehensive document all the fundamental rights applicable at European Union level in order to make these rights more visible to its citizens. The Cologne Council directed the Finnish government, as the office-holder of the Presidency, to establish the conditions for the implementation of this project in time for the Tampere Summit."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-019 | "Madam President, I should like to congratulate the Council and the Commission on the progress made at Tampere in so many areas and I would like to associate myself with the remarks made earlier by my Liberal Democrat colleague Baroness Ludford.
In the short time I have available I would like to touch on two issues. The first is the position of non-nationals, the many millions of our fellow human beings not citizens of the Union but either legally resident here or being offered asylum. I welcome some of the progress that was made at Tampere: for instance, on giving them comparable rights and on the fight against racism and xenophobia. If we are talking about creating an area of freedom, security and justice, however, we must recognise that these are the people to whom justice is most regularly denied. They are still too often associated with criminals. Racist urban youths are a social embarrassment but racist policemen are a major social hazard.
I welcome legal aid and greater information to citizens on legal systems and I recognise that progress can be made on mutual recognition of judicial decisions. Nonetheless, we need common high standards of judicial competence and I hope that we will see more work done in this area. We need protection of victims and the right to compensation; but we also need a recognition of the rights of defendants if we are to live in a decent society.
The second point I would like to touch on is the involvement of citizens. The President-in-Office made much of the increased efficiency and transparency that Tampere has brought. He talked about this being key if the Union is to win the trust of its citizens. He talked of “opening up” the Council to public scrutiny and looking at other reforms. He hoped that the Finnish presidency would leave a lasting impression on the Union in this regard.
As chairman of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, I would like to suggest to the President-in-Office that more recognition be given to the role of this Parliament in dealing with citizens. The European Parliament could have been invited at a working level to many more of the debates surrounding the Tampere summit. The presidency could have sent a representative to our committee to come and talk about the results of that summit. Does the presidency recognise the legitimacy of the European Parliament or is it somehow running scared of our participation? I have a message for the presidency: relax – come and discuss with us. I hope we will be able to prove to you through our work in the body that will draw up the Charter of Fundamental Human and Social Rights that the presidency and Parliament can work very well together.
I hope that, as we proceed in this area where so often Parliament must work directly with the Council, we will see much more effective cooperation between us. I hope we will move from the somewhat stilted process of government by summit to more government at working level."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-030 | "Mr President, the issues discussed at Tampere are obviously of great concern to all decent law-abiding people: asylum, immigration, cross-border crime and not least the death-dealing drug-smuggling activities of the loathsome drug barons. Like disease, crime knows no borders. Therefore, there can be no good reason for opposing the meetings of Heads of State as has happened at Tampere to discuss these issues. However, one has to express a note of caution. The suspicion amongst many in the United Kingdom is that these issues and the high-minded pronouncements are yet another power play by stealth on the part of the EU and its institutions.
We have seen it all before: first the problem, a problem of huge legitimate, public and topical concern, then the meeting and then the solution. The central agenda is that whatever the problem, the solution is always the same. More power to the EU and its undemocratic institutions. The issue of asylum, immigration and cross-border crime and the administration of justice impact on the very fundamental issues of human rights and individual civil liberties.
What we are considering is vesting even more powers in the hands of the EU and the unelected bureaucrats to take control of our very liberties – the body which brought us the inestimable benefits of the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy. Both are absolute disasters. British fishermen and farmers are now martyrs to the irresistible ambition of the European Union. Therefore, before we even think of passing more powers to the European Union, we must take into account its past activities and failures. Fishing and farming have been subjected to its most tried and tested policies: policies tested almost to destruction.
We should forget the theory, fellow delegates. Forget the high-minded pronouncements and look at the implications. If there were prizes for rhetoric, the EU would be a world-class performer. But when it comes to performance, the EU is the bottom of the class for efficiency. There is a yawning gap, an unbridgeable gap. So, when it comes to the issues of liberty, the EU cannot even sort out fishing or look after our farmers. Why should we trust it with our freedom and our security? Much more can be achieved by using existing national institutions and an international organisation…."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-036 | "Mr President, everyone, especially lawyers like myself, is in favour of justice and civil rights. Any member or aspiring member of the EU should already have in place systems to protect their citizens based on their own common law, precedent and legislation. The third pillar is a vital repository of national competences arrived at through historic development, reflecting different cultural and social histories of the nations. Its demolition in my view is very sad and a big mistake, just at the time when it could be needed most.
As for the proposals on immigration and asylum, I was the minister in the UK until 1997 dealing with these issues. From my experiences there, I now believe that the uncontrolled movement of people in global terms over the next 20 to 30 years, whether it be based on economic issues or climatic issues, represents a massive challenge to good order and democracy.
I am certainly in favour of free movement in the EU where legal status exists, but what of the applicant states and their borders – they will have to take over protection of the EU under Schengen? Are we really happy about those arrangements and does Tampere really address them? What do our German friends think? What do the ordinary electors in Yorkshire or in Brentwood in the United Kingdom think? The granting of asylum is a precious gift not to be abused, as is unfortunately the case too often. The United Nations Convention in 1951 was clear: it should be applied to the letter but not replaced or surrounded with new regulations which, in my view, could cause even more confusion.
Sometimes, in order to be generous, in order to show good sense, it is essential for us also to be firm. I regret that Tampere does not address the issues with sufficient firmness."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-057 | "Mr President, my group welcomes the publication of the Dehaene, Lord Simon and von Weizsäcker report because it makes the case clearly, and makes it well, to have an IGC that is not confined to the so-called “three Amsterdam leftovers”. We must address wider issues. This IGC, though, will not be so much about broadening the field of responsibility or the competences of the European Union; it will be about structural reform, institutional reform, reform that will make the Union more open, more efficient, more democratic and more transparent. Above all, the IGC will make it capable of functioning and carrying out its responsibilities when it is composed of more than 20 Member States.
The three Amsterdam leftovers will be part of the package but they will not be alone. We are winning the argument to have a wider agenda. But even those three leftovers, as Mr Barnier underlined, are not subjects which are easy to handle. For instance, extending the field of qualified majority voting will immediately provoke assorted Eurosceptics and others to say in their Member States that their country is giving up the veto and giving up sovereignty. Indeed, it is the position of one of the largest component parties of the EPP that there should not be an extension of qualified majority voting. Yet if they pause to think for one minute they would soon realise that their own country, every country, probably loses more from the vetoes cast by other countries than they gain in using their own in many areas of European Union responsibility.
However, change must come not just for the three Amsterdam leftovers; extension of qualified majority voting, the size of the Commission and the weighting of votes in the Council. Change is necessary for the Court. How will it function if it is going to be composed of nearly 30 members? Change is necessary as regards the size of this Parliament if we are to respect the limit of 700 members laid down in the Treaties at our own request. Something needs to be done to take further the conclusions reached by our Member States that the WEU should now be integrated and its functions, or part of its functions, transferred to the European Union.
There is the question of codification and simplification of the Treaties, an issue that this Parliament was first to highlight in the run-up to the Amsterdam negotiations; a task started by Amsterdam but far from complete and which, too, is a point underlined and highlighted in the Dehaene report.
In adding new issues like those to the IGC we are not necessarily making it more difficult. Having a wider package might make it easier to reach agreement and easier to ratify in our Member States but I can say, on behalf of my group, that we are willing to have Parliament work closely with the Commission in the spirit that Mr Barnier has just indicated, so that together we can put a balanced package of proposals on the table of the IGC that he, and our representatives to all the meetings of the IGC, can defend: a package that will make the Union fit to work when it has more than 20 Member States."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-058 | "Mr President, I welcome the report for pointing us at the central question which is the method for revision of the treaties in the future. We must realise that it will be virtually impossible – and certainly it will be impracticable – to forge agreement between 25 or 30 states upon essential questions of sovereignty. So, the key reform is Article 48 for treaty change. We must entrench the constituent articles of the treaty and we need a softer, lighter system for changing the treaty in regard to policy chapters. The first reform will calm citizens’ fears of creeping sovereignty transfers and the second should encourage citizens to engage more obviously with the political choices that we face in Brussels and in Strasbourg.
The second reform that is essential is to remove the national veto from the clauses of reinforced cooperation; and the third will be to grant citizens the right of direct approach to the European Court."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-069 | "Mr President, there is one dog that has not yet barked in this debate, and I should just like to draw attention to the radical failure of the Dehaene report to deal adequately – mentioning it only in passing – with the regional aspect of government in Europe. Subsidiarity here seems to be a concept which gets lip service but not real action and it certainly needs redefining in the Treaty.
The autonomous regions and nations internal to the Union states of the European Union, like Spain or the United Kingdom or Belgium, must obtain effective standing in our system. Reform in the Council would be one prerequisite. It could properly differentiate its executive and legislative roles and in the latter begin to approximate itself to a territorial chamber.
The Committee of the Regions as at present constituted is both toothless and not in any sense fairly representative. Are Members here aware that Luxembourg has six members in the Committee of the Regions and Scotland four? I am not familiar with the differences between east and west Luxembourg but I know a little about the internal differences of Scotland, and the principle of representation as it exists is absurd. A committee that was supposed to enable regions and internal nations to counterbalance the states is dominated by the state system.
New members will arrive here with enlargement in this Parliament, many of them representing former member nations of union states. Think of Slovenia, think of Estonia. They are small states but their representation will automatically exceed that of the Basque country, that of Flanders, that of Scotland, that of Wales. The principles of representation in Europe, as applied to its nations and regions need to be re-examined, and I am very sad that the Dehaene report has said practically nothing about this."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-078 | "Mr President, on a point of order. I hope we are not going to have our votes delayed every month by a diatribe about the position of the radicals and other non-attached Members. The Committee on Constitutional Affairs has now appointed a rapporteur. If there was a delay in appointing a rapporteur it is because the representative of the radicals at the meeting of the coordinators to agree a rapporteur asked for it to be postponed. It was at their request that it was postponed in the first place. It is the height of hypocrisy to come here and accuse the Committee on Constitutional Affairs of taking its time on it.
Meanwhile, as regards the tabling of amendments you have exactly the same right as every other Member to table amendments with 32 signatures. If you cannot even get 32 signatures to support a position then it is not worth wasting the time of plenary voting on that position."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-079 | "I now have a list of Members wishing to speak. I will give the floor to Mr Madelin in the interests of political balance but I would ask all the other speakers to withdraw so that we can proceed to the vote."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-081 | "Thank you, let us now move on to the vote.
***"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-084 | "I am very grateful for this opportunity to comment on Parliament’s amendments and perhaps I can also take this opportunity to pay a tribute to the honourable Member and to her colleagues who have taken so much interest in this extremely important matter.
The second issue which has given rise to a number of amendments is the desire to bring the Agency under the sole and direct responsibility of the Commission which would appoint the director. Independent experts appointed by the Commission would replace the Member States’ representatives on the governing board. The management committee would be replaced by an advisory committee. That covers Amendments Nos 6, 12, 14, 16, 19 and 22.
The Commission’s view is that the presence of the Member States on the governing board would, on balance, be good for the Agency and would make it easier to coordinate the Community’s and Member States’ reconstruction activities. The Commission would point out that this proposal is based on the standard format used for all the European agencies, though there are admittedly differences with this one. This includes representation of the Member States on the governing board and specific rules on the line of responsibility. The management committee formula is in accordance with the existing rules.
But I do not want to rest our case there. The Commission believes that a compromise that might take account of Parliament’s principal concerns could be reached along the following lines. First, instead of the governing board having decision-making powers it could have an advisory role on certain issues including the selection and implementation of projects. Second, the Commission could be given the task of appointing the director in line with Parliament’s proposal.
So what next? I think it is quite straightforward and I welcome what Prime Minister Lipponen said earlier today in response to a question from the honourable Member. I shall take these proposals to the Council and try to persuade the Council to accept what I believe is a sensible compromise that should, in my judgement, be acceptable to everyone. What we all want, after all, is to get on with an extremely difficult job in Kosovo as competently and as rapidly as possible. We all owe that to our team in Kosovo. We owe that to the people of Kosovo themselves and I certainly do not think we should play politics with such an important issue.
I hope Parliament will feel that we have made every effort to find a compromise solution to this extremely important issue and I hope we will be able to work with the Council in a way in which Parliament would approve.
Before I set out the Commission’s position regarding the amendments voted through by Parliament on 16 September, I hope you will allow me to stress that the Commission has tried to examine Parliament’s suggestions in the same spirit that I am sure Parliament made them: how we can best deliver our collective European effort on the ground in Kosovo and in the region as a whole.
I am going to Kosovo tomorrow with Mr Javier Solana to assess for myself how we are doing, so I will have Parliament’s views to support my very clear awareness of the need to get the Agency up and running as soon as possible. That is the best way we can reinforce the excellent efforts made already by Mr Franco and his team.
Let me set out our position on the amendments seriatim. The Commission can accept the spirit, provided changes can be made in certain cases to the wording of the amendments relating to accompanying measures, participation of local communities in reconstruction, coordination with non-governmental organisations, consultation of Parliament before the Agency extends its activities to other areas of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and, of course, budgetary transparency.
This means Amendments Nos 1, 2, 4, 9, 15 and the second part of Amendment No 24. Some of the amendments – 7, 8, 10, 11, 17, 21, 25 and 26 – relate to issues that are already addressed in the current version of the proposal.
On the following points, however, we do not feel able to go along with Parliament: merging humanitarian aid and assistance for reconstruction within a single body, separation of Agency revenue from appropriations allocated to programmes, exclusion from the agency’s budget of contributions from other sources, approval of the staffing plan by the budgetary authority and a report on the possible winding up of the agency after 24 months. This covers Amendments Nos 5 and 23, the first part of Amendment No 24 and Amendments Nos 27 and 28.
I hope there will not be too much difficulty on those points with our position. I realise that the biggest issues for Parliament lie elsewhere.
I am, of course, aware of the special importance the European Parliament attaches to two particular questions: the first relates to the establishment of the Agency’s headquarters in Thessaloniki and its operational centre in Priština, the extension of its mandate to the whole of the western Balkans and the bringing of its activity within the framework of the Stability Pact. This is the issue that is covered in Amendments Nos 3 and 18. Our view is essentially this. The Agency’s immediate aim is the reconstruction of Kosovo and thereafter, when conditions permit, of other parts of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. It is an instrument of the European Union and must retain its autonomy of action. Its headquarters can only be established in Thessaloniki as long as its operational centre in Priština retains its own autonomy.
The Commission believes that a compromise that might take account of Parliament’s wholly understandable concerns could be reached along the following lines. First, the Agency’s headquarters would be established in Thessaloniki and a joint declaration would be drawn up listing the general service departments to be located there. Second, another joint declaration would set out the terms for coordination with the Stability Pact while safeguarding – and I want to underline this – the Agency’s independence. Third, the Commission would undertake to report next year on the possibility of extending the Agency’s activities to other Balkan countries under a new regulation."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-087 | "Does the Commission wish to comment?"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-094 | "Thank you. Amendment No 5 had to be ruled inadmissible because it was not compatible with the rules for second readings.
***
Would the Commissioner like to comment?"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-099 | "Madam President, I have been waiting patiently – or even impatiently – for quite a long time now because I wanted to raise this point before the vote on the Ombudsman.
Could you explain why, when we have a very expensive and sophisticated system of electronic voting, we had to go through – and I choose my words carefully – the organised chaos of the previous vote. We have a system here which has three buttons to vote for candidate A or candidate B or abstain; this affords the perfect opportunity for secrecy, and I know we have used it before in similar circumstances. It would be less time-consuming and less expensive surely to have used that rather than go through the procedure we have just gone through. Could you explain why that decision was taken.
Whilst I am on my feet, Madam President, I would like to refer back to earlier this morning when you were in the chair. You will be aware – because I noticed a distinctly presidential frown – that a Member’s mobile phone went off during the speech of, I think it was, the Prime Minister of Finland. This was a gross discourtesy to the Prime Minister of Finland, and I felt the discourtesy was exacerbated by the fact that the Member then proceeded to answer the phone and continue with the conversation. What action can we take to eliminate this in future?
Thirdly, as I am on my feet and I have your ear, can you do anything about the fact that the some of the huissiers at the entrance are smoking on duty. I think it gives an extraordinarily poor impression of this Parliament."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-111 | "There is no doubt that electronic commerce is going to be one of the boom areas of the future, providing consumers feel that they can use the system with confidence.
Two problems are presently holding back the development of e-commerce: the difficulty in verifying the identity of users and consumers and the uncertainty surrounding the extent to which on-line transactions are legally binding.
I welcome the fact that the proposed Directive gives legal force to digital signatures (provided they are authenticated) and so gives them the same legal force as documents signed in ink.
Increased security for e-commerce in the EU should boost consumer confidence and help the citizens of the EU to benefit from this area of activity with greater peace of mind and security."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-112 | "I wholeheartedly welcome this sensible step to tackle one of the key problems hindering the potential boom in e-commerce across Europe, namely the difficulty in verifying the identity of users and consumers. This latest EU initiative, complementing others at the national level, will help create the right regulatory framework enabling European businesses to be at the cutting edge in developing electronic commercial services. In short, this e-commerce initiative makes A grade business sense.
British business is already at the forefront in realising the potential of e-commerce in Europe. More than 13 million people now have Internet access in Britain and revenue from e-commerce is expected to top GBP 10 billion next year. The Labour Government is likewise at the forefront in creating the right environment for e-commerce to thrive. We are introducing a bill, hailed as a model across Europe, to modernise contract law to take account of e-commerce. We are improving educational standards, encouraging life-long learning and striving to ensure that our schools are on-line. Indeed, by 2002 we will have connected every school in Britain to the Internet. We will also be opening a network of IT learning centres, or ‘e-libr@ries’, right across the country.
The great towns and cities of my own region, the North West of England, were built on the back of an earlier great economic revolution, the Industrial Revolution. What iron was to the 19th century, information technology will be to the 21st. And, just as the railways were the communications network that drove the Industrial Revolution, so the Internet will drive the new Knowledge Revolution. I want the north-west to regain its position at the forefront of technological progress. Through such far-sighted yet practical policies, I believe we can release the natural industriousness and imagination of the people of the north-west and once more turn the region into a powerhouse of economic prosperity for Britain, Europe and the world."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-122 | "I welcome this first annual report by the Governor of the European Central Bank, Mr Duisenberg. He has earned our praise for the successful establishment of the ECB and the smooth introduction of the euro. To MEPs such as myself, the ECB’s annual and monthly publications have proved to be invaluable and of a consistently high standard.
I regret, however, that the ECB does not follow the high standards of transparency and openness set by the Bank of England. The Bank of England was granted operational independence in May 1997 in one of the first acts of the incoming Labour Government. Minutes of meetings of its Monetary Policy Committee, including voting records and reasoning, are now published after about six weeks. This boosts market confidence in its decisions and is a great example of open government.
It can surely be no coincidence that, since the Labour Government’s brave decision in May 1997, Britain has enjoyed a previously unknown period of economic stability and been praised by the OECD. It can also be no coincidence that the Labour Government’s decision was criticised at the time by the boom-and-bust Conservatives, who have a record second to none when it comes to economic instability and incompetence.
I would like to see the ECB follow a policy of openness and transparency similar to the Bank of England. Such openness should include the publication of minutes of its Governing Council with the reasoning behind decisions taken, particularly over interest rates.
It would be perverse for Britain to go from a position of transparency to one of relative secrecy. Therefore, if Britain is ever going to embrace the euro, the ECB must also embrace greater openness."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-125 | "Madam President, thank you and thank you to the services who, I realise, I am delaying from enjoying their lunch.
I want to emphasise my support for a European police training college and for increasing the competences for Europol provided, of course, there is full democratic control over their activities. I have talked to the public a lot about this subject and I find that they would welcome a much greater ability to act against international crime and organised crime which increasingly crosses our frontiers.
There are over 100 separate police forces in the European Union, over 50 in my own Member State. Their separateness weakens their ability to deal with increasing and unquantified amounts of crime across Europe. So I predict the need for a capability for our police to operate across frontiers is going to become increasingly obvious and increasingly urgent."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-128 | "The Tampere special Summit, whilst focusing on immigration and asylum policy for the first time, also seriously raised the issue of trafficking in humans which has been steadily growing over the past five years.
No European city is without refugees, primarily women, who have been illegally trafficked for the purpose of prostitution.
The Parliament resolution does not make reference to this, but I would like to put on record that concurrent to trafficking in adults, there is growing trafficking in children for prostitution and paedophile activities.
It is disgraceful that the affluent West has now added trade in human flesh to its consumer excesses."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-133 | "I sincerely hope that the Tampere Summit marked a step away from Fortress Europe, as claimed by the EU Presidency. The confirmation of the Geneva Refugee Convention “in its full and wide interpretation” is an important victory for the Greens and many non-governmental organisations. I regret, however, that for most asylum-seekers, the only way to get into the Union is still an illegal one. The new approach towards combating illegal immigration in the countries of origin bears a risk, since the cooperation could lead to a sort of repression. The Union must tackle the problem at its roots to truly improve human rights and economic conditions of people living in those countries.
Our Group welcomes the increased efforts to fight money-laundering and trafficking of human beings. But we insist that increased powers for Europol must be accompanied by equally increased democratic safeguards at Union level to ensure respect for civil rights. This includes control by the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice.
The Greens think that the status of third-country nationals needs to be further improved beyond the Tampere proposals. Fair treatment includes not just the right of access to social services or education, but also the right to vote and free movement in the EU. The Charter of Fundamental Rights must include new and binding rights for EU citizens if it is not to become a mere political declaration."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-134 | "Mr President, most of my constituents were probably not aware that an important meeting of EU Governments took place in Tampere last week on justice and home affairs. This is probably because the agreements reached make such common sense and are of such obvious benefit to ordinary Britons that not even the extremist Europhobic Tories could find anything to complain and make a fuss about.
EU Governments agreed to create a common area of justice to tackle the common problem of organised crime, especially drug smuggling and human trafficking. There will now be greater cross-border police cooperation, including – at Britain’s suggestion – a new Police Chiefs’ Task Force and a European police college. There will also be greater cross-border judicial cooperation, including mutual recognition of court decisions in all EU countries. Fast track extradition will be introduced, which may even help bring ex-dictators to justice.
In addition, measures were agreed at Tampere to make it easier for ordinary people to travel, live and work across Europe. Long-term British residents from non-EU countries, from the Commonwealth for example, will now receive guaranteed equal access to education, health care and other benefits on the Continent. Furthermore, Britons facing legal difficulties abroad will now have easier access to justice, including access to legal aid and translation services and simplified procedures governing compensation and debt claims.
Among other measures, Governments also agreed common rules on providing refuge to those in need of political asylum and to draw up a Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Charter will, for the first time, set out all the fundamental rights enjoyed by EU citizens on one piece of paper. A milestone instrument, it will complement the European Convention on Human Rights now being incorporated by the Labour Government into UK law.
With all these measures, I will no longer be stuck for advice when constituents, facing legal problems abroad, call me asking for help. Britons will now have the same statutory rights on the Continent as all other EU citizens. For so long relegated to second class under the Tories, Britons are now first class citizens under Labour."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-150 | "Mr President, let me first of all support the point made by the EPP Group that this debate deals primarily with one company in one Member State and that it is therefore not an appropriate topic for the EU institutions to deal with. In any case Michelin is facing a competitive challenge which absolutely requires it to raise productivity and that means lay-offs. I understand there has been concern about a bicycle tyre factory. But Michelin can import bicycle tyres for half the cost of production in France. No company can go on in those circumstances. The question is, do we want Europe to be a bicycle tyre economy or a modern high-tech economy.
More generally I want to challenge an idea which is prevalent in this House, especially in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. There is an assumption that we can save jobs and enhance employment prospects by discouraging companies from laying-off workers who are no longer needed. This idea may seem plausible but it is wholly mistaken and counterproductive. If we keep jobs on life support when they are past their sell-by dates, we damage productivity and make European industry less competitive. We keep workers in loss-making situations where they destroy value, rather than freeing them up to take up new jobs in profitable industries where they can create wealth.
Under the Anglo-Saxon model with flexible labour markets workers frequently lose their jobs but it does not matter because they quickly get new ones.
(
)
Under the inflexible sclerotic European social model we struggle to keep workers in failing businesses and when they finally lose their jobs they may well be unemployable. This is why Europe has much higher unemployment and much higher long-term unemployment that the USA.
Finally, we should remember that governments do not create jobs, European institutions do not create jobs; businesses create jobs. Our task, as regulators, is to create an environment in which businesses and jobs can prosper. We should not be asking industry to deliver social protection objectives. Let us have governments deal with social security and leave industry free to create wealth and jobs."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-151 | "Mr President, right at the outset I would like to say to Mr Helmer and others that people on this side of the House are not in the business of shackling or hampering the decision-making capabilities of businesses.
What we would like to do is to encourage them to look after their investors. But when I talk about investors I am not just talking about shareholders. I also mean the thousand of workers in companies like Michelin who invested their time, energy, knowledge, skills, their hopes and aspirations, and those of their families, in the company they have worked for for many years. I mean the investment of the communities that underpin and sustain them. I mean, as well, all of us here and out there in the rest of the European Union as taxpayers. Public money, directly or indirectly, is involved in these enterprises; regional, national and European money and, as Mr Nobilia said a short while ago, it should not come without strings attached.
A good company will look after its workforce. It will work in partnership with its workforce and it will encourage involvement, partnership and innovation. A good company will not treat its workforce or the community housing it as factors of production to be disposed of lightly in a global game of profit and loss.
We in this House have become accustomed to the idea of externalities in environmental policy, with the bill for the costs of dirty practices being picked up not by the enterprise in question, but by society more broadly. Perhaps we need to think in similar terms when it comes to the social responsibilities of enterprises like Michelin. Otherwise the danger is that the main burden will only be upon the shareholders.
We clearly have an imbalance within the European Union. On the one hand, considerable freedom for companies to restructure and move but very few rights for the workers involved. Even where we have rights in European legislation, rights for example to be consulted well in advance about decisions on collective redundancies or other major changes affecting livelihoods, the law is not being properly observed or applied. We need to revisit that.
We have a number of outstanding issues to tackle at European level. We need to review and improve the law on individual and collective dismissals and on works councils. We need a general framework on information and consultation and we also need a review of the law on transfers, mergers and take-overs – not involved here but in the banking and insurance sector for example.
The 12% rise in the share value of Michelin in the days following the announcement shows what a cynical and deliberate manipulation of the stock market was involved here. I find that totally reprehensible and I hope all right-thinking people in this House will feel the same.
Finally, on a point of order, genuinely a point of order. Mr President, I would draw this to your attention. I signed a resolution, a compromise text, along with others, two days ago. That resolution contained in the final paragraph a reference to Michelin. The resolution which has now been circulated to be voted upon tomorrow no longer contains that reference. Someone in the sessional services has removed it without any reference back to those of us who signed it. That is a very serious matter indeed and I hope you will investigate it fully and report back to this House."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-163 | "Mr President, first of all I would like to express my real and genuine sympathy to all those who lose their jobs through no fault of their own as a result of corporate restructuring. I say that with real feeling and authority because I have been in that position myself. I have been unemployed and it is no fun.
But the best way to promote job security is for companies to be successful. The best way for companies to be successful is for them to be competitive in the global market. To disagree with some people opposite, it may not look good in the newspapers but the best time – indeed the only time – to make restructuring plans is when you are strong. If you wait until you are weak, you have to take much greater action and lay off more people. That is very much a fact of life.
Companies clearly have many responsibilities but their primary responsibility is to survive as an employer and to take the necessary steps in order to do that – and I do not believe it is for us in this House to lecture them on the best way to do it or to comment upon whether that restructuring is “intelligent” or not. Rather it is for us and indeed for governments to see what we can do to help, as far as is possible, avoid the problem in the first place. That means looking to see where we can reduce the burden of unnecessary regulation which adds costs to business and to see how far we can reduce the non-wage costs on business which, in turn, encourage companies to shed labour as the best way of saving large sums of money. That is the real issue which we should be debating today.
Finally I would say that all too often government intervention can get in the way and make companies less competitive. We must make sure for the credibility of this House that we do not fall into the same trap."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-172 | "The Commission shares the disappointment that has just been expressed by the presidency of the Council that the United States Senate rejected ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
The Commission has consistently supported an ambitious European Union policy on non-proliferation issues. Wherever possible, we have complemented CFSP initiatives in this area with action falling within Community competence. Under the Euratom Treaty, for example, we have contributed to the development and strengthening of an efficient nuclear safeguard system in Europe, including the Russian Federation. Activities in this field are supported by financial allocations under the PHARE and TACIS programmes. We are currently considering extending these activities to other areas such as safeguards on chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.
The common strategy on Russia also contains specific provisions on non-proliferation. In this context we are examining the scope of cooperation with the United States on the expanded threat reduction initiative.
Accession to the Treaty is also a crucial element in our policy towards South Asia, as the presidency made clear. Following the nuclear tests by India and Pakistan the Commission has participated in the international taskforce set up to develop confidence and security-building measures and to engage these countries in constructive discussions on regional non-proliferation and arms control.
Over the years remarkable progress has been made in international arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament, through both bilateral and multilateral efforts. In the multilateral context the ratification of the Treaty and the review of the non-proliferation treaty next year will be crucial to reconfirming earlier commitments and building a platform for further progress.
To achieve this we need to work with the United States and other leading partners. The leading role played by the United States has been essential in developing the global non-proliferation regime. I hope we can encourage our American friends to take up that role again.
We should do everything we can to convince Congress of the importance of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty for ourselves, for the United States and for the international non-proliferation efforts. I can assure you that the Commission will continue to bring its contribution to this objective.
I also believe that all honourable Members have a particular role to play in this respect. I would hope that you would use every opportunity to explain and underline to your colleagues in the Senate why they should reconsider their vote on the Treaty and how a renewed commitment to international non-proliferation and arms control will promote American security interests, as well as broader international security and stability.
In that marvellous newspaper the
there is today a shortened version of a speech given the other day to the Council on Foreign Relations by the President’s national security adviser Sandy Berger. American opponents of treaties like the one we are debating today neglected the fact, he pointed out, that the United States has already stopped testing and that the Treaty helped freeze the global development of nuclear weapons when America enjoys an enormous strategic advantage. I hope that, to borrow an unattractively appropriate phrase, the fall-out from this lamentable political decision can be contained. I know that is what the American administration wants. It is what we all want. American senators and congressmen should face up to the responsibilities of their country’s global position. It places a high premium on bi-partisanship in foreign policy in general and in nuclear policy in particular. Failure to recognise that condemns us all to live in a much less safe world.
The Treaty, as honourable Members will know, is the result of decades of hard work, decades of determined work to halt the spread of nuclear weapons, starting with the Non-Proliferation Treaty in the late 1960s. It constitutes a key element in the international strategy to control, reduce and ultimately to eliminate the risk of nuclear conflict. Its ratification by the present nuclear powers is essential for our efforts to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other countries.
The European Union, as the presidency has pointed out, has been and remains fully committed to these objectives. We have worked hard for the earliest possible entry into force of the Treaty. All 15 Member States, bar one, have already ratified the Treaty and work is under way in the 15th state to complete the procedures there.
I know that the American administration shares our objectives. President Clinton and his team worked hard to obtain Congressional approval for ratification of the Treaty. They understood, as well as we do, how important it is for us to take the lead together in order to obtain the 44 ratifications which are necessary for the entry into force of the Treaty.
It is therefore all the more regrettable that the Senate voted against ratification. They seem to have done so for internal American reasons as much as on the basis of any assessment of the value of this Treaty for United States’ and international security.
I believe – and this is reflected in the motion put before us today – that they made a very grave mistake. In refusing to give their agreement to the Treaty they offer encouragement to the very states which we wanted to draw into the commitments set out in the Treaty and whose ratification is a condition for its entry into force.
What message has been sent to Russia and China? How will this vote help to persuade countries like India and Pakistan to ratify the Treaty? This regrettable vote may even offer encouragement to other countries in their nuclear aspirations and make them cross the threshold by testing their own nuclear devices.
Any such nuclear tests at this stage might undo all the work which has gone into the Treaty. They would undermine international support and confidence in the multilateral arms control efforts. More seriously, they might trigger reciprocal actions in other countries through testing or through the strengthening of their nuclear programmes.
The Senate refusal to agree to ratify the Treaty is a setback but it is not the end of the road. We must now, more than ever, show our commitment to the Treaty and redouble our efforts to promote its early entry into force. This is essential in order to maintain the international momentum in favour of continued arms limitation and a stronger global non-proliferation regime."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-176 | "Mr President, first of all I should like say on behalf of my group that we are very disappointed at the failure to include in the resolution a call for all European Member States and EU applicant Member States to give their full support for the new agenda coalition resolution which is now on the table of the 55th United Nations General Assembly. This resolution which, incidentally, is supported by the European Parliament and by my own country, Ireland, sets forth a new way of thinking for effective measures to forward the cause of a nuclear-free world.
The American decision is deplorable and it sends out a very dangerous signal to the rest of the world as regards nuclear disarmament. The recent case in Scotland which has re-endorsed the International Court’s ruling that nuclear weapons are illegal is also interesting and has to be taken on board.
We also have to look at NATO where there needs to be a review because, as far as I can see, the US has demonstrated quite clearly its contempt for the whole issue of nuclear disarmament at an international level. These are issues which have to be taken on board.
Finally, the European Union should look again at its policy of supporting NATO and the Western European Union. Both military organisations are committed to nuclear weapons, weapons that the International Court has deemed illegal. We are supporting illegal weapons and we really have to look at this."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-178 | "Mr President, the previous speaker mentioned Senator Jesse James. My recollection is that he was a gunfighter. We are actually referring to Senator Jesse Helms who normally shoots from the hip, but not with a gun.
I should like to make three points in this debate. Firstly, we all agree about stressing the dangers of nuclear proliferation. The Commission was right in its statement to highlight the need for a lead from the United States in dealing with countries like Russia, China, Pakistan and India, who are waiting for this lead. They do not have it now. We will have to try to do what we can to make sure the Senate recognises where reality is. Therefore we are right today to strongly criticise the action which the US Senate has taken on the comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
Secondly, it is interesting that in the previous debate we had on this issue of globalisation we recognised, whether we liked it or not, that economic forces were global, new technologies were global. And yet here we have a US Senate, a legislature, which wishes to resist the global environment in which it lives. Perhaps it is because they have fears of difficulties in verification and that the ban could allow countries such as North Korea and Iraq to conduct low-level tests, or perhaps they fear that by permanently halting testing the US could suffer a deterioration of its nuclear stock-pile and deterrent.
The Commissioner says there was an article in the
from Sandy Berger, but was that the real answer to the question of why Republicans in the Senate voted to condemn the Treaty this time round? There is a second article in the
today on exactly the same page where Mr Crystal, who is editor of the
says: “Republicans will argue that American security cannot be safeguarded by international conventions. Instead they will ask Americans to face this increasingly dangerous world without illusions. They will argue that American dominance can be sustained for many decades to come, not by arms control agreements but by augmenting America’s power and therefore its ability to lead.” I contend that we will have, as other speakers have said, the absolute right and need to argue with our Congressional colleagues, particularly those in the Senate. As a member of the Delegation for relations with the United States, I will be doing precisely that as soon as possible."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-180 | "Mr President, last week in Greenock, on the western seaboard of this Union, three brave women Angela Zetter, Ellen Moxley and Bodil Ulla Roder stood trial on a charge of criminal damage. They had acted to impede the Trident missile system based on the Clyde. Their aim was to prevent what they consider a grave crime under international law. The judge, Sheriff Gimblett directed the jury to acquit them on the ground that the prosecution had not proved they acted with any criminal intent. Her judgement can be appealed. If he appeals, the Lord Advocate of Scotland will have to contend in our highest appeal court for the lawfulness of a defence policy based on weapons of mass destruction.
The doctrine of double-effect has no application to weapons which, in their intrinsic design are designed to cause mass destruction. The courage and judicial independence of Sheriff Gimblett – the courage of Angela Zetter and her companions stand in sharp contrast with the petulant failure of the United States Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
Like most of my countrymen I am deeply hostile to the use of Scottish waters for Trident. I am proud to represent here a party, the Scottish National Party, which opposes this absolutely. I am glad that the entire Green EFA Group is in solidarity with us on this point. Unsurprisingly, we deplore the Senate’s action."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-184 | "Mr President, I do not need to go over the issues which have been very succinctly summarised by Mr Patten in particular – except I would re-emphasise the danger that this action by the Senate may give the wrong message to the hawks in the Russian Duma who have so far failed to respond to nuclear disarmament initiatives. I would also mention the impact this has on the Non-Proliferation Treaty which is due to be reviewed next year because that is based on the premise that existing nuclear powers work towards disarmament. That premise must now be called into question. And all this despite the fact that the Test Ban Treaty would have frozen forever US nuclear superiority. That is the stupidity of this.
But this is actually about a broader issue. This is really about domestic US politics. If, for example, we look at the history of western policy towards former Yugoslavia, we see the effectiveness of that ebbed and flowed with the ebb and flow of US domestic politics.
I would ask Commissioner Patten, if he is still listening, whether or not he agrees with me that this reinforces the need for an effective European Foreign Security Policy and European Defence Policy where we would be capable of taking autonomous action – not to be independent, but rather to protect our security from being blown around constantly in the winds of US domestic policies and US presidential elections."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-187 | "Mr President, I was interested to hear during the course of this short but important debate, the views of the honourable Member, Mr MacCormick. He and I have known one another for 35 years which may surprise honourable Members because we both look much younger than that. But I think that I can honestly say that our respective views on nuclear weapons have not changed in three and a half decades which is an argument, I guess, for consistency through life.
One rather more serious point. I think that most speakers have made the extremely important distinction between the United States and the United States Administration, on the one hand, and the United States Senate, and in particular its Republican majority, on the other, a point made by Mr Baron, Mr Haarder, Mr Elles and by other speakers. It is important for us to make that distinction and to recognise that it is the Senate and the Members of Congress as a whole on whom we need to put some pressure. One thing we have to argue with them, and it was reflected in the article from which the honourable Member, Mr Elles, quoted, is that unilateralism today as advocated by some Republicans, but not all Republicans to be fair to Senator Logan, is a policy, to borrow from Irish history of “ourselves alone” that would be as disastrous for the world as it was after the First World War.
I think, we have a lot of persuading to do. The honourable and gallant Member, General Morillon, mentioned the vote in the Senate and that it had been lost by 51 to 48. Actually, it is more serious than that because it requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate to ratify a treaty, so we are still almost 20 votes short of that ratification figure. In any event, I can assure Parliament that the Commission will want to join honourable Members in trying to persuade Senators to think again. It is in our interest, it is in their interest and it is in the whole world’s interest."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-188 | "Mr President, I asked Mr Patten a direct question. I wondered whether he was going to give me an answer?"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-189 | "Was the honourable Member referring to the question whether we recognised that the American action argued very strongly the case for us developing a common foreign and security policy? I totally agree with him on that issue. But perhaps I could go a stage further and say that what would be really damaging for the European Union would be if, having asserted the case for a common foreign and security policy, having argued the case for a European security and defence initiative, we were then to fall way short of our rhetoric in what we actually did. Because in those circumstances we would have had the worst possible effect on American public opinion as well as on our own. It would be the sort of action that would encourage the very unilateralist sentiments in the United States that he and I both deplore."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-195 | "Mr Sasi has admirably summarised the results of last week’s European Union/Russia summit. As Parliament would expect, the summit was inevitably dominated by straight talking on Chechnya with the European Union, as the presidency indicated, pressing for de-escalation, for a return to political dialogue, for proportionality in the use of force to deal with terrorism and a solution to the humanitarian crisis.
Kaliningrad, as a future
inside the European Union, represents a particular challenge within the northern dimension. Partner countries to the northern dimension, including the European Union applicant countries neighbouring Kaliningrad, show increasing interest in cooperating on the issues raised by its unique situation. Already through Tacis and other European Union financial instruments the Commission is supporting the process of economic transition in Kaliningrad.
It was not an occasion on which we had a complete meeting of minds. How in the circumstances could it have been? But for all that I think it was a useful meeting and I very much hope that the Russian Prime Minister will reflect on all that we said, particularly perhaps on the northern Caucasus.
I would like to say a word about that and then concentrate briefly on two other issues that loomed large in our discussions: implementation of the partnership and cooperation agreement and European Union enlargement and the northern dimension.
Firstly, the Commission very much shares the deep concern of all Member States about the present situation in Chechnya. One of the immediate priorities, particularly as winter approaches, is to ensure humanitarian assistance for the tens of thousands of people displaced by the conflict. The Commission has decided in principle that ECHO could make available straight away EUR 1.2 million to help relieve the situation in Ingushetia and Dagestan. The Russians are open in principle to offers of humanitarian aid but we have still some way to go in discussions with them before European Union aid can be distributed.
Before we can go ahead we need further assurances from the Russian authorities on the security arrangements for international aid workers on the ground. There is too much recent history for us to avoid that important issue. We have also been pressing them to arrange for aid agencies to visit the area to assess the needs on the ground and I hope that this mission will now take place in the coming days.
Secondly, the Commission broadly welcomed progress on implementation of the partnership and cooperation agreement. Although naturally the summit did not go into the detail, there was a clear awareness of the importance of a strategic European Union/Russia partnership whatever the present difficulties. In this context, the economic cooperation initiatives that we have launched with Russia are, in general, developing well. For example, we are making significant progress in ensuring better protection of intellectual property rights. We have launched a major programme providing young Russian managers with periods of practical training in firms in the European Union.
Cooperation between experts is advancing in a number of other areas including the environment, coping with the millennium bug in Russia and the more efficient use of energy. By contrast bilateral trade relations and investment are not developing as well as the Commission would like. The European Union is rightly extending export opportunities for Russian companies in EU markets to boost the Russian economy. But there is unfortunately less progress in the other direction. We have repeatedly asked the Russian authorities to address the obstacles which stand in the way of European Union companies’ expansion in Russian markets. These include excessive certification and testing requirements, as well as specific concerns like the continued charges on international airlines to fly over Siberia. The decline in European Union exports to Russia since the financial crisis of August last year underlines the need for action in these areas. Minister Sasi indicated some of the things which are necessary in order to improve conditions for direct foreign investment.
Thirdly, Prime Minister Putin welcomed European Union enlargement as a force for political stability in Europe. The Russians are understandably taking a very close interest in the enlargement process and the European Union is ready to engage in a serious dialogue with them in the partnership and cooperation agreement framework. However, the Commission has always made clear that it would not be appropriate to set up a special mechanism or some form of trilateral consultations with the applicant countries as requested by Russia on various occasions.
In response to Russian worries about the economic impact of enlargement, President Prodi stressed the benefits in terms of lower tariffs and improved access to the markets of applicant countries. The benefits will be even greater if Russia can bring her technical norms and standards closer to those in the European Union, helping her to gain access more easily to the expanded commercial opportunities of the enlarged single market. A fundamental principle for the Commission is that enlargement should not create new dividing lines in Europe.
At the summit, Prime Minister Putin was very positive about the northern dimension. He said that he not only wanted cross-border zones but large areas of north-west Russia to be covered. We agreed that detailed proposals should be discussed at the Helsinki Conference in November."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-206 | "Mr President, by now it is crystal clear that most colleagues in this House share my conviction that the tragedy of Chechnya could have been avoided if the European Union had shown a firm attitude towards the Russian aggression. Instead, we have witnessed in recent days a most deplorable sight with the Russian Foreign Minister in Madrid and with the Russian Prime Minister in Tampere.
Mr Sasi mentioned the particular significance for the Finnish people of the place where the meeting was held in Helsinki. Finland is now an independent country. How can the European Union deny this very right to the Chechen people? Can we stand any longer the imperialistic policy of Russia towards small nations like Chechnya?
A few minutes ago Mr Patten mentioned Kaliningrad and I recall the historical shelter of the people of Kaliningrad, formerly Königsberg. Can we accept that only these particular countries are well protected?"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-210 | "The debate has been dominated by concerns about the North Caucasus. But there are, as Mr Paasilinna pointed out, grounds for concern about the situation in the South Caucasus as well. The honourable Member pointed to the alarming reports of the shooting in the Armenian parliament today and the reported assassination of the Prime Minister. We await confirmation of that tragic news, but it appears the news is probably accurate.
But when you start talking about cutting off programmes of assistance to Russia you have to face up to some of the consequences. An issue about which I feel passionately is the successful negotiation of the multilateral nuclear environment programme, the attempt to ensure that Western donors can provide technical and financial assistance for the storage and disposal of nuclear waste in north-west Russia, including all those terrifying, rusting nuclear submarines and the other nuclear garbage.
It is very important for all of us that we make a programme like that succeed. I hope we can push on with talks about programmes like that even while we talk firmly and strongly to the Russians about the tragedy in the Northern Caucasus in Chechnya.
One point that we made to Russian officials, to the Prime Minister, was that we were talking strongly on these issues, not as enemies but as people who wanted a cooperative relationship with Russia. We were talking strongly because we were reflecting the opinions of our public in the European Union: the sort of opinions reflected in speech after speech in this Chamber today.
So what this debate has done is to underline the argument that we were putting to Mr Putin and others. It is an argument which I hope they will take very seriously over the coming days and weeks.
There must be a return to negotiation, difficult though that may seem to Russian leaders. There must be a return to negotiation otherwise I fear that we will see disaster loaded upon disaster. In those circumstances I do not think that anyone’s opinion poll ratings are going to hold up for very long.
I saw the Armenian Foreign Minister recently to discuss his concerns about the stability of the Southern Caucasus and, as well, to hear some of the concerns that he was expressing about Chechnya and the Northern Caucasus. I should like to say on this occasion that the Commission wants to reiterate its support for the Armenian Government in its efforts to find a rapid and peaceful solution to the situation in the Caucasus. What has happened today is deeply troubling.
This debate has focused on Chechnya, which was the subject of some very straight talking in Helsinki with some Members understandably asserting that the European Union should have done something more than it has done already. I think it is perhaps an inevitable consequence of a debate like that, that there was not absolute clarity on what it was that we should have done.
I want to reiterate some points that were made earlier by the presidency. The communiqué, as the honourable Member pointed out, referred to the fact that we had exchanged views on the situation in the Northern Caucasus. The communiqué did not say any more than that for a very good reason: we could not put in the communiqué that we had agreed on anything regarding the Northern Caucasus.
What the European Union asserted strongly was: first of all, that whatever the concerns about Chechen terrorism – which are understandable – there is a powerful case for proportionality in dealing with that problem; secondly, we argued passionately for de-escalation and political dialogue. The problem, if you appear to undermine and destroy the authority of any moderate leaders in Chechnya, is this: who do you then talk to? Who do you then have a political dialogue with? That is a point that we put very strongly to Prime Minister Putin, both during the official discussions and over lunch when Chechnya completely dominated the discussion.
We argued very strongly for the aid assessment mission to be allowed into Ingushetia as rapidly as possible. I spoke last week to the Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance at the UN. I spoke last week to Mrs Ogata in the UNHCR. I read, as honourable Members will have done, the reports from the International Committee of the Red Cross on the humanitarian crisis which gets worse day by day in the Northern Caucasus. The ICRC suggested last week that over one third of the population of Grozny had left already. So we pressed the Russians to recognise that there must be an early visit by aid organisations to the region so we know what the situation is and how we can best contribute to the humanitarian problem.
I hope that the honourable Member who suggested that we should perhaps consider cutting off any humanitarian assistance will have second thoughts about that. I have been a development minister providing humanitarian assistance on a national basis to countries torn apart by war. I have never believed that cutting off assistance to those who are affected by war, who are affected by the political decisions taken by their rulers, was a very good way of responding to crisis.
Let me just add a word about the funding of the military campaign which, in my judgement – not a judgement which appears to be supported by the Russian Prime Minister – is bound to have an effect on the recovery over the last months of the Russian economy.
Some Members suggested that we should cut off financial assistance to the Russian Federation because that assistance might be used to sustain the military campaign. I should just like to remind Members of Parliament, who are probably more familiar with some of the details of these issues than even I am, that we are not the provider of direct financial assistance to the Russian authorities. That is not how Tacis works. We are not an international financial institution providing financial assistance for the reconstruction – we hope – of the Russian economy. People should be clear that what we are doing is not sustaining Russian military campaigns in Chechnya or anywhere else."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-222 | "Mr President, I would like to touch on one aspect of cultural diversity needing support: minority languages. Europe should take pride in its linguistic diversity. The European Union has done much to promote its wealth of cultures and I congratulate Commissioner Reding on her work in this regard.
Many in this new Parliament might not remember that in May 1998 budget lines for minority languages were frozen because they had no legal basis. Will the Commission now guarantee that a legal basis for these projects is introduced? The situation of 1998 cannot be allowed to arise again. Lesser-used languages must be granted the funding they deserve, otherwise excellent innovative projects – drama, the translating of literature following the end of the Ariane project – the teaching of languages and so on will all suffer.
As a Welsh speaker, I have seen the significant benefits of European funding but also the threat to many excellent projects when financial support is withdrawn. As the budget has already been frozen for 16 months it is unlikely that any schemes under the Culture 2000 programme will come into being until 2001. It is crucial therefore that the Commission uses its preparatory measures to ensure that current projects do not now suffer. Languages are more than mere words. They are the vehicles by which the cultures of Europe are expressed and celebrated also.
Let us hope that Commissioner Reding’s words become reality and that every language is respected and promoted regardless of the numbers who speak it."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-231 | "Mr President, the Youth programme has been one of the most successful programmes in getting people from different nationalities to work together and learn from each other. If I can take Scotland, which I represent, as an example, there have been hundreds of Youth programmes benefiting thousands of Scots. For example, in Fort William in the Highlands of Scotland, a Youth group interested in outdoor projects developed a cross-country ski programme with Slovakian counterparts. In Dundee an exchange of views and experiences has developed with a Spanish project concerning the current problems being experienced by young people. In West Lothian a project has been developed on street work with a partnership from Munich. In fact only yesterday a group from the Lothians were here listening to a debate in this Chamber.
To end my list of examples: a link between Larkhall in Lanarkshire and a French programme where young people have contributed to the construction of a cycle path in the south of Scotland. From youth work to cross-country skiing, from cycle paths to street work, the issues are as diverse as the participants. And if this is just a small number of examples of how the Youth programme has worked in Scotland, just think what an impact the Youth programme has had across the EU and the potential of what it can achieve in the future.
However, funding for the Youth programme is not just critical, it is paramount. Young people like myself are the Europeans of the present and the future. We are the first generation to relate to a European identity as well as our own national ones. If these very institutions which we are members of are to have relevance today as well as tomorrow, funding of the Youth programme is essential. I encourage Members to go back to their constituencies and to speak to the organisers, participants and beneficiaries of this work, the work which brings the basic ideas of the European ideal to local communities: the ideal of people from different nationalities working together for the benefit of the common good.
Please support this report and support the work of young people in Europe."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-234 | "Mr President, I should like to thank Mrs Gröner for her excellent report.
As regards an analysis of the factors which have promoted or hampered the social integration of young people, I believe it is essential to include an analysis of the role of the family or lack of family in the young person’s development. In the Council of Europe report on Coherent and Integrated Family Policies it states: “Families play a primary role in socialisation because they communicate the values, standards, customs and behaviour of the social group to which their children belong. Presumably a lack of family structure will also affect the child’s socialisation.”
Whether a child is raised within or without a family, both circumstances will have a profound effect upon that child’s social development. Therefore reference to the role of the family should be, I believe, included in the European Community Youth Programme, which hopes to analyse the factors which have promoted or hampered the social integration of young people."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-235 | "Mr President, I should like to remind this House that in Agenda 2000 we give a high priority to youth education and training but this priority is not reflected within the budget allocation to the Youth Action Programme. Yet this programme is about investing in our future, investing in young people who will become, as we have heard today, the Europeans of tomorrow. Through these action programmes we will change young lives, offering hope and options where before there were none.
In my region, the West Midlands of England, thousands of young people have benefited. I want more to benefit, not fewer.
Finally, it is rather apt, following Mrs Scallon, that I say this: let us remind ourselves in this House that these young people will become the generation that finally rid our continent of racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia and the other discriminations which shame us all!
It is our duty to support this report and to support the youth programmes. And I would point out to Mrs Scallon that the term “Family” has been used politically to exclude more people than it has ever been used to include. I congratulate the rapporteur.
(
)"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-246 | "Mr President, I am sure I speak for more or less everybody in the Chamber this afternoon when I say that we believe culture does not get enough money. The question is what do the Members who are not here think?
What they would all agree is that we must make sure that we get value for the limited amount of money that we have to spend on culture. I really need to be convinced that we are getting value for money out of the audiovisual observatory. That is why I tabled, and supported, Amendment No 3 that was put forward by the Committee on Culture, restricting our commitment to three years. It could be extended, but our commitment is for three years.
My reasoning is threefold: what substantive evidence do we have that the audiovisual observatory is doing the job that we want? Let me quote Mrs Dührkop Dührkop in her report on this. She said that Parliament’s own audiovisual services had a negative perception of the quality and usefulness of the paid services provided by the observatory. We are running a EUR 6 billion deficit with the United States. Clearly we are getting something wrong and we need to get that put right.
Secondly, I would say that we are financing statistical services from too many angles. The observatory itself: EUR 215,000; Eurostat: EUR 250,000; Member States’ statistical services: EUR 350,000. That is almost EUR 1 million we are spending on statistics alone. The observatory is used to perform those tasks that Eurostat cannot. We should be asking Eurostat and the Commission if they could sort it out, to give us the information we want so that we can try and get better value for this money. If I can say that in under two minutes, it is not unreasonable to expect the Commission and Eurostat to get their act together in three years."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-253 | "As Members of Parliament know, the observatory is a public institution with the task of collecting economic and legal information from various international sources and to upgrade it by assembling it in an organised and comprehensive way.
The observatory disseminates such information via periodical publications as has been discussed in the Chamber. These tasks are fulfilled effectively by the observatory and the return on our participation in terms of support for the audiovisual industry and the Union is positive. Moreover, I would like to stress that were Community participation in the observatory to be discontinued, the Commission would be obliged to collect the same information from different sources – in most cases on a commercial basis. This would not only be time-consuming but certainly more expensive than the amounts envisaged for the yearly contributions.
I understand that consultation of the observatory publications, notably the year book and the legal newsletter, Iris, is common practice in the services of the Commission dealing with audiovisual issues. Moreover, the observatory’s advice has been sought on several occasions and in several areas in the context of on-going contacts when specific information was needed. I wish to mention the fields of employment, film financing schemes, international trade statistics, statistical methodologies, market trends and so forth.
For the future the Commission envisages extending the activities carried out by the observatory, notably in two specific areas: implementing a statistical information structure under Eurostat and preparing for the GATT 2000 negotiations. The active participation of the Commission for the next five years in the observatory will allow it to optimise the complementarity of the tasks carried out by Eurostat and the observatory itself. The aim is to create, at the end of a five-year period, a harmonised official EU set of statistics for the audiovisual sector. I would like to stress that the activities of the observatory and Eurostat do not overlap in terms of period covered, geographical scope or output and could be usefully coordinated in order to achieve a clear view of the complex reality in the audiovisual sector. The Commission services are best placed to carry out this task.
With your understanding, Mr President, I do not intend to go into Parliament’s amendments in detail, but I am happy to tell you that the Commission shares the concern about the need for small and medium-sized enterprises to be successful and so accepts the amendment relating to such enterprises.
Concerning the other two amendments: the Commission understands Parliament’s concerns but cannot accept the amendments as they are drafted. Nevertheless, the Commission will do its utmost to ensure that the observatory work is widely accessible."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-27-Speech-3-259 | "Mr President, my thanks to Mr Gargani for bringing forward this report and to Members of the previous Parliament who also put some work into ensuring that it comes before us tonight.
Of course it is not an issue without contention. There are largely two approaches to dealing with this sort of issue. The first is to say that we are letting people off the hook without allowing them to fulfil their obligations. The second – and a view to which I subscribe – is that we are actually allowing the power of cultural activities to cut across people’s differences and to change people’s lives. While there are serious issues that are not entirely resolved here, if we want to have a healthy European future and a healthy European project, we depend on such initiatives to take this forward.
These initiatives are vital to changing people’s attitudes. If we look at change and coexistence as our goal, then we need to look no further than Northern Ireland where we have brought people together through European funds and dramatically changed the landscape of conflict. It is this that can be achieved from this sort of initiative, and this that will help Europe, its borders and its beneficiaries to put forward an agenda of change.
I echo Mr Gargani in saying that all of the issues that have been discussed around the Chamber tonight seek to ensure that culture is seen as a priority; that it is not just, for instance, the euro or jobs and employment that will bring a successful European project together. Cultural change will ultimately concretise the ideals and ideas that we all have in promoting our future together."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-28-Speech-4-007 | "Madam President, during the conclusion of my contribution in the debate on company restructuring yesterday I pointed out to the Vice-President presiding at the time that there was an anomaly in the joint resolution which we will vote on later today. The resolution which I signed on behalf of my group on Tuesday included in the final paragraph a reference to Michelin. The text has now been distributed and while the English and Spanish versions include that reference to Michelin it appears to have been removed from the other language versions.
One explanation I have had from the Sessional Services is that someone from the EPP Group had been in touch to say that point had been withdrawn. Madam President, the authors of the resolution, the signatories of the joint resolution, were not consulted. As far as I and the other signatories are concerned, that reference should remain in at the vote today."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-28-Speech-4-009 | "Madam President, I do not wish to drag this out and frustrate Members waiting to get on with the vote on the budget. The test should be very simple. All you need do is ask for the version with the signatures of the various signatories from the different groups that combined in this joint resolution. If the reference to Michelin is there, that is the text we should vote on today. I would oppose a deferral until Brussels."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-28-Speech-4-052 | "Madam President, following on from what Mr Bourlanges said, with the last amendment we voted we have now actually gone past the margin for Category 3 which means that any amendments which are not in line with the Committee on Budgets’ recommendations are going to give us serious problems. We already have a problem. We have now gone above the margin. It is ludicrous to keep voting like this. I would ask you to respect the rapporteur’s recommendations on Category 3."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-28-Speech-4-054 | "Madam President, a number of Members present today will be confused as to what has actually gone on concerning this European Women’s Lobby amendment.
Amendment No 394 was tabled by a colleague of mine, Mrs Scallon. A number of us would like to vote for her amendment but, because of what has gone on in the coordinators’ meetings, we have no idea how to do so. I would very much appreciate your advice on how we can support the original Amendment No 394."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-28-Speech-4-068 | "Mr President, I believe that is not quite correct. We have rejected. We have not had the necessary majority to accept placing in the Rules of Procedure themselves a reference to the Annex, but we still have to take a decision as to whether we want to annex to our Rules of Procedure the interinstitutional agreement itself.
There are many interinstitutional agreements that are annexed to the Rules of Procedure without having the optional extra of a particular reference in the Rules of Procedure themselves to the text annexed. The remaining part of the report of the committee can be taken – that only requires a simple majority – to annex the Interinstitutional Agreement to the Rules of Procedure. That is perfectly in order.
(
)"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-28-Speech-4-070 | "Mr President, you are absolutely right that to amend the Rules of Procedure requires an absolute majority of Members of the House. We have just decided not to amend the Rules of Procedure and therefore, not to add this new Rule.
However, the rest of this report comes under Rule 186 of the Rules of Procedure which specifies that by a simple majority we are allowed to decide to add an item to the Annexes of the Rules. It specifically refers to interinstitutional agreements; it even categorises them. It is up to this House to decide – as for every other interinstitutional agreement – by a simple majority whether to add this as an Annex to our Rules of Procedure, without changing the Rules of Procedure. We did not actually need the reference in the Rules of Procedure. That was an optional extra which we have decided to dispense with. We can still decide whether to add this interinstitutional agreement to the Rules of Procedure.
(
)"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-28-Speech-4-071 | "Mr President, the first part of your ruling is absolutely right. It is clear that a Rule change requires a qualified majority. But Mr Corbett has a very strong point. All we are doing now with the remainder of this text is annexing the implementation of the interinstitutional agreement to the
of this Parliament.
I ask the House to think very carefully about what they are doing here. We are now in a position that the interinstitutional agreement has been implemented as far as it affects the Commission. It has been implemented as far as it affects the Council. By a decision of Parliament’s Bureau it has been implemented as it affects Parliament’s staff. The only people left are Members of the European Parliament. Do we really want people to be saying that Members of the European Parliament are scared about the OLAF regulations applying to them? Let us not put ourselves in that position!
(
)"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-28-Speech-4-091 | "Mr President, I want to give a brief explanation of vote with regard to the Bourlanges report and in particular our vote on Doc.. In that document Mr Bourlanges sets out in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 the reasoning behind the conclusion that Parliament does not approve the Council’s proposals. In particular, paragraph 8 was an important political signal to the Council.
My own group, which is of divided opinion on the matter, has a minority who intended to vote against paragraph 8, and did so. However, I also led the majority of the group inadvertently into voting against paragraph 8 due to an incorrect voting indication.
I wish to place on record for Mr Bourlanges and for the House that the majority of my group was disposed to vote for the strategy in paragraph 8. I should like that to be noted and duly recorded."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-28-Speech-4-100 | ". – The European Women’s Lobby represents over 3,000 different women’s organisations across the EU. It has represented the interests of women with competence and professionalism. The group has provided invaluable information and support, particularly on the impact of European programmes on women’s lives. We have also been able, as individuals, to access information, evidence and analysis when necessary. The material produced by the lobby is high quality, as are the forums, seminars and conferences which they organise. A clear example of this was a day conference involving women from all over the EU which was held in Cardiff to coincide with the summit during the UK presidency.
It is clearly inadvisable to distribute the funds between a variety of organisations which would, by definition, fail to identify the core objectives in terms of giving the service which EWL can so uniquely provide. The agenda pursued by EWL is clear and incontrovertible – to promote the concerns, priorities and interests of women.
The accusations which have been made, that the EWL is a “single issue” body, is simply not true when it represents such large numbers of women through its 3000 member organisations."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-28-Speech-4-105 | "UK Liberal Democrats are voting with this budget line as proposed by the Committee on Budgets, but in anticipation that further discussion is to take place in order to meet the substantive points of Mr Jan Mulder, MEP, and to find more financial resources within the overall total without either depleting the reserves or calling upon the Council to provide new funds.
Reconstruction aid to Kosovo is essential but the pile-up of earlier unspent budget lines means that more discussion might be fruitful."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-28-Speech-4-106 | ".
I raised the issue, put to me by European citizens, of an unacceptable monopoly within the process of European funding. The “Scallon amendment” was not accepted by the Committee on Budgets. My colleagues who belong to this committee drafted an amendment in order to broaden funding for women’s groups to a wider range of women’s groups. Parliament today has debated this issue and the vote continues this monopolistic arrangement. The issue will certainly continue to be debated over the next year.
It is a matter of principle that all women, and the groups that are campaigning for them, should have equal access to EU funding, most of all when its aim is to allow European organisations to be represented at UN level.
People are well aware that sometimes it is necessary to take a stand on the principle of transparency and fairness in our democratic structures. Monopolistic arrangements cannot be allowed to continue. While I acknowledge that a monopolistic arrangement has been allowed to continue, I welcome the continuing allowance of EUR 600 000 and would welcome future increases, hoping, of course, that it will assist in making all women’s voices heard."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-28-Speech-4-110 | "Mr President, very much in the same tone as Mr Gil-Robles I voted against referral back and for the amendment which, sadly, was rejected. I have to say that a section of the EPP Group were playing games on this issue.
There is a valid need to draw a distinction between staff matters, which are a Bureau responsibility, and Members’ matters which are a plenary responsibility. That would have been dealt with by Amendment No 2 had we reached that amendment. I was disappointed because the Christian Democrats, as well as the Socialists, had put their names to Amendment No 2 and so it would have been carried and the matter would have been covered. As Mr Gil-Robles has said, and as I said earlier, we are now in a position where the interinstitutional agreement as regards OLAF applies to the Commission, to the Council and to the staff of this institution but it does not apply to the Members of this institution.
Given that we are the institution that, quite rightly, has made great play of tackling fraud in European Community institutions, how are the citizens of Europe going to understand that the only people with whom OLAF has not reached an agreement in terms of internal investigations are Members of the European Parliament? It puts us in an intolerable position."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-28-Speech-4-111 | "Mr President, on behalf of the Socialist Group I would like to say that we supported approval of the interinstitutional agreement as an essential building block in re-establishing the credibility of the European Union in how it relates to fraud and deals with allegations of fraud.
It is highly regrettable that we have not been able to approve this today, for the reasons outlined by my colleague Mr David Martin. It leaves Parliament in a highly embarrassing position and with a few honourable exceptions, notably Mr Gil-Robles, the attitude of the European People’s Party is highly hypocritical. They supported this in committee. They supported it in the debate on Monday in which they stated clearly and unequivocally that they would be supporting this proposal, and yet today they back out of it and they fail to adopt it.
How can we show ourselves to our electorate and how will the EPP be able to show itself to the electorate when it quite rightly makes a fuss about fraud in the election campaign yet, when it comes to delivering here, it fails to deliver?
The EPP Group needs to examine its conscience and to do so rapidly because the position it has created in Parliament today is an embarrassment for all of us."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-28-Speech-4-140 | "Mr President, first of all our group did not sign this resolution for a number of very important reasons. We find it very one-sided and a blatant demand for Morocco to give in to European demands regardless of what it wants. We Greens believe it is up to Morocco to decide how best to benefit from its resources in its own waters.
Some of the conclusions of the report are questionable but at least it provides some hard information and figures on the agreements. This is something that was sorely needed and has been called for for a long time.
Another point I want to make, as previous speakers have and, I suspect, most of the following speakers will, concerns the importance of this and other fisheries agreements to certain regions of the Community which are heavily dependent upon fishing. The Greens sympathise with their plight and trust that appropriate compensation will be made available for those fishery workers who are put out of work in the eventuality of a halt in fishing activities. But the current EU policy is doing them a disservice by continually holding out hopes that there are fish available for them somewhere. It is fanning false hopes. It is clear that there are limits to how much fish is available. For many years the FAO has been warning of the problems, yet we keep looking for fish somewhere else until there is nowhere else. If one looks at Community statistics on employment in the sector, it is clear that this is on the decline. Much of this is due to the continued industrialisation of the sector, developing even larger vessels which require fewer people. While this serves to make fishermen’s lives easier and safer, it does come with certain social costs in terms of employment. The aspect of employment in all sectors of the fishing industry needs to be reviewed. It is affected by many factors including structural policy which does not take employment into account in issues of vessel size.
Finally, to come back again to the point of Morocco’s right to make its own decisions. On behalf of the Green Group, I went with the Committee on Fisheries last year to Morocco and the Moroccans were very clear: they did not want to sign the last agreement. They did so only under extreme pressure from the European Union including a letter from Jacques Santer pleading and begging with the Moroccans to agree this last time; this would be the last agreement; the EU needed time to find another solution. But nothing has been done to find other solutions and this has to be done. We cannot force our wishes on other countries. We must respect their rights. We must have equitable agreements with other countries.
One of the most deplorable aspects of this resolution is the failure to address the issue of the Western Sahara. Last night a representative of the Saharoui people spoke to the Greens. He told us of EU-flag vessels fishing off the coast of Western Sahara. The border of the Western Sahara is established at 27° 4’. North of that is Morocco and south of that is the Western Sahara. We all know that the Saharoui people are supposed to vote in a referendum very soon on self-determination but of course many serious problems have been posed by the Moroccans.
There is no EU country that has recognised Moroccan sovereignty over the Western Sahara, but according to the Saharoui people, at the same time the EU pays EUR 500 million to Morocco. EU vessels fish hake and other species in waters off Morocco, and Morocco has no legal jurisdiction in these waters. Many people believe this constitutes illegal fishing. Some might even go as far as to call it piracy. These are very serious allegations and I should also point out that similar allegations have been made as regards Somalia.
I would ask the Commission what assurances it can give that this is not happening. Current agreements with Morocco have provisions for an experimental satellite system. Can the Commission reassure us, through the results, that EU vessels are not engaging in illegal fishing. I should add that the representative stressed that they had no problem whatsoever with EU/Morocco agreements. Their concern was that it be “legal”, that is, restricted to Moroccan waters only.
Our problems with the resolution are not just on this point – although it is a very serious issue. The Greens would like to stress first of all that we are not, as many people would have it, against fisheries agreements with third countries but we have very important conditions that we want attached to those agreements. We want them to be more equitable, less environmentally and socially damaging and consistent with other Community policies.
There are specific criteria that we would like to follow. First of all with regard to all EU fisheries agreements, not just Moroccan agreements: they should follow the precautionary approach. Most people subscribe to this in theory but not in practice. Simply put, in the case of agreements there must be clear scientific proof that added fishing pressure from proposed EU activities will not compromise sustainability of fish stocks. If we cannot be sure that fish are available these particular species should not be put in the agreement.
The second criteria is that the regional approach should be followed. All countries involved in fishing the relevant stocks, be they coastal states or distant water states, should be involved in assessments of stocks and negotiations over how much fishing is done and who has the right to do it. This approach is followed very successfully in the South Pacific on tuna and there is no reason whatsoever that it should not apply here.
There is a consistent EU approach of negotiating with one state at a time. This is not acceptable. Control is also a very big problem in most of these agreements. The third countries simply do not have the resources to ensure that the vessels from the EU and other distant water fleets respect the rules.
We know the problems that the Member States have in their own waters, so it must be very difficult indeed for these other countries to be able to tackle these problems. Satellite systems are a very small but positive step, but a lot more needs to be done. In 1997 the Council requested an in-depth analysis of the EU third country agreements. The summary report is now available. It was discussed on Tuesday at the Council meeting. We welcome this study very much and hope that the Council will now conduct a wide-ranging debate, both within the Council itself and with other sectors of society, about these EU fisheries agreements."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-28-Speech-4-162 | "Mr President, I should just like to endorse what other people have said about giving the Sakharov Prize to Mr Gusmão. I should also like to remind Members of this House that what has happened in East Timor after the referendum is something we should look at. We have just discussed Morocco, and the Western Sahara was mentioned. A referendum will be taking place there. The European Union needs to be extremely diligent to ensure the same fate does not befall the people who go out and vote. We need to see that a fair and democratic procedure takes place in Western Sahara, that people have the right to vote freely. We hope that what happened in East Timor, after the UN persuaded the people to go out and exercise their right to vote and they were subsequently persecuted and murdered by the Indonesians, will not happen when the people in Western Sahara vote. The European Union needs to address this issue.
We are delighted that Mr Gusmão has received this award. He deserves it and the people of East Timor deserve it. They deserve their independence, their freedom and the right to live in peace."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-29-Speech-5-013 | "Madam President, it is not a point about the Minutes but about the problem that was mentioned in the Minutes. It does seem to me that the difficulties that many of us had yesterday were to do with the fact that the Vice-President in the chair was too quick to close the vote. And people who had their fingers on the button discovered that it was not registering.
Could the President and the Vice-President take careful note and discuss with the sessional services the need for a reasonable space between calling the vote and counting it."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-29-Speech-5-022 | ". – At the Florence Summit in June 1996, the heads of government agreed to take any decision on lifting the UK embargo “only and exclusively on the basis of public health and objective scientific criteria and of the judgement of the Commission, in accordance with the existing procedures, that these criteria have been satisfied.”
The conditions for the scheme are very demanding. First the UK had to slaughter offspring, which could otherwise be eligible, of known BSE cases before the scheme could be operational. This cull continues for new BSE cases. Then, the only eligible products are: deboned meat and a limited range of derived products, from animals between 6 and 30 months of age and born after the effective feed ban, that is born after 1 August 1996. In addition to that, there are not only stringent conditions concerning the identification and traceability of both the animal and its dam, but also the absence of any suspicion of BSE in the dam. Finally, stringent specific controls and full compliance are required from the entire production chain.
These controls are under the competence of the UK authorities. But, prior to setting the date at which exports under the scheme were to commence, a mission of the Food and Veterinary Office to inspect the operation of the scheme was carried out. This led to a satisfactory conclusion and allowed that date to be set at 1 August 1999.
Just this year two inspections in the UK have already been dedicated to auditing the DBES controls, namely in April and again in October.
The opinion issued by AFSSA on 30 September 1999, concerning the lifting of the ban for bovine meat and meat products of UK origin, comes to an unfavourable conclusion on the basis of arguments related to scientific and control matters.
The scientific matters have been presented for opinion to the Scientific Steering Committee. Preparatory meetings took place on 14 October and on 25 October in the framework of the ad hoc BSE group. During these meetings, the scientific documentation provided by AFSSA was examined and supplementary hearings of epidemiologists from MAFF also took place.
A report of those meetings, in which a detailed analysis of the situation is provided, has been presented to the Scientific Steering Committee. This committee met in Brussels yesterday and is meeting today in order to discuss and draft an opinion on this matter. This meeting is still going on.
Consequently, at this moment, I do not have any information on the outcome of the meeting. I understand that my colleague, Commissioner Byrne, together with the chairman of the Scientific Steering Committee, will give a press conference in Brussels at 6 p.m. this evening on the outcome of the meeting of the scientists.
I can assure you that the European Parliament will be kept fully informed about the conclusions of the Scientific Steering Committee."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-29-Speech-5-023 | "Madam President, the reason I believe France should immediately lift the ban on British beef is because Britain has met the requirements of the Florence agreement.
Three months after the lifting of the ban by the Commission, the Veterinary Committee is still considering evidence as to whether British beef is safe. This is unacceptable. The Commission accepted British beef was safe on 1 August when it lifted the ban. It must now act decisively and make France lift the illegal ban on British beef immediately.
Compensation must be paid to the British beef industry by the French government for the damage it has caused the industry. The longer this illegal action by France continues, the more it damages the reputation of the whole of the European Union.
The Florence agreement reached between the EU heads of state and government on 21 June 1996 sets out five preconditions which the UK must meet before the beef export ban can be lifted. They are: implementation of a selective slaughter scheme. Introduction of an effective animal identification and movement record system, one that is fully in place. Legislation for the removal of meat and bonemeal from feedmills and farms. This is complete in the UK and not in the rest of Europe. Effective implementation of the Over Thirty Month rule, meaning that nothing over 30 months old can get into the food chain. Improved methods for removing specified risk material from bovine carcasses. These conditions have been met through the implementation of the control measures outlined above. The European Commission inspection visits verify that they have been fully and effectively implemented in the UK. This is the reason for my argument. I believe that the Commission has passed UK beef safe for export.
The Commission lifted the ban on British beef on 1 August this year. The key issue is no beef animal over 30 months old is allowed into the food chain in Britain. There has not been a case – and I repeat: there has not been a case of BSE – in an animal born after 1 August 1996 in the UK. That is very important. Nothing over 30 months old and no case of BSE in anything born after 1 August 1996.
There has been a selective slaughter of cattle born and reared alongside confirmed cases of BSE. There is a compulsory cull of offspring born to cattle with confirmed BSE.
The cost to British farmers is enormous. UK exports to the EU alone in 1995 amounted to almost GBP 500 million, of which nearly half was to France. Nearly half a million calves were exported from Britain to the rest of Europe in 1995 and that must deliver a message in itself.
The cost to farmers from the reduction of the value of the UK beef herd and by-products, along with the extra regulation, is estimated to be GBP 1000 million.
While the bureaucrats and the politicians argue, farmers and their families in Britain suffer. On 1 August this year when the Commission lifted its ban, 12 out of 14 Member States to which Britain could export lifted their bans. If France had new evidence as to the safety of British beef why did the French Government not bring this information to the Commission before the ban was lifted in August 1999 – why wait until now and delay and delay and delay?
People in Britain expect France to comply with European law and they also expect the European Commission to act decisively to end the illegal ban on British beef. The single market is fundamental to the very existence of the European Union and the illegal action by France throws the whole single market into disrepute.
Having a war of words on whose food is safest in Europe will only result in one thing: the destruction of consumer confidence in food from Europe wherever it is produced. We learned that lesson when BSE originally came in. The longer this dispute continues, the more likely there will be a boycott of French food by British consumers. Feelings are running high in Britain and the crisis must be resolved quickly, otherwise there will be tit-for-tat retaliation on both sides of the channel."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-29-Speech-5-024 | "Madam President, first of all I would like to thank Commissioner Fischer for his statement, and say to him that on Wednesday of next week we want either President Prodi or Commissioner Byrne to come to Parliament to make a clear statement on what measures the Commission intends to take following the publication of the scientific conclusions later today.
Let me conclude on one final point. The one issue that has been highlighted by this dispute is the fact that we now need a European Food Agency in place as a matter of urgency. I would say to Commissioner Fischler that, when the College meets next Wednesday, please come forward more rapidly with a proposal to establish a European Food Agency because in my view, if that had been in place today, this dispute would never have arisen.
This new Commission must be seen to be acting decisively and if public confidence is not to be eroded we need action within days, not within weeks or months. Therefore I say to Commissioner Fischler that when you have discussions with your colleagues over the weekend, when you look at the scientific conclusions – when you meet as a College on Wednesday – we cannot have prevarication or fudge. We have to have decisive action based on a clear decision that would be taken at the scientific committee later today. Perhaps Mr Parish could send a copy of his speech to his own party leader because sadly in Britain his own party leader has been advocating a ban on French products in the United Kingdom. What we want here, President, is the scientific evidence to prove or disprove the French case and we want an immediate resolution.
We do not want the xenophobia and the jingoism that we have heard on both sides of the English Channel in the last couple of weeks. We want to make sure that farmers and their families are taken care of. We want to make sure that the British beef ban is lifted.
All of the evidence demonstrates that British beef is now the safest in Europe and, we believe, the safest in the world. It was this House, through its special committee of inquiry into BSE, together with the European Commission, that recommended the measures that have now been taken to guarantee the safety throughout the European Union of those who consume British products and British beef.
It is for the future of the European Union, it is for the future of our unity in the World Trade talks in November when we go to Seattle, that we need to have two of Europe’s major trading partners resolve this dispute. Can anyone imagine what it will be like when we open the World Trade talks, if there is still a dispute between the French and the British on such a fundamental issue? It will be used by our opponents to divide the European Union in these crucial talks.
I would pay tribute, President, to the National Farmers’s Union and to British farmers. This week we had the Vice-President of the National Farmers’s Union, Tim Bennett, here. He met my French colleagues from the Socialist Group and he put forward a compelling argument as to why the British beef ban should be lifted. He did not use the gimmicks that we have seen recently: the Liberal Democrat dragging a sack of British beef through the airport, hoping that some hapless customs officer would arrest her for a photo opportunity, or the Tories storming the Bastille two weeks ago in Paris, again for a photo opportunity.
The National Farmers’ Union came here to meet Parliamentarians and to meet representatives of the Commission because they have a compelling argument. I want to thank those colleagues from Parliament who met representatives and British farmers and listened to that compelling case.
But I say to the Commission that the responsibility being shown by the National Farmers’ Union can only last for so long. If the Commission does not act next week, if this drags on for more than a few more days, then the argument in Britain will shift. Those people who at the moment have been asking for calm and for no retaliatory action will not be listened to. Inevitably, this issue will escalate and I think it will do permanent damage to British and French relations.
I say to the Commission and I say to this House that over the next few days, we need calm: we do not want a trade war, we do not want an escalating trade ban. We want common sense and we want to base our decision on science because in the disputes that occur in the future – and there will be many on food safety because consumers are so concerned now about the food that they eat – the scientists, the objectivity and the independence of the scientists is absolutely critical. Who knows what issue we will need to refer to that Scientific Committee. It is critical that we base our decisions on the scientific evidence and if there is a clear majority today by the scientists to lift the British beef ban we expect the French authorities to act within days, and we expect the Commission to take the appropriate legal action if that does not happen."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-29-Speech-5-025 | "Madam President, I should just like to say before I start that it is a bit rich of Mr Donnelly to say that people should not have a trade war. Mr Brown, the British Minister for Agriculture, said himself that he would not be buying French food.
I am very disappointed that there is no solution today. I hope there will be a solution quickly. It is not doing any good to any of our farmers, whether they be French or British.
British beef is safe. Hygiene standards prove that British beef is safe; the scientific evidence has proved that British beef is safe. Other countries lifted the ban on 1 August. There have been no cases of BSE in the relevant age group – 6 months to 30 months old – since 1996. No cases at all. So why have the French not lifted the ban? I suspect it is because they have picked up our trade.
Nearly 40% of our trade with the EU was to France. No objection was raised by the French back in May when the International Veterinary Organisation adopted less rigorous conditions than those foreseen by the date-base export scheme. But all this argument illustrates the need for an independent food standard agency at EU level. It would prevent the undue influence of national bodies who quite often have a political axe to grind. It could look at EU practices across the whole of the European Union. It could point out the hypocrisy of France continuing the ban.
I have heard of some of the practices in France at the moment. I do not know how true they are, but I have heard of: French beef being sold in markets with the spinal tissue and brain still attached – the food agency could look at that; carcasses not inspected in France by qualified vets, unlike in the UK; pigs still fed bone marrow – the food agency could look at those cases; lower standards of farm hygiene in France; French supermarkets do not insist on seeing pesticide records. The list is endless, not to mention the sewage sludge. That has disgusted everyone. But I am not as worried about that as I am, perhaps, about the reports that offal and bonemeal are still being fed to French animals.
Before any food safety agency is set up, the Commission must examine all these cases in France as well. Stringent action must be taken against them if the Commission finds, through scientific evidence, that France is breaking any of the rules and that the food is not fit for human consumption, in the same way as it did on BSE.
I do not think the French were wrong to criticise Britain over some of the practices over BSE in the past. I felt the Conservative Government should have acted sooner. I felt they should have put more money into research sooner. But now we are BSE-free in the 6 months to 30 months-old exports. It is important to remember that.
But we must make sure that when the evidence comes forward tomorrow and when we hear the result, if there is no new scientific evidence – and I doubt there will be – that action is taken against France immediately if it does not lift the ban.
I hope France will see sense. I hope it will see sense for the sake of our farmers, for the sake of the French farmers, for the sake of the European Union and for the sake of the Commission. The Commission has to be seen to be acting firmly. If it fudges the issue, if it comes up with a compromise not based on scientific evidence, then the Commission will be brought into disrepute and consequently the whole of the European Union will be brought into disrepute."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-29-Speech-5-030 | "Mr President, let me say right from the outset that the UK Independence Party, my party – the members of which are so often dismissed as “little Englanders” – totally deplore the outbreaks of petty nationalism in the UK and France, over this beef issue
However, I find it ironic that the EU institutions – which introduced the ban on British beef exports in 1996 – and which exist to promote the unity and cooperation of European nations, have by their original actions, created a political situation which has directly led to this disharmony.
My party, which has a clear election manifesto to seek Britain’s withdrawal from the EU, notes that if the Commission had not interfered in the first place, back in 1996, individual nations would have been able to decide whether or not to buy British beef.
At that time, a number of countries, particularly South African and Botswana, were willing to continue to buy British produce. Without the EU ban, Britain would have been free to exploit alternative markets, and this crisis would not have arisen.
Now we have a classic demonstration that membership of the EU is bad for British business. It affirms my belief that it is about time that my own country recognised that our interests are best served by not being a member of this club.
Most people in the UK thought we joined a free trade area but this crisis demonstrates it is anything but that. While the UK has obeyed EU law to the letter, other countries are running a cart and horse through the rule book. The “level playing field” is about as level as the decks of the Titanic after it hit the iceberg!
Thus, while I wish the Commissioner well in his endeavours, I am afraid that whatever he does it will not be good enough. I, for one, will be urging my own government to leave this club and to rejoin the real trading world."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-29-Speech-5-035 | "Mr President, it is regrettable that again today we are having this debate in the absence of a decision from the committee currently meeting in Brussels. It is also regrettable that this debate has taken such a hysterical tone in certain parts of Europe, fuelled by some of the London-based media in particular.
We would all agree that food safety and public health issues must be regarded as the highest political priorities throughout Europe, but British beef, as stated again today by Commissioner Fischler, has satisfied the public health objectives set by the European Union. I wonder whether the Commissioner, in his summing up, can state that every other Member State now meets equally high standards in beef production and slaughter.
I also regret that this matter has been allowed to be portrayed as a battle between Britain and France, because it ought to be an issue between France and Europe. Here we have just ended a period of the most difficult conditions being set by the European Union on the British beef production industry, conditions which have been met, and therefore action to implement the lifting of the beef ban should be taken decisively by the Commission.
My group colleague, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, referred once or twice in his speech to “English” beef but of course the UK consists of four distinct countries and in Scotland, where I come, from the beef farmers are rightly entitled to feel badly treated because we did not have a significant BSE problem in the first place. These conditions set by Europe have been met and still we are not able to export. Our farmers rightly wonder what was the point of all of the pain they went through over the last few years in order to meet the high standards which have been set and which have been met. What would be the point of having more years of discussion and of setting up a European food standards agency if its recommendations were not to be implemented? The issue here is that if we are to have European standards then surely we must be entitled to expect that these standards are accepted by the participating Member States.
Our consumers must be protected in relation to food safety, but consumers are also entitled and intelligent enough to make choices. I am quite convinced, as a resident of Angus in the heart of Scotland’s Aberdeen Angus beef production country, that consumers in France, as elsewhere, would choose Scottish beef if they were allowed to do so."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-29-Speech-5-039 | "Mr President, like Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, who spoke earlier, I was a member of the special Committee of Investigation into BSE. He would endorse my recollection that we added a whole series of special precautionary measures which would be needed before British beef could be deemed to be safe again. Those, along with the five Florence agreement provisions were all enacted. It was only then, after a three-year delay, that the beef ban was lifted in the strictly controlled terms that have been described by others in this debate.
The logic of the case now being put to the Special Scientific Committee is that we should, in effect, overrule its previous hearings and reintroduce the beef ban across Europe. What else could the Scientific Committee say if it were to eat all its previous words? Surely what we should be doing is building on the kind of precautions which were introduced in the United Kingdom as a result of the BSE disaster. That means looking at the present position and not going backwards but asking how we can build in additional safeguards and precautions after they become available and bring a greater sense of urgency to the study of some of them, particularly live and post-mortem tests for cattle.
Others have already said in this debate that we should have a European Food Agency looking at the kind of health precautions we need. That would include some things which are not yet present in other European countries. It would include the removal of MBM from the whole of the food, animal and poultry chain. That does not happen in some other countries. It means the rigid separation of risk materials, which again is not fully enforced. It means strict precautions against the kind of illegal practice which the Commission very promptly discovered in the matter of the adulteration of the bovine food chain by human and animal waste, which has happened recently in some other countries.
The precautionary principle has to inform our policy but it must be on the basis of common principles, a hierarchy of standards which places health at the top. That is why the UK Government was the first to introduce the notion of a food standards agency, while Europe is still talking about it. That is why the DBES scheme specifically excluded anything about which there is still, or has been, a scintilla of doubt, including meat which is not deboned.
Mrs Roure touched on the dangers of xenophobia in this debate. I want to salute the speech she made. It was very much in the spirit of the entente cordiale. It would be terrible for us, at this stage, to collapse into jingoism on either side of the Channel. I agree with the president of our own National Farmers’ Union who said this week that what made him most angry were people who were trying to make cheap political capital out of the tragedy that has engulfed his own members.
The clash between two Member States over this unilateral ban could be disastrous. It will damage the single market. It will cost jobs if there are reciprocal sanctions and bans; and it will humiliate us if we turn up in Seattle bitterly divided and a quarrelsome rabble when we need to have a common front against the United States.
We understand that Commissioner Byrne is to return from Dublin to Brussels today to chair a press conference with Mr Pascal when the Special Scientific Committee reports. He knows exactly what the problem is for the Commission and for European cooperation. I should like you, Commissioner Fischler, to convey to him, in the words of his own national poem that gloomy verse: “the best lack all conviction and the worst are full of passionate intensity”. We want to see some passionate intensity from the best on this issue. We want to see people coming together and helping Europe to come together with the kind of undertakings which Parliament has called for, which the special Committee of Inquiry called for, and which alone will stop us degenerating into a Europe in which the European idea is the first casualty."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-29-Speech-5-043 | "Mr President, I have certainly enjoyed some of the speeches today, not least the opening speech by Mr Donnelly where he seemed to be criticising the failure of the French and the British governments to achieve any solution to this escalating trade war. I would remind Mr Donnelly that both the governments in France and the United Kingdom are socialist governments. It has just been revealed that the Minister for Agriculture from his party in the United Kingdom has not even been in dialogue with his opposite number in France, which is ridiculous when you consider the way tempers are getting raised in the process of this trade war.
But I can understand some of the rage felt by farmers and consumers in Great Britain when they hear that sewage sludge has found its way into feedingstuffs in France, when they hear that the British Government has known about that since June but has not chosen to raise the matter with the European Commission and when they know that in Britain we are still slaughtering 60,000 cattle a month because they are over 30 months of age and cannot enter the food chain. Otherwise these are perfectly healthy cattle. They are going to incineration after they are slaughtered and then their ashes are dumped in landfill sites. This will be seen as one of the great mistakes of this entire century as far as agriculture is concerned.
There is rage when we know that in France there is also BSE – 22 cases so far this year. Yet even injured and diseased animals which die on the farm are finding their way into rendering plants and the tallow from these animals is finding its way into the pharmaceutical industry, into the cosmetic industry and therefore into the food chain. There is no level playing field, as other speakers have said.
I hope that we can find a diplomatic solution and we must do everything within our power to do that. I appeal to the Commission and to the UK government to put pressure on France to comply with the findings of the Scientific Steering Committee, whatever those may be later today."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-29-Speech-5-045 | "Thank you, Commissioner Fischler. I am sure you have the support of the entire House in trying to resolve this difficult situation.
Following Commissioner Fischler’s announcement, the Commission will be making the appropriate documents available this afternoon before the press conference. That will be made available to you on e-mail and it will also be on Parliament’s intranet.
The debate is closed."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-29-Speech-5-047 | "The next item is the report () by Mr Cunha, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the proposal for a Council regulation on the conclusion of the Protocol defining, for the period from 3 May 1999 to 2 May 2000, the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for by the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Angola on fishing off Angola (COM(1999)389 – C5-0170/1999 /0169(CNS))."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-29-Speech-5-051 | "Mr President, yesterday we were urged to approve the renewal of the EU agreement with Morocco to give Spain and Portugal fishing rights in Moroccan waters. Today we are being asked to review a similar agreement with Angola.
In my brief but eventful career as an MEP, and particularly after yesterday, I have noted a willingness of this Assembly which dares to call itself a “parliament” to act as a rubber stamp for the Commission and again I sense that this is our role. But if this Assembly is to begin to behave as a proper review body with any teeth it must begin to ask some fundamental questions about the whole principle behind these agreements.
Such evidence as we have about their operation indicates that these have been responsible for conservation disasters of the first magnitude. Effectively, an example of colonialist exploitation of the peoples of the Third World which should shame everyone in our supposedly civilised one.
In the past seven years the taxpayers of the European Union have paid out EUR 1.4 billion to the governments and elsewhere and, even in the neutral words of the Commission, it is difficult to trace where the money goes. Yet all this is to fund Spanish and Portuguese fishermen, giving them a licence to pillage Third World waters, often in flagrant disregard of the basic principles of fisheries conservation. We know from Morocco what despair this has aroused among local fishermen as they see immense damage being done to their fish stocks, simply to provide European markets with sardines and other common species on which their own livelihoods depend. The horror of what is happening down the west coast of Africa was illustrated a few years ago by Namibia. In the end it said it had had enough, so devastating was the impact of Spanish fishing there.
It is about time that we in this House said that we have had enough of it all. The result of these policies has been a conservation disaster. In fact the whole thing, it seems to me, is an insane catastrophe."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-29-Speech-5-055 | "Commissioner, now that you have a new portfolio looking after fisheries you will discover that Parliament very often discusses fish on a Friday, but you have had a mixed menu this morning, for a change.
The debate is closed.
We shall now proceed to the vote.
(
)"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-29-Speech-5-057 | "Thank you, Mr Posselt."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-10-29-Speech-5-059 | "I declare adjourned the session of the European Parliament.
(
)"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-022 | "It is very important that we have the opportunity to question the Commission on this sensitive issue and the issue between questioning and debate should not loom so large. We have a procedure and that is that we should proceed now to questioning in depth. Certainly in my group we have not prepared a list of speakers, nor do we wish to revert to that procedure at this moment. But we would welcome the opportunity to question the Commission in depth and eventually we can have with due process a reflective debate on the matter. We should not be discussing a sensitive question, such as this beef issue, on the hoof."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-026 | "Madam President, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to update Parliament on the developments over the past few days in relation to BSE.
“there is clear evidence of the continuing progressive decline in 1999 of BSE in the UK. There is no justification at present to infer any new route of infection”;
“the SSC concludes that there are currently no grounds for revising the overall conclusions of the SSC opinions directly related to the rationale of the DBES”; and, finally:
“the SSC considers that the measures taken by the UK make any risk to human health from the UK DBES at least comparable to that in other European Member States”.
This followed a very thorough examination which focused on the concerns raised by the French authorities. I was greatly encouraged by the unanimous view of the Committee. It has provided the reassurance necessary that the DBES is sufficient to ensure that British beef exports are safe.
And let me be very clear: I have always insisted that the opinion of the committee would be instrumental in determining the Commission’s handling of this dispute. I have gone on record several times, including in my hearings before Parliament, that my decisions on food safety will be science-based. My priority is to ensure that there is no threat to public health. Sound, independent and excellent scientific advice is essential in this respect.
In this particular case, we now have scientific backing for the existing systems of controls.
It is on this basis that I have called on the French and German authorities to take the committee’s opinion into account and lift their national restrictions on imports of British beef. As I said on Friday, these restrictions are no longer necessary in the light of the safeguards in place.
However, we have to accept that this is a highly charged issue where we need to proceed cautiously. This is why I also insisted on Friday that everybody needs a few days to reflect on the full implications of the scientific committee’s opinion. My meeting last night with my French and British counterparts was held in this spirit: we need to discuss the best way forward to resolve this dispute.
The French authorities have now requested clarification on five key points. Very briefly, they want further information on traceability, testing, derived products, controls and labelling. I do not consider this request for clarification to be unreasonable. Accordingly, a meeting of officials will take place this Friday to discuss the issues in question.
Let me quote the very short communiqué agreed by all participants last night which agreed this strategy:
To begin with, I would like to update you on the opinion adopted unanimously by the Scientific Steering Committee last Friday. This opinion was on the scientific grounds of the advice of the French Food Safety Agency (AFSSA) regarding the measures applicable to British beef exports.
“We have drawn up a method to emerge from the crisis as quickly as possible by identifying five points
worthy of being looked at by our experts over the next few days. Our experts will begin this work on Friday. We undertake this work in a constructive spirit and a common will to assure public health of our citizens”.
I am very surprised at the reaction in the press to last night’s developments. It is not a setback. It is not a victory for France or a defeat for the UK. It is simply a further necessary stage in resolving this difficult issue. A few extra days in discussions is a very small price to pay for a successful conclusion. I need not add that the alternative – legal proceedings – would be a far longer and more painful process.
Some additional reassurances or clarifications may be necessary to allow the French authorities to lift their restrictions on UK beef. However, that should not prove to be an insurmountable problem and it is in that spirit that discussions should continue. It is the clear implication of these discussions that the ban will be lifted.
However, I would like to make very clear that there is no question of re-writing the date-based export scheme. It has been upheld by the scientific steering committee as a set of reliable safeguards to ensure that British beef exported under the scheme is safe. It does not need to be changed.
Finally, I will continue to insist on a very quick solution. Let me remind you that today is the very first working day since the adoption of the scientific committee’s opinion. We have all worked long and hard over the past several days and these efforts will continue until we have found a solution. I will, of course, continue to keep Parliament fully informed of developments.
I arranged for the summary recommendations of the committee’s opinion to be issued to Parliament on Friday together with a copy of my statement to the press. Yesterday, I also arranged for the full copy of the report to be issued to you. However, you may not all have had time to digest their contents and I will, therefore, briefly summarise the main issues.
The opinion addressed in particular three questions from the Commission. These questions can be summarised as follows:
Is there any new evidence in the documentation provided by AFSSA?
Is there a need to re-examine any of the four Scientific Steering Committee opinions directly related to the scientific rationale of the date-based export scheme?
Is the date-based export scheme satisfactory with regard to the safety of meat and meat products concerned?
In its opinion, the scientific steering committee confirmed that there is no need to review the decision to lift the ban on UK beef exports.
Allow me to quote three of the more important conclusions of the committee:"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-027 | "Madam President, I should like to thank Commissioner Byrne for that statement. He has had rather a baptism of fire as a new Commissioner. Would he agree with me that the situation as regards beef has now tended, in the public eye, to throw into chaos the question of the acceptability of judgments delivered at the European level on food safety and that this bodes rather ill for Mr Prodi’s plan for a European food safety agency? That is of great importance to my committee and will be of importance to this Parliament in the months to come.
Specifically on the ban and the judgment of the Scientific Steering Committee, could he say why, if the judgment is so clear and unanimous, there is any need for further negotiation . . .
(
)
. . . or should we call it clarification. The boundary between clarification and negotiation seems – at least from the other side of the Channel – to be somewhat blurred. Will he take action against France after the Commission meeting on 10 November if, by that stage, having had several days to digest the unanimous decision, the French Government has taken no action to lift this ban?"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-028 | "In answer to the first part of your question, Mrs Jackson, I believe that the very opposite is the case. Rather than throwing President Prodi’s plans for a food safety agency into chaos, it highlights the very need for such an agency at Community level. We are working on that very point in my service at the moment. Not only are we concerned to identify and establish its level of competence but also it would be of considerable importance to identify clearly and mark out the jurisdiction that the food safety agency would have at Community level and how it will interact with the agencies at Member State level. It will be important to identify where the function of one begins and ends and dovetails with the other. Once that has been clearly established, in my belief, the problem that we have seen over the last four or five weeks should not arise again.
I should emphasise also that, what we are engaged in now, and the exercise that is going to be undertaken on Friday and the subsequent days is, as I have said, a clarification. It is not a negotiation. A negotiation implies that two parties come to a negotiating table, each with their own views, and something comes out of it at the end which reflects both their views. What we are engaged in here is an exercise in clarification of the five points that I have referred to. The French authorities have not unreasonably requested more information in relation to these very important issues. Most of them are a request for information as to how the date-based export scheme actually operates, both on a practical level and on a technical level. My service is perfectly happy and willing to give that information to the French authorities. Civil servants from the UK will also be involved. There are practical considerations involved in how the issue works on the ground which are necessary to explain. So I am perfectly satisfied that it is more accurate to refer to this exercise as a clarification.
In the event that my statement that the clear implication of this exercise is that there will be a lifting of the ban turns out to be incorrect, then, as I have said from the very beginning when we first saw this issue on Friday 1 October, there would be the initiation of infringement proceedings. That remains my view. I have said on numerous occasions since then that court proceedings would be the last option. I believe it is much better to achieve a result by discussion with the parties so as to ensure that everybody understands what is involved. That is the exercise we are engaged in at the moment. In the event that does not yield results, then my view that it is appropriate to bring infringement proceedings will prevail."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-030 | "Not a lot astonishes me nowadays. I believe, however, the clarifications that are asked for by the French authorities are not unreasonable. They are related to the date-based export scheme itself. They are related to five topics: traceability, further testing, issues surrounding derived products, further information relating to controls, inspection and controls by the Food and Veterinary Office on the single plant that exists in Truro, in Devon, which slaughters and exports this product, and finally, on the issue of labelling.
In relation to the labelling issue, there is EU-wide legislation in draft at the moment, intended to be implemented by 1 January 2000. Those provisions have been put back for one year because Member States had not completed the preparatory work to enable the legislation to be implemented. In the meantime, the UK authorities have in place their own beef assurance scheme labelling system and have indicated that this labelling system, on a voluntary basis, would operate in respect of exports to France and elsewhere. That, I should stress, is being operated on a voluntary basis. It is not being legislated for at EU level. I would not have the competence nor the desire to do that. As a transitional measure, pending the final implementation of the EU-wide labelling system, this proposal has been put forward by the UK on a voluntary basis and will operate in that way.
I agree fully with what you say, Mrs Roth-Behrendt, that there is no new scientific evidence being put forward by the French authorities. That was confirmed by the Scientific Steering Committee last week. There was up-to-date information but no new evidence to change the opinion of the Scientific Steering Committee.
In relation to the agency I can only refer you to the answer that I gave to Mrs Jackson that my belief is that the establishment of a centralised Commission level food safety authority will go a considerable distance to eliminating these kinds of difficulties. There may be teething problems along the way but it will be the challenge of all of us involved in establishing the legislation for that agency to ensure that the competences of each of the various institutions – whether they be at Community level or at Member State level – properly interact and that each side knows exactly where their competence begins and ends. In those circumstances one is in a position to bring more certainty, rather than less, into the situation."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-032 | "There are, at present, four BSE tests, three of them of the very highest reliability and the fourth one quite reliable. They are post-mortem tests. Further work is on-going to try and achieve a situation whereby these tests, or a development of these tests, might well be used in a pre-clinical situation. We have not reached that stage yet but it is the hope that we will. Work is on-going in relation to that at the moment. Tests are being undertaken as we speak.
The control systems that are in place – the inspections and controls – are undertaken by the Food and Veterinary Office in respect of the DBES scheme. That office has conducted two tests in the last six months. Certainly the last one was as recently as the first week in October. Whereas I have not yet got a written report from that particular inspection, I have a verbal report to the effect that the findings are satisfactory."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-033 | "Madam President, Truro is in Cornwall, not in Devon.
Can you give assurances that France is not just playing for time? With the Scientific Committee having ruled on Friday that British beef is safe, it seems incredible that we have this further delay. I believe it is probably just a face-saving exercise on behalf of France. I am sorry that the Agriculture Minister, Mr Brown, seemed to cave in. Whatever the reasons for it, it does not help consumer confidence. We need to make sure the ban is lifted as soon as possible. Can the Commissioner give assurances that it will be lifted in the foreseeable future? Last Friday he mentioned a two week time span. Can he tell us now what he feels the time span should be for the lifting of the ban by France?"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-034 | "Thank you, first of all, for your correction in relation to the location of Truro.
I am, as best I can be, satisfied that the French authorities are not playing for time. They have asked for these clarifications. I believe these requests are not unreasonable. I believe my civil servants and those in the UK can reply and give the information that is necessary. This can be done within a matter of days.
In relation to the delay, I should like to point out that the Scientific Steering Committee’s report was delivered on Friday night. This is the first working day since then so it does not seem to me that there has been much evidence of a delay in the meantime.
In relation to Mr Brown, he and I have discussed this issue on a number of occasions over the last two weeks or more. I have found in my dealings with him a determination on his part to resolve this difficulty as speedily and satisfactorily as possible. You have raised the issue in terms of him having caved in, but that is far from the true position. He has dedicated himself to this in negotiations with me and then with Minister Glavany most assiduously. In my opinion the views and position that were adopted last night were the intelligent, rational, reasonable approach to adopt to this situation and, in my view, is far from a cave-in. I hope that my judgment in this will prove to be right and that within the next ten days or so we will have a final resolution to this particular problem."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-036 | "Like you, I am also concerned as to the protection of consumers. That is part of the brief that I have been asked to undertake. I have noticed with interest and already welcomed the statement made by the French Minister for Trade and Consumer Protection, Mrs Lebranchu, who referred to the unanimous report of the Scientific Steering Committee over the weekend saying it would provide a reassurance to consumers. I welcome her statement in that regard.
There has been a little confusion in relation to the interaction between the Ad Hoc Committee and the Scientific Steering Committee. I should like to shed some light on that at this stage, having been given the opportunity to do so by the last question.
The Ad Hoc Committee is made up of experts on BSE. They met last Monday for the second time. On the previous occasion they were given the evidence from the French authority, which I had asked the French authorities to provide. They also asked for up-to-date information from the UK. They got that information also. They then met last Monday, considered all of that, applied their own experience to it and produced a report which, in effect, recited all of the issues involved and the aspects, dangers, risks and the pros and cons of the arguments relating to BSE. There was no vote taken by that committee. It is not their function to do so. It is an advisory ad hoc group that feeds into the legally established committee, established to carry out the function of advising the Commission in relation to these matters – that is, the Scientific Steering Committee. It is that committee that took the vote and it is that committee that was unanimous in its view, having reviewed all of the information that was contained in the Ad Hoc Group’s report and some other documents that were supplied by the Ad Hoc Group and obviously applying their own scientific knowledge. These sixteen scientists are drawn from most of the Member States. They are vets and scientists of the very highest calibre, at the pinnacle of their careers, people of the very highest reputation. They formed their view – which we now know – which was expressed unanimously.
So there is not any confusion or contradiction between any ad hoc view and the Scientific Steering Committee. That is the genesis of how the decision-making process actually takes place and the interaction between the Ad Hoc Committee and the Scientific Steering Committee."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-038 | "In relation to the issue you raise about scrapie in sheep and BSE, whereas they are similar diseases they are quite different in their forms of transmission and so on. One cannot readily extrapolate from information available in relation to scrapie directly across to BSE. It is informative but it does not directly extrapolate one from the other.
I believe the issue relating to labelling is an issue that builds consumer confidence. I have spoken about this on a number of occasions, including at my hearing in September, that the provision of information to consumers must be the very first stop in any armoury of a Commissioner charged with consumer protection. The provision of labelling obviously provides information. I regard this as a good way forward."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-040 | "My information is that there have been more than forty cases diagnosed of new variant CJD. In relation to the provenance of animals from labeling, you are correct to the extent that the legislative regime that is to be established at Community level will ultimately provide that products which are imported from another Member State will identify that it is of EU origin rather than from a Member State origin. What is happening in this situation is that on a voluntary basis the UK propose to keep on their beef the labelling that they have put in place under their beef assurance scheme. It is a purely voluntary aspect and it is not governed by legislation at EU level.
I should say that I am absolutely satisfied as to the competence of the Scientific Steering Committee. It is made up of the chairmen of the eight scientific committees dealing with such issues as food, toxicology and other issues, and then eight others who were selected and appointed by the Commission. They are, let me emphasise, absolutely and completely independent. The Commission cannot tell them what to do, either in relation to the substance of their reports or indeed as to their timing.
In relation to your reference to the Scottish scientists and so on, my understanding is that this issue relates solely to beef on the bone which is not part of the DBES scheme. I am not at all convinced that anything that the Scottish scientists have said on that issue is relevant to exportation from the UK under the DBES.
In relation to your question on the precautionary principle, this is derived from a concept that was first laid down in the environment field. It lays down the basis on which the precautionary principle will be applied. It is quite specific in the way it says that it should be applied and one of the specific aspects is that there has to be an absence of scientific evidence in relation to a particular danger, or serious doubt as to the scientific evidence. We have a unanimous report from the best scientists and vets in the European Union available to the Commission and they have expressed their view that the British beef exported under the DBES scheme is as safe as any other beef in Europe. In those circumstances it is not appropriate to apply the precautionary principle."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-041 | "Commissioner, would you agree that it is of paramount importance that we have a European solution to this problem and would you accept our congratulations that you have put your best efforts towards that in the events over the weekend.
Nevertheless, would you not agree that since the unanimous confirmation of the safety of the date-based export scheme, provided you personally endorse it in this House, as I hope you will, there is a very limited area for clarification of what more can be done.
Would you not accept that some of the issues now raised by the technical experts – and I particularly refer here to labelling, to improved diagnostic tests and so on – are incremental improvements in safety measures for Europe as a whole. They are not a replacement or a supplement needed for the date-based export scheme. If that is the case, would you not further agree that the debate about the safety of British beef ought to be concluded by 10 November next and on Wednesday, if the Commission has no word on that matter, will you bring forward, regrettable as they are, the legal proceedings which are then overdue?"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-042 | "Mr Whitehead, thank you for those kind words. I agree with you that it is of paramount importance that this issue be resolved at European level for the reasons that I identified earlier. It is important for a number of reasons, not least consumer confidence, and it is to that end that I am trying to resolve this issue as I am sure also Minister Glavany and Minister Brown are doing.
In relation to the date-based export scheme, of course I endorse it. I welcome the opportunity, in response to your question, to do so again. You may have noted I did so earlier and I have done so on a number of occasions. Let me repeat that it is not my intention to put forward any legislation to amend the date-based export scheme which itself is the subject of legislation. It is not my intention to do that and I have made that situation clear over the weekend on a number of occasions and I did so again yesterday.
These improvements, as you describe them, are incremental. Some of them are not related to the application of the date-based export scheme but I have to say that some of them probably are, particularly in relation to the issue for instance of traceability, to the issues surrounding derived products. Some further information was requested as to how exactly the derived products scheme would operate under the DBES. Of course I am perfectly happy to give a clarification in relation to that but I should remind you of something that I am sure you are aware of: there is no exportation of processed beef under the DBES from the UK because it is necessary first to identify and approve a plant for that purpose and no such plant has been proposed by the UK authorities. Therefore there is no exportation of derived products under the DBES scheme but it may happen and in the event that it does, questions were asked of me yesterday to clarify exactly how it would work, how products might be segregated and so on. These are not unreasonable questions which I feel perfectly happy to answer over the next few days.
In relation to when this should take place, the meeting is taking place on Friday, I would hope that it would conclude its deliberations and its explanations on Friday. There may be other meetings next week. I suspect that the French authorities may well have a further discussion with their food safety authority and I would expect a response from them certainly no later than Thursday of next week. I would then be in a position to first of all give an up-date to the Commission next Wednesday and give a final conclusive version on the following Tuesday at the Commission meeting in Strasbourg. It may all happen earlier. If it does, so much the better. If it does not, on Tuesday week I will be bringing a report to the Commission."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-043 | "In my innocence and naivety I thought that when the scientific steering committee met last week and made their announcement, indeed the announcement was made by Mr Pascale, himself a Frenchman as President of that committee, indicating the unanimous approval of that committee that British beef is as safe as any other beef in the EU or possibly safer than any beef worldwide, that was the top of the pyramid. I did not think you could go any higher than that. Now we are told by Mr Byrne that we need just a few extra days of discussions. Well, it appears to me that we have had three months since 1 August in which the French and the Germans have defied EU law. Are you now telling me Mr Byrne that during those three months when a vast dossier was prepared by the French food safety agency that they did not examine the technical implications embracing traceability, testing, derived products, controls and labelling? Are you telling me that only now at this last minute after the scientific steering committee has made its unanimous pronouncement they want further technical clarification of those points? It seems ludicrous. What exactly are they asking for?
We heard Mr Martinez questioning the competence of the Scientific Steering Committee. Is Mr Martinez aware, and are you Commissioner aware, of the fact that the AFSSA, the French food safety agency, has an annual budget of EUR 52 million and has a board of governors of whom 50% are appointed by the French government, the other 50% representing farmers, food retailers and food distributors? So let us ask some questions about their competence. We were assured at the highest level in Paris that this matter was not being driven by protectionism but was being driven purely by science. This smacks to me of pure commercial protectionism and now it has been exposed. Are you aware this is the way that the AFSSA is being driven, Mr Byrne?"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-044 | "I am glad of the opportunity to reiterate my view that the Scientific Steering Committee is, as you describe it, the top of the pyramid. They are the best available I rely on their advice, there is no doubt in my mind, and I am not in any way challenging their view.
However, I should say that the issues that have been raised by the French authorities in requesting some clarification of the issues that they have identified seem to me quite reasonable. I have referred to some of them earlier in the answers that I have given, particularly to Mr Whitehead. They seem to me to be not unreasonable and therefore I think it correct to take this opportunity over the next few days to clarify these issues so as to avoid having to go to litigation in the European Court of Justice. That seems to me to be the sensible and the quickest way forward.
In the event that we do not achieve a result along the lines that I envisage then, of course, that option is open and will be looked at in a short space of time, but I believe that the course of action which I have identified as being appropriate, and that others have agreed with me is appropriate, including my colleagues in the Commission this morning, is the appropriate way forward and I intend to pursue that line at least for another number of days."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-047 | "Proposals in relation to labelling are before Parliament, as you say, under Article 152 which is a co-decision procedure and you are correct to say that those labelling provisions provide for information in relation to the animal from birth so that thorough labelling arrangements are a valuable tool.
They provide information but they will not, of course, provide absolute guarantees in relation to public health but they at the very least provide information. Other procedures have to be put in place, which we have put in place, and we are examining so as to ensure public health safety and I am talking now in particular about the DBES scheme itself. But yes, I agree with Mr Goepel, that the labelling issue is an important issue, it is before Parliament and we will obviously have an opportunity to discuss that in the future."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-049 | "Yes, as I said earlier, I am in favour of the establishment of a European food safety authority and the work is on-going in my service in relation to this. I have had a number of discussions with colleagues and with Members of Parliament also in relation to this on an informal basis. So work is proceeding on this issue. No final decisions of course have been taken and, as I said to you a moment ago, the constitutional structure of that authority has yet to be decided and how it would interact with the other institutions of the European Union and with the national food safety agencies of Member States. It also has to be carefully choreographed because we want to rule out any difficulties like the ones we are faced with at the moment.
However, we have to be careful about, as you say, the removal of Member States’ inalienable rights because any interference with the Member States’ rights may very well encroach upon the rights of Member States’, thereby requiring Treaty changes. I am not sure that we want at this stage to move quite that far. I am not ruling that out, but I want you to understand that in addressing your question in that way you should be aware that for progress to be made in that particular area, if it is intended to reduce the jurisdiction or the rights of Member States, Treaty changes would be necessary.
Let me just finally address the issue of the precautionary principle you mentioned. I have mentioned the precautionary principle in the context of imports from the United States and I am sure you are referring to beef and hormone-treated beef. I have referred to that in this House and I have referred to that in the Environment Committee on a number of occasions. I have to point out to you that the advice that I am receiving from the scientists in the European Commission is that the beef imported from the United States contains the hormone 17-beta-oestradiol. I am advised that is a complete carcinogen. In those circumstances, it is appropriate to apply the scientific evidence rather than the precautionary principle because with clear scientific evidence, it is open to me and the Commission to make a decision based on that scientific evidence. It is only in the absence of scientific evidence, or where there is a clear uncertainty in relation to scientific evidence, that the precautionary principle comes into play. So that is why we do not apply the precautionary principle to the hormone issue on the importation of beef from the United States."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-050 | "What British farmers, and in particular farmers in the English West Midlands region that I represent, are looking for is a speedy resolution to this particular problem.
The scientific committee has clearly demonstrated its belief that British beef is as safe as any other beef anywhere in the European Union and under those circumstances I am sure that the Commissioner would agree with me that a delay of perhaps another few days only is better than two or three years going through courts which ultimately frustrates everybody, satisfies nobody and in particular does not satisfy British farmers who have followed the rule of law, have done what has been asked of them and are now in a position to sell an excellent product throughout the whole of the European Union. What I would like the Commissioner to go through just one more time again here now for total clarity is his belief that this delay will only be a few days and that at the very latest he envisages this process being completed by the Tuesday of the Strasbourg session, and preferably before."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-051 | "Let me say to you that I have met Mr Ben Gill of the National Farmers’ Union on a number of occasions, I have spoken to him on the telephone and I have seen what he has had to say on the subject over the last couple of days and in particular overnight. I have kept in close contact with him and I can assure you I am conscious of the problems that this issue poses for farmers in the UK.
I fully agree with you when you say that a delay of a number of days, if it achieves a resolution of this difficult problem, is by far the better solution, rather than embarking upon litigation in the European Court of Justice. I also further confirm to you, and repeat what I said earlier, I hope to bring a final report on this issue to the Commission no later than Tuesday week in Strasbourg."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-052 | "Thank you for addressing us so clearly.
I just wonder whether or not, having listened to all the debates, you are actually totally and utterly aware of the devastating effect of this decision on UK farmers. You have said already quite clearly that the standing committee on scientific evidence is the highest authority.
Mrs Jackson asked you as the very first question if we have another committee to look at our food safety across the European Union will that actually be better than the present standing committee and will people take any notice of it. It appears to me that they have not taken any notice of it. You actually argued almost to the contrary that in actual fact the standing committee on scientific evidence is probably not as good as a food agency. British farmers are suffering as a result of indecision. It is about time the decision was ratified. The previous speaker said in a few days; it was actually in August the decision was taken. How many more days do we need to have a decision?
Can I also ask you: there is a practice within Member States, or some Member States, to feed what I would call banned substances to some of their beef cattle. Is the scientific committee and the Commission going to look at that? Or are we going to continue with a situation where the press are just going to use it to attack Member States?
Commissioner, all I say to you is that British farmers, the European Union and agriculture are suffering as a result of indecision. We want to see the decision taken on Friday evening, not waiting until Strasbourg. There is no more scientific evidence. Did the French sign up to the Florence agreement? Has the United Kingdom met all the conditions that were laid down in that agreement? Why has a decision not been taken immediately?"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-053 | "I am totally aware of the problems that all this has caused for British farmers. This issue has been going on for a long time now, long before I came to the Commission. The decision that was taken by the French authorities on 1 October is a decision that has had to be dealt with as best one can in the meantime. Since then the one feature that can be pointed to is that there has not been any indecision on the part of the Commission or on the part of those who are involved in trying to resolve this difficult issue.
I have said on a number of occasions – and I have said it again here today – that I believe that the application of steady diplomacy, cool heads with firm determination, will make more progress than knee-jerk reactions resulting in the Commission ending up in the Court of Justice in Luxembourg two years hence. It will not do the farmers of the UK any good, in my view, if the ban remains in place in the intervening two-year period.
I am firmly convinced that the view I take, the line that I have adopted, the decisions that I have made, reinforced by my colleagues in the Commission this morning, are the correct decision. I look forward to a speedy resolution of this issue.
I have mentioned on a number of occasions over the last weekend in various interviews that it is my firm wish that this matter be resolved quickly and diplomatically. Sometimes it is difficult to achieve both of those at the same time. That is what I am trying to do. That is what I am trying to achieve. Allowing me a week until Tuesday to do that is not unreasonable."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-055 | "I fully agree with you when you say this is not an issue of losing face or winners and losers. The characterisation of this difficult matter in those terms is quite unhelpful. Also, those who address it in that way do not give full justice to the seriousness of the problem.
I also agree with you that assurance for consumers is of paramount importance. It is the DBES scheme which has been devised by the Commission with the advice of the scientists which, in my opinion and the opinion of those scientists who advise the Commission in these matters, will give that assurance to consumers.
I also agree with you that it is extremely valuable to have labelling and traceability. In relation to the labelling issue, you have asked me what will be put in place at Community level in the legislation regarding labelling. From 2003, all beef will be labelled with place of birth, place of fattening, place of slaughter, breed and age of the animal.
It is not possible to provide this labelling and information at present because the Member States have not yet provided the information for that to happen. But it is being addressed and that will be the situation from that date.
Again, I should like to emphasise the importance that I attach to this entire issue in terms of consumer confidence and, in particular, the issue of public health. It is my intention to take this into account over the next number of days in the on-going discussions."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-065 | "I want to speak about three areas: context, dialogue and democracy.
Firstly, the context within which this macroeconomic dialogue is taking place. There is a huge and vitally important factor missing although it is reflected in the Treaties and I refer of course, as you would expect me to, to the environment.
Article 2 refers to sustainable development as one of the objectives of the European Union, although many of us might question the methods which are set down to attain it. But certainly some of them are macroeconomic, as reflected in this debate. And sustainable development I would like to point out is not the same as sustainable growth which we have been hearing a lot about this afternoon. If growth is quantitative and not qualitative I would submit that we are actually creating instability by making money out of oil spills, clearing up after crime etc.
Article VI, Title 2 of the new Treaty clearly states that environmental considerations should be integrated into all areas of European Union policy and practice and we believe that includes macroeconomic dialogue. For example, climate change, if unchecked, is certainly destabilising to anybody’s economy as the European Union’s own research shows. Our own research also shows that economic development in the conventional sense is becoming limited in some areas due to lack of fresh water and that the European Union already produces more toxic waste than it can deal with as a by-product of economic growth.
The environment has therefore to be factored in and I would like to know how that is going to be done. Who is going to be represented? We would also like to ask for real dialogue within this, not just economic propaganda. It is essential that we look for new ways and the best ways to meet the objective of balanced and sustainable development in a way which meets our own needs, those of the environment and which does not have a negative impact on the living standards of those in the poor parts of the world. So how are we going to evaluate the wider effects of our own macroeconomic policy?
Thirdly, I would ask for the democratic deficit in this process to be repaired, certainly at the next Intergovernmental Conference. I listened to the list of those who were going to be present and it struck me that the process is actually similar to what happens down the pub on a Friday night where you get together with your mates, then go home and tell people what happened and if you are lucky other people might hear the best stories.
I want to know how, as elected Members, we are going to be involved in this process, particularly if it is going to be as closed as has been laid out for us. It appears to me that we are not being treated as parliamentarians here, as being grown-up and mature enough to participate in the process of dialogue on macroeconomic policy, and I would urge you to change that and at least open up in the meantime so that we know what is happening and can explain it to our constituents."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-070 | "At the beginning of this year a macroeconomic dialogue became absolutely essential and no doubt the first meeting of the partners to that macroeconomic dialogue next week will be an historic step.
Sadly we here in Parliament will be witnessing it from the sidelines. Despite an absolutely resounding rejection just last June in the European Parliament elections of the remoteness and secrecy of our institutions collectively, that first step next week will be adding to the democratic deficit in that Parliament will be excluded and there seems to be no good reason for this.
The partners to the dialogue are of two types. First there are those like the social partners or the central bank who have a direct influence on facets of the equation such as wage formation or the level of interest rates and then secondly, in a class of their own, are the European Commission and the Commission advisers on the direction, for example, of the policy mix. They do not directly affect any of the facets of the equation, they have not got that decision-making power. They are there to advise and influence. In this respect this institution is one of the Commission’s main interlocutors. We might disagree with the advice and the direction they will suggest but we will not have the right to be there at the macroeconomic dialogue to say so.
I am told that these sorts of things are technical issues and that we in Parliament should remain above them, but to me the issues that will be discussed in the macroeconomic dialogue that have been touched upon here are not technical, they are highly political and we, as the democratically elected institution, should have a part to play in that macroeconomic dialogue.
That leaves the excuse of what some call the need for confidentiality, trust or even secrecy. Some have used the word secrecy. That is a retrograde step. We have found all sorts of ways in the budgetary procedure to find a working arrangement for this institution together with the Commission to maintain confidentiality and that could be done in relation to this dialogue.
On the content, I hope the macroeconomic dialogue will call for and take note of evidence on the success of the active labour market measures we have been increasingly pursuing since Luxembourg. Has that resulted in an increase in the effective supply of labour or do we need to hang on to the increasing unsustainable view that structural unemployment represents the bulk of unemployment? Can we begin to abandon concepts like that, can we perhaps begin to take a more realistic view in the setting of interest rates, a view which would accept that conditions have changed and that we can now begin to hold back on interest rate increases as unemployment falls so as not to choke off a fragile growth?
These are the sorts of points I would love to be at the macroeconomic dialogue next week to make, but sadly neither I nor any other Member of this institution will be allowed to be present at that meeting next week. That is a real retrograde step and an absolute shame."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-077 | "Mr President, it is very important indeed that the Council and the Commission think very carefully about the meeting that is being held and the meetings that will be held in the future on the macroeconomic dialogue. It is absolutely pointless to exclude the European Parliament from that discussion. We debate the annual economic report with the Council and the Commission. Last week we had Mr Duisenberg in the European Parliament to oversee the work of the European Central Bank. We have finance ministers coming before the Economic Committee of the European Parliament and we have the social partners also coming before the European Parliament. I hope that at this stage it is an oversight in not involving the European Parliament in this discussion. It seems to me a rather pointless exercise if we are not present.
I want to talk about the outputs from the dialogue. Frankly, that is much more important at this stage than who sits around the table at the first meeting.
It is called a macroeconomic dialogue. I hope it is a dialogue and not a monologue. Our experience from our discussions with the ECOFIN Council and the European Central Bank is that we are very much involved in a monologue. We sit and listen to the orthodoxy from the ECOFIN Council and we listen to the orthodoxy from the European Central Bank. They show absolutely no imagination whatsoever.
The macroeconomic dialogue is critical. At the moment we are operating in a very benign economic environment. We have low inflation, we are returning to growth and things are reasonably stable. What happens in the future when we have a problem in our economy and where there is a serious external shock or a serious internal shock and you have to talk to the social partners and the other economic actors about some perhaps unpalatable measures that need to be taken at a European level?
I say to the president of the ECOFIN Council and to Commissioner Solbes Mira that what we set out in the macroeconomic dialogue in the next few days is not just for what is occurring at the present time, but to set the mood so that in the event of a problem or difficult issues we can actually sit together with the social partners and work out solutions to our problems. Equally, we do not want this monologue – having listened to Mr Duisenberg it will certainly run the risk of being a monologue – to be a discussion only about wage levels. There are many more things involved in the real economy of the European Union than the level of wages of people in employment. We need to look at the reform of labour markets. We need to look at the reform of the capital markets. We need to look at the reform of the product markets. All those things impact upon the social partners.
In conclusion, my group will look with interest at the conclusion of the macroeconomic dialogue. We see this as a first step. But please involve us in the future and understand that in times of difficulty this dialogue could be critical to the way in which European citizens accept the institutions of the European Union when difficult decisions have to be taken."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-085 | "As you said, the proposal for which I am responsible is that relating to the enforcement of seafarers’ hours of work on board ships using Community ports.
This is just one element of an overall package of proposals that were brought forward by the Commission last November to try to plug the loopholes of the sectors that were excluded from the original working-time directive back in 1993. I hope we are nearing the final chapters in this long saga and that soon we will have all sectors covered by arrangements on working time to protect worker health and safety.
Just as a quick reminder, the batch that was brought forward last year by the Commission included first of all an overall amendment of the 1993 directive, that is the subject of Mrs Smet’s report; a directive on road transport, sadly that one is totally blocked in the Transport Council at the moment I understand it; the third, a directive implementing the agreement between the social partners on seafarers, was adopted in the form of a directive in June this year so that element is taken care of, and then finally the proposal that I am speaking on today, a directive on the enforcement of working hours on board ships using Community ports. The three proposals effectively need to be seen together in relation to the one proposal I am speaking on.
There is the agreement reached between the two sides of industry in the maritime sector, there is the specific proposal relating to seafarers having recourse to Community ports, but also there is ILO Convention 180 and in fact the agreement between the two sides of industry in the maritime sector was very closely based on ILO Convention 180. These three proposals: the agreement, the directive on seafarers’ hours and the ILO Convention are designed to come into effect together in mid-2002.
At the first reading on this particular proposal Parliament made no amendments but the rapporter, Hugh McMahon at that time, made the point that it was absolutely essential that these three instruments should come into effect at the same time to avoid any competitive disadvantage. I am therefore very pleased indeed that seems to have been agreed and we seem to be making progress in that direction. The fact that the ILO Convention now has a time limit set down effectively in the form of the other two directives means that we will, I am sure, have sufficient Member States with sufficiently large fleets ratifying the Convention to make sure that it too comes into effect in mid-2002. The only significant difference in the common position compared with the first reading position is that the implementation date has been put back by one year. That really is to allow Member States to overcome one or two technical difficulties they might have in ratifying ILO Convention 180 and thereby allowing the whole package to be brought into effect at the same time.
Perhaps I could also say that I have just met with the two sides of industry from the maritime sector and congratulated them heartily on the agreement they reached. It took five years of negotiation to reach the agreement in the maritime sector. These things do not happen easily, they do not happen overnight but they did work extremely hard and we are now seeing the fruits of the social dialogue in that particular sector. I think it is very sad indeed that we have not seen similar progress in the road sector.
The difficulties we are now facing in the Transport Council over the legislative proposal the Commission brought forward stem directly from the fact that there was a failure to make progress on a framework agreement on working time in the road sector. It reveals a real sharp contrast to the progress that was made in the maritime sector. That really poses a danger; it poses a danger to the revision to the general directive that Mrs Smet is also dealing with and the danger is this: the rail sector is included in the general directive. The two sides of industry there agreed to be included in the general directive so long as parallel progress was made in the road sector because they quite naturally fear a competitive disadvantage if they put in place wide-ranging arrangements to cover working time but the road sector does not. I hope the Transport Council will hear that message and that we will see some progress to make sure that road transport is covered, otherwise we see a real danger to the rail sector element of the revision to the general directive.
For now, however, I can thoroughly commend the common position in relation to the enforcement of seafarers’ hours at work on board ships using Community ports. This will make sure that the workers on board vessels from third countries having recourse to our ports are covered by the same broad arrangements as the agreement between the two sides of industry. It is a perfectly sensible and good proposal and I commend it to the House."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-089 | "I would like to talk just briefly about some of the amendments tabled in the report by Mrs Smet.
First of all Amendment No 5 relating to the working time of junior doctors in training. I agree absolutely with the amendment that has been tabled here reinstating the first reading position. I know certain Member States feel that a far longer transition period will be necessary. It might well be that the maintenance of this amendment will take us into conciliation. That will give us an opportunity to look at the circumstances facing certain Member States but for now I think it is absolutely right that we stick to this amendment. Mr Pronk is absolutely right. We should ask ourselves would we want to be receiving an injection from a doctor at the end of an 18-hour working day, which is not unusual.
In the offshore sector, Amendment No 6 – we have looked long and hard to try to come up with a formulation that will make sure that we get a collective agreement leading to the maximum flexibility available under the directive, that is annualisation of working time. The formulation of the common position would have simply allowed the employers to walk away from attempts to reach negotiation on annualisation of working time and Member States could then have allowed annualisation. We have built in an addition here that will ask for a review after five years involving the two sides of industry at European level to see how the regime is functioning in this sector with particular reference to the health and safety of the workers involved.
Amendment No 7 relates to sea fishing. The effect of this amendment will be to try to limit to one year the reference period available for the annualisation of the calculation of working time, in other words making sure that annualisation of working time is possible but no more. If we go to two, three or more years as the reference period for the calculation of working time it becomes absolutely meaningless and we feel that the maximum flexibility of one year annualisation should be sufficient.
In Amendment No 8 we look at the issue of the transposition period to be allowed to the Member States. The common position proposes four years which I think is without precedent in the social area. We have looked in this amendment to return to the first reading position of two years. Perhaps again this is something that will be subject to conciliation but we will have to see if and when that is triggered following our vote tomorrow.
My final point relates to urban transport, Amendment No 9. We have also built in here a review in order to try to remove an anomaly. The way things stand we would have a different regime applying to a person driving a tram to a person driving an urban bus. That needs to be reviewed. We think a five-year time period should be sufficient."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-090 | "Mr President, we generally welcome these reports and their recommendations. I particularly want to speak about doctors in training. As others have said, it has been a concern in a number of Member States for many years and of particular concern for EU residents who travel, let alone those who reside in places like the United Kingdom or Ireland.
Some Member States have clearly not acted quickly enough on this. Looking at some of the rates of pay for overtime one might understand their lack of incentive. However, we believe that now is the time to up the pace for change.
The working time for more than one quarter of a million doctors in training in the European Union is an issue of health and safety for the doctors themselves, who should have the same rights to safeguard their health and personal lives as those they treat. It is a similar issue for those who need treatment. We want to be sure that those treating us are able to act effectively and efficiently, which we cannot be when we have research showing that 24 hours of sustained wakefulness reduces performance to levels associated with excessive alcohol intake without – I would argue – some of the pleasures.
Training doctors is a lengthy and expensive business, we are told. It is a reason for giving a lengthy implementation time, some governments argue. However, there is reason to believe that the harsh working hours contribute to a significant drop-out rate, with a particular impact on women junior doctors. We therefore urge colleagues to support the four years proposed in this report because we believe we need to accelerate change through negotiation."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-092 | "Mr President, I, like my colleagues, would like to congratulate both our rapporteurs on the presentation of their work. Also, as this is the first opportunity I have had, I should like to welcome the Commissioner to the House for this debate.
The impact of this directive will not be uniform across all sectors of the economy and therefore it will negatively impact on certain sectors, in particular those areas that are more heavily dependent on transport.
Thirdly, it is likely that rather than aligning competition, the application of a single standard across all road transport and other transport areas in some Member States will actually distort competition.
The proposals will also lead to a conflict with other goals with regard to the regulation of traffic to reduce congestion and other impacts.
Finally, we already have in place in the transport sector tachograph requirements which are rigorously enforced in all Member States and which may be one way of dealing with some of the concerns about the health and safety aspect. We should look at modifying and solidifying those tachograph requirements. In Ireland we have a road safety plan which has been in operation since 1998. This is a five-year plan which aims to reduce road deaths, the amount of traffic on the roads and to ensure that the quality of vehicles on the road meet the highest possible standards to protect the environment.
The next point I want to cover is with regard to junior doctors and training. This is an area that has been fraught with danger for the Member States. I believe everybody in this House would welcome the opportunity to give a very positive and assertive vote in favour of the proposals put forward by Mrs Smith in her report with regard to reducing the transitional period to four years. There is no reason why we need a 13-year introduction. Even the common position proposal of 7 years is too long.
Each of us is fully aware that junior doctors in training carry out tasks which are virtually the same as those carried out by their so-called “masters”, the consultants. Indeed, in 1994 the report commissioned by the European Commission which looked at this whole area of junior doctors in training highlighted seven points which need immediate action: the excessive hours of work in some countries; the question of on-call duties; unrealistic rostering periods; protracted periods of continuous duty; the distribution of duties between junior doctors and senior doctors; informal pressures on doctors in training; the vulnerability of breaks and time off in the face of the pressure of service needed.
I have had several meetings with junior doctors in Ireland over the last number of months with regard to this issue. One of the areas that is of highest concern to them is that because of the existence in Ireland – and in Britain as well, for example – of the archaic feudal-type system whereby junior doctors in training are apprenticed – I use that word broadly – to senior consultants, they are afraid to raise too many issues of concern, because it might affect their future careers. What we have to guarantee is that the proper level of health care and health protection can be given to patients in the health service and also, that junior doctors are given the highest possible level of training with proper standards for their working conditions and working time – this will mean a reduction in the amount of hours that are worked – and also, the other so-called duties which they are obliged to carry out merely to deliver the service. We have a model in Australia and New Zealand which could usefully be copied in the European Union Member States.
Finally, with regard to the concerns of fishermen, special consideration has to be given to this special sector. There is no other sector to which it can be compared. The proposals put forward are unrealistic and impractical. We must ensure that fishermen’s rights to earn their living are not hindered by ridiculous regulation.
The whole area of working time and the directive have created a lot of difficulties for individual Members and also in Member States. I feel that whilst each of us in this House would welcome the opportunity to ensure a safer working environment, not only for employees, but also for consumers and other users of transport and so on, we have to ensure that we do not over-regulate in any individual area. Therefore, my group will be seeking separate votes on certain paragraphs, in particular within the Smet report.
When framing legislation we have an obligation to ensure that legislation is effective, that it can be easily enforced and that it does not impose an onerous burden on employees or enterprises. I feel there are some areas within the present proposals which will create difficulties.
Firstly, with regard to mobile workers, the exclusion of own-account operators from the definition will subject this group to the full rigours of the original working time directive. This will mean, for instance, that in the road transport area there will be three categories of operators: own-account, third party hauliers and self-employed.
Secondly, the deletion of mobile workers from Article 17 dilutes the opportunity for mobile workers to extend the reference period from 4 to 12 months.
Thirdly, the proposed sector-specific directive for working time in road transport, when finalised, will supersede this common position and will provide a more detailed regulatory framework for this area.
In the light of these issues we should be cognisant of the difficulties which will be created. Therefore I am recommending a negative vote in relation to these areas.
There is one further point to bear in mind. The intention of the introduction of this legislation, as I said earlier, was protection of health and safety. However, I have in my possession a study carried out by University College, Dublin, which highlights the negative impact of this proposed extension of the directive, not only on the grounds of safety and competitiveness, but also on the grounds of damage to the environment. The Commission already has a copy of this study. I would welcome a response from it with regard to the points highlighted in it.
I should like to refer very briefly to some of the points highlighted. Firstly, the overall cost of the directive would be far greater than that proposed under the impact assessment. Secondly, the average cost increase for firms in this study would be in excess by about a hundred times that of the study carried out by the EC which stated that it would be 0.2%."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-094 | "Mr President, I congratulate Mrs Smet on her report. I should like to concentrate on two specific categories: junior doctors and fishermen.
Concerning junior doctors, I was delighted that the European Parliament, in committee, has agreed on Amendment No 5 with regard to a transitional period of four years instead of the Council position of nine years, which I believe is too long. Doctors have our lives in their hands. It is important that they are included in the working time directive. I was worried about the weekly working hours and how they should not exceed the 54 hours over a four-month reference period. That is why I would like you, for the same reasons, to support Amendment No 10 tabled in my name.
I should like to mention here that on the order paper it looks as if I had taken out some of the recital 11. In fact my amendment is purely and simply an addition, an add-on to recital 11. I am not taking out anything in that. I ask for your support.
It is important also with derogations on minimum daily rest periods that we still have adequate rest for doctors. I know doctors in the UK who work 56-hour shifts consecutively; 9 am on Saturday to 5 p.m. on Monday is not uncommon. We are not asking for an 11-hour rest period. We are asking for, say, six hours within a 24-hour period. That is not asking too much. If doctors do not get that their judgment will suffer. We do not allow people to drink and drive because their coordination is gone. I do not believe we should allow junior doctors to be able to practice medicine. I urge you to support Amendment No 10."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-095 | "Mr President, I want to raise one matter relating to the enforcement of seafarer’s hours, of their working time onboard ships using Community ports.
I do not really see how this measure can be monitored satisfactorily because the Community ports and the countries within the European Community have no real jurisdiction over those ships that are flagged or owned in overseas countries. If we take it forward: Say, for instance, they had agreed that some monitoring was possible – surely they would not have certain working hours outside European Community waters and ports and then change once they were inside our geographical area.
I have been talking about this with American lawyers over recent weeks – personal friends, I have no interest to declare here. They just feel that it is wrong that ports should dictate to owners of ships. We want the maximum trade here in the European Union. We want to make sure that cruise ships come here, spend money here and give employment to our various countries. I do not see how it is possible to monitor a practice that would seem to be more a matter of international law. Ship owners and the nations that have these ships flagged in those countries should be monitored elsewhere rather than by European countries."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-096 | "Mr President, I want to address primarily the trainee doctors issue. But I want to make a few points before I deal with that.
First of all, the original directive excluded six million workers from its remit. It seems to me that was excessive and unfair. I cannot see how you can make a distinction between trainee doctors who are fatigued, truck drivers who are fatigued or fishermen who are fatigued. They all are a risk either to themselves, to those who work with them, their patients or other road users. I do not see how Mr Crowley can make the distinction he has made. I hope he is not reflecting the Irish Government’s position in relation to these proposals. It is scandalous and unacceptable that trainee doctors in Irish hospitals are expected to work sometimes in excess of 80 hours a week. It is scandalous and disgraceful that we have truck drivers who are falling asleep at the wheel, putting the lives of those who are working with them and other road users at risk. We know that there is a fairly high rate of road accidents as a result of truck drivers who are driving hours too long.
For Mr Crowley to claim that the tachograph legislation is rigorously applied in Ireland or anywhere else is simply not true. I do not know why that is the case. I do not know why it is not rigorously applied but it is not. We need to take steps to protect the public at large and patients. It is not good enough for any Member State in the Council to say that it would be costly to implement these proposals. Of course it will be costly but what price do you put on the life of a child who may be knocked down on the road, or a patient in hospital who may receive wrong treatment as a result of the fatigue of a doctor? It is just not acceptable. It is necessary that tomorrow we adopt the position as proposed by the rapporteurs and as proposed by the ESOC Committee and put it to the Council that it must finally come to grips with this issue and ensure that nobody has to work the inhuman hours that we are expecting our trainee doctors to work.
In relation to truck drivers, it seems to me that the only way to regulate this is to put it into law. Own-account truck drivers will work all the hours that they get because they are not sure when they will get another job. So it is necessary to apply the law so that they will be forced to take rest and forced not to be on the road when they are simply too tired to drive."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-100 | "When the 1993 directive on working time was drawn up certain sectors were excluded from its remit and the reason is very clear. It is that the very specific characteristics of some of the sectors concerned required legislation that took these particular characteristics and needs into consideration.
I want to focus my remarks this evening on the fishing industry, and of course one of the sectors excluded is sea fishing. I share the Council’s view that flexibility in this sector is absolutely essential. Indeed I will go further and call for the exclusion of those workers who are involved in the processing of fresh fish – and I emphasise fresh fish – because there is no continuity of supply when we are dealing with fish. I believe the health and safety of workers must not be compromised. I am not suggesting that, but I believe that protection can best be accorded by an agreement between the two sides of the fishing and fresh fish processing industry. I cannot therefore accept Mr Hughes’ amendment which would place too many constraints on the fishing industry.
Fishermen must have sufficient holiday time and a maximum limit to working time but I am seriously concerned about the damage to the industry that could result from an inflexible attitude. I would like to stress that neither the fishing industry associations nor indeed any individual fishermen have approached me seeking to be included in the directive. This is an industry which I like to believe that I have a particular affinity to, and appreciation of, coming from a maritime constituency in the north-west of Ireland where fishing is a crucial part of the local economy. My concern is with the families of those trying to make a living. I would call on Mr Hughes and those who feel they want to vote for his amendment to take common sense into consideration.
In conclusion, I want to take the opportunity to refer to the other group – the junior doctors. The hours that this dedicated group of individuals currently has to work in Ireland are unacceptably long. They need to be brought under the correct protection of the directive and I fully support Amendment No 5 calling for a maximum transition period of five years."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-102 | "There have been some easy and pious words spread around tonight on working time. As everyone knows, it is effectively about health and safety. Yet it is fraught with problems. Nonetheless it should apply to all workers as an absolute principle, whoever they are. It is easy to see how some people pick on some groups but will not highlight the need for it to be applied to others.
Of course, Mrs Smet, who has brought forward this report, having picked it up from the last Parliament, has to accept that as a former Council member she had to accept the common position of the Council which she now rejects. Missing in all this debate quite clearly are the necessary staged processes by Member States. It is after all an inelastic supply in certain circumstances, just as it is with doctors in training. Missing also are the efforts already made in certain Member States. In the UK, for example, proposals are in advance of this directive and have been welcomed by Andrew Hobart, chairman of the junior doctors’ committee who says he is delighted that an understanding has been reached on a new contract for junior doctors which will guarantee safe working hours in advance in the United Kingdom. Deep sea fishing –here is an area unique in its case which proves the rule that this working time directive is fraught with practical problems.
But, after all, perhaps I can afford a smile. I agree with the principles of this report. I disagree with the estimated effects of all these amendments, but I think that is consistent with my position at all times. It will be interesting to see how some who feel free to pick and choose who should have effective limits on working time and who should not can explain that to the workers affected. Also, what about the emergency workers – paramedics and others. Do not they deserve to be a special case too? So before we get smug in our concern for just certain groups, what about sparing a thought for those others who carry out emergency health care at all times and are also derogated from certain aspects of the working time directive.
Less smugness please, more practical application."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-104 | "In general terms I find Mrs Smet’s report and most of the committee’s amendments wholly acceptable and worthy of support. Others have referred to particular activities and sectors which are proposed to be covered for the first time by working time regulations. For example, my group colleague, Mrs Lambert, referred to doctors in training and I associate myself totally with her remarks and support the proposals relating to that sector. I do have a concern though that sea-fishermen, especially share fishermen, who are wholly self-employed, will be adversely affected by some aspects of these proposals and I seek some clarification of this.
Share fishermen jointly own their vessels and are paid solely by share of their catches. Their work patterns are dictated by factors outwith any control, such as weather conditions and fish movements, and therefore it is difficult to imagine how restrictions on working time could possibly be practical in this sector.
Of course, health and safety issues are a major reason for limiting working time but fisheries is already subject to codes of practice and to regulations which are monitored by competent authorities.
Share fishermen up to now have been assured that their unique circumstances would be catered for through exemption. I believe that share fishermen must continue to be regarded as a special case and not subjected to impractical regulations. I will be taking full account of the potential impact on fishermen of the various proposals and amendments before casting my vote tomorrow. I will be listening very carefully to the summing up of this debate for indications that the needs of share fishermen particularly can be accommodated satisfactorily."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-108 | "In relation to the working time directive on road transport operators, I have concerns about the exclusion of own-account operators from the definition of mobile workers. For road transport we will now have three categories of operators, own-account, third party hauliers and self-employed with three different working time regimes under Directive 93/104. I suggest that will be inoperable and unenforceable. If tachograph legislation could be rigorously applied would we need the amendment before us, would we need to double the lorries and trucks on the road with the consequent environmental impact? The jury is out.
In relation to Amendment No 5 I fully support it. Indeed, in Ireland, we can hang our heads in shame. We have 3,000 non-consultant hospital doctors, or junior doctors. The voluntary maximum working hours negotiated by the Irish medical organisation and our department of health is 35 hours per week averaged over their rota period of 46 hours and not more than 72 hours work continuously. Never mind an injection from a doctor on duty for 16 or 18 hours as another speaker mentioned. Who would like to have their baby delivered by a doctor, a junior obstetrician after being on duty for 70 hours? Working continuously for 70 hours is permitted. It is appalling at the moment.
The Commission’s study at the time of the original working time directive stated that in Ireland non-consultant hospital doctors worked well in excess of the 65 hours permitted per week and they undertake tasks indistinguishable from that of their senior colleagues. This study listed issues needing urgent resolution and I will list these briefly – excessive hours worked in several EU countries, on-call duties, – we by the way have problems in Ireland about the definition of on-call. In Ireland, on-call equals on-duty, we need to be very careful of that. The co-shape study also lists unrealistic rostering, protracted periods of continuous duty, the distribution of duties between junior and senior doctors, informal pressure on doctors in training, the vulnerability of breaks and time off and the pace of pressures and service needs.
In conclusion, thank you. All I would like to say is in protecting our doctors, we are protecting their patients. This is a health and safety issue of both doctors and their patients. We must stop the exploitation of doctors in training for their sake and that of their patients.
Let me make an altogether separate point of order. My colleague, Mrs Scallon is not here because we understood President Nicole Fontaine to say at the end of the beef debate that the Smet and Hughes reports would be taken tomorrow. There probably is a problem in interpretation here. I understood that, and Mrs Scallon and other colleagues who are not here have been confused by this."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-110 | "Mrs Doyle has listed many of the technical points I wished to make about the conditions of junior working doctors.
It is ironic on the eve of the millennium that we are discussing the working conditions of doctors who are working in what could only be described as Dickensian situations. They have long working hours in difficult circumstances with little or no recognition in terms of government policy to the serious difficulties they are encountering. I hope very much that Parliament will clearly indicate their support for the re-introduction of the original time of four years for the inclusion of junior doctors in this directive.
It is amazing that in this day and age people with such huge responsibilities are working under such difficult circumstances. Mr President, would you get into a plane flown by a pilot who was exhausted and had worked more than 70 hours in a week? I would not, and I am sure no other colleague would either. I was a nurse, I dread to tell you how many years ago, but in those days the technical demands on both doctors and nurses were considerably less than they are now. Now doctors – and, of course, nurses as well, I must make a point for them too – are expected to be highly technologically proficient. We all know how dicey it becomes when we are exhausted doing something as simple as working on our computers. So how much more so dealing with technical issues. These young doctors, these junior doctors, are dealing with serious emergencies in a condition of extreme exhaustion. I hope very much, Mr President, and clearly from the debate so far, our colleagues also share this concern, that they will support all the amendments and I thank Mrs Smet very much for the amount of serious consideration she has given to this particular issue."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-113 | "With your permission, in the debate I made specific reference to share fishermen and sought specific assurances about the position of share fishermen. I detected no reference whatsoever to share fishermen and their position in the answers. I wonder if you would permit a specific answer to be given.
In a previous debate on the subject when I made similar comments, the then Commissioner made it very clear in the summing up that share fishermen were not included in the proposals. Can the Commissioner confirm whether that is or is not still the case?"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-115 | "With your permission again, share fishermen, as I attempted to explain clearly, are self-employed due to the nature of their ownership and operation of their vessels. Previously, share fishermen were specifically exempt from working time regulations in the same way that other self-employed people are or had been. I just asked for clarification of whether the particular position of share fishermen has changed since the previous debate?"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-117 | "I was just saying that the issue is whether fishermen of that kind are regarded as employed or not. This is critical to us and the Commission has still omitted to answer the question."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-119 | "I would just like clarification as to when the Commissioner believes the conciliation process on the junior doctors will commence. Obviously, this is of great concern. I accept her point that there will probably have to be compromise on all sides but I would be interested to know when she anticipates conciliation starting."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-122 | "With respect, we are still not very clear whether the Commission intends share fishermen to be included in this article or not. We need clarification in some of the parties."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-155 | "Mr President, there are many factors which purchasers may wish to take into account when choosing a model of car. When I bought my first car my primary consideration was to be noticed in it by the opposite sex. Now other considerations such as safety and economy are more pertinent.
We welcome this legislation because it is important that the information outlined is made available to those purchasers for whom environmental and economy considerations are paramount.
People in the United Kingdom are particularly interested in fuel economy because of the punitive fuel tax levels set by our Labour Government, which particularly pose problems for people living in rural areas like my own where public transport is often non-existent.
My first reaction when I saw this directive was surprise. Not only have we had such a scheme of publicising fuel economy data for some time in Britain, but most people assume that the existing scheme is the result of a European directive already. In fact only Sweden and the United Kingdom have such a scheme. It is good to see Europe following Britain’s lead. The key to the success of the United Kingdom’s scheme is simplicity. I hope that the directive, as outlined in the common position, does not confuse consumers by going further than our scheme.
My first concern is that there is flexibility for Member States to extend the information available. Whilst I realise that there are subsidiarity implications for this flexibility it is also true that by having different information and different formats in different Member States this could distort the single market and confuse consumers who wish to buy in different states.
Secondly, the directive proposes to compile a top ten list of vehicles according to class. How does one define these classes? If it is based on the footprint of the car then we could see small saloons, four-wheel drive vehicles and two-seater sports cars listed together, clearly a nonsense. It is also possible that a manufacturer could move a model up to a class containing larger vehicles simply by adding 15 cm of plastic to the front. Top ten rankings may also differ in neighbouring countries.
In welcoming this scheme, I hope that when it is reviewed in 2003, if any of the problems I have mentioned have arisen, these can be addressed.
Finally, I congratulate Mr Sterckx on the way he presented this to the committee and for his cooperation."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-169 | "Mr President, I am very pleased to be able to respond to this strategic document on behalf of my group. Broadly speaking, we can welcome it as evidenced by the fact that we have not tabled any amendments. We seem to be moving on with the internal market, hopefully to a position where we will get an internal market that functions properly and fairly for all our citizens and businesses.
I would like to highlight two challenges to the perfection of the internal market. The first is striking a proper balance between a quest for harmonisation and respect for the subsidiarity principle. I wish to draw attention to this in relation to the ultra-peripheral regions of the Union whose status has now been specifically recognised by Article 299 of the Treaty. Our group will seek to support an inclusion of an amendment to the motion endorsing this.
The second and perhaps bigger challenge is that of the new technologies, the advent of e-commerce. We have the biggest opportunity ever to make the single market a reality to many sole traders and SMEs in our Member States who may not previously have thought of selling outside their own immediate locality. However, this commercial revolution in the way we do business will also require a revolution in our legal thinking. As a lawyer I know that my profession is not particularly known for being revolutionary. The systems of commercial and civil law that exist across our Member States were largely constructed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, a response to industrial and commercial changes in those centuries. We need our own new responses for the 21st century.
I have raised, as have other colleagues, our fears about the combined contents of the Framework E-Commerce Directive and the revision to the Brussels and Lugano Conventions. There are fears that e-commerce may be strangled at birth by regulations which potentially expose traders to 15 different European legal jurisdictions whilst at the same time the very same regulations could fail to really give our citizens easy or affordable access to justice. The old conventions and legal approaches need to be subject to some new and imaginative thinking if we are really to unleash the potential of e-commerce. Some have suggested a new
. Maybe it should be
.
It is equally true, given the question tabled by Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi, that Parliament needs to be fully involved in this process. With new legislative proposals, we should not be pushed to provide opinions and reports at breakneck speed which allow us little time for thought and consultation with interest groups and citizens. Whether it be regulation by that way or by means of so-called new soft-law methods, again Parliament needs to be fully and properly engaged in the process.
There is no room for fudge or lack of clarity. The new commerce will need a framework that provides certainty both for consumer and trader alike. We have challenging times ahead. Give this House the time and mechanisms which will allow us to respond in a way that meets not only the expectations of Europe’s citizens but also of those in the global marketplace who are waiting for us to take a lead."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-170 | "Mr President, I thank the Commissioner for his good lead to us in bringing forward this clear, rational strategy document that helps us to see how the Commission means to bring forward the internal market strategy. Thanks also to my colleague Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi for having made such an excellent job of putting together thoughts in a motion for a resolution on this strategy. We are very happy with that but we will suggest one amendment: to clarify the position of artists in the Community, in particular in the areas of freedom of movement, establishment and taxation.
In the main paper we are particularly attracted – as are others – by the emphasis on the need for a coherent approach to Internet regulation and e-commerce; also, intellectual property, distance selling and data protection – taking them all together in order to protect consumer rights and ensure adequate rules of viability. Naturally, in our group, we want to see that the achievement of the internal market involves a balance – as you said yourself, Commissioner – between market freedom and the need to protect the environment, consumer health and consumer confidence.
I should also like to mention our sense – like yours – that the ordinary citizens need to see an increase in the speed and efficiency of infringement proceedings against defaulting Member States where the rights of European Union citizens exercised within the internal market are impinged upon or denied.
I am very upset, as a member of the academic profession, to see yet again the issue of foreign language lecturers in Italian universities coming forward without yet a resolution after eleven years, after three judgments in favour of the rights of these ordinary citizens seeking to exercise freedom of movement, seeking to take advantage of that fundamental principle of the Union and the internal market of no discrimination on nationality grounds. It really is disgraceful that this issue still remains open. I hope that the Internal Market Commissioner and his colleagues will make it their urgent business to bring this to an end. The Commissioner has shown himself wise and far-sighted in his strategy document. I trust and am sure he will show himself no less resolute in pressing home cases which have to be brought to a conclusion speedily."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-03-Speech-3-175 | "This is a very important document and indeed I am sorry that there are not more Members here to discuss it. The most welcome thing about it is a recognition by the Commission that we are moving now into an entirely new and different phase of the development of the single market from any that we have seen before. The first point that I want to make echoes what a number of colleagues have said, namely that this strategy has to be responsive and flexible.
The corporate by-word now is about reinventing corporations, reinventing what we do. And of course the sort of new technologies available to businesses and consumers that many of us have referred to tonight are going to be the engine for making the single market develop even more quickly. Really the question I pose to the Commission tonight is whether this strategy is not in fact not ambitious enough. I really echo what my Socialist colleague said a bit earlier because we have to consider the newly emerging electronic technologies as being the engine of creating the single market. One of the things this strategy has to do is to really encourage businesses and consumers to move and adopt the new electronic commercial technologies as soon as possible because of themselves they will be what creates this single market in the future.
I remind you, ladies and gentlemen, in reflecting on that, that as empowered consumers start to adopt this technology, that many of the barriers that are put in their way at the moment, the legislation for example on commercial communications, on the way that goods can be presented to customers, are going to become redundant. The messages that come directly to people into their homes are not going to be subject to the extraordinary array of diverse and intrusive in many cases regulations affecting commercial communications in the European Union at the moment. In future we must trust consumers, we must give them information, we must empower to use the information at their disposal and they will be the people that will bring about this single market.
There will be new generations of new small businesses coming into existence to exploit and develop that technology that will be there to service these consumers. The second point that we must consider is encouraging the development of these new businesses, to encourage new entrepreneurs, to make sure that the traditional ideas of the European social model that Mr Medina referred to earlier do not in fact inhibit the development of making Europe the place that is going to have the sort of energy and excitement that we see currently in the United States in adopting these new technologies. So, in welcoming this, I ask the Commission to think about the next step forward, to encourage new technologies and encourage consumers and businesses to use them."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-04-Speech-4-023 | "Mr President, the enactment of the Amsterdam Treaty on 1 May 1999 has certainly ensured that greater attention is given to the implementation of a common employment policy. The central aspect to the implementation of new employment must be a need to guarantee a fair distribution of job opportunities throughout each Member State through the process of regionalisation and decentralisation. This is only correct and proper in the light of the fact that 11 countries out of the 15 are participating within a common, single European currency regime. This also takes into consideration the fact that within the workings of an internal market there are still many social problems which exist in both urban and rural parts of Europe and certainly in my own country, Ireland.
Unemployment is falling within the European Union and in Ireland it stands at a little over 6% of the population. However, those people without skills seeking to integrate into the workplace have little or no chance of taking up remunerative and rewarding employment unless they learn a new trade or a different work practice. National Member State governments must also take into account the provisions of the new European Social Fund regulations. These regulations in essence will ensure that Member States support programmes that take account of the changing nature of work practices, the need to promote entrepreneurship, as well as supporting local job creation programmes. This latter point is of particular importance to me and my constituents in the Province of Leinster. Local job creation initiatives must be supported by national and European Member States. Local communities, from the private, public and voluntary sectors must be allowed to pool their collective talents in an effort to create employment within the small and medium-sized enterprise sector in their respective areas. That is why I supported the LEADER initiative both now and in the past and why I support the new EU EQUAL job creation programme. This is also part of the process of decentralising the implementation of EU and national job creation initiatives.
The European Union and national Member States must implement programmes which take account of the ever-changing nature of employment, both in urban and rural areas. This also means that we must address existing difficulties which act as an entry point for men, and particularly women, to take up jobs in the workplace, most particularly so in rural areas.
One such problem relates to the need to provide greater childcare facilities for women who take up jobs in rural parts of my country and indeed, throughout Europe. From an Irish perspective I fully welcome the recent publication by the government of its White Paper on rural development. The government fully recognises that a strategic programme must be put in place if more jobs are to be created within the small and medium-sized enterprise sector in rural parts of Ireland. An intrinsic element of this relates to the need to put in place more expansive childcare facilities heretofore which simply have not been in existence. The lack of childcare facilities is a very real and fundamental barrier to women taking up employment in the workplace."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-04-Speech-4-042 | "There is much to be welcomed in this report and the messages that it is trying to give and I would join others in congratulating Mr Menrad on the skill with which he has put his report together.
As British conservatives we share the concern expressed throughout this House that the high level of unemployment in the EU as a whole is indeed a major problem and that a significant decline has to be the aim. Specifically we welcome the references to equal opportunities including the old as well as the young unemployed and for the need to promote employment of the disabled. We welcome the comments of the EMAC committee that the need for administrative costs and taxes and charges on SMEs to be reduced should be particularly stressed as these represent one of the biggest obstacles to growth in employment. We also welcome the general call for a tax review for reductions in fiscal and social security burdens plus red tape, all of which increase unemployment and bear down on jobs.
However, we do not accept one key conclusion about the single currency, where it is stated to be fact that the implementation of economic and monetary union creates a good climate for new jobs. It is not a fact. The experiment has just begun and our views on the single currency are well known.
Finally, we do not accept that it is for the EU to lay down prescriptive rules for Member States on the key issue of unemployment and we regard as very ominous some of the suggestions from Members opposite this morning that the guidelines should become reinforced or indeed binding. Different problems in different Member States require different national solutions to create the right climate for their businesses to create jobs. So, if and when these guidelines become rules, dictating to national governments what they must do, then we would oppose them."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-04-Speech-4-050 | "Several Members have mentioned the need for measures to prevent discrimination against women in employment policies. We should be explicit in the guidelines about the measures that can be implemented like parental benefits, childcare facilities and policies to combat sexual harassment.
We also need to call on the Member States to do more than promote equal pay. The directive on equal pay was adopted over twenty years ago but there is still a 28% pay gap so we should strengthen the wording in the guidelines and urge the Member States to adopt measures to ensure equal pay.
The Commission’s report on the implementation of the employment policies stated that Member States had failed to go beyond token efforts at alleviating gender inequalities. Successful mainstreaming requires that the people making policy understand how to implement it effectively. So there is a need for training and awareness raising and a better balance of women and men in decision making. Research just published in Wales that I represent has shown once again that women are hugely under-represented in management positions at work and do not move up the career ladder as quickly as their qualifications should allow. We know this is a typical scenario and it merits specific attention in the guidelines. So I would ask Members to support Amendments Nos 37 and 38 which would achieve this."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-04-Speech-4-060 | "In congratulating Mr Menrad on his report I want to concentrate on progress or the lack of it in achieving employment guideline 9, promoting a labour market open to all.
It is precisely at a time when prosperity is returning to Member States across this European Union that those marginalised from the world of work can and must be helped. If that is not achieved now, these victims of social exclusion will be left out altogether for all time.
The European Commission is quite right in its report to criticise lack of progress on employment for these disadvantaged groups within the Member States and to call for greater mainstreaming in our employment programmes linked to measures to combat discrimination. This European Parliament is right in our Amendment No 13 to support the holistic approach and for the development of comparable targets, which I will refer to in a moment and which I call on all in this Parliament to support.
I welcome the examples in the report, in particular concerning employment of people with disabilities. On this morning, when welfare benefits for disabled people are causing great public debate in my own country, the United Kingdom, I welcome our example of the new deal for disabled people which has sought to break down the barriers by providing personal advisers at the local level through what is known as a single gateway to use flexibly both employment and social security budgets with unemployed disabled people to genuinely find the measures which will assist them into work. But here, at the European level, we can do more. If it has been possible to secure performance targets from Member States in relation to both youth and long-term unemployed people, why do we not seek a similar target to improve the employment of disabled unemployed people too. And, if it is the absence of reliable statistics cited as the problem, urgent action for adequate definitions of the information should be called for. If we do not do this, perhaps the Commissioner could explain how we can possibly evaluate the success of our policies and how disabled, unemployed people can be helped back into work."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-04-Speech-4-072 | "Before the next series of votes on the Smet report, could Mrs Smet be given the opportunity to clarify on the record a point which she was not given the opportunity to clarify at the end of the debate yesterday in relation to share fishermen, who are self-employed fishermen. Can Mrs Smet confirm on the record whether or not the provisions of this proposal will apply or not to self-employed fishermen, please?"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-04-Speech-4-077 | "On behalf of my group I would like to propose that we do not agree with the rapporteur’s request to send this back to Strasbourg for voting. There are more than enough competent Members of this Parliament sitting in this House to take this vote today and we should go ahead with the vote."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-04-Speech-4-078 | "I would like to support the rapporteur’s recommendation that we defer the vote. It is a difficult week with lower attendance in the plenary. Some critical amendments in this report will require, of course, 314 votes. We have already had one question asked in the House concerning a point of controversy that arose only last night and which might well, because of confusion, jeopardise an important amendment. In the light of that it would be sensible to take time until Strasbourg. The clock is still ticking with Council, we have time to take it there. We can be sure we will have the necessary number of Members present and we can make sure that any further confusion is eliminated by the time of the final vote."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-04-Speech-4-106 | "I wish particularly to make some remarks about my reasons for voting on the strategy for the internal market but before I do that could I also say that I voted against the procedural motion to defer voting on the fishing matter because I shall be absolutely unable to visit Strasbourg in two weeks time and would very much have wished to express my solidarity with the share fishermen in Scotland, particularly in the islands and remote parts.
In relation to the strategy for the interior market, I was very glad that Amendment No 1 was carried. My distinguished colleague Mrs Echerer, put this forward in our group to favour the position of artists who have to travel throughout the Community, earning in many different countries. I was very glad that the Commission showed willingness to take our point on board.
Finally, in the debate last night on the whole of that resolution, I drew Mr Bolkenstein’s attention to the points in the report which say we must remove barriers which are preventing the implementation of the internal market. I drew attention yet again to the problem of foreign language lecturers in Italian universities whose rights have been denied despite three judgments at the highest level in Europe. I hope the Commission, as Mr Bolkenstein indicated last night, is pressing vigorously ahead to prevent this injustice.
Thank you."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-15-Speech-1-010 | "I would just like to discuss the issue of Chechnya and our continued support for the Russian Government. The genocide that is taking place in Chechnya seems to be ignored by the Western powers and certainly by the European Parliament. I want to ask you, Madam President, if you would ask somebody from the Commission or one of the Commissioners to come here to address Parliament and say what exactly we are doing to stop the terrible brutality taking place in Chechnya. The Russian Government is being supported by the Western states and in particular by the European Union, and it seems to me that we have a responsibility to bring to the attention of the Russians our abhorrence and our horror at what is happening there. Russia has enough problems without confronting Chechnya, and it always strikes me that this House is reluctant for the most part to criticise Russia in circumstances such as this. I would ask you, Madam President, to invite a Commissioner as urgently as possible here to tell us precisely what the European Union intends to do on the issue of Chechnya."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-15-Speech-1-015 | "Madam President, I agree with the two former speakers that this is an annual report of the first rank and of the highest political order. It is precisely because I agree that I believe this Parliament should use this occasion to signal to the Court of Auditors its intense disquiet at the fact that a document of substance of the sort prepared by the Court should, whether correct or incorrect in terms of its content, have found its way into
of 8 November.
This is not the way to do business. In a matter as weighty as this it is not right, on whoever’s part – and I do not know who is to blame for this leak – to seek a route which chooses the sensational over the institutional management of this issue.
We are the body with the political competence to take into account the substantial and professional work of the Court of Auditors. It does not make sense that we should now be negotiating with the European Commission, following all the events of the past several months, a new code of conduct which, inter alia, insists that where there are issues of importance the Commission first comes here to tell this House what they are and then to take a procedure, such as the annual Report of the Court of Auditors, and say: there was a leak, it is a bit unfortunate, but let us get on with business as if nothing happened. No. This is the moment to draw a line and say to the Court of Auditors – whom my group holds in very high esteem – that we have separate functions: they audit and we do the politics.
One of the tasks between now and December, if we choose to postpone this matter – as was the view of the majority of the Conference of Presidents – would be to invite the President of the Court of Auditors to undertake an extensive investigation as to whether it was to the Court or another institution that the leak could be traced.
It was the Committee on Budgetary Control of Parliament which began years ago to insist that we should give, as parliamentarians, this report the weight that it deserves. In saying “postpone it” we are saying we want to take command of what is in it – not to sweep it under the carpet. We are saying that from now on there are new rules of engagement, not just with the Commission. The creeping propensity to find ourselves, as parliamentarians, on the back foot, explaining leaks that were inspired by one source or another is not the way to do business. Let us claim our rights as the institution. Let us stop sensationalising the work of the Court of Auditors."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-15-Speech-1-046 | "The European Union and national Member States must work closely together at all times with Europe’s motor and oil industry so as to guarantee that pollution is defeated once and for all in the near future.
The great car culture has been referred to before in European Parliament reports as the main culprit of air pollution in Europe and Parliament is now playing an active role in establishing limit values for various pollutants so as to bring this environmental problem under control. It goes without saying that the European Parliament must support a whole raft of measures to control environmental pollution in order to comply with its obligations under the Kyoto Agreement to reduce the level of European Union emissions of six greenhouse gases by 8% by the years 2008-2012.
I would point out that the European Commission and the European Parliament have held extensive consultations with the European automobile industry on these various matters, and it has voluntarily agreed to accept a timetable to cut carbon dioxide emissions in new cars by 25% by the year 2008. We have made extensive progress over the last few years in relation to meeting these problems, for example with the systems installed in cars which have completed 80,000 kilometres and which were built over five years ago, to monitor the durability of anti-pollution equipment. We have tax incentives which must also be used to encourage the early introduction of vehicles containing advanced anti-pollution equipment. We will support the phasing out of the sale of leaded petrol. We have also supported measures which would guarantee that the sulphur content in petrol will be cut three-fold and that the sulphur content in diesel will be reduced seven-fold by the year 2005. The Lange report this evening on the control of emissions of gases and other pollutants produced by vehicles continues the progress we have been making.
May I say in conclusion that since May of this year the European Parliament has the power of codecision on all environmental matters as a result of the enactment of the Amsterdam Treaty? The European Parliament must and should use these new powers to push forward an even stronger legislation in the area of environmental control. I support Mr Lange and congratulate him on his report."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-15-Speech-1-053 | "First of all let me express my thanks to the European Parliament and in particular to the rapporteur, Mr Lange, for acting quickly to present the second reading of the report on this dossier.
The second reading of the report contains a number of amendments which the Commission can support, for example the amendments relating to the Enhanced Environmentally-Friendly Vehicles, the EEVs concept. The EEVs provide for a fuel and technology-neutral concept based on the best available technology which will allow Member States or local authorities to encourage the use of the vehicles which qualify as EEVs through tax incentives. EEVs will always be a concept which will complement future mandatory emission limits.
Therefore the Commission can accept in principle to study the possible expansion of the scope of the EEV concept to include perhaps other vehicle characteristics such as noise and fuel consumption and other propulsion technologies. The Commission can also support the amendments relating to the expansion of the directive to include other alternative fuels, in this case ethanol, the amendment relating to tax incentives applied to the re-equipment of old vehicles, the amendment to include heavy-duty vehicles in the overall Community CO2 strategy and the amendment relating to the market quality of liquefied petroleum gas.
The Commission can also support in principle the amendment that deals with abnormal emission control strategies, but we would prefer to see the reporting date on this issue deferred. A reporting date at the end of 2002 would enable the Commission to fully evaluate the effects of the new type-approval test cycles being introduced from next year on the regulation of in-use emissions from new European vehicles. In adopting a common position with much more stringent limits for particulates, we should note that the Council moved a significant way towards the view expressed by the European Parliament in the first reading. The Commission supports this precautionary approach towards the emissions of ultra-fine particulates.
Now the main issue in this package of amendments for second reading is the early application date of stringent limits for oxides of nitrogen, NOx. The Commission believes that the state of development of the necessary technology to achieve such stringent NOx limits makes it difficult at the moment to accept a date earlier than October 2008. In this regard the technology feasibility review is necessary, since the emission control devices to meet the ambitious NOx limits are still under development. While they have demonstrated great promise in laboratory trials, there is no certainty yet as to the long-term operational efficiency of such devices which will make them a viable and durable technical solution to achieve emissions controls in the longer term. There are also important issues still to be resolved with respect to the quality of market fuels and notably sulphur content.
In conclusion, the Commission can accept the following amendments: the first part of Amendment No 3, Amendments Nos 6, 7 and 10, Amendments Nos 16 to 26 and Amendments Nos 29 to 47. The Commission can accept in principle Amendments Nos 1, 4, 5, 13, both parts of Amendment No 12 and Amendment No 15. The amendments which the Commission cannot accept are Amendment No 2, the second part of Amendment No 3, Amendments Nos 8 and 9, both parts of Amendment No 11 as well as Amendments Nos 14, 27 and 28."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-15-Speech-1-061 | "Mr President, I would like to congratulate Mrs Avilés Perea on her work. The Daphne programme, we should remember, was an initiative of this Parliament in 1997 which recognised the need for action to combat violence against women, young people and children. In the first year of the programme alone 428 projects were submitted by various organisations in Europe and this level of response reflected the need for programmes such as this.
In my own constituency I have seen the work of organisations like Welsh Women’s Aid which provides support, advice and practical refuge for women and children victims of violence. It receives over 15,000 calls a year and the number is rising all the time. Last year it housed over 2,000 women and over 3,000 children in refuges and they had to turn many others away because of the lack of accommodation.
This workload reflects the scale of the problem we have throughout Europe. It also shows how important the role of NGOs and voluntary organisations is in this area. There are specific examples of the way in which Daphne-funded projects have helped. In just a few weeks’ time an international seminar will take place in Leeds to look at issues of violence against women in conflict situations. Speakers from many countries will be attending that seminar. There have been many other projects linked to the important fight against child sex tourism which have been funded by Daphne.
On the issue of the legal base – this is a health issue of course, but it is also far more than that. However, we can accept the World Health Organisation’s definition of health as not just being the absence of disease but a state of physical, mental and social well-being. Any lesser definition would leave much of the problem unexposed and we hope that this will be agreed as the European definition for the purpose of this programme.
The Daphne programme, as others have said, has made a great deal of difference but there is a lot more to be done and it is vital that it is followed up. I trust that the Council will decide on this before 1 January so that existing projects can continue."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-15-Speech-1-068 | "Mr President, the Commission is delighted to take part in what is now the final step in the adoption of the Daphne Programme 2000-2003, a four-year Community action programme based upon the experience of the Daphne initiative established when the European Parliament included for the first time funds in the 1997 budget to combat violence against children, young persons and women.
The programme rests firmly upon the recognition of the need to uphold human rights whether those of children under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989 or those of women as expressed in the Beijing Declaration and Platform of Action in 1995.
The Commission’s first proposal was made in May 1998 and during the last 18 months the procedure has survived not merely a change of legal base but also a change of Treaty, a change of commitology, a change of Parliament and a change of Commission. It is, clearly, therefore, a hardy plant designed to thrive and grow as a potent weapon in the Community’s armoury against the evil of violence inflicted upon those most at risk in our society.
I would like to pay particular tribute to the parliamentary rapporteurs, Madame Bennasar Tous and Madame Avilés Perea for the work during the adoption procedure. They have led the parliamentary side in often difficult negotiations. I would also pay tribute to the work of the German and Finnish Presidencies without whose help we could not have achieved the second reading today in time for the programme to be adopted by 1 January next year.
Finally, I would like to pay tribute to my predecessor, Mrs Gradin, who throughout handled the Daphne dossier with great skill and expertise. The Daphne Programme builds on the Daphne initiative, but with two important changes. First, it is open for the applicant and EFTA countries to take part in the programme. These will significantly help the victims of cross-border trafficking of women and children. Secondly, the programme is now open to applications from other organisations than the NGOs. In the light of the different traditions within the Member States these changes will I hope greatly increase its effectiveness.
The Commission accepts all the six amendments which are before the House today.
We therefore hope that the Daphne programme will be adopted as speedily as possible. Once it has been adopted, the Commission will work with Parliament and the Member States to ensure that it achieves its goal. The Commission will specifically ensure that this programme is a relevant tool to channel the synergies of public authorities and NGOs in order to preserve the physical and psychological integrity and the social well-being of children, young persons and women in all areas of activity. I consider that coupling this initiative with the perspective opened by Tampere will lead in the near future to common definitions, common penal procedures and common sanctions that will be applied by Member States to the crimes of trafficking in human beings and to crimes against children.
The goals are therefore to establish networks throughout the European Union and within the applicant countries between organisations active in the fight against violence against women and children that know the field and to raise awareness among the European public as a whole of the nature of this evil and of the need and the means to eradicate it.
On the eve of the new millennium I may say, Mr President, that strong support in the European Parliament for this programme will be the best and clearest sign that the Union attaches the utmost political priority to effectively combating violence against children, young persons and women."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-15-Speech-1-072 | "I am sure that the issue that has been raised today merits detailed consideration by the Commission and by the Union as a whole.
As we have just seen from the previous debate, the Commission is already active in several fields involving children, though competence for action in the majority of relevant areas concerning children remains with the Member States.
Children constitute a particularly vulnerable group. For example, for a number of years the Community has been providing support to countries in which there is a particular problem with regard to the economic exploitation, abandonment and prostitution of children through special projects aimed at fostering social assistance, protection, well-being, reintegration and education.
In 1999 to mark the tenth anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, dramatic priority was given to children’s rights under the European initiative for democracy and human rights, Chapter B.7-7 of the European Union budget.
The Commission is already implementing the Daphne Initiative to combat violence against young persons and children, and this will be succeeded next year, as we have just seen from the previous debate, by the Daphne Programme 2000-2003. Through the STOP programme and through its work in the fields of police and judicial cooperation, the Commission is actively fighting the sexual exploitation of children including child pornography on the Internet.
In the field of police cooperation and of the third pillar, the Commission now has the power of joint initiative with the Member States and is actively pursuing the fight against the sexual exploitation of children. In January a codecision was adopted establishing an action plan to promote the safer use of the Internet thereby protecting children from violence and pornography. It followed a recommendation in 1998 on the protection of minors and human dignity. The Commission is now implementing these measures. In May the Commission adopted a communication on the implementation of measures to combat child sex tourism and it has now selected a number of actions to be co-financed in this field.
The Commission is also undertaking action in the social field and the educational field with a view to improving the quality of life of children and opportunities for their development and education. The suggestion that sometimes has been put forward to establish a children's unit within the Commission is one that I recognise will require study in particular to ensure that full account is taken of the human and financial resources that are at present available.
The Commission will also give consideration as to the idea of publishing a communication on children to mark the tenth anniversary of the Convention. This will clearly take a little time. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter in the plenary session of the European Parliament. The Commission will study attentively the reports of this debate and will take all appropriate action to meet the concerns of the Parliament in order not only to celebrate the tenth anniversary of the Convention but also to improve concrete policies in order to achieve the goals set by this Convention."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-15-Speech-1-073 | "Mr President, firstly I should just like to make a technical point. The debate we have here today, which is very welcome, has been part of a long, difficult technical process. First of all we thought we would have a proper resolution and then an oral question; in fact a great many Members signed an oral question. I would hope that their names can be added to whatever resolution comes out of today’s debate. We went to a lot of trouble to get colleagues to sign this. I hope that their names will also be listed in the agenda.
I thank the Commissioner for his statement: “We demand that the EU listen carefully to the voices of its 90 million children and young people under eighteen. We are concerned that the way in which Europe is developing creates real risks for the safety, protection and wellbeing of its young citizens. Twenty percent of Europe’s children live in poverty despite the countries of the EU being amongst the richest in the world.”
These are not my words but the words of children and young people from my country, Ireland, and other EU countries. They put it better than I can, how children are excluded from EU policy and how laws and policies that the EU makes have a very real impact on children’s lives, an impact that is different from that on adults. Children have a very low priority at European level. The only really serious political response came following the horrific Dutroux affair in Belgium when MEPs were queuing up to sign my resolution on that tragedy. Even then the EU’s institutional response has been largely focused on the issue of sexual abuse and trafficking and not on the wider set of EU issues that affect children.
The lack of a clear legal base in the Treaty has meant that children’s specific needs are ignored. This week the world celebrates the tenth anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This is the most widely ratified human rights treaty in the world and the most comprehensive legal statement of children’s rights world-wide. Except the US and Somalia, all countries in the world have ratified the Convention; but despite the fact that the EU Member States have ratified it too, the EU institutions themselves have so far failed to implement it.
We have an absurd situation in which Member States have to promote the best interests of the child in legislation and policy, but the Union is under no legal obligation to protect children’s best interests. At present children are invisible in EU legislation. Single market considerations often override children’s best interests. For example, protection of children and children’s safety may be compromised by lack of regulation of services such as Internet and TV advertising. Children are seen as burdens, dependants, victims or barriers to work in direct contradiction to their status in the Convention. The strong focus on the citizen as worker in the Treaty means that the best interests of children are not considered. Children are only a target group in one action programme and very few temporary budget lines. Children and children’s projects receive less than EUR 5 million directly from the EU’s vast budget. Since the disappearance of the children and family budget line in DG V there is no budget line which has children as a general target group. Children have become invisible in EU policy.
Most fundamentally, there is no coordination and no unit of the Commission, no Directorate-General which takes a lead in developing a coherent, overall policy on children. I am glad to hear you say you are considering it, Commissioner. We look forward to rapid action on this matter.
I would like to make the following recommendations to mark the tenth anniversary of the Convention. The Commission should adopt a communication on children’s rights to mark the tenth anniversary of the Convention and create a children’s policy unit. Member States, at the next revision of the Treaties, must adopt a clear legal base on the EU Treaties to promote the best interests of the child. Parliament should ensure that children are more visible in budget lines and the Commission should improve its technique and develop mechanisms for dialogue with the NGOs representing children."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-15-Speech-1-076 | "Mr President, I would agree with much of what we have heard already in the debate this evening. I, like many others here, will remember the enthusiasm and political excitement with which this convention was adopted, how many world leaders were keen to be seen with young people and to talk in glowing terms of the future they were offering. I reflect with considerable sorrow at the dying-away of many of those fine words.
One of the main concerns of that convention is the right for children to live in peace. People have already referred to some 300,000 under-18 year olds recruited as soldiers throughout the world. Some of them are in our own Member States where they have no right to vote for the governments which decide their futures. We see many children working in conditions of slavery and forced labour and we would urge all European Union states to ratify the ILO Convention dealing with these issues. We would also urge Members States at the next IGC, to adopt a legal base to promote and protect the rights of the child as defined in the United Nations Convention.
We also need to take responsibility for the state of the world in which those children are growing up, not least the environmental conditions under which many of them have to suffer. It is essential that we meet and surpass the targets that we have set ourselves to combat such things as climate change. For far too many children, clean water, safe food and adequate shelter are still a dream, even for many in the so-called developing world.
We would also argue that we need to change the priorities of our international financial institutions so that priority may be given to safeguarding the environment and providing health care and education rather than open markets. Lastly, cancelling the debt of the world’s poorest countries would also help the young people of those nations considerably."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-15-Speech-1-081 | "Mr President, many tragedies there are in the world but none more moving than those that affect children. There are none worse than the ones we have heard about today involving trades in children. I want to refer to one of those trades and that is the trade that takes place in adoption.
In the United Kingdom, in the 1960s, we had some 25,000 adoptions, with 12,500 under one-year-olds. In the 1970s that figure had fallen to 13,000 and the under one-year-olds to 3,000. By the 1990s that had dropped again to 7,000 with only 900 under one-year-olds. Much of the differences stem of course from the wider and freer availability of abortion. In Britain the figure is one in five pregnancies, in London it is one in three. More children who are available for adoption have disabilities – mental or physical or behavioural problems – and so couples, not surprisingly, look further afield for babies to adopt. And further afield, indeed, there are babies available for adoption.
The first duty for all of us should be to the child. For any child that needs a family, the preference is for its own family and if that is not available then a family in its own community. If that is not available then a family, perhaps with a different background, within its own country. If that is not available, then, and only then, should one start looking for a home abroad. But it must be a properly vetted and loving home and the couple taking on the responsibility for that child must show an understanding of the child's background. Too often we have seen abuses in the system which puts couples' wishes before the child's interests. So we have seen rackets developing in baby-selling, mothers having their babies stolen, mothers being bribed to part with their children, mothers being conned that the child is going to benefit from a good start in life and return to the family when, of course, there is no such intention.
That is why we have the Hague Convention on Inter-Country Adoption. That is why I ask the Commission to make sure that Hague Convention is properly implemented throughout the European Union nations. I ask for a report to be brought forward to show the state of law in each member country and the state of legal practice.
On this, the tenth anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, we must stand up for those children, for their rights to be children. That means supporting children in need because of illness, or disability or hunger or poverty or lack of educational opportunities. It means an end to child labour and exploitation and the awful trades in children. So much of that is caused by the cruelty or neglect of adults and the least adults can do is to ensure that when a child genuinely has no family we apply the provisions of the Inter-Country Convention when giving that child another chance in life through adoption."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-15-Speech-1-094 | "Mr President, I could tell my good friend, Mr Pronk, that if he will have a word with Mr Aznar, I will have a word with Mr Blair. It is a majority proposal. We have problems with a number of governments.
I should like to thank the Commissioner for what she has said. I see now the sense in the strategy that she is adopting. I hope the delay in a revised proposal might lead to progress. I would say this, however: please bear in mind that if part of this strategy is that a new proposal is brought forward after the turn of the year that is substantially different to the first then we, Parliament, would need to be consulted from the beginning once again. Please bear that in mind.
One argument in addition to the list of crunch points that you mentioned in your introduction that has been deployed by my own government and others is that of subsidiarity. It is not a very good argument in this particular area. In the ten years up to 1996, following the introduction of the Single Act, there was a tripling in the number of mergers and take-overs in both the service and manufacturing sectors. An interesting thing is that two-thirds of those mergers and take-overs were at national rather than transnational level. They were, however, directly related to the completion of the internal market. Therefore developments at Member State level are inextricably linked to the changes we have put in place at European level. That is one of the strongest arguments against subsidiarity – denying progress in this area.
In the 1970s our governments, despite the unanimity rule, introduced a directive on transfers, one on collective redundancies and one on insolvency to try to bring about responsible restructuring following the oil shocks. It is absolutely dreadful that the Council now seems to be paralysed when it comes to this directive, to the worker involvement in the company statute and indeed the Commission in relation to a revision of the Works Council Directive. We need to get this moving once again."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-15-Speech-1-095 | "May I start by saying, Commissioner, that I was very pleased with what you had to say and I am as surprised to be saying that as perhaps you might be to hear me saying it. But given that there is a delay, which has already been deplored, I would hope that the period of that delay will be used constructively and that the Council and the Commission and indeed Parliament will reflect on how to get things as right as possible in what is clearly a key area. I was concerned to read a comment in the
last week when you, Commissioner, were in London – where you made quite an impact – about you forcing the creation of workers’ consultation committees and stating that Anna Diamantopoulou’s decision will dismay the UK Government and industry. Whilst I accept that the fact that it may dismay such illustrious bodies does not automatically make your proposals wrong, I trust that you would also admit that it does not automatically make them right either. I would like the Commission to bear in mind that at the time when Parliament put forward the amendments last April, the composition of this Parliament was indeed very different. At that time the Socialists were the largest group; happily that state of affairs no longer applies and hopefully will continue to no longer apply long into the future. But certainly the composition of this Parliament is very different and I would expect its conclusions to be different.
Clearly we will continue to work in a spirit of constructive consensus but the epicentre of that consensus has moved sharply. So finally I would say that when the second reading comes up, if we are serious about creating jobs, if we are serious about keeping our industries really competitive, if we are serious about encouraging enterprise, then some of us may feel we have gone too far and that it may well be time to draw a line."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-16-Speech-2-006 | "A similar problem. I omitted to sign last night as I was travelling all day and arrived a bit late last evening. I would appreciate it if you would consider me as having been present when it comes to the Minutes. I was in Strasbourg yesterday evening but I omitted to sign."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-16-Speech-2-018 | "I would like to start by congratulating the rapporteur, Mrs Haug, for addressing some of the key problems in the current system of own resources. In her report, Mrs Haug is right to check the Commission’s arbitrary changes introduced through the back door, via a mathematical operation relating to the ceiling on own resources. Now in the interinstitutional agreement, the Council entered into a binding agreement with the European Parliament on the percentage of GNP, i.e. 1.27%. The Commission is now saying that this means cash value of 1.27%. This is not acceptable. The rapporteur emphasises that we should be striving to establish a more equitable system of financing the EU. The Community budget should have a fair system of revenue collection. The traditional own resources, for example, are a systematic source of inequitable burdens on Member States and, as has been said, are prone to fraud and excessive bureaucracy. Instead, the EU budget should be funded on the basis of criteria which improve the fairness of the system and what I would like to see therefore is a fair system of net contributions.
I am speaking here on behalf of the Socialist Group, but if I were speaking as a British member, I would question particular references to the British rebate. If the budget is to be fair, there should not only be a fair system of contributions but also a fair system of spending. Unfortunately, such a fair system appears to be a long way off. I believe that a really serious attempt to reform the Community’s finances should start by making sure that all Member States get their fair share of expenditure. Until this happens, attempts to reform the own resources system will not improve the situation.
Therefore, what I want to see is a proper reform of the EU’s finances for the future. But reform cannot be focused on single issues such as the rebate and I feel very uneasy about discussing this issue at this stage in the new Parliament. It is too early to be making decisions on this subject and setting things in tablets of stone when all the facts are not in front of us."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-16-Speech-2-031 | "I would like first of all to reject the argument made by a number of people here that to increase own resources is to increase the burden of taxation on the citizens of Europe. That is, of course, not necessarily true. The responsibilities of the European Union are based on the principle that there are some things we can do more efficiently at European level. If we decide to transfer responsibility for agricultural industry from the Member States to the European Union and discharge that responsibility more efficiently, the end result could in fact be a reduction in the burden of taxation. Similarly, if we decided to transfer responsibility, say, for development cooperation, from the Member States to the European Union, I believe we could achieve immensely more in the world with the same amount of money and we could increase own resources while at the same time not increasing the burden of taxation on the citizens of the European Union.
We talk about democracy and transparency. First of all I would say that anything that we decide in a democratic way, through the institutions of the Union, about own resources, is what own resources are. If the European Union, in a democratic process, decides that own resources are simply a straight percentage of GDP collected by the Member States and passed over in a lump sum, that is fair enough: that is what own resources are and that is democratic. The more elements we drag in, the more un-transparent we make the system, the more difficult it becomes. That is why I am not concerned in the least by the 10% or the 25%. If we have a fixed figure that the European Union needs as own resources, then obviously if we leave the Member States more of what we call the traditional own resources, we have to collect more of that as a percentage of GNP. So this argument is not important all.
The balance of advantage, or the balance of returns to Member States, is extremely difficult to calculate. Let me make one further point on this. If you look at Holland and Germany, on whose behalf there was so much crying in this Parliament, you will find that the single market has given them immense benefits and they have had extremely positive balances in their trade with the rest of the Union over the years."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-16-Speech-2-063 | "Mr President, both the Maastricht and the Amsterdam Treaties focus on environment protection measures. This communication from the Commission takes the issue forward within the energy sector.
Three objectives have been set out: firstly, to promote energy efficiency; second, to increase the share of production of cleaner energy sources – the target is 12% from renewables by 2010 – third, to reduce the environmental impact of the production and use of energy products.
Three priorities have been set for integrating these environmental objectives in energy policy. First of all, they need to be implemented in a balanced way which takes account of competitiveness and of security of supply. Then, they must be realistic and cost-effective. Third, they must be flexible in their implementation to take account of rapidly changing markets and technologies. Global warming is a major issue but, of course, it is not the only environmental issue that we confront. In the energy and transport sectors there are major contributors to global warming emissions. We, in Europe, must do our part and set a good example to the rest of the world, while recognising that the major pressure for energy consumption in future will come from countries like the United States, which is rather profligate in its consumption of energy, and also from developing countries which, as their economies grow and they raise their standard of living, will look for more energy consumption, which is likely to come from rather polluting sources of energy.
The report calls on the Commission to promote best practice, to encourage the exchange of views and experience, to encourage increased public awareness while respecting the principle of subsidiarity. It must be recognised that energy policy is still determined largely at Member State level. But there can be no doubt that energy efficiency is a matter that should be of concern to all of us.
The report also calls on the Commission to support the process of integrating these environmental objectives in energy policy through research into the impact of climate change, through research into all possible technologies, through research into identifying the best indicators to measure achievements in reducing emissions and through regular reports to Parliament.
In terms of possible legislative action, this report calls on the Commission to consider amending existing legislation or to introduce new measures which will strengthen those objectives, but it also asks the Commission to follow-up and study the effect of all legislative measures up to now and to report on their full cost and their full effectiveness to Parliament.
The report also calls for the environmental objectives to be taken into account in the enlargement process. There are many concerns about energy consumption and electricity generation in the applicant countries, which need to be addressed. The report reminds us that in order to achieve significant improvement in global environmental protection measures and reduction of emissions, we need dialogue and consensus with both our trading competitors and developing countries alike.
The Commission has made one major omission in not making any mention of nuclear energy in this report. Whatever your views on this source of power and electricity, it is a fact that it supplies a significant part of our electricity in Europe and it does so in a way which does not produce CO2 or other greenhouse gas emissions and that is why – and the only reason – it has been mentioned in this report. It would be a mistake for this reference to nuclear energy to distract attention from the main thrust of this report, which is about improving energy efficiency, drawing more supply from renewable sources, and integrating our environmental objectives in our energy policy. It is a good start and there is much more to do."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-16-Speech-2-067 | "The most vital requirement of energy and environmental policy as we approach the millennium is to meet our Kyoto commitments, and here of course a CO2 tax would have a major role to play. Unfortunately, that has not yet been agreed, but we would ask the Commission to proceed in this direction.
We are not in fact meeting our energy commitments under Kyoto at all. Energy conservation, rational planning and renewable energies are agreed to be the most important way forward other than the CO2 tax, about which, as I have said, no agreement has yet been reached. They are indeed the right way to sustainability, but we are not pursuing them strongly enough. The most recent statistics on energy intensity show that for 1996 we are at level zero. We are in fact going backwards after seven years of trying to meet climate change commitments: this is not only unacceptable, it is completely scandalous. I would refer you to those statistics – I am sure you know what they are, and we have to do better. Our citizens expect and, indeed, demand that we do better.
The Commission and Parliament have indeed together sought to keep the already small budget for SAVE and ALTENER on target and for that I thank you and I hope we can continue to make progress.
What does not have a place in energy and the environment is nuclear power because it is not sustainable. We do not have the ability to deal with nuclear waste although various fancy solutions have been proposed, including sending it to the moon, and we would be indeed on another planet if we agreed with Mr Chichester that nuclear power was a solution. It is not, and I think that he was very ill-advised to add this discordant note to an otherwise more or less acceptable report. I also feel that the Commission was most wise to avoid reference to nuclear power in its own proposals and I would advise you to keep to this approach because it is a most divisive thing to propose, and we will certainly not agree to it.
The recent nuclear accident in Japan has exposed once again the criminal negligence of the nuclear industry, and the recent falsifications of safety checks by BNFL at Sellafield are further evidence that we need to have great anxiety about the nuclear industry and how it operates. What do we want, and what is the way forward? We want the implementation of commitments in the White Paper on renewable energies, for example. We want these commitments fleshed out by a Commission action plan on renewable energies. Reference has been made to the internal market, and this is the most important environment in which we now operate: here the large subsidies for coal and nuclear energy must be ended and support for renewables as an important aspect of environmental policy must be made realistic. Legally-binding targets for renewable energies are an important part of this strategy, but we must also have very clearly the externalisation of internal costs in respect of traditional energy production. Finally, I think that if we have a level playing field and if we end the subsidies particularly for nuclear energy, we will see the other forms of energy coming forward."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-16-Speech-2-069 | "At the outset I want to compliment Mr Chichester on the preparation and presentation of this report.
The Commission’s communication on strengthening environmental integration within Community energy policy is very welcome in view of its realistic approach to the question. Sustainable development is not just a lofty aim, it is an obligation imposed by the Treaties and must therefore form the central principle of any future European energy policy and at the same time a balance must be struck. Certain clear targets have already been set by the Union in the energy field to reduce CO2 emissions by 8% by the middle of the next decade and of course to double the contribution of renewable energy sources from the current 6% to 12% by 2010.
The efforts at Community level complement those of Member States. In my own country, Ireland, for example, EUR 160 m are to be spent on the development of an environmentally sustainable energy sector. With the combined efforts of the Community and the Member States which have primary responsibility for energy policy, I believe that these targets can be attained. We must be careful to allow sufficient flexibility to take account of the necessary adjustment of the energy market while in transition, and for this reason our targets must remain realistic and proposals must remain open as to details. Mr Chichester recognises the limited role Parliament can play in energy policy, given that it is essentially a Member State competence. We do have a clear and consistent voice when it comes to environmental matters, and the environmental considerations of energy generation are self-evident and considerable. I support initiatives at European level which contribute to the efforts of Member States to meet their commitments under the Kyoto Protocol on limiting greenhouse gas emissions from the energy sector. We recently voted to renew the same programme with increased funding and this will make a valuable contribution to Member States’ efforts.
In conclusion, I believe that much can be learned from an exchange of views between Member States on energy policy, and I support Mr Chichester’s call for the Commission to highlight examples of best practice in integrating environmental objectives in the energy policy."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-16-Speech-2-084 | "I will ensure that your remarks are passed on. I personally have no information about this but I will ensure that the President is informed of your concern. Normally it is the Quaestors who give permission or not for such meetings so I do not know the situation.
***"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-16-Speech-2-099 | "I respect the reasons for which the British delegation has abstained on Amendments Nos 5 and 8 – junior doctors – but I have not followed this line since firstly, this is a negotiating position and secondly, my close family experience of a highly stressed and overworked NHS midwife do not allow me to impose long working hours on vital medical staff for any longer than is absolutely necessary."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-16-Speech-2-100 | "Perhaps I should start with a historical, not current, declaration of interest on why I have voted in favour of Amendment No 5, Article 1(6), concerning junior doctors.
My husband, Dr Rhys Jenkins, currently a GP and working restricted hours, has in the past worked in excess of 100 hours a week whilst training to become a doctor. This first-hand knowledge has highlighted for me the dangers of requiring doctors to work such long hours. This potentially endangers the lives of patients and certainly can have a detrimental effect on doctors’ health. I believe that a much delayed and staggered transition such as that proposed by the Council of Ministers is unnecessary and inappropriate.
In addition there is a particularly acute problem in Wales where the British Medical Association calculates that 30% of junior doctors are working longer than the recommended 40 hours a week. The figure in Scotland by comparison is calculated at 10%. There is a huge problem in terms of recruitment in the profession, and a haemorrhaging of trained doctors to other countries due to the excessive working hours."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-16-Speech-2-101 | "Commissioner Byrne, at his hearing stated that: the future of public health policies should not be linked only to the present crisis of the day; that there must be a high level of human health protection in all Community policies; that we must be proactive in public healthcare.
I repeated these words to the junior doctors of Ireland who, by the way, work the longest hours of any in their profession in the EU. They were greatly encouraged by them.
In light of Commissioner Byrne’s statements, let us look at the words of the Permanent Working Group of European Junior Doctors: “Research demonstrates that sustained wakefulness such as that experienced by junior doctors (working excessive hours), reduces performance to a level similar to excessive alcohol consumption.”
These totally unacceptable conditions not only undermine the health of our junior doctors, they also undermine our health care system and endanger the patient. I call on my own Irish Government to support this working time directive in line with the rapporteur’s suggestions. I also call on the Commission to support Commissioner Byrne as he strives to be pro-active in public healthcare by ensuring that patient care and the health and training of non-consultant hospital doctors is protected."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-16-Speech-2-102 | "The European Parliamentary Labour Party abstained on Amendments Nos 5, 7 and 8 to the Smet report on the Working Time Directive. Although the EPLP is committed to the extension of the WTD to the excluded sectors, it understands the need for this to be done in a rational way.
We are committed to reducing the working hours of junior doctors, but it is essential that this is done in a planned and structured way which does not undermine patient care. This directive will require an adequate transposition period with staged reductions in working time.
The fishing industry required flexibility. This amendment does not recognise the reality of the needs of the fishing industry and will adversely effect it."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-16-Speech-2-109 | "That concludes the vote.
("@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-16-Speech-2-111 | "I hope you will bear with me. This is not a point of order, but I believe it is an historic announcement. As the House is probably aware, there have been recent announcements by David Trimble of the Ulster Unionist Party and Gerry Adams of Sinn Fein. Both have come out with statements which are committed to the peace process and to decommissioning for Northern Ireland. I am sure that the President will want to write on behalf of the European Union to congratulate all parties concerned on their actions, their courage and their determination to carry the peace process and decommissioning forward, and I am sure that you will agree that peace in Northern Ireland offers hope to everyone everywhere."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-16-Speech-2-117 | ". – Mr President, both these reports before us today recognise the increasing mobility of persons and the rise in contractual and commercial transactions across our Union. As the internal market develops, our citizens really need a legal framework that guarantees them access to justice wherever they are and whatever their problems.
I will confine my remarks mainly to the report on the service of documents. I concur with Mr Lechner that the rules that formerly governed this are some 25 years old; they are complicated and out of date. With the increase in commercial transactions across the internal market, we need new, simple and certain rules. When our citizens or our businesses have to resort to the courts, they need to get past that first step, which is the service of documents, possibly in another jurisdiction, before initiating proceedings. Here we need a simple procedure.
As a lawyer in private practice in the UK, I myself, have often wrestled with a pile of books to find the right rules and the right way to go forward for my clients in these circumstances.
The proposals that we have before us take matters forward but perhaps they do not go far enough. My group will re-table certain amendments that were put to the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market to try to take matters forward even further, to make the systems that we are going to put in place more readily available and open to practitioners. We need to take this area of law outside the remit of a few specialists who may be able to charge a lot for it. We want to give our citizens across the Union real access to justice so that when they have to resort to the courts they can get things up and running quickly and without difficulties."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-16-Speech-2-134 | "Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for his statement this afternoon on the programme of work being undertaken by the Commission for improving safety in civil nuclear installations in Central and Eastern Europe.
I ask myself, having listened quite carefully to the Commissioner, whether there is any new information in the statement that he has made. He has given us a fair amount of detail and a fair number of promises about what is happening or will happen. I note the time-scale of some of his comments that reactors will be shut down early in 2006 and 2008 – I will come to the question of whether a reactor should be shut down or not and how quickly in a moment.
I must agree with the Commissioner and the Commission position on the primacy of safety issues. I think we can all agree that where nuclear power stations and nuclear installations are concerned, it is absolutely essential that safety, safety of operation, safety of construction and design, be given top priority. For obvious reasons, public opinion has to be assured that this is the case. I also agree that it is essential for countries which are largely dependent upon nuclear power plants for their electricity and energy that closure programmes are phased to allow time to provide replacement capacity. In some countries, when reactors have had to be shut down, there has been a loss of electricity which has caused severe hardship. You have to weigh up that consideration with the debatable issue about safety. We also have to bear in mind that we are still negotiating with countries which are sovereign, independent states and we have to respect their internal procedures. We are in a slightly sensitive position in terms of telling them or asking them or assisting them to do things that we want to do, but that they may not be enthusiastic about doing themselves.
The question is that if a reactor is safe to run until 2006, why is it not safe to run for its full economic life? If it is unsafe it should be closed down immediately. That is the conundrum that faces us. I feel, with respect to the Commissioner, that you have not quite addressed that conundrum this afternoon."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-16-Speech-2-145 | "President, I would just like to say to the Commissioner, if I may, that I liked his summing up much more than his statement at the beginning. I congratulate him on it, particularly in the circumstances of his health, and I say well done, and come back and say more to us in that fashion Commissioner."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-16-Speech-2-148 | "The next item is the Commission statement on the decisions taken at today’s meeting of the Commission."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-16-Speech-2-149 | "The Commission took a decision today on my initiative to initiate formal legal proceedings against France for not lifting the embargo on British beef. This decision is without prejudice to the negotiations which are continuing on an amicable settlement to the current dispute.
Let me be very clear. We are very close to a solution, and I remain convinced that an amicable solution is in the best interests of all parties, the UK, France and the Community. Negotiations and contacts are continuing over the few outstanding issues which continue to block an agreement. I am hopeful that with a little goodwill on all sides the ban can be lifted in the very near future. I am aware that there are critics, including in this House, of the discussions that have taken place in this case. However these discussions are the best means to reach an early solution.
In the absence of formal procedures to lift the ban within the EU, the situation is even more difficult. The British efforts to lift the ban in third countries, including the US, and in its Commonwealth partners, bear this out. Nonetheless it is necessary for the Commission to formally signal that France has not fulfilled its obligations to lift the ban. I am asking France therefore to submit its position in reply within two weeks.
I have also informed the Commission of the situation concerning Germany, the only other Member State which continues to impose a ban on the import of UK beef. In this instance, however, the German authorities have not declared that they will not lift the ban. Instead their position is that a number of constitutional steps have to be cleared, in particular the approval of the Bundesrat. In Germany’s case also, however, there is now a need for positive action to lift the ban. I will be reviewing the situation in the next few days with my services in this respect: in particular Germany will be asked for an indication of its timetable for lifting the ban. I will be insisting on equivalent treatment for both countries, and a communication will be sent to Germany in this regard requesting its proposals on a timetable for lifting the ban."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-16-Speech-2-151 | "This is the first step under the old Article169 procedure which is now under Article 226. Provision is made in that Article for sending a letter of this type prior to the actual institution of the proceedings. But it is part of the infringement proceedings and is regarded as the first step. It sets out in chronological form the present position, how we have reached this stage; it then sets out the legal position and then requests France to respond and set out whatever arguments it wishes to advance in its reply. All this is to be done within a period of two weeks.
Within the discussions over the last few weeks, a number of issues were discussed, as you are probably aware, and one of the issues that was identified was the question of tests, as you rightly identify in your question. You draw attention to the fact that during my hearings on 3 September before the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I mentioned that it was my intention to establish diagnostic testing for BSE on an EU-wide basis. That is still my intention. That fact was also drawn to the attention of the parties who were involved in these discussions over the last couple of weeks.
As I mentioned on that occasion, one of the purposes of establishing such a testing system is to ensure that there is an equal testing system throughout the European Union so as to identify the levels of infectivity throughout the EU, and in particular to identify what further measures may be necessary. The removal of SRMs would be one particular issue I have in mind in relation to that.
On the question of identification and labelling, one of the important issues that we discussed over the last few weeks was the requirement contained in the legislation for traceability. That is an important issue. It was discussed in Florence. It also forms part of the DBES and is in the forefront of our minds in relation to this and has been incorporated into our discussions."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-16-Speech-2-152 | "This is a very sad day for Parliament and for the rule of law. I wonder whether the Commissioner can explain why he has not acted more firmly and insisted earlier that a unanimous scientific opinion is not negotiable. This Parliament deals with laws; the people who elected us – certainly in the United Kingdom – are waiting to see the law enforced and have been waiting since October. This is a very bad precedent for the European Commissioner, given that he is about to write a White Paper on a food safety agency. Are all unanimous scientific committee opinions delivered to him in future to be negotiable? We hope not. Secondly, where exactly is France raising problems and can the Commissioner confirm that any problems raised by France must result only in clarification to the French and not in any changes to the British date-based export scheme?"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-16-Speech-2-153 | "As I have said on a number of occasions, including in the committee that Mrs Jackson chairs, the DBES scheme is not a negotiable issue. It has not been a negotiable issue nor has it in any way been undermined in the discussions that we have had over the last few weeks.
I believe that this is a good day for the rule of law, I believe that it is a good day for the Commission and I would suggest that it is also a good day for all the institutions of the European Union including Parliament. A decision was taken in the Commission today to initiate infringement proceedings rather than not to initiate legal proceedings. In those circumstances, I find it difficult to understand how this could be described as a sad day for Parliament or a sad day for the rule of law.
These proceedings, as I say, have been decided upon today and they will be initiated unless the discussions that have been taking place produce results within the next few days. We came close to resolving these issues over the last few days – I had expected them to be resolved if not yesterday, then certainly this morning. I was disappointed in that, but I believe that we may yet finally resolve this issue over the next couple of days.
I would also like to remind Members of the House that, as I have said on a number of occasions, problems of this nature are much better resolved in an amicable way. The resort to litigation is necessary in circumstances where the parties to a dispute or a difficulty cannot reach agreement. In the case of this dispute, it seems to me that if these two Member States can resolve this difficulty through discussion, in association with the Commission, that would be by far the best way forward. It would also achieve a much faster result. I would imagine that the people that Mrs Jackson represents in the UK would like to see this matter resolved quickly, rather than in two years time, by a verdict from the Court. That is why I have pursued this particular line and will continue to do so despite the decision today to initiate infringement proceedings."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-16-Speech-2-155 | "In relation to scientific information and its evaluation and so on, this is an issue I have been considering, not only because of the events of the last few weeks when the food safety agency of the Member State in question took a different view from the Scientific Steering Committee. That obviously was an issue of some considerable concern to me. But also because the Commission and myself, and my service in particular, have been looking at the establishment of an appropriate structure for a food safety authority.
One of the issues that will be of paramount importance in considering such a structure will be its jurisdiction and how, in particular, it will relate to any food safety agencies established at Member State level.
Quite clearly, a controversy between these two agencies such as we have had over the last few weeks cannot be tolerated if we hope to have a unified harmonised market. Confidence in such a food safety authority at Commission level will have to be such that Member States and the authorities and scientists in Member States, have full input into such an agency but also have confidence in it so that its opinions are fully and readily accepted.
In relation to the situation in Germany that you asked me about, as I said earlier, my discussions with the minister responsible in Germany lead me to the conclusion that the German Federal Government wishes to move towards lifting the ban and that the discussions arising out of the dispute involving France will ease any lingering concerns that may exist in Germany. I have been in constant communication with the authorities in Germany – they have had an input into the discussions that have taken place over the last couple of weeks at observer status level, and I am confident that they understand what has been discussed over the last couple of weeks. Therefore, I have every hope that the Federal Government of Germany will take the appropriate steps now to lift the ban.
In relation to the last part of your question, Mrs Roth-Behrendt, dealing with tests, it is my intention to have something in place in relation to this by the end of the year."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-16-Speech-2-156 | "Commissioner, I am grateful for your assurance that this is the first step of the procedure for infringement proceedings. I have had here today beef farmers from my constituency. Those farmers have had to wait more than 14 weeks since 1 August and still their beef is not back on the market in France. They have now been told that they have to wait a further 14 days until we get the French position.
May I put it to you straight. Do you not already know what the French position is? Has the time not come for the Commission to throw the book at the delinquent Member State? Does not anything else make the Commission look limp and lily-livered and undermine public confidence in the European Union?
Will you make it clear please at your press conference that the full force of the law will be used against the delinquent Member State unless this ban is lifted."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-16-Speech-2-157 | "I find it difficult to make it any clearer than I have already made it. We have commenced proceedings, we have taken the decision to take the first step in initiating proceedings. I do not know which book you think I should throw but it seems to me that the initiating of proceedings is the only step open to me to achieve compliance with Community law apart from negotiations. I have been doing that for the last six weeks with considerable success and I expect to continue to negotiate in tandem with the institutional proceedings over the next few days.
My belief is, as I have said to Parliament on the last occasion I was here, that cool heads and firm determination are much better than adopting another approach. This is the approach that I commend, it is the approach I have embarked upon, it is the approach I believe is going to achieve results and it is the approach I intend to continue with."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-16-Speech-2-159 | "I would like to draw attention again to the fact that we had a unanimous opinion from the Scientific Steering Committee set up at European Union level some weeks ago. That committee is made up of 16 experts drawn from most of the Member States and is chaired by a fellow countryman of yours. The opinion that it expressed was unanimous and reinforced two earlier opinions this same committee had reached. So I am confident that the opinion expressed by them is a good opinion. I am also confident that the agreement which is now close to being reached between all the parties will also be acceptable to the French agency. In the event that we achieve that, which I earnestly hope we will, it may very well be the end of the difficulty that we have been faced with for the last six weeks."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-16-Speech-2-160 | "I am very interested in the statement the Commissioner made. He is quite right to point out that we want to avoid legal proceedings or court proceedings if possible. But if he is correct in saying that the two parties are only two days away from a possible agreement, it is absolutely inexplicable that he should be giving one of the parties two weeks in order to resolve this matter. We were told several weeks ago that today was the deadline – and yes, the Commission has initiated proceedings. But for heaven’s sake Commissioner, by indicating today and presumably also at your press conference, that there is another two weeks, you will make everyone read that as meaning that you have simply extended the deadline. How on earth do you justify the fact that in instigating proceedings today you are also effectively sending a signal to the French that they still have another two weeks to take a decision on this matter?"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-16-Speech-2-161 | "You have to understand the actual provisions of Article 226. It provides specifically for the sending of a letter of this type and it also specifically calls for a response within a period of two months. I felt that a period of two months was too long; I felt that a period of one month was too long; I felt that a period of two weeks was appropriate. In those circumstances, that is the period of time that I have included in the letter which is the first step in the initiation of proceedings.
I should say that this does not mean giving anybody a further two weeks. The decision today has been to initiate proceedings. That was a decision I said that I would put before the Commission some weeks ago. That is what I have done. It is the first step. It sets out the chronology of the events and the legal position and requests the Member State in question to respond within a period of two weeks. No further time has been given. This provision is contained in the Treaty of Rome as amended and is something which I cannot change now – other than to shorten the period, which I have done. However, I should say that the fact that the letter stipulates a period of two weeks within which to reply does not preclude further discussions taking place and an agreement being reached within the next couple of days, if that proves possible. It does not in any way undermine that process because we are, as it were, moving on two separate tracks.
So I have to assure you that the inclusion of fourteen days in the letter does not, in my mind, suggest an intention to stave off negotiations or further discussions for a period of two weeks. Those discussions continue in the hope that we can achieve a result."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-16-Speech-2-162 | "I congratulate Mr Byrne on his position. He may well remember that I asked him last week in Brussels to say whether he would instigate proceedings today and obviously he has done so and I am delighted at that. But he must understand the feelings of this House. Today, we have half the Conservative delegation in this Chamber to hear his responses – and I have to say very few of my Socialist colleagues from the UK party. As of today, there are eighty-six infringement proceedings against France, so this is not something new to France. One of those infringement proceedings concerns bovine products – could the Commissioner actually answer the question as to what that case involves. Secondly, has the UK Government applied for compensation, because it should be doing so on behalf of the British farmers who have lost out?"@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-16-Speech-2-163 | "The procedure whereby anybody can apply for compensation arising out of infringement of European law comes under a different article. The competence of an individual or State to bring those proceedings is not really a matter for the Commission. So I would not necessarily be aware of any such proceedings. But so far as I am aware, no such proceedings have been instituted. But I may very well be wrong about that."@en |
| lp_eu:1999-11-16-Speech-2-164 | "According to my calculation, unless there are new members of the Conservative Party, the proportion of Members from our side and their side are almost the same."@en |
| Skipped 68,308 rows |
|---|
| lp_eu:2017-03-16-Speech-4-175-000 | "Mr President, along with my group, I welcomed this report as it calls for mandatory due diligence checks on suppliers of tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold, otherwise known as conflict minerals. All industry initiatives now have to comply fully with international OECD due diligence guidelines. This sends out a clear message from the European Union that we wish to eliminate the strong interrelationship between trade and conflict that has defined this industry for far too long now.
In the long term, regulations such as this prevent armed revolts or human rights violations being financed by the illegal revenue from mineral extraction and trade. The rapporteur’s aim was to create an efficient and workable regulation which also affords due consideration for smaller SMEs. I am confident that we have reached an agreeable solution in this regard. Looking forward, cooperation in this area will thus bolster the market in responsibly traded minerals, while serving the interests of communities and people caught in war and conflict."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-03-16-Speech-4-205-000 | "Mr President, I support this proposal, sharing the rapporteur’s belief that the 2013 reform of the common fisheries policy (CFP) needs to be matched by adaptations in the supporting scientific advice and therefore the data needed for it. The proposed changes comply with what is necessary and appropriate for the achievement of the basic objective of improving data quality, access and availability in the fisheries sector. Quality data collection is essential for the proper implementation of the CFP. From an Irish perspective, fishing has always been economically and socially important to us as an isolated nation. With the CFP, crucial for the prevention of over-fishing and marine pollution, it is therefore important that we improve upon the functioning of the system in place. This agreement will ensure the simplification of the current data collection system, avoiding duplication and improving the framework for gathering quality data."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-03-16-Speech-4-231-000 | "Mr President, as we near the anniversary of the horrific terror attacks in Brussels, my thoughts and prayers go out to the families of the victims of such awful terror. We in Northern Ireland are no strangers to the legacy of the pain and loss left by ruthless terrorist gangs. Our message to you is clear: we must never allow those who perpetrated terror to rewrite the narrative of the past. It is wrong that those who now serve in this Chamber should try to glorify their deadly deeds and rewrite the narrative of the past, yet not be held accountable. This will not prevent new generations of young people from being radicalised, a point that I stressed to Commissioner King earlier this week. I also made it clear that Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom as a whole remains committed to working with the European Union to secure a safe and prosperous future for all our people. This should be a key priority in the Brexit negotiations."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-03-16-Speech-4-317-000 | "Mr President, e-democracy offers the promise of enhanced democratic participation by e-consultations, but e-petitions etc. come with their own challenges. Firstly, democracy favours the younger generations, with older people often being less technically savvy, and their interests must be protected. Secondly, systems like e-petitions are prone to abuse, with algorithms being deployed to up the voting numbers, resulting in inappropriate outcomes. Thirdly, e-democracy can slow down the decision-making process by triggering debates in parliaments. Finally, e-democracy comes with the threat of hacking, identity theft and data leaks. Unless all four of these areas are solved and resolutions found I will not be able to support e-democracy in this Parliament."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-03-16-Speech-4-355-000 | "Mr President, I think this is a good innovation – more like Prime Minister’s Question Time in the House of Commons, the Mother of Parliaments, so perhaps the centre of the European democracy is following the Mother of Parliaments.
Does the EU provide any financial assistance to NGOs engaged in search and rescue in the Mediterranean?
Is Frontex hiding anything we should all know about, since we are paying them? I think this place should know more.
On 15 December 2016, the Financial Times, which I am sure you all know, published several excerpts from leaked Frontex reports that suggest a high level of cooperation between smugglers and NGOs:
‘…criminal networks were smuggling migrants directly on an NGO vessel’;
‘…clear indications before departure on the precise direction to be followed in order to reach the NGO boats’
‘…people rescued by NGO vessels were often “not willing to cooperate with debriefing experts at all, with some claiming that they were warned not to cooperate with Italian law enforcement or Frontex”.’
This period has also witnessed a surge in NGO activity in the region and a sharp drop in rescues in response to distress signals. Frontex suggested the latter is due to ‘NGOs cooperating closer to Libyan territorial waters’ or even the lights used by rescue boats, which the agency said acted ‘as a beam for the migrants’.
Does the Commission believe that such actions constitute cooperation with the smugglers, and if not, could it define what would?
Does it believe that such actions constitute collusion, and if not would it define what would?"@en |
| lp_eu:2017-03-16-Speech-4-360-000 | "Mr President, this important debate this afternoon on the links between human traffickers and NGOs would not have been possible if it were not for the EFDD group taking this initiative. This is an important topic and needs to be addressed, and not simply brushed under the carpet.
In December last year, the Financial Times published excerpts from a leaked Frontex report that suggested there was a high level of cooperation between people smugglers and NGOs. The leaked report claimed criminal networks have been assisting migrants by giving clear indications on which direction they need to take to reach the NGO boats. Unforgivably, there have also been reported cases where migrants have been smuggled directly onto NGO vessels, so it is alleged.
It is not just criminal gangs and NGOs who are benefiting from this crisis, but also Islamic extremism. Current migration policies adopted by the EU and Chancellor Merkel have enabled terrorist organisations such as ISIS to smuggle their supporters into Europe, which has enabled them to carry out a number of attacks. Opening up Europe’s doors indiscriminately has put at risk not only the lives of migrants who make the treacherous journey, but also the lives of ordinary Europeans who now face the threat of terrorism on a daily basis.
UKIP have said from the very start of this crisis that we need to have a tough but fair policy on this crisis to stop innocent lives being lost at sea and to stop the profiteering of criminal gangs and ISIS. To date, the UK government has committed over GBP 2.3 billion to helping refugees in Syria and the region, the second largest donor, and since its inception, almost 4 500 Syrians have entered the UK under the Syrian vulnerable person resettlement programme. Perhaps the EU would do better to follow the UK’s example rather than have desperate people paying vast sums of money to smugglers who only view them as a disposable commodity."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-03-16-Speech-4-365-000 | "Mr President, an article published by the Financial Times on 15 December 2016 contained several excerpts from leaked Frontex reports and claimed a high level of cooperation between smugglers and NGOs. The newspaper has since retracted claims that Frontex had accused NGOs of collusion with smugglers. No doubt about it, but this is a very troubling accusation in an already distressing human rights situation. Rescue missions are conducted with great valour, bravery and spirit on the part of those people involved in them, whether they are the European Border and Coast Guard, Frontex, Member States or non-governmental organisations.
In this regard, I would like to sincerely sympathise with the families of Captain Dara Fitzpatrick and the crew of the Irish coastguard helicopter that tragically crashed this week, illustrating the point.
The European response to various crises has been adopted in the spirit of solidarity and cooperation on which the European Union was founded. I would hope that this approach will continue to guide our action in this area and that we will move forward. I would like to highly commend all those who work in the sector. 5 000 people died at sea last year. From an Irish point of view I am disappointed with such claims, given the European and my own government’s commitment to relieving the humanitarian crisis as it has developed in recent years.
In September 2015, as a direct response to this humanitarian crisis, the Irish Refugee Protection Programme was established. In a gesture towards the most vulnerable individuals of this migration crisis, Ireland pledged to accept the quota asked of it by the EU. I wish to take this opportunity to stress our deep commitment to delivering our decision to accept these refugees and asylum seekers. At present, more than 12 500 refugees have been rescued from Mediterranean waters by Irish naval forces. We have dispatched countless naval service vessels and our commitment to continue doing so still remains undisputed.
However, suggestions of collusion between human traffickers and NGOs provide yet another obstacle to the roll-out of Europe-wide rescue and resettlement efforts. It is thus paramount that no cloud should hang over the human rights agencies and NGOs which are entrusted in these areas."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-03-16-Speech-4-366-000 | "Mr President, I think we can all understand to some extent and sympathise immensely with the problems that the Mediterranean area has faced, not just in recent months but over a considerable period of time. There is no doubt we can all agree and condemn those involved in human trafficking and the smugglers, and it is a serious question why some of this has been allowed to continue by some of the nation states that are involved within this area.
Well, I think Professor Marias hit the nail on the head when he said you have to identify and distinguish between the refugees and the illegal immigrants. I think we would do well to listen to what he says because he is coming very close to what has not been taken up by many and has been misrepresented by others. So we would do well to listen.
As someone with my past and the situations I have been through, I have learned that you need to deal with the facts. Newspapers do not refuse publicity and they do not always tell us everything that is there."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-03-Speech-1-065-000 | "Mr President, volunteering experiences and mobility offer citizens, especially young people, opportunities to broaden their horizons and grow as a result of new encounters. This not only leads to the development of skills, competences and knowhow but most importantly opens the door to other cultures and different visions of the world. Volunteering can equip people with the necessary skills and attitudes to become active, responsible citizens open to intercultural dialogue, which is much needed in the turbulent times we live in.
Volunteering is particularly interesting in a broader context of occupational literacy. I agree, though, that in order to be successful the initiative proposed by the Commission must provide clear objectives and build on existing local grassroots organisations, so a close cooperation with NGOs, civil society and youth workers is needed. Citizenship and solidarity cannot only be piloted centrally, it must happen on the ground. Sport and arts must also be part of this and we must maintain a gender perspective. And we must reach out to the excluded young people as well as refugees and migrants. This, then, would be true solidarity."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-03-Speech-1-066-000 | "Mr President, I have been a strong, consistent supporter of volunteers and volunteering both before I came to this Parliament and since. So, was I overjoyed when I heard this proposal on the European Solidarity Corps? Initially yes, but there are many serious questions that need to be answered. How can we make a clear distinction between the volunteering and the occupational strands? What criteria do you intend to use, Commissioner? How can we ensure that there are no abuses in the system and that young, energetic, idealistic young Europeans do not find themselves on the fringes of precarious work?
Funding is a critical issue but we have no details. The target seems to be 100 000 volunteers. That needs real resources. I agree with you Commissioner, young people will play a key role in promoting and strengthening solidarity. It is crucial that the programme delivers a quality experience for volunteers and the communities they serve. You spoke of many different programmes –LIFE, Erasmus, European Citizens, rural development to name a few – but I need to know where is the coherence? We need that detail. You have used a lot of fine words and your intent is good but I am concerned that this is a rush job. It is not fully thought out and the clear parameters have not been set and sufficient funds are not in place. I want it to succeed but I am concerned that we have not yet put the proper structures in place."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-03-Speech-1-085-000 | "The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 6 April 2017."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-03-Speech-1-087-000 | "The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on the Commission’s answers to written questions by Daniel Caspary, Tiziana Beghin, Sven Giegold, Emma McClarkin, Alessia Maria Mosca, Helmut Scholz, Michael Theurer, Isabella Adinolfi, Marco Affronte, Laura Agea, Clara Eugenia Aguilera García, Daniela Aiuto, Jan Philipp Albrecht, Eric Andrieu, Laima Liucija Andrikienė, Maria Arena, Pascal Arimont, Georges Bach, Burkhard Balz, Heinz K. Becker, Ivo Belet, Bendt Bendtsen, Brando Benifei, Joëlle Bergeron, Vilija Blinkevičiūtė, Andrea Bocskor, Reimer Böge, Simona Bonafè, David Borrelli, Lynn Boylan, Elmar Brok, Klaus Buchner, Reinhard Bütikofer, Enrique Calvet Chambon, Nicola Caputo, Matt Carthy, David Casa, Fabio Massimo Castaldo, Lorenzo Cesa, Dita Charanzová, Nessa Childers, Kostas Chrysogonos, Salvatore Cicu, Alberto Cirio, Birgit Collin-Langen, Lara Comi, Ignazio Corrao, Andrea Cozzolino, Pál Csáky, Daniel Dalton, Rosa D'Amato, Nicola Danti, Michel Dantin, Dennis de Jong, Fabio De Masi, Angélique Delahaye, Andor Deli, Albert Deß, Tamás Deutsch, Herbert Dorfmann, Pascal Durand, Stefan Eck, Christian Ehler, Bas Eickhout, Frank Engel, Norbert Erdős, Ismail Ertug, Eleonora Evi, José Inácio Faria, Markus Ferber, Laura Ferrara, Santiago Fisas Ayxelà, Raffaele Fitto, Christofer Fjellner, Karl-Heinz Florenz, Eleonora Forenza, Michael Gahler, Kinga Gál, Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz, Elisabetta Gardini, Jens Gieseke, Julie Girling, Michela Giuffrida, Tania González Peñas, Esteban González Pons, Ingeborg Gräßle, Karoline Graswander-Hainz, Iveta Grigule, Takis Hadjigeorgiou, Marian Harkin, Monika Hohlmeier, György Hölvényi, Filiz Hyusmenova, Peter Jahr, Danuta Jazłowiecka, Eva Joly, Agnes Jongerius, Marc Joulaud, Josu Juaristi Abaunz, Syed Kamall, Othmar Karas, Rina Ronja Kari, Krišjānis Kariņš, Karol Karski, Tunne Kelam, Jude Kirton-Darling, Dieter-Lebrecht Koch, Ádám Kósa, Dietmar Köster, Stelios Kouloglou, Andrey Kovatchev, Werner Kuhn, Merja Kyllönen, Ilhan Kyuchyuk, Giovanni La Via, Alain Lamassoure, Philippe Lamberts, Bernd Lange, Werner Langen, Jeroen Lenaers, Peter Liese, Norbert Lins, Barbara Lochbihler, Sander Loones, Paloma López Bermejo, Javi López, Antonio López-Istúriz White, Sabine Lösing, Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska, Ulrike Lunacek, Thomas Mann, David Martin, Edouard Martin, Fulvio Martusciello, Jiří Maštálka, Barbara Matera, Marisa Matias, Gabriel Mato, Costas Mavrides, Valentinas Mazuronis, David McAllister, Mairead McGuinness, Morten Messerschmidt, Martina Michels, Miroslav Mikolášik, Siegfried Mureşan, Renaud Muselier, Victor Negrescu, Angelika Niebler, Luděk Niedermayer, Lambert van Nistelrooij, Artis Pabriks, Massimo Paolucci, Dimitrios Papadimoulis, Aldo Patriciello, Eva Maydell, Piernicola Pedicini, Alojz Peterle, Marijana Petir, Pina Picierno, Tonino Picula, Markus Pieper, Sirpa Pietikäinen, Georgi Pirinski, Miroslav Poche, Salvatore Domenico Pogliese, Cristian Dan Preda, Franck Proust, Carolina Punset, Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl, Julia Reda, Viviane Reding, Terry Reintke, Herbert Reul, Frédérique Ries, Michèle Rivasi, Inmaculada Rodríguez-Piñero Fernández, Claude Rolin, Bronis Ropė, Dariusz Rosati, Fernando Ruas, Tokia Saïfi, Sofia Sakorafa, Anne Sander, Alfred Sant, Marielle de Sarnez, Petri Sarvamaa, Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, Algirdas Saudargas, Marietje Schaake, Christel Schaldemose, Elly Schlein, Sven Schulze, Andreas Schwab, Molly Scott Cato, Olga Sehnalová, Jasenko Selimovic, Remo Sernagiotto, Czesław Adam Siekierski, Birgit Sippel, Renate Sommer, Barbara Spinelli, Bart Staes, Joachim Starbatty, Ivan Štefanec, Jutta Steinruck, Dubravka Šuica, Richard Sulík, József Szájer, Tibor Szanyi, Adam Szejnfeld, Antonio Tajani, Hannu Takkula, Dario Tamburrano, Keith Taylor, Pavel Telička, László Tőkés, Ruža Tomašić, Romana Tomc, Evžen Tošenovský, Ramon Tremosa i Balcells, Helga Trüpel, Ernest Urtasun, Inese Vaidere, Ivo Vajgl, Ramón Luis Valcárcel Siso, Marco Valli, Wim van de Camp, Tom Vandenkendelaere, Paavo Väyrynen, Sabine Verheyen, Daniele Viotti, Axel Voss, Jarosław Wałęsa, Renate Weber, Bogdan Brunon Wenta, Lieve Wierinck, Hermann Winkler, Iuliu Winkler, Anna Záborská, Jan Zahradil, Marco Zanni, Flavio Zanonato, Joachim Zeller, Marco Zullo, and Milan Zver (– B8-0216/2017 )."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-03-Speech-1-096-000 | "Madam President, my apologies for being late in the Chamber. I just wanted to support the question that has been put down this afternoon because when many of us ask questions of the Commission or the Council, I get the impression that they sometimes think we are just doing it out of badness or just to make some political point, whereas often what we are trying to do is genuinely seek information and perhaps forward some useful political process. On a number of occasions I have put down questions and I have either had a delay, or when I have had a reply it has been a thoroughly inadequate response. For example, in December I put down a question about the negotiations going on in Cyprus and asking what sort of helpful role could the Council and Commission be playing in those negotiations, and it was not until February that I got a reply and it told me absolutely nothing at all, so I do think we need to seriously look at this issue."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-03-Speech-1-097-000 | "Madam President, written questions are a valuable tool for doing the job of representing our constituents when they want us to represent them in this place on issues which are affecting them, and they are one of the few ways that we can hold the Commission to account and ensure proper democratic scrutiny, and one of the few ways that we can gain information about the huge areas of responsibility of the European Commission. But it seems sometimes that when answers would be embarrassing to the Commission we do not get answers that fully respond to the question, if we get answers at all.
Parliament has already limited the number of questions that we can ask. It seems that the movement is all in one direction, but the system here is not working. It goes to the heart, in my view, of the distinction between an elected body and an unelected body and the principles of democratic scrutiny and transparency and that, sadly, in the EU institutions is so often a major failing."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-03-Speech-1-100-000 | "The debate is closed."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-03-Speech-1-102-000 | "The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on trafficking in human beings by Barbara Lochbihler, Bodil Valero, Terry Reintke and Judith Sargentini, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group, Malin Björk, Cornelia Ernst, Barbara Spinelli, Marina Albiol Guzmán, Martina Anderson, Dennis de Jong, Kostas Chrysogonos, Eleonora Forenza, Jiří Maštálka, Kateřina Konečná, Dimitrios Papadimoulis, Stelios Kouloglou, Kostadinka Kuneva, Josu Juaristi Abaunz and Marie-Christine Vergiat, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group, Catherine Bearder, Nathalie Griesbeck, Cecilia Wikström, Louis Michel, Filiz Hyusmenova, Morten Helveg Petersen, Maite Pagazaurtundúa Ruiz, Sophia in ‘t Veld, Gérard Deprez, Beatriz Becerra Basterrechea, Izaskun Bilbao Barandica, Renate Weber and Petras Auštrevičius, on behalf of the ALDE Group, and Birgit Sippel, Anna Hedh, Soraya Post, Pier Antonio Panzeri, Elena Valenciano, Iratxe García Pérez, Roberta Metsola, Constance Le Grip, Andrzej Grzyb, Teresa Jiménez—Becerril Barrio, Anna Maria Corazza Bildt, Mariya Gabriel and Cristian Dan Preda, on behalf of the PPE Group (– B8-0212/2017 )."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-03-Speech-1-105-000 | "Madam President, Commissioner, the European Union has built a tremendously-respected process of fighting human trafficking and protecting its victims. It is six years since the Anti-Trafficking Directive came into force. It is held up globally as the gold standard for its gender-specific and victim-centred approach. But new challenges are emerging, and the number of trafficked people continues to rise. The nature of this crime makes it hard, but not impossible, for authorities to obtain data and identify victims. It is therefore absolutely essential that we allocate EU funding in an effective, evidence-based system to address sexual exploitation and invest in prevention. Human trafficking is a high-profit crime. We need to know who buys and who profits. It is also vital that trafficked individuals are seen as victims, not criminals, and helped to recover. Europe can and must do more.
Human trafficking is still a threat and feeds on poverty. However, only ten Member States have so far established using a victim of trafficking as a criminal offence. Commissioner, this House demands that we continue our efforts to stop impunity and make prosecution of traffickers and their users our biggest priority. Although most victims or are of European origin, the refugee crisis is feeding the supply, especially the thousands of unaccompanied, vulnerable minors.
We have made progress in the EU but we need to plan the next stage. Without action and funding we will slip backwards, and that is why we ask the Commission to publish its new strategy now. We – but more importantly, the victims – cannot wait. Human trafficking is happening now in Europe, where we all live, and we must open our eyes and continue the Commission’s work on addressing human trafficking."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-03-Speech-1-114-000 | "Madam President, trafficking in human beings is on the rise and criminals are using the EU as a springboard for exacerbating this crime. New evidence from the UK National Crime Agency shows that criminals from former overseas territories of Member States are taking advantage of gaining EU citizenship and creating child-trafficking routes between those territories to the UK or the EU. An example of this is non-EU nationals who become naturalised as Portuguese citizens and are using Portuguese identity documents to set up bank accounts. This allows them to receive payments from former Portuguese territories such as Angola. They are scouting for their victims.
The UK’s decision to withdraw from the EU will allow our national government to end the free movement of people, resulting in the return of UK control over UK borders. Criminal background checks and preventive measures will significantly help combat trafficking in human beings and sexual and labour exploitation, ensuring better protection for UK citizens."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-03-Speech-1-132-000 | "Madam President, thank you for taking all the speakers. I appreciate it. This is an enormous problem, not just in Europe but right across the world. As we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, the treaty that set up our Union and has led to peace across the entire European Union for 60 years which is good, now we have to look at more details. Not just in terms of stopping war and bringing peace to our Union, but for individuals to be treated properly, with respect and dignity. There is far too much exploitation going on; there are far too many smugglers, human traffickers exploiting women, young children, etc. I think now is the time to reflect on what we can do to ensure that there will be peace both in terms of the continent, but also for individuals, where they can work and live properly and with dignity right across the European Union, and for smugglers and others to be prosecuted and dealt with."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-03-Speech-1-137-000 | "Madam President, throughout last year we received reports of 10 000 and more unaccompanied refugee children entering Europe, being registered and subsequently disappearing. These reports are no longer headline news, but the problem has not been addressed. These unaccompanied minors, especially women and girls, are often trafficked and taken into an underworld of sexual exploitation and abuse. This is a Europe-wide problem and it requires continuous EU-wide work, commitment, investment in resources and prosecution of criminal traffickers.
In my own country, the UK, hundreds of unaccompanied refugee children were discovered to be not given any safe haven and it is one of the reasons why the Dubs amendment to welcome refugee children in the UK was so important. Shame on the Conservative Government for going back on its word and ending the scheme when only 350 children had benefited instead of the 3 000 who were promised a safe haven. As a founder of the Children’s Rights Intergroup I will never stop fighting for a compassionate, effective, legal, rights-based response."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-03-Speech-1-151-000 | "Madam President, the S&D Group are pleased with this own-initiative report. We have had good cross-group cooperation and agreement on the important issue of palm oil and deforestation.
At the eleventh hour a letter was received by some of us from ambassadors representing some of the palm oil producing countries outside of the European Union. The letter makes four criticisms of Parliament’s own-initiative report on palm oil and deforestation. However, all of these can be countered.
The first criticism made in the letter is that palm oil is not the main deliverer of deforestation. In reply, it may not be the single biggest cause of deforestation but it is responsible for some 29% which is a significant amount of deforestation. The European Union has signed up to ending deforestation and as the third largest market for palm oil the EU cannot turn a blind eye. Consumers have responsibilities too.
The second criticism is that the report attacks the reputation of palm oil producing countries. No, it does not! Nor does it call for the phasing out of palm oil.
The third criticism, that the aim of a single certification scheme is redundant, is not true. Too many schemes are now confusing the customer. We need one certification scheme.
The fourth criticism is that the report is partial and not inclusive. In reply, this again is not true. The process involved a sustainable palm oil round table which involved growers, cooperatives, processers, traders, development NGOs, environment NGOs and social NGOs. It was inclusive. It is an inclusive report.
To conclude, the European Union signed up to the UN Paris Agreement on climate change and this report helps deliver the EU’s obligations and should be supported by Members of Parliament."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-03-Speech-1-152-000 | "Madam President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Ms Konečná, and her team for their work on this file. The text we will vote on is a true compromise text, and I appreciate the efforts made to accommodate all of our positions.
I am just going to concentrate on one thing here today, my personal priority in these discussions and something I am very pleased that has been included. It is the call for one single certification scheme at EU level. This is a scheme which businesses and consumers can easily recognise. I believe the existence of multiple certification schemes confuses consumers. You do not know which logo or scheme to trust when seeking to make a sustainable consumption choice.
I understand that there are difficulties. The main growers, most particularly in South-East Asia, the Indonesian and Malaysian growers, have not reached an agreement on what level of sustainability there should be and how it should be certificated. I am delighted that in our report we have laid that out really very carefully. A huge amount of work went on from the rapporteur to get that right, so that it is sensible, it is annotated, it lays out what we think could be done, what we think should be done. I believe that this is a huge step forward.
Rather than continue to demonise palm oil – some of the language even this evening I cannot possibly agree with, although I do recognise that deforestation is a bad thing – we should move ahead firmly with the certification schemes as laid out in this report and really get ourselves behind it here in the EU."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-03-Speech-1-167-000 | "Madam President, the rapid deforestation on the islands of Sumatra and Borneo in Indonesia are of great concern, in particular the threat of extinction to the species that live there. In fact Borneo and Sumatra are the only places on earth where tigers, rhinos, orang-utans and elephants coexist. Such deforestation, caused by the increased demand for palm oil over the past 20 years, is driven in part by the demand for their use in biofuels and biomass, and has led to the decimation of parts of both the Indonesian and Amazonian rainforests. To add insult to injury, these wildernesses, teeming with wildlife, are being replaced by huge palm oil plantations, a sterile monoculture that supports very few living creatures. Coupled with illegal logging, we are witnessing an ecological disaster, as these wildernesses are being sacrificed on the altar of anthropogenic global warming climate change. However, my party UKIP, are unable to support this report as we believe that legislation such as this is too important to be decided by the European Union, and should be left to nation states collaborating at international, rather than at European, level."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-03-Speech-1-195-000 | "Madam President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for his detailed response. However, I have just some comments to make. On our first question we did look for some details and I am not sure that you have provided us with the details we would like. This investigation, which is a criminal investigation, was going on for two years and in that time products that were unfit for purpose were placed on the market and we need more clarity about the extent of it, and where they were sent to.
The second point I would make is in relation to the return of products on the high seas. I have to say, if I were a Brazilian consumer and I heard that this product was being returned to Brazil I would be very frightened. I would want this product destroyed somewhere and to have a guarantee of that if there is any doubt about its quality, because insofar as I worry about European consumers I clearly would have a worry too about Brazilian consumers.
In relation to how this was discovered, probably the only good part of this story is that there was an investigation and the system was found wanting. It reveals an all too close relationship between the industry and those who are inspecting it, and it reveals that where an industry is very large, then it is very powerful. While I like what you are saying, that there would be no lowering of EU standards, these are very fine words but the problem is that if you have this type of activity in an industry that is supplying the European Union today, how can you guarantee that it will not continue tomorrow? So we still have some questions."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-03-Speech-1-197-000 | "Madam President, I thank the Commissioner for what he has said tonight. This scandal, when I raised it in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development – with the full support of the committee – certainly brought home to us how dangerous this situation can be. But I say to the Commissioner: this is not the first time Brazil has pulled the wool over Europe’s eyes. They did it back in 2007 and 2008, and it took a delegation from this Parliament to go out there to prove that your Commission was not telling us everything.
So Commissioner, I have to say to you tonight – and the previous speakers and Ms McGuinness have referred to this – you have not answered all the questions that we asked. We need more answers. This is simply not good enough. And if they have pulled the wool over our eyes once again then we have got to ask the question: how long are we going to allow them to do similar actions as they have done in the past? I sincerely hope you are not telling us here tonight that nothing will change, because if that is the case that is unacceptable, certainly from my point of view and from the point of view of consumers throughout the European Union.
And you are quite right: you told us here tonight that we in Europe are the best, we have the highest possible standards that anyone can hope for. But that is something that has got to be kept right; and it is not right if we allow other countries to break that. And it is even more wrong that you say talks with Mercosur will go on and the negotiations there will go on. They must be ended as well."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-03-Speech-1-199-000 | "Madam President, the truth is that if this Commission was prioritising the livelihoods of European farmers and the well-being of European consumers then the recent scandal relating to Brazilian meat imports would have immediately led to withdrawal from the Mercosur trade agreement talks.
Instead, last week, the Commission released a joint statement with the Mercosur trading bloc committing us to concluding a deal as soon as possible. Not a single mention whatsoever in that statement of the complete breakdown in trust following the emergence of the meat scandal just ten days previously. It appears that revelations that rotten meat, meat treated with carcinogenic chemicals, meat mixed with cardboard, that had made its way into the EU under your watch, could not dampen the enthusiasm of this Commission to try to conclude dangerous and regressive trade deals.
This time last year Commissioner Hogan told us that beef was temporarily off the table of these negotiations. But where is the follow-up timeline or detail of the conditions under which it will be brought back to the table? Where are the assurances for poultry, the sector which is actually the single largest category of meat consumed in Ireland, for example, and which faces far bigger Brazilian import quotas than even beef? What about the other sectors that stand to be impacted by cheaper, improperly treated agricultural products? Where are the assurances for consumers who should be confident that what they buy in the shops or order in the restaurants is properly treated? At what cost is this Commission actually prepared to continue pushing with these deals? It is time to protect our consumers and to protect our farmers. It is time for you, Commissioner, to ensure that we withdraw from the Mercosur trade talks."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-03-Speech-1-201-000 | "Madam President, this is the second time that the British beef consumers have been let down by the EU. In the first instance our consumers were conned into eating horsemeat when they thought they were eating beef. They were obliged to rely on the EU hack-up process of traceability which is only as good as the least honest person in the food chain. Now we discover that relying on the Commission to monitor the conduct of the Brazilian meat industry is a very naive aspiration. The Commission did not have a clue what was going on as grossly substandard meat arrived on EU shores from Brazil. This is particularly worrying as the Commission had ambitions for yet more Brazilian beef imports in its Mercosur negotiations.
British beef producers are subject to RPA inspections, assurance scheme inspections and the scrutiny of animal rights organisations, whilst the cost of meat processing is higher than it need be due to the EU’s insistence on expensive veterinary surgeons to attend abattoirs when the experienced reliable British meat inspector had done an excellent job.
Brexit gives us the opportunity to address these problems."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-03-Speech-1-203-000 | "Madam President, it is vitally important to take food quality and food security seriously and the Brazilian meat scandal has reinforced this message. There can be no place for corruption at the heart of any food supply chain and we must congratulate the Brazilian police for tackling the problem. In Northern Ireland we make enormous efforts to ensure the safety and traceability of our food. However, many of the farmers and processors that I represent are questioning the ability of the Commission to guarantee that product entering the EU is of a comparably high standard. Why did the inspections not uncover this problem and leave it to the Brazilian press to break the story? Why is it that only now additional measures to ensure food safety are being adopted? As the Commission races ahead with the Mercosur trade deal, what measures will be put in place to ensure food standards and consumer safety?
Many farmers in Northern Ireland believe that the Commission has a laissez-faire attitude to imports which is quite contrary to the stringent and over-burdensome requirements placed on them. What we need is a full investigation. All affected plants must be delisted from exporting to the EU and any product from these plants removed from the food chain. If we do not get a satisfactory response from Brazil, then we should be prepared to consider a ban on imports until such times as we have a proper reassurance."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-03-Speech-1-214-000 | "Madam President, I am saddened to hear so many colleagues using this crisis is an opportunity to trot out their dogmatic anti-global views. Our reaction to the Brazilian meat scandal should not be a purely protectionist attitude. Suggestions that the scandal could undermine the negotiation of the EU-Mercosur Agreement are not only unhelpful, they are also disproportionately excessive in my view.
Four plants eligible to export to the EU were implicated in the scandal. This is very manageable in terms of an investigation. Moreover, given the increasingly interdependent nature of the global environment such a closed-minded approach would be counter-productive and damaging at a much broader level. The focus should be on finding ways better to uphold Europe’s high standards. This applies both to the delivery of consumers’ expectations for quality as well as ensuring that the EU producers are not penalised for adapting to ensure these standards are maintained.
I would like to see a full report identifying lessons that we can learn and measures to be enforced. I know that Mr Siekierski summed up our questions at the beginning and we would like to hear full answers."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-03-Speech-1-222-000 | "Madam President, I think there is a credibility issue here. Not so much for Brazil but for the European Commission. The credibility of Brazil has been questioned for a long time, as my colleague Mr Nicholson pointed out. They, Members here, the Irish Farmers Journal, the IFA, exposed the fraudulent activity 10 years ago and here we are with another scandal now. What does the Commission do? Nothing! They are letting down European consumers. We are supposed to have the highest standards in the world within Europe, but we do not for food coming into Europe.
The first thing we should do is ban Brazilian beef. Look what happened when BSE struck in Ireland and in Europe. It was banned, and it still has not yet been lifted in some cases. Seventeen years! That is how you act to defend your citizens and your consumers.
Tolerating and asking for guarantees is no good. We must ensure that guarantees satisfy us so that our consumers can know that they are getting the highest standard of food within Europe at all times."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-03-Speech-1-227-000 | "Madam President, I have a question for the Commissioner. Commissioner, you spoke of the highest safety standards in the EU, but my question is: who is taking responsibility for ensuring the safety of meat imports into the EU? As my colleague Seán Kelly said, this is not the first time. Ten years ago in this Parliament we were discussing the absence of traceability of Brazilian beef, and tonight we are discussing an even bigger scandal which shows systematic failures in controls at all levels in Brazil. European consumers rely on the Commission to ensure safe food. European farmers rely on the Commission to ensure verifiable equivalence in the food products we import. The Commission has failed in this duty. Several countries moved swiftly to ban Brazilian beef. Some have relaxed that ban, but we sat on our hands and failed our citizens and farmers again. It cannot be business as usual in the Mercosur negotiations. The mutual trust that should be there has been shattered."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-03-Speech-1-228-000 | "Madam President, Commissioner Andriukaitis talks about current and future safety. I notice he did not talk about our past safety because we have been let down and it is too late on that. Then he goes on to talk about continuing these trade talks, but surely the best way to guarantee the safety of European citizens is to give them access only to meat that comes from the safest system – in other words, from the European Union. Surely it makes sense to have a short supply chain and interestingly enough, I have not heard many people talk here about the fact that we have signed up to doing something about climate change. How on earth, pardon the pun, does it makes sense to bring meat from that far away across the planet and potentially send it the other way – although we are not allowed to do that yet, though potentially with trade talks.
Who is mandating you to do this? Because apparently we are not going to do this. As for safety checks, how can you increase physical checks? What are you going to do – have X-ray vision? You are already physically checking it."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-03-Speech-1-238-000 | "Madam President, I think it is true to say that many sectors are very concerned about the fallout that may occur in relation to Brexit. In Ireland, the fishing industry is definitely a sector that is really concerned about what the terms of Brexit will be and what will transpire in relation to territorial waters, quotas and maximum sustainable yield, etc. For that reason the concerns, especially, of our coastal communities and their mainly small vessels fishing within quota, have to be taken into consideration, and the proposal by my colleague Liadh Ní Riada is one that tries to make that distinction. One size does not fit all and while we have to continually reform the common fisheries policy we have to be cognisant of the fact that there are big and small countries, big and small fishing vessels, and that each of them must be considered and given their due regard, especially where we, the coastal communities of Ireland, are concerned."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-03-Speech-1-242-000 | "A Uachtaráin
Táim tar éis leasuithe mar a luaigh an tUasal Coonan san áit chéanna a mholadh ar reachtaíocht iascaigh maidir le tréithriú agus sonrú árthaí iascaireachta. Agus cé gur ghlac an Coiste leis seo níor cheadaigh an Chomhairle é, agus tá lochtanna an-mhór sa reachtaíocht mar nach sonraíonn sí idir iascaireacht mhionscála nó thraidisiúnta agus iascaireacht thionsclaíoch.
Is cúis náire é gur chuaigh siad i gcoinne mo leasuithe maidir le tréithriú árthaí a thabharfadh aird ar ról sóisialta na n-árthaí, ar a dtionchar timpeallachta, cumas iascaireachta, éifeachtúlacht bhreosla, aschur agus scála.
Tá dualgas ar an reachtaíocht tacú mar ba léir le rialáil na monarchana mara seo a dhéanann damáiste don timpeallacht, dár bpobail, agus dár n-iascairí mionscála.
Cuireann an Comhbheartas Iascach, cobhsaíocht choibhneasta, agus córas ITQ rialtais anois ar a gcumas éisc a bhronnadh ar na creachadóirí idirnáisiúnta agus ag an am céanna gnáthiascaireacht a chuir ar mhíbhuntáiste.
Tá gá le tréithriú agus sonrú teicniúil ceart a dhéanfaidh idirdhealú idir na hárthaí móra agus na cinn bheaga.
Agus glaoim ar an bParlaimint vótáil ar son mo ráiteas a bheith curtha leis an iarscríbhinn. Agus tá súil agam go gcomhlíonfaidh an tUasal Coonan a gheallúint chun forbairt a dhéanamh ar an reachtaíocht seo agus plé a dhéanamh liom mar gheall air sa todhchaí."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-03-Speech-1-258-000 | "Madam President, I would like to thank my colleague, Marc Tarabella, for his work on this report, which recognises the role of women as entrepreneurs in rural areas. It is indeed important for the Commission and Member States to invest in the empowerment of women in entrepreneurship in rural areas. It is also important to invest in access to technology and connectivity to the internet and in promoting education and training for women and girls in business, science, technology, engineering and green jobs, especially in places where such facilities are lacking. We should also emphasise the role of cooperatives, social enterprise and alternative business models in providing a powerful platform for women’s economic empowerment and independence. The EU can make a significant positive impact with more funding in that field, as has happened with the ESF and ERDF programmes, such as Leader funding for rural areas like Cumbria, and the Daphne programme for women."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-03-Speech-1-264-000 | "A Uachtaráin
Aontaím go hiomlán leis an mbeirt rapóirtéirí nuair a deir siad gur laochra iad na mná go háirithe atá ag feidhmiú i saol na tuaithe. I ndáiríre tá siad ag coimeád shaol na tuaithe le chéile mar dheirfiúracha, mar mháithreacha, seanmháithreacha, oibrithe ar fheirmeacha agus gach uile rud. Freisin, tá siad ag cabhrú go mór leis na gluaiseachtaí deonacha a choimeád le chéile mar oibrithe deonacha, rúnaithe agus mar sin de agus ba chóir gach aitheantas agus cabhair a thabhairt dóibh. Aontaím go hiomlán gur cheart dúinn tuarastáil féaráilte a thabhairt dóibh, aitheantas a thabhairt dóibh, saol sóisialta níos fearr a thabhairt dóibh agus freisin seans a thabhairt dóibh chun breisoideachas a fháil má tá sin ag teastáil uathu.
An tseachtain seo caite bhí grúpa ban agamsa sa Pharlaimint mar chuairteoirí agus bhí sé go hiontach iad a bheith linn agus tá súil agam go mbeidh mé in ann iad a thabhairt ar ais arís. Go raibh maith agat, a Uachtaráin."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-03-Speech-1-283-000 | "Madam President, now that Article 50 has been triggered everybody is focused on what will transpire in relation to negotiations. We in Ireland are well aware that we will probably be the most affected country in the European Union – economically, definitely, especially in relation to agriculture, but more importantly in relation to the border that hardly exists right now thanks to the good work of the European Union over many years, the USA and the two governments.
You could walk across the border now just as easily as you could walk from one of these rooms to the other. That is the way it has to stay, because if you unravel that you could set things back 20 years. It would upset trade, it would upset jobs but, above all, would upset peace. We cannot risk that in Ireland or the European Union, too much has been invested in it. This is not a bargaining chip. The border, which is invisible at this stage, must continue into the future."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-03-Speech-1-286-000 | "Madam President, the European Union has always been a project of peace, democracy and human rights, keeping the peace on this continent for decades, yet now, within days of triggering the UK’s exit process, senior Tories are already threatening to go to war with Spain. How utterly foolish. It is imperative that we continue to speak out to the British people about the EU’s role in promoting peace and human rights. One year ago today, British Iranian citizen Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, was imprisoned in Iran on unknown charges but, together with many fellow MEPs, I have sent a letter to key Iranian leaders urging her release, as well as that of EU Iranian prisoners Dr Jalali and Nazak Afshar. The EU must continue to be a pillar for human rights in the world, to take a stand when children are imprisoned in Bahrain, for example, or when LGBTI people are rounded up and killed in Chechnya, as is being reported. It is true that working together we can achieve more than alone and we must continue to speak that truth."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-04-Speech-2-023-000 | "Mr President, I would like to thank all of those have been involved in this committee of inquiry, including all of my colleagues from across the Chamber. I have to give special mention to my office who have been fantastic, and Mr Alex Keynes, in particular, whose work on this has been brilliant.
The verdict of our report is very clear. There have been clear instances of maladministration not just in the Commission, but crucially in Member States, where the oversight and surveillance were not taking place as they should have been. There have been aspects of widespread fraud throughout the industry that we have uncovered.
I am very grateful to the Commissioner for her words today because I think that, although we have to see what actions will follow, the commitment that she has shown here today is very welcome indeed, particularly when you consider the starting point that we had in this committee of inquiry, not just the challenges we had to set it up, but also the insistence at many levels that nothing had gone wrong.
But we cannot waste this unique opportunity now to ensure that we never have another repeat of a scandal like Dieselgate. We have to remember that this Parliament is voting not just on a piece of dry legislation, not just on another report that goes through the normal machinations. This is our response to that crisis, that crisis of confidence in our vehicle industry, yes, but a crisis in public health.
That is why it is not enough to say that we cannot have the tools at our disposal to sort this out. We need that agency. We need that independent level of operation to have vehicle surveillance across the European Union. And please, when it comes to compensation, let us not talk immediately about companies going out of business, as if we could put those roadblocks up at the very start.
This is a basic principle at play here. Consumers in the US have been compensated; consumers in the European Union have not. That is an issue of basic justice, and what are we for in this place, if not to stand up for consumers? Please support the amendments on consumer rights."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-04-Speech-2-024-000 | "Mr President, Dieselgate has given a real public platform to an issue that so many others have been following now for years. Whilst not a supporter of the setting-up of this committee at the outset, I do acknowledge the benefit of increasing awareness that has arrived, so thank you to all of my colleagues for their work. It is the details of the complex legislation and its proper implementation at Member State level that will be telling in the future. In the aftermath of the diesel emissions scandal the European Commission made new legislative proposals to ensure that car manufacturers comply with EU safety, environmental and production requirements. Maybe they do not go far enough – I am thinking, for example, of conformity factors here – but they are a good start. It is clear that we need to have better and more independent oversight of cars that are in circulation. Those of us working on air quality have known for some time about the problems with real driving emissions. That is a separate issue from fraud but, by its very nature, is purposefully perpetrated. Today I am supporting the call for a new European Vehicle Surveillance Agency in this report and, more importantly, in the legislative type-approval vote that will come later. Manufacturers and regulators knew for some time before the VW story broke about some of the discrepancies between the approval stage and on-road testing. I believe that a new agency is the only way to ensure compliance verification and enforce proper oversight of testing at EU level."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-04-Speech-2-064-000 | "Mr President, when I first heard of the emissions scandal I could not believe it. I could not believe that such reputable businesses would go to such lengths to treat both consumers and the system ... especially in relation to emissions reductions, which are so much part of the European profile at the minute, when we are leading the world in relation to COP21 and COP22.
So I think there is no need here for sympathy for those who were involved, and for that reason we need a few things to ensure it does not happen again. One: deterrents, and two: vigilance. If compensation is given to people in the United States then it is very difficult to say why it should not happen here in Europe. And vigilance means that we have to be sure that the supervisory agencies do their job."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-04-Speech-2-076-000 | "Mr President, I would like to start by thanking the shadow rapporteurs, as is customary. We got to know each other very well during the many hours of discussions we had on this report. We had some disagreements, as is expected on a file of this importance, but I believe that we have come to a very good compromise in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection in the end.
As I said before, we have got a good agreement in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection that was supported by most Members. It is robust, good for consumers, good for the environment and fair for industry. I do not think we should confuse that issue with an agency. But now I am looking forward to hearing all your remarks. I know that there are going to be plenty of remarks, and I am looking forward to a very good debate.
Let us be clear: the Volkswagen scandal – and it was not just Volkswagen, but we have called it the Volkswagen scandal – was the tip of the iceberg. Consumers have been treated with contempt for a long, long time. They long ago gave up any trust in the fuel consumption claims that are made by manufacturers, and now they know that the emissions claims are wrong as well. This was a scandal that was waiting to happen.
But what we have here in front of us now is a fundamental change from the current system and a very good compromise. It is far from the status quo. Firstly, we have new tests. The RDE testing means cars that will be tested on the roads, not just in the labs. That is a fundamental change from the system that existed before. Secondly, we have a new market-surveillance system. Member States have an obligation under this proposal to test 20% of types every year. They have to have their plans approved by the Commission, and the Commission is also empowered to do whatever tests it wants to do in addition. Thirdly, we have a new forum, which the Commission will direct and with independent peer review. So the Commission will get all the information it needs from Member States, stakeholders, NGOs and civil society in order to know the problems much, much earlier and have the tools to deal with them.
Every Member State has to apply the same rules. There are fewer opportunities now for forum shopping and independent auditors will check on a periodic basis that rules are applied fairly and clearly. Fees cannot be paid directly by manufacturers to testing centres, which deals with the concerns that many had about manufacturers’ influence. And we have a proposal on consumer redress. The fines will go into a fund that will help consumers and the environment.
This is a big, broad and ambitious package which got huge support in the Internal Market Committee. No one change in the system will prevent fraud, but together all these changes will guard against, firstly, cars incorrectly being put on the market, and, secondly, cars being on the market for a long time before a fault is found. We cannot stop all non-compliant products getting on the market. If someone wants to cheat the system, they are going to try and cheat the system, but we need to make sure that we have a system that is as strong as possible to catch them when they do it.
I would also remind everyone that type-approval is not just about emissions. It is primarily about safety standards for cars on our roads. I also want to touch on the agency because we have had a big debate about the agency, which is still raging today. I am not against an agency if it can be proven that there is a benefit from the agency, but so far I have not seen a benefit. I have yet to see a consumer who wants an agency that is remote from the market and hidden from the consumer.
The justification also seems to be weak. Agencies are just as susceptible to political pressure as the Commission or Member States, and this gives an excuse for national Member States not to act when they should be acting. It has not been costed, there is no detailed impact assessment and there is no idea how it is going to manage the market surveillance system. Let us be clear: this will cost a lot of money and we need to be right, sure and confident that it is going to do the job before we propose it.
I also have a bit of concern with one of the amendments from the Greens: Amendment 343, on what I would call a ‘victim’s levy’. This will effectively be a fine on people who want to buy new cars.
This is a little bit like you getting mugged, the police coming to you and saying ‘we’re terribly sorry we didn’t stop you getting mugged, but we’ll take a bit more money out your pocket to try and stop it happening again’. This is not the right way to deal with the issue. It is not the right way to fund an agency or any of these measures. So I do not think we should be going down that line."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-04-Speech-2-082-000 | "Mr President, the mutual recognition of product standards is a cornerstone of trade within Europe and the type approval process for new cars is a prime example. Once a vehicle has passed its safety and emission tests in one country it can then be put on the market across all other countries without having to undergo further tests. It saves manufacturers millions in costs which would otherwise be spent on duplicative bureaucracy.
Buying a new car is the single largest purchase most individuals make and it is important that consumers trust the system and therefore the test process must be thorough and robust in every country. This new report tightens the tests of vehicles on and off the road, it introduces new tests for the testers and regular re-testing of existing models. Penalties are introduced for those who try to cheat the tests.
This is a fundamental review of the approval process for cars in Europe and I would like to thank my British Conservative colleague Dan Dalton for leading this piece of work and my colleagues from all across Europe who have worked with him. In a post-Brexit world it is in no one’s interest to re-introduce unnecessary red tape and I hope both sides will continue to cooperate on regulatory matters to enable mutual recognition to continue and work together for strong standards not only in the UK and Europe, but also across the rest of the world."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-04-Speech-2-091-000 | "I listened to the speech with interest. My question is about economics, as opposed to regulation. How much regulation do you think is too much? The cost of all this will ultimately impact on the market, ultimately impact on the cost of the vehicles, ultimately impact on the desire of consumers to purchase and on how many jobs there are across Europe in the automotive sector. So my question to you, sir, is: how far is too far in regulation, and where do we have the balance?"@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-04-Speech-2-102-000 | "Mr President, the Volkswagen scandal of 2015 sent shockwaves across the world. Just how easy it was for Volkswagen to manipulate the emissions testing certainly raised many questions and concerns. Our consumers expect and deserve better from our businesses. But for all the faults that the Volkswagen scandal has exposed, the answer in this place is never to let the market decide or to allow national authorities to learn from mistakes. Instead, the EU takes the opportunity to engulf us in more legislation and more powers for bureaucrats and bureaucracy. For businesses, this is an eye-watering EUR 40 billion bill for the taxpayer. I am absolutely in favour of protecting consumers and holding businesses to account, but I simply cannot support legislation that is going to cost our taxpayers billions, and hand further powers away from the United Kingdom."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-04-Speech-2-103-000 | "I would like to know where your figure of EUR 40 billion comes from and how you justify it. Secondly, I would like to know why, as a representative of the UK, you have not mentioned the health issues here at all. You value business, but you do not seem to value the cost to people’s health. How do you expect health improvements to be made without some of the steps that are in this legislation?"@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-04-Speech-2-104-000 | "a sovereign country to be able to look after the health and state of its own citizens. I also believe that you can actually allow the market to work in a sensible way. After all, if consumers are short—changed and if they are poisoned by inadequate consequences, they are not going to buy these products. I believe the market will find its level, but I also reject your question about not caring about consumer health. We most certainly do. In the short time we have here, we answer as best we can."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-04-Speech-2-115-000 | "Mr President, I welcome Mr Dalton’s good work and again congratulate him on it. This is a regulation that is so important to our citizens, not only in terms of consumer confidence and information, but also to prevent the damaging effects of emissions on public health and on climate change. In this regard we must do everything we can to prevent cheating by car manufacturers aiming to manipulate emissions and fuel consumption tests and produce false results for financial gain. We must do our utmost to ensure that consumers are protected at all times and that the quality of goods is as described at the point of sale.
A number of measures here are worthy of support. Random market surveillance to be carried out by Member States on at least 20% of new models on the market is a very good idea. Unfortunately, given the proven dishonesty of certain players in the market, this is a necessary step to prevent manipulation of testing.
I am pleased also that the Commission will be given responsibility for insisting on the recalling of vehicles, for example in order to bring non-compliant vehicles into conformity.
Above all, I welcome the penalties. A fine of EUR 30 000 per vehicle in breach of regulations might seem a lot, but in actual fact it is nothing. The solution is simple: comply with the regulatory requirements and the penalty will not apply to you.
From the point of view of reducing harmful emissions etc. this is a very good report and I commend everybody involved in it."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-04-Speech-2-125-000 | "Mr President, I would like to thank all colleagues for their comments. The general view, I think, is that the proposal by the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) is a good one. It is a compromise. Everyone has had to move from their original positions, everyone has had to give things up, and I think we need to recognise that. I just wanted to make it clear what type approval is, because I think that there is some confusion, especially on my right, as to what exactly the system is. We have a national system of type approval with mutual recognition across Europe and, as Mr Schwab said, one type approval for the whole of the EU. That is good for consumers, it is good for jobs, it is good for industry, but it is in everyone’s interests to know that the system works in other EU countries because this affects everyone. People in Germany, for example, need to be confident that the system in Italy, say, works, as cars approved in Italy will be driven in Germany. So we need an umpire. We need a role for the Commission, as the report recognises. Now most speakers wanted more independence, transparency, obligations on Member States, compensation, a stronger system: all of that is in this IMCO report.
On the agency – this is the last time I talk about the agency, I promise! – that is not actually the key thing in this report. The details are much more important. I think that the Commissioner is sitting on the fence a little bit, clearly not convinced about the agency; but Bas Eickhout’s answer was, I think, actually the most instructive: the cost and bureaucracy of setting up the agency just to send the results to the same people in the Commission who will deal with the info under the system that we are proposing. It will always come back to the Commission to act, but it is clear that as a Parliament we are split down the middle on this issue. We have to sort it out in a vote and I will support the outcome whichever way it goes. No system will stop people who want to cheat the system, but I think that we have got a stronger system now. The key is to make sure that we get them once they have cheated the system. I think that we can do that. It has been 18 months since the Volkswagen scandal. It has been 15 months since the Commission came forward with its proposal. It is time now for us to get on with it, so I effectively commend this report to the vote later today and I look forward to starting negotiations with the Commission and Council as soon as possible."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-04-Speech-2-136-000 | "The next item is the vote."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-04-Speech-2-140-000 | "Madam President, I will be very quick as I know everyone wants to get on with the voting. Under Rule 59(4), I would like to request to refer this matter back to the committee responsible in order that we can begin interinstitutional negotiations."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-04-Speech-2-145-000 | "A Uachtaráin, ba mhaith liom tagairt do reachtaíocht uimhir 2 ansan. Sílim go bhfuil sé scannalach go bhfuilimid ag úsáid an fhocail “Mompreneur” agus tá sé scannalach agus náireach ar bhonn mná, tá sé scannalach agus náireach ar bhonn cothrom inscne. Agus ní dócha sa tigh seo gur chóir go mbeimis ag cur teachtaireacht mar sin chun cinn, a rá gurb é seo an tslí bhfuilimid ag tabhairt aghaidh ar ár mná. Mar sin, ceapaim gur chóir an focal sin a thógaint amach as an reachtaíocht."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-04-Speech-2-146-000 | "We take note of your comment and we will ask the language services to the look at the issue."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-04-Speech-2-148-000 | "That concludes the vote."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-04-Speech-2-149-000 | "We are now going to have our explanations of vote, so I would ask you to clear the Chamber."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-04-Speech-2-211-000 | "Madam President, the production of palm oil has resulted in deforestation across Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Malaysia and parts of Africa. It is directly responsible for huge swathes of destruction to natural habitats, flora and fauna. It is also completely out of control, with corporates using it in everyday items such as shampoo and doughnuts, and it is now even being proposed for use in United Kingdom banknotes.
To take global action on the production of palm oil and mitigate the environmental consequences, it is vital that international commitments are honoured, in particular the United Nations Forum on Forests, the United Nations Convention on Biological Biodiversity, the New York Declaration on Forests and the Sustainable Development Goal to halt deforestation by 2020. The United Kingdom has a record of doing, not just saying, and with Brexit I trust this will set an international example for the remaining 27 Member States."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-04-Speech-2-293-000 | "Madam President, I welcome these recommendations made by Parliament following the inquiry into the Dieselgate scandal. The people I represent are horrified that car manufacturers have been cheating on emissions tests, and they demand strong action from the European Parliament to stand up to this corporate abuse of power. I am disappointed that the Green proposal for an independent agency to regulate and monitor emissions was not passed. Such a body is essential to safeguard the health of the people in south-west England. Air pollution is responsible for 40 000 deaths a year in the UK and 300 every year in the city of Bristol, and the issue has not been taken seriously enough.
During this process, we have witnessed the power of the car industry lobby and sadly we have seen conservative forces in this Parliament working with them to water down the protections that citizens need. While this report represents a step in the right direction, we need to put citizens and their health first and demand that car manufacturers do not cheat the tests and cheat people of their health and their future."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-04-Speech-2-296-000 | "Madam President, along with my colleagues in the EPP Group, I welcome the findings of this report which sought to explore the actual implementation of Union law in the automotive sector. The findings of this report proved both unacceptable and disappointing. Nonetheless, I appreciate the initiative and dedication evidenced by the Committee of Inquiry in their thorough investigation of the contraventions and maladministration in this area. A range of discrepancies, as well as their negative impact on the attainment of our air quality objectives, were duly identified.
However, I believe that the findings of this report provide us with an opportunity to re-evaluate and improve upon the existing EU framework on emission measurements. Enhanced regulation and discipline will therefore provide the keystone for future procedures. This is an issue of huge importance and so we must act strongly on any manufacturer that cheats the system and harms our citizens in this way. We simply cannot have another Volkswagen scandal and the impacts on climate and public health are too great not to take decisive action."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-04-Speech-2-320-000 | "That concludes the explanations of vote."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-04-Speech-2-364-000 | "Mr President, a child is left on the steps of a church. The mother cannot afford it. A pensioner jumps from a high place, faced with a winter without winter fuel. This, honourable ladies and gentlemen, Members of this Parliament, is Greece, as created by the EU and the euro. It is not about resources, it is about debt in the wrong currency. The Greek debt is now 177% of GDP. It grows as the Greek economy shrinks so it can never, ever, be paid off. Instead, it grows larger.
Edinburgh is described as the Athens of the north because of its classical architecture and its learning. Nicola Sturgeon wants to make this manifest and all too real. An independent Scotland with an SNP deficit of GBP 15 billion is bigger than that of Greece. Scotland would have to adopt the catastrophic euro and the consequent ‘austerity max’ Greece has had to suffer. I weep for the people of Greece, but Sturgeon’s desire to emulate them beggars belief and will beggar Scotland."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-04-Speech-2-399-000 | "Mr President, I would like to start by thanking all my shadow rapporteurs for their excellent support and cooperation including, of course, Mr Liese, the rapporteur on IVD. My thanks to the Commission and the Council, and I would also like to thank the Luxembourg – and, in particular – Dutch Presidencies for their determination to get the Council agreement that we have today.
Colleagues, it has taken a long time and a lot of work to get to this point, so I hope you will support the final agreement as one which gives patients much more protection, while ensuring continued innovation.
We have put in place strong, clear rules for the whole life—cycle of devices, from design and manufacture through clinical testing and authorisation to vigilance and market surveillance, giving manufacturers legal certainty about what they have to do.
Protecting patients is at the heart of this legislation. We all remember the scandals of the past. I have heard from women whose lives have been turned upside down after having a pelvic mesh implant, women who are now living in constant pain. I have heard from women who are still not sure which breast implants they have had and whether they need to be worried about their future health.
It just is not right that people have not got sufficient information about devices that have been used in their medical procedures. So in future all devices will be traceable with a unique device identification number and patients will receive an implant card with this number, so we will all know which device has been implanted in which patient. If there is a problem with the device, patients deserve to be compensated, so it is clear that manufacturers must have sufficient financial coverage to deal with their potential liability.
We know that in the case of metal—on—metal hips there was little clarity for patients as to whether the problems were caused by the device or by the medical professionals treating them. When there is reason to believe a device has caused harm to a patient, information on that device must be made available to the patient and their doctor.
To ensure patient safety in the future we must make sure devices are safe before they reach the market. All devices will undergo a thorough clinical evaluation before marketing, and Parliament insisted that there should be additional scrutiny for the highest—risk devices. Things such as implants, insulin pumps and pacemakers will be referred to an expert panel for additional assessment.
Parliament also argued for restrictions on hazardous substances used in medical devices. Wherever possible, manufacturers will have to substitute materials that are carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic to reproduction, and justify where this is not possible. Notified bodies will still have responsibility for awarding a CE mark, but it is clear that these have to be up to the job. We have introduced strict new requirements for notified bodies, and they will be regularly inspected by Member States. Notified bodies will also have greater powers to carry out unannounced inspections and must inspect samples of all devices regularly. Any problem should be picked up early and action taken straight away.
While it is vital that we ensure devices are safe before they are placed on the market, it is also essential that they are carefully monitored afterwards. The new law will significantly strengthen requirements for post-market surveillance, including introducing periodic safety update reports similar to those that are now produced for medicines.
Finally, on reprocessing of single—use devices, this was one of the most difficult issues to get agreement on. For the Member States it is a very sensitive issue. Some wanted reprocessing to be banned entirely; others wanted no legislation at EU level. Therefore, reprocessing will only be allowed if it is permitted under national law. Those Member States that want to ban it can do so. For those that allow it, there are EU-wide standards that must be complied with, including reprocessors assuming all the obligations of the manufacturers."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-04-Speech-2-404-000 | "Mr President, I have to say that I thought this day would never come. I am relieved and happy to be here. Glenis Willmott and Peter Liese, who led us in these two important files, are to be congratulated for the work they did and the work we all did on this. And Commissioner, thanks go to your colleagues as well, and to the Council, because this was not just technical; it was political.
I am also glad that the Chamber is full with visitors, because what we are talking about today will affect each and every one of us, now and in the future. Also, Commissioner, thank you for acknowledging the importance of this industry in terms of both jobs and its output. This industry makes our lives better and extends our lives, and for that we should be grateful. Yes, we are talking about when things go wrong, and that spurs us to do more things, and to do them better. We should acknowledge that the industry is a very good industry that Europe should be proud of. What we are doing today is making it more certain for that industry to continue, so that when we get slightly older and may need things that are improved upon, we may live better and longer lives.
May I, at this point, say that Glenis Willmott has gone through the technical details, so there is no need for me to repeat that. What I think is most important is that we implement, and that the Member States who have signed up to this, and the Commission who are with us on this journey, realise that this Parliament will keep a watching brief and will make sure that resources are put in place so that we do put action on the words.
Lastly, can I say that our staff – as has already been mentioned – are hugely important. I think it is very important that we say this openly, because on the technical side they were incredible – both our Group staff and our individual staff. If I may say so, I very carelessly lost two staff members during the course of this regulation, and both to the medical devices industry, because they are excellent workers on behalf of citizens: Mark Taylor and Sinead Duggan, who I know is watching this debate. I think that is the good thing about what we have done. We will make our industry more certain. We will make safer the lives of citizens, and we can grow jobs and grow our economy.
So today, fingers crossed, is a good day."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-04-Speech-2-414-000 | "Mr President, can I give my congratulations and thanks to both of the rapporteurs and all of the teams. I have to say I admire your stamina. You are an example to us all. And so here we are at last.
Patient safety is of paramount importance and ensuring that this should always be so is our top priority. I am often one of the first to say that additional regulation can be burdensome, however when it comes to the realm of public health, especially when lives are in jeopardy and the safety of our healthcare system is questioned, tighter oversight and control mechanisms are vital. Indeed, in the wake of the breast implant and metal—on—metal hip scandals of 2012, it is now more important than ever that patient confidence be restored.
I firmly believe that support for these proposals is warranted. With the introduction of more systematic post-market checks, as well as stricter monitoring and traceability measures, these proposals create a framework whereby errors are more easily identifiable, allowing for more targeted and efficient responses and minimising any negative fallout.
While focusing on consumer safety, I would also acknowledge the importance of innovation, and these proposals do exactly that. So I think you have got the balance right, and I will be very happy to vote for this tomorrow."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-04-Speech-2-416-000 | "Mr President, the role of medical devices in the UK, as well as in Europe, is of exceptional importance, and the medical devices sector plays a fundamental role in the diagnosis, prevention, monitoring and treatment of diseases. I share the concern about this issue with the rapporteur and the European Commission, and recognise that disgraceful things have happened in the past, where women having breast augmentation procedures were given Poly Implant Prostheses (PIPs) containing industrial silicone.
Although I agree with the objectives of this report, which aims to influence the manufacturers at the site of production, as well as to increase transparency in instances where patients have had an adverse reaction to a medical device and are searching for information, I believe, however, that Member States are best placed to act in this field. My party and I believe that this is an issue best dealt with by national parliaments, therefore avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-04-Speech-2-427-000 | "Mr President, medical devices cover a wide array of products, from sticking plasters to heart valves, to analytical laboratory equipment; all in all, about 500 000 devices in the EU market. The proposals here mainly focus on scrutiny of devices before they are placed on the market and their surveillance after becoming available as well as their traceability and the supply chains, and this is highly commendable.
Proposals include stricter criteria for designating and monitoring notified bodies, adaptation of classification rules and streamlining of different assessment procedures. We must ensure a high level of health and safety protection for EU citizens using these products and must adapt the EU legislation to the significant technological and scientific progress in this sector over the last 20 years.
I believe that with this text these goals will be achieved and I commend the rapporteurs Willmott and my colleague, Liese on their significant work in this regard. With this work, we will see stricter requirements for notified bodies who check the conformity of these products. This is important for consumers who rely on them for ensuring the highest standards for these products in the EU.
Strengthened rules for high-risk devices are also welcome, as is the guidance and expertise to be provided by expert panels and laboratories on this issue. This is also important to ensure the utmost safety of products on the market. I am pleased with the inclusion of the enhanced system of traceability of devices along with post-market surveillance. I welcome the setting up of a central database. A good job well done by the rapporteurs."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-04-Speech-2-437-000 | "Mr President, thank you all for your support and comments. The medical devices industry is hugely important in the EU, with over 25 000 companies employing almost 600 000 people. That is a lot of people.
Throughout our work on this legislation, we had in mind that we needed stronger rules to improve device safety and protect patients without stifling the innovation that is a key feature of the industry in Europe. I believe the agreement that we have reached strikes the right balance. This will strengthen requirements for medical devices, and require high-risk devices to undergo additional pre-market assessment. Stricter rules on post-market surveillance will also ensure a faster response if there is a problem with a device and a new ID system will improve traceability.
It is clear that Member States will have to cooperate and share information, and the new EU-wide database EUDAMED will help them do that. And importantly, patients will have more information on the devices they use or are treated with.
Unfortunately, we cannot go back in time and prevent past scandals from happening, but with this legislation, we can make them much less likely in the future. Patients rightly expect that if a device has been placed on the market, then it must be safe. But unfortunately this has not always been the case. We have a responsibility to make sure that patients can have confidence in the medical devices industry and I firmly believe that this is what the agreement we will be voting for this week will do.
Once again, thank you to everyone who has helped us to get to this stage, and again in particular to all of our staff and the Group staff, who have worked their socks off on this. I hope we have strong support in the vote tomorrow, because at the end of the day, this is about the safety of patients across the EU, and nothing can be more important than that."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-04-Speech-2-453-000 | "Madam President, in 2015 over one million people arrived on Europe’s shores by irregular means. These people have fled war, famine, repressive dictatorships, economic hardship or a mixture of all of those combined. Their arrival has clearly sparked a huge debate in our societies as to where it is right to draw the line between compassion to those seeking a better life versus our actual political and financial capabilities to provide such relief.
I am convinced personally that, in many respects, the Geneva Convention is ill—suited to the modern globalised world, and that reform is vital if we are to maintain support for its key tenets of providing temporary safe haven to those most in need. Rather than seeking to offer opportunities to the few that reach Europe, the majority is better served by support for economic and political developments in the countries that they are leaving.
The Valletta Action Plan recognises this and I welcome the EEAS’s efforts to support state—building and development goals. Furthermore, its efforts to secure readmission agreements with third countries like Turkey, and support for the CSDP naval Operation Sophia Mediterranean against people smugglers, are also very welcome, to stop illegal migration to Europe. Europe’s neighbours are seeing a rapid population increase, a lack of job creation and, in Africa in particular, are increasingly troubled by future effects of climate change. Clearly more needs to be done to defend Europe’s external borders, but we cannot ignore, nor insulate ourselves from, the reasons that are pushing people to leave their homes in the first place."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-04-Speech-2-477-000 | "Madam President, when regulated correctly, migration assists a nation’s economic standing. When there is no proper control, many question the sustainability of a system that effectively hinders the low-paid through the suppression of wages in the unskilled labour market. The 2004 enlargement of the European Union was that catalyst. Honesty must now prevail. Free movement has proved to be a failure for many, with the blame falling firmly at the feet of those still trying to enforce this ideal.
Moving onto this report, it condemns the restrictions and prohibitions on persons leaving or returning that are imposed in certain states – even if that person is a jihadist returning from Syria. Seriously? In addition, it calls on national governments and parliaments to abolish punitive legal frameworks that treat migration as an offence.
Madam President, it must be for national governments to have the right to put their own migration policies in place, not the European Union."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-04-Speech-2-492-000 | "Mr McAllister, my fellow countryman – or at least half of you is – may I just say that the problem is that, when Ms Merkel invites any number of people to come to Europe without let or hindrance, it is all very well for Germany, but this affects Germany’s neighbours, especially Great Britain, and this is something that is a problem. So if you have your Schengen, and you have open door immigration from goodness knows where, we could end up with lots of jihadis and a lot of people we cannot house or have schools or hospitals for."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-04-Speech-2-499-000 | "Madam President, this reports seeks to paint any criticism of the failed and discredited policy of mass migration as xenophobic or racist or any of the smorgasbord of buzzwords the elitist European political class uses to shut down reasoned debate. Further, it attempts to herd nation states into a European bouillabaisse. Nations will lose all control over migration, borders and economic policies.
Listen to the individual peoples of Europe who want to retain the fascination of their individual cultures, that which makes Europe interesting. Herr Mayer, my colleague from Austria, wears Lederhosen and I wear a kilt. It is a charming thing about Europe: difference. The people demand an end to open borders. They demand an end to the use of migration to keep big business happy and workers insecure, and they demand an end to the EU wasting their taxes on foreign aid, which only perpetuates inequalities in world trade and props up dictatorships and unstable regimes."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-04-Speech-2-544-000 | "Mr President, I am descended from French Huguenots who fled persecution in 1685 to seek refuge in a welcoming Britain, introducing the very word ‘refugee’ into our vocabulary. Today, whether fleeing conflict, famine or climate chaos, no one wants to risk their lives at sea or on land in search of safety and stability. Therefore, I would like to congratulate everyone who has worked on this report. It offers a truly comprehensive and holistic strategy for dealing with the needs of refugees coming to Europe.
We need to work simultaneously at all levels. We need international cooperation to tackle root causes and combat the horrific human rights abuses perpetrated by smugglers en—route. We need to establish safe routes of travel and humane living conditions for refugees, taking into account women and girls, children and other groups.
We need to work at home against the nationalist, xenophobic and racists discourse we have seen on the rise. We need to celebrate the cultural richness that refugees and migrants bring with them and provoke a truly compassionate, empathetic debate. That is the standard we must hold our governments to."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-04-Speech-2-559-000 | "A Uachtaráin, cé go bhfuil céimeanna beaga tógtha – agus cuirim fáilte roimh an tsolúbthacht sin, i ndáiríre cad is féidir linn a rá faoin Creat Airgeadais Ilbhliantúil seachas:
? An tseanreitric chéanna, na torthaí céanna agus na botúin chéanna; agus ní athróidh sé seo mórán.
I measc na n-athruithe agus na neamhchinnteachta go léir atá os ár gcomhair, cuireann sé ionadh orm gur tháinig an Chomhairle ar ais chugainn leis na moltaí céanna a chuireadar os ár gcomhair i mí na Samhna. Bhí deis againn machnamh a dhéanamh ar na géarchéimeanna atá ag teacht aníos orainn agus dul i ngleic leo; dul i dtreo níos fearr dár bpobal, agus infheistiú ceart a dhéanamh i samhail eacnamaíochta éagsúil, a chuireann béim ar dhlúthpháirtíocht idir ár dtíortha agus laistigh dár sochaí.
In Éirinn, agus ar fud na hEorpa aithníonn na daoine go bhfuil an tAontas Eorpach ag athrú. Cén fáth nach nglacann an Coimisiún leis na fíricí seo agus iad ag cur moltaí ar an MFF os comhar na Parlaiminte? Cén fáth nach n-aithnítear go bhfuil gá dul i ngleic leis an drochthionchar a bheidh ag Brexit orainne in Éirinn agus maoiniú agus tacaíocht a chur ar fáil dúinn – dár bhfeirmeoirí, dár
dár n-aos óg ó thaobh fostaíochta de agus dár bpobail?
Muna n-aithníonn an Coimisiún agus an Chomhairle go bhfuil an tAontas Eorpach ag tráth na cinniúna táimid i dtrioblóid, agus i dtrioblóid mhór. Caithimid aghaidh a thabhairt ar an eagla a chuir leis an toradh
sa Bhreatain. Caithimid dul i ngleic leis na buarthaí sin atá ag daoine maidir leis an todhchaí agus treo chun cinn a aimsiú. Is crosbhóthar atá os ár gcomhair anois, agus tá sé thar am dúinn an treo ceart a thógaint; is é sin infheistíocht a dhéanamh in Aontas atá bunaithe ar dhaonlathas, dlúthpháirtíocht agus dul chun cinn sóisialta.
É sin ráite, ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil le Isabelle Thomas agus Jan Olbrycht as an obair fhónta atá déanta acu."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-04-Speech-2-562-000 | "Mr President, these reports are a massive obfuscation, confusion and sleight-of-hand manoeuvring which would not be out of place in a logic puzzle book. Of course we want to pay off debts as quickly as possible, but this is just an accounting ruse to spend more taxpayers’ money in the coming years. And then, incredibly, in the other report we are finding more ways to move money outside of EU budgetary ceilings so that we can spend even more taxpayers’ money next year. And then for the first time ever they do not even schedule a debate on the report on Parliament’s proposed expenditure for 2018, which includes British taxpayers paying for things that we will never see the benefit of, but of course the EU will never mention that in their divorce bill.
This whole knotted mess is not unravelable, so let us take a sword to this Gordian knot."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-04-Speech-2-570-000 | "Mr President, the frequently unspoken truth about the EU budget is that it is put to very good use. It is used to support the lives of citizens across Europe. My part in this review has been to focus on the Horizon 2020 programme which funds cutting-edge scientific research and facilitates the largest research area in the world, and to focus on CEF, the Connecting Europe Facility, which develops better digital, transport and energy connections for EU citizens, the arteries of our modern world.
As our world gets smaller, our challenges get larger. It is essential that we work together to find ways to protect and enhance citizens’ lives. The budget funds research into rare diseases, into cancers, into new energy sources – our future world will be shaped by this funding. It is developing space technologies, graphene and quantum computing. The great minds of our continent value this collaboration. Beyond this, the revision focuses on the responsibility we have regarding the refugee crisis. Recognising it benefits all of us to support the Member States who are doing most to fulfil our international and moral obligations and responsibilities to protect refugees and to police Europe’s borders.
This revision recognises these issues. It is long overdue for us to restate the fundamental principle that we are better, stronger and more effective when we work together. That does not just apply to individual citizens; it applies to regions and it applies to countries, and the EU is the embodiment of this."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-04-Speech-2-582-000 | "Mr President, can I join with others in congratulating the joint rapporteurs on this topic, Ms Thomas and Mr Olbrycht, for their work. Like others, I consider it is important that we have a flexible mechanism to ensure, over a seven-year period, when new priorities arise, that we can respond to that in a clever way, and that is exactly what we are discussing here today, and hopefully in the vote tomorrow that will be successful.
Just two points. My first point is this, that the overall budget is of course a tiny percentage of gross overall expenditure within the European Union, and the most effective way to ensure that we have more money to spend, and that we spend it wisely in a reformed way, is to ensure that we have growth across the 28 Member States of the European. That is happening this year. We see significant growth in the euro zone, we see three million additional jobs within the euro zone. Despite all the negativity that exists about the euro zone and Europe, Europe is coming back faster with a higher growth rate, and that is the most important way that we can ensure that we have additional funds to put into key investment for the European Union via the budget."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-04-Speech-2-591-000 | "Mr President, 1 310 is the number of days between the publication of the proposal on the money market funds regulation and when we will actually have the final vote on this matter – tomorrow. This must be close to a record: money market funds (MMFs) have been held up for more than three years and four Council presidencies, because it is one of the most contentious and complex pieces of legislation we have ever dealt with. It has been a long journey, but I am delighted we have reached the right destination, an overall agreement between Parliament and the Council. I believe this is a win-win, both for the European money market fund sector and for the European taxpayer, who will be better protected.
With assets under management of around EUR 1 trillion, MMFs are an important source of short-term financing for financial institutions, corporations and governments. In Europe, around 22% of short-term debt securities issued by governments or by the corporate sector are held by MMFs. Money market funds hold 38% of the short debt issued by the banking sector.
Because of the systemic inter-connectedness between MMFs, the banking sector and corporate and government finance, their operation has been at the core of international work on shadow banking. As a result, MMFs have been scrutinised by various regulators and supervisors. Indeed, the financial crisis of 2007-2008 showed that MMFs can be vulnerable to shocks and may even spread or amplify risks. This can fuel an investor run and liquidity crisis, foreign MMFs potentially triggering negative effects on other parts of the financial system.
The agreement we have reached under the Slovak Presidency that we will vote on tomorrow addresses these systemic concerns, in particular through the following measures: liquidity and diversification requirements are strengthened, with strict daily and weekly liquidity requirements to fulfil potential redemption requests, and furthermore, the MMF portfolio will be more diversified, with stringent concentration requirements to reduce risks; assets in which MMFs can invest, including government debt, have been more strictly regulated; sponsored support to these funds is forbidden, to avoid any contagion risk; we have addressed provisions for transparency in more detail; a review clause for government CNAVs has been introduced; after five years, the Commission will report on the feasibility of establishing an 80% EU public debt quota; the report will look at the availability of short—term EU public debt instruments... I could go on – a stringent regime of fees and gates in the case of shortfalls in liquidity will address the question of run risk, and we will limit the use of the amortised accounting method for the valuation of assets.
I am particularly pleased that, apart from existing MMF models, a viable operation model for LVNAV MMFs has been introduced at Parliament’s initiative, and I believe that the run risk compared to the CNAV is significantly lower. The LVNAV cannot deviate by more than 20 points from the NAV and is far stricter than 50 basis points. This is a compromise, and I prefer a compromise which regulates the sector over no agreement and leaving an unregulated MMF sector, and it is in line with the international commitments we have made.
Colleagues, politics is a team sport, and you cannot make agreements in isolation. Let me therefore say a word of thanks to the shadow rapporteurs, Brian Hayes, Petr Ježek, Syed Kamall, Eva Joly and Fabio De Masi, and to the President of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, Roberto Gualtieri, for his political support and to Kamil Sasko, who led the negotiations on behalf of the Council. I would also like to thank the ECON secretariat and the S&D secretariat and the policy advisers.
I believe this agreement is an important step forward in ensuring the long—term stability of our financial markets. The EU has been lagging behind, as I have said, on international commitments that we have, which the US already implemented 18 months ago.
I hope, colleagues, I can rely on your overwhelming support tomorrow and that would send a clear signal and a welcome political signal that we are capable of adopting a strong, harmonised, regulatory framework ensuring financial stability and that investors get well protected all over the EU."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-04-Speech-2-593-000 | "Mr President, can I join in congratulating the rapporteur, Neena Gill, on this file, and indeed all the other shadows for the work over the course of the last three years in what has proved to be a very controversial and difficult file.
I am glad that we have achieved what I regard as a balanced agreement, on the one hand recognising the potential systemic risk and threat that can in a worst-case scenario come from money market funds, while at the same time, recognising the intrinsic value of these short-term financial instruments to businesses up and down the European Union. I think we have come along way from the original Commission proposal which essentially proposed a 3% buffer, which could at one glance have knocked out, in my own country, EUR 400 billion worth of domiciled funds as a consequence of that very harsh proposal.
We have all compromised in this proposal. We recognise the importance of money market funds for businesses in terms of short-term financing needs, and we also recognise that we are behind the United States, who have already put in place a regulation to deal with this issue. But I should say, as I said in the course of the trilogues, the problem was not in Europe, it was in the United States of America.
I think great political skill was shown by the rapporteur and her team, with my own team, and indeed the team from the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) in devising this particular solution. We have a framework that allows CNAVs, VNAVs and LVNAVs to coexist together. We have liquidity buffers in place, we have diversification, we have escalated procedures in place, improved transparency, the sunset clause is gone which I am delighted about, and we also have a very strong review when it comes to the question of government CNAVs, but the government CNAVs remain in place.
I believe we now have in place a good package which we can present to the entire financial industry and to the citizens of Europe to make sure that this industry, which is so important to the future growth and development of Europe, remains in place."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-04-Speech-2-597-000 | "Mr President, this proposal which began as an attempt to reduce systemic risk in the shadow banking sector is now deeply disappointing. Let us not forget the role that money market funds played in sparking panic and fire sales in the US during the financial crisis. We had an opportunity to reduce the risk of a future crisis in the global economy and we have failed to take it.
These changes will be largely cosmetic and the address of CNAVs has not been agreed. Systemic risk, in other words, remains fully in place. As Mr Hayes has said, certain funds in Ireland and indeed Luxembourg will benefit from this outcome, but what is the cost? Last year the Financial Stability Board warned that shadow banking in Ireland was, unbelievably, 10 times the size of our economy.
We have already lived through a financial crisis in Ireland that was caused by a banking sector that was actually formally regulated but wholly inadequately so. We need to take the dangers posed by the huge and unregulated shadow banking sector very seriously and we need to act accordingly."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-04-Speech-2-602-000 | "A Uachtaráin, mar a dúirt mo comhghleacaí Brian Ó hAodha, is ábhar fíorchonspóideach, casta, deacair é seo, agus i ndáiríre tá moladh mór tuillte ag Brian agus ag daoine cosúil le Valdis Dombrovskis, an Coimisinéir, agus an Rapóirtéir as ucht an obair a chuir siad isteach ag déileáil leis.
Tá an t-ádh linn go bhfuil saineolaithe mar sin sa Pharlaimint agus go bhfuil siad sásta a bheith ag obair ar ár son agus a bheith obair ar son ár saoránach. I ndeireadh na dála, mar a dúirt Brian, táimid tagtha ar chomhréiteach an-chiallmhar agus an-phraiticiúil.
Dá bhrí sin tá mé sásta go bhfuil comhréiteach an-chiallmhar againn agus tá súil agam go nglacfar leis amárach."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-04-Speech-2-609-000 | "Mr President, Vice-President Dombrovskis, thank you for your words and also for the constructive engagement we had with the Commission throughout these negotiations, and particularly to our friend Tilman over there in terms of finding the eventual solution.
I would just like to take this opportunity to speak to colleagues who have been, let us say, less than optimistic about this, especially the ones in the Greens and GUE/NGL who were involved at every level in these negotiations, but did not always apply themselves or come up with any concrete alternative way forward. The only way forward was to go back and suggest that we stick with a proposal that could not actually get any kind of agreement in Parliament itself. I think it is important that we recognise that the way we could move forward was to find some kind of compromise, and compromises are difficult, they do not tick all the boxes, but they do mean that we find a solution that basically works for most parts of the sector.
I do believe we have some strong improvements in the proposal that we are going to vote on tomorrow, which many of my colleagues have highlighted and mentioned and I will not repeat them, but I hope that tomorrow we will vote for this in a big way, because it is important that the European Parliament can demonstrate that we are able to overcome our differences within this House, and we are not just a replica of the Council. We make that judgment to ensure that a money market fund sector can thrive and meet many of our objectives either in the Capital Markets Union that the Commission has set itself, or through making sure that we do not have any recourse to the taxpayer in future. Once again I would like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs, the Commission and my coordinator here, for making sure we have final agreement on this."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-04-Speech-2-616-000 | "Mr President, I would firstly like to congratulate the rapporteur, Petr Ježek, on this report. For me and my group it fulfils many of our priorities: reducing legal costs and red tape, reducing fragmentation of practices amongst Member States, unlocking liquidity from institutional investors, harmonising investor protection rules and avoiding a race to the bottom across Member States.
A key proposal that my group was instrumental in getting agreed is the proposal of the SME growth prospectus, which means that SMEs in the EU will be able to use one standard harmonised document to raise capital, a major step forward compared to the current system. Based on this simple document, SMEs will be able to follow an easy process to raise funds across the EU. Importantly, this legislation will also allow for crowdfunding and other new forms of financing to develop European capital markets.
Prospectuses are a gateway to the capital markets. However, it is also vital that issuers based in third countries can continue to access EU capital markets. To enable the Capital Markets Union (CMU) to be a success, non—EU Member States should be able to invest. Critically, given the impending departure of the UK, it could be detrimental to availability of capital for SMEs, given that the UK accounts for 60% of the EU capital markets business. This is a serious consequence and CMU is in danger of becoming CMU-lite in terms of delivering jobs and growth in the future of the EU 27. Therefore prospectuses approved by non-EU countries fulfilling equivalence requirements could be used in the future in the EU."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-04-Speech-2-619-000 | "Mr President, the agreement on the Prospectus Regulation is a major step in the development of a genuine Capital Markets Union. I want to congratulate the rapporteur and all of the shadow rapporteurs for their work on this file and indeed their discussions with the Council and the Commission in the course of the last number of months.
Making it easier and cheaper for companies, especially SMEs, to raise capital within the markets and to go public ensures that European companies can grow and prosper in a sustainable way. We do have a real problem in Europe with our over-reliance on banking finance. As I have said repeatedly, 75% of lending in the EU comes from our banks and 25% from the capital markets. In the United States, it is the opposite.
This agreement signals a strengthening and deepening of our capital markets in Europe. For example, the new growth prospectus regime will boost the ability of small and growing companies to raise money across the whole single market, according to one common framework.
There are legacy issues from the previous Prospectus Directive. While it was working relatively well, it did not enable a truly strong functioning single market to exist. It created some legal uncertainty and imposed some burdensome requirements, leading to increased cost and the creation of inefficiencies. The existing regime allows Member States to transpose the directive in their own way, which led to 28 separate regimes, and I am glad the Commission decided to issue the new regime as a regulation. This created proper harmonisation because it was much needed.
I also want to welcome the different regimes that have been created for frequent users and for secondary issuances. This will ensure the entire industry benefits from a lighter prospectus regime. This is a good example of how the EU can actually help cut red tape where it is needed and a key component of the Capital Markets Union."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-020-000 | "Mr President, it may have taken nine months – a pretty full gestation – but be in no doubt that last Wednesday was a great historic day when the United Kingdom announced that we were going to become an independent, self-governing, democratic nation once again, an act that has been cheered by hundreds of millions of people all over the world.
We have had a little history lesson this morning from Mr Verhofstadt, but he made one mistake. In 1973, sir, we did not join the European Union; we joined the European Economic Community. Had the British people known that it was the intention to get political and take away our ability to govern ourselves, we never would have done so.
I am sorry to say that the response to the triggering of Article 50 has been all too predictable. Already you have made a series of demands that are not just unreasonable, but, in some cases, clearly impossible for Britain to comply with. You began by telling us that we have to pay a bill: a cool GBP 52 billion, a figure that has clearly been plucked out of the air, which is effectively a form of ransom demand. What you could have acknowledged is that we put over GBP 200 billion net into this project. We are actually shareholders in this building and the rest of the assets and really you should be making us an offer we cannot refuse, to go.
The ever-charming Mr Verhofstadt, Parliament’s chief negotiator, in his resolution that we are to vote on later today, tells us that we cannot discuss potential trade deals with anybody else in the world until we have left the European Union. That has no basis in Treaty law whatsoever. It is rather like saying you cannot guarantee yourself a dwelling for when you leave prison and I trust the British Government will completely ignore you.
I suspect that Mr Tusk, who is not with us today, is still crying. He looked pretty tearful, did he not, after the British Ambassador delivered the letter last week? He tells us in his memorandum that any future trade deal must ensure that the United Kingdom is not allowed to have a competitive advantage. This is all impossible. Add to that the hypocrisy of saying, on the one hand, that the EU will negotiate as one, and clause 22 of the Tusk document which says that the Spanish can have a total veto over the whole trade deal if they are not happy with the sovereignty of Gibraltar.
We believe in national self-determination. Your aim and ambition is to destroy nation state democracy. Gibraltar is clearly a deal-breaker on current terms. With these demands, you have shown yourselves to be vindictive, to be nasty, and all I can say is thank goodness we are leaving. You are behaving like the mafia. You think we are a hostage, we are not, we are free to go, and 85... I know and I do understand ..."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-022-000 | "Mr President, I do understand national sensitivities. I will change it to gangsters. All right? And that is how we are being treated. We are being given a ransom note.
What must be very difficult for all of you to get into your minds is that there is a bigger world out there than the European Union. 85% of the global economy is outside the European Union. If you wish to have no deal, if you wish to force us to walk away from the table, it is not us that will be hurt. Do you know, we do not have to buy German motor cars, we do not have to drink French wine, we do not have to eat Belgian chocolate. There are a lot of other people that will give that to us.
A return to tariffs will risk the jobs of hundreds of thousands of people living in the European Union, and yet what you are saying is you want to put the interests of the European Union above that of your citizens and your companies. If you continue with that route it won’t just be the United Kingdom that triggers Article 50. There will be many more to come."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-024-000 | "Mr President, as Brexit negotiations begin, it is a joy to watch the towering masters in the art of EU diplomacy in full flow here today. Those like Mr Weber, whose bellicose, threatening and theatrical words no doubt entertain this Chamber but are like a pen with no point in the negotiating rooms.
He said on his recent tour of the British media that politicians who fought for Brexit were allowed to grow up in a free Europe, and that the UK should now pay more. Well, Mr Weber, may I remind you that the freedom that you say you promote came at a mighty cost to Britain. It came in the blood and sacrifice of millions of Britons those who, like my grandfather, when asked unhesitatingly fought in the sands of Africa so Europe can be free.
It came in the 120 billion it cost Britain to fight a German dictator, it came in the 5 trillion Britain contributed to NATO to help build a shield of freedom around Europe from communism. It came on the 500 billion or more we have contributed to the EU and the billions more we spend each day more than we receive.
Mr Weber, on Radio 4 you asked ‘Mrs May, please tell me what leaving the EU means?’ Well, I will tell you. It means we are leaving the European Union that has forgotten the costs and sacrifices Britons freely gave to ensure you are free to exercise your diplomacy of the defeated in this Chamber of the forgetful."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-034-000 | "Mr President, last week Prime Minister May triggered Article 50. In doing so she gave effect to the democratic decision of the British people to leave the European Union.
I want Members to see today as a beginning and not an end. It is the start of a new relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom. Although we will be leaving the EU, we want to forge a deep and special partnership with our friends and allies in Europe.
The negotiations that follow will be difficult at times, and you will sometimes hear an angry voice. I hope that colleagues here will focus on the outcome we seek and not the process we undertake, because we all need a good agreement, rather than a good fight.
This Parliament has a role to play in ensuring we protect our citizens. I want the rights of all EU citizens in the UK and all British citizens in the EU to be guaranteed. I want Britain’s borders with the EU to be as invisible as possible, to allow as much trade as possible. I want us to respect the right of self-determination. The sovereignty of Gibraltar is not part of these negotiations.
My group was disappointed that Mr Verhofstadt felt he could only consult on the draft text with a few close political friends. We also regret that he ignored so much good work by the Parliament’s committees. Perhaps it was inconvenient. We hope in future we can work with you in the same good faith and full transparency that you request in your motion.
As we look to the future, it is in the interests of all our citizens that we reach a comprehensive agreement between Britain and the EU. We see no reason to delay any aspect of any of these talks. So let us go forward together and reach that deep and special partnership that will benefit all our nations."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-035-000 | "Mr President, the lies and blatant mistruths of the referendum campaign are crumbling before our eyes. They told us food prices would not rise. They have. They told us businesses would not move abroad. They are. They told us we were scaremongering. We were not. Sixteen million Brits did not say they wanted to leave the European family. Those who did will not be fooled again by false promises from nationalists
This month of May the British people will send a message to Mrs May in local elections and the Westminster seat of Manchester Gorton. That message reads loud and clear: you lied to us. We are angry, and we want our country back. It belongs inside the European Union.
As a Liberal Democrat, I will continue to fight against Brexit, and to give the people a final say on the deal. I am proud of this House, uniting with a positive but firm resolution. It is fair, it is just, and it is very European. And if the deal goes badly, the British people will welcome the chance to revoke Brexit and Article 50, and vote to remain."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-037-000 | "Madam President, today in this Chamber the influence of the late Martin McGuinness is present. He met with virtually every signatory of the joint resolution, and he asked three things from this House: one, that you preserve the Good Friday Agreement in all its part; two, that there would be no hardening of the Irish border; and three, that the unique circumstances and special status of Ireland would be supported.
In his memory, we thank you for this. This is why we associate ourselves with this resolution. We feel that the European Parliament is a partner to the people of the North of Ireland and particularly those living across the partitioned border areas, north and south. No other MEP understands the disaster of partition better than MEP Matt Carthy.
Despite the fact that we support the joint resolution, we all have to recognise that this is not the Europe we want, or that the people need. We need an open and critical debate on the future of Europe, something that the resolution also calls for. We need to engage the public in this debate.
Together we can shape a better Europe, a more social Europe, a democratic Europe, a Europe of equals. We have done our part, now it is the turn of the European Council meeting on 29 April. To the European Council I say: it is over to you. Enda Kenny, Taoiseach, your day has come. Now it is your time to stand up for the Good Friday Agreement in all of its parts. Irish citizens are depending on you. You must be the voice of the people, north and south.
It is clear from this resolution that Ireland has friends in Europe. And I want to end with a quote from Manfred Weber, somebody I do not usually quote. He said that ‘if the UK tries to endanger the Good Friday Agreement we will not give our support to an agreement on Brexit’.
Neither will we, and neither should the Taoiseach. So harness that support, Enda, and stand up for Ireland."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-039-000 | "Madam President, I think what we have witnessed over the past week has been the unedifying spectacle of posturing and veiled threats, from the ludicrous suggestion that we will be saddled with a GBP 50 billion divorce bill (although we are a net contributor to the EU budget) to the claim that no trade will be negotiated until the end of the Article 50 process. This, I guarantee, would cause immense damage to the economies of the European Union and would result in putting many of your citizens out of work. It is what we call, in the UK, cutting off your nose to spite your face.
However, the most offensive position that you have taken is the proposal that Spain will have the right to veto any Brexit deal over the issue of Gibraltar. I want to make it clear in this Chamber today that the people of Gibraltar are proudly British. In 2002, 99% of Gibraltarians voted in a referendum against shared sovereignty with Spain, and the wishes of the people should be upheld. I do, however, have a solution to prevent Gibraltar being used as a pawn in Brexit negotiations and, indeed, end Spanish claims once and for all. Make Gibraltar a fully integrated part of the UK; give her and our other overseas territories their own Member of Parliament. Give Gibraltar real influence and a voice in Westminster and send a clear message that Gibraltar is not for sale.
In this area, we, the UK, can learn from our continental cousins, because the French give representation to their overseas territories, and I propose that we should too. I have been calling for this for many, many years, and with the unique opportunities that Brexit has given us, I believe it is an idea whose time has come."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-040-000 | "Madam President, I know what a divorce is like. I came through one and you will too. Both parties seek to damage each other and the kids and blame each other. You know, the kids and the bank accounts get damaged. But my ex-partner: you will recover. Your hate will lessen, but you will need a bit of counselling along the way.
Jean-Claude: get off the booze! Donald is in denial. He is in depression, trying to claim Gibraltar as his own, as so often happens when you are splitting the divorce assets. Then you appoint a crack team of negotiators, only to find you have got Mrs Malmström in there, and that she is not a trade negotiator at all. She is a sociology lecturer. Guy, you sent in your army, you sent in your barmy army for the one Spanish Armada that is left to you to retake Gibraltar. But it didn’t happen. And Northern Ireland – the only way that the Good Friday peace agreement is going to fail is if you start bombing us again.
And one party thinks you owe them a bonus and an income for life just because they are injured. But our bill to you is GBP one trillion of contributions. That has been the amount of money that we have paid into this place. You failed us, so we want that back.
So it is not going very well. But d’you know what, we don’t want to damage you, we don’t want to damage the kids and your finances. So let’s complete a free trade agreement, because if not, our friends at the World Trade Organization are looking jolly nice and very attractive, and I am not seeking an affair in this divorce but a partner for life, and I think that is where we are heading."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-041-000 | "Madam President, the triggering of Article 50 was a good day for democracy in the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister upheld the democratic result of the referendum, when the UK voted decisively to leave the European Union last June. However, I respect that for many in this place there is genuine disappointment, maybe some sadness and even some anger. In the negotiation to come, on all sides emotion must be tempered by a practical and positive willingness to find common ground. We have an opportunity to write a new chapter on cooperation in trade, security and prosperity.
Whilst I have many difficulties with the text – not least on phasing, on finance, on trade, and on Gibraltar – I am pleased that this resolution does recognise Northern Ireland’s unique position in respect of the land border with the Republic of Ireland. Both the United Kingdom and Irish Governments have said there will be no return to a hard border. The Council’s draft guidelines pledge a flexible and imaginative approach. All of these commitments are welcome.
However, any solution must also respect that Northern Ireland will be an integral part of an independent United Kingdom. I hear – and appreciate – support for the peace process in this House. The greatest support for the process will come from stable government, and my party pledges to work hard to ensure that in this, and in the outcome of Brexit, we will represent the best interests of Northern Ireland."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-045-000 | "Madam President, in my one minute I will concentrate on how Brexit affects the island of Ireland. The words Ireland and Northern Ireland appear eight times in the document we are discussing today, and that in itself indicates the importance that the European Parliament attaches to the unique position and special circumstances confronting the island of Ireland. It is crucial to safeguard peace and, therefore, to preserve the Good Friday Agreement in all its parts. We insist on the absolute need to ensure continuity and stability of the Northern Ireland peace process and avoid the re-establishment of a hard border. Those are not my words; those words are written in the document we will agree today.
So we start with good intent, but over the next few months all of us will have to come forward with workable solutions that will make a reality of those fine words. We share a border of almost 500 kilometres with Northern Ireland. We must maintain our common travel area, otherwise the dislocation could be catastrophic for our small island. Finally, I want to agree with Michel Barnier that we should ensure a free and fair trade agreement with a level playing field. That must also be the outcome between the Republic and Northern Ireland."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-047-000 | "Madam President, I campaigned for the European Union as a peace project and a beacon for democracy and human rights. The journey towards Brexit is proving how powerful the Union has been in this civilising mission and how flimsy these basic freedoms seem without European support.
The vote for Brexit has been hijacked to build an ugly coalition to undermine our civilised society. Within a week of triggering Article 50, we have a senior Conservative threatening war against a European country. This is sadly symbolic of the loss of commitment to peace and to basic standards of diplomacy, to say nothing of friendship and loyalty. I represent the people of Gibraltar and I will fight for their right to self—determination. They value being British citizens – as I do – because Britain is a country of decency and democracy. What value a British passport if the Prime Minister can change fundamental legislation without reference to Parliament? What value a proud history if our future allies will be despots? What value international respect if it is squandered for narrow economic advantage?"@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-049-000 | "Madam President, the statements today by Europhile party political leaders were everything I had anticipated and feared: total misrepresentation of facts and issues by the Socialists and the EPP Group, and misleading interpretation of history, UK economics and EU evolution by the Liberal Democrats, all allowed to pass uncorrected. This morning has seen political theatre, histrionics and political opportunism at full throttle by the Europhiles, and all because the United Kingdom has chosen to leave the European Union.
Well, I suggest we get real and start adopting grown-up politics because there is a serious leg of negotiations ahead of us and we do not need to see yet more Project Threat, Revenge and Penalty from the likes of Mr Juncker, Mr Barnier and Mr Verhofstadt. That is not helpful, and all it does is pander to a press which at the moment is misrepresenting both the EU position and the United Kingdom position. I do not feel that is helpful. So please can I ask everybody to calm down and be calm, and get on with it."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-053-000 | "Madam President, I was elected to represent the Welsh national interest, and that is what I will continue to do. The people of Wales have the democratic right to decide on their own future, and that includes the kind of EU withdrawal that takes place and the way that it affects our nation.
The devolved administrations of the UK, including Wales, should be involved at every stage of the negotiations. I do not accept that the interests of Wales can be ignored by the UK Government, but that is exactly what is happening, despite the publication of the white paper ‘Securing Wales’ Future,’ produced by Plaid Cymru and the Welsh government. It is a comprehensive and constructive plan, which includes our continuing participation in the single market, which is a top priority for our economy and our communities.
I see Wales’ potential as a successful nation. We have a lot to contribute to this process and to build in the future, and our voice must be heard."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-055-000 | "Madam President, talk of Brexit and divorce reminds me of the song ‘50 ways to leave your lover’. You know the one: ‘Slip out the back, Jack; Hop on the bus, Gus’ and now we have ‘Say day-day, May’. I wish it was that simple but this divorce, after 44 years and with no precedent, looks like it is going to be tough, and possibly rough. For that reason we need calm heads, clear minds and creative thinking, and with Michel Barnier at the helm, I think we have the package.
Where Ireland is concerned, we are very grateful to all groups in the European Parliament for taking the concerns of our Taoiseach, our government and my colleagues on board. The special circumstances of Ireland are referenced, and this sends out a powerful message to the citizens of Ireland and of Europe that when one country, no matter how small, is adversely affected, disproportionately threatened, the European Union will stand in solidarity behind them. And boy are we threatened, both economically and politically. But with this solidarity we can be confident that the terms of the Good Friday Agreement will be observed to the letter, that there will not be, cannot be and must not be a return to a hard border and that the prosperity of Ireland, especially our exporting sector, must not and cannot and will not be sacrificed on the high altar of expediency or pride.
Common sense not nonsense, pragmatism not pride must prevail. This is the best way to leave your lover."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-056-000 | "Madam President, last June I toured my constituency, day in and day out, making clear my concerns about the dangers of Britain leaving the EU – dangers for our economy and British businesses, and the threat to the jobs they create; dangers for British workers, as the Tory right clamour to use Brexit to spark a bonfire of EU workers’ rights; dangers for British and EU citizens, with our cooperation on issues like counter-terrorism and security linked to our EU membership.
We lost the EU referendum, and while it saddens me to say it, Britain is leaving the EU – but those dangers are still there. In all our countries, there are families for whom the Brexit vote has created worrying uncertainty – millions of people concerned about their rights to live and work in countries they have made home. Citizens across Europe are now at risk of the economic consequences of a bad deal – or even worse, no deal at all – and people in all 28 countries will suffer if Brexit means competition on low wages, lax environmental standards and scaled back rights for workers and consumers. These are the people we represent, and these are the people to whom this Parliament must give a voice.
It will not always be easy to take the responsible path in the coming months, but it is what we must do. There are some in this House and beyond who are actively hoping to plunge Europe and Britain into chaos through a disorderly no-deal Brexit. Why? Because they have no answers to the questions that constructive negotiations will bring. So let us work for a constructive deal. And to those leave campaigners who now sit in the British cabinet or on the benches opposite – there is still one of them there, I can see – you won. Now take responsibility for the promises you made. As we all consider how we conduct ourselves over the coming weeks, let us remember that we are here representing people whose lives and livelihoods depend on the outcome. Serious times call for a serious response."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-058-000 | "Madam President, as a Scottish European I have long wondered how I would feel today. The answer is, I am heartbroken, not for myself, but for the people I serve, for future generations. Scotland will not be silent within this process, as our rights are taken away by an administration we do not support, by a vote that we clearly rejected and a process that is demonstrably against our interests.
While being heartbroken, I am also angry. I am angry at this process, and I am angry at the way the UK is representing itself, doing a bad thing badly. Mrs May and Nigel Farage do not speak for Scotland, do not speak for me, and do not speak for 48% of the UK’s population. The UK is not one bloc, much as Mrs May would like it to be; the UK is a complicated set of various interests, all of which are better reflected in this resolution than in anything the UK Government has put forward to date.
Scotland will not be silent in this process, and Scotland’s top priority, in the words of our First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, is to keep our citizens safe. Scotland is your home, you are welcome here. I appreciate that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed but please, colleagues, let us make our citizens feel safe, our citizens from the UK in other countries, and citizens from other nations in ours. Let’s deal with that first, let’s deal with that fast and let’s deal with it now."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-061-000 | "Madam President, I do not want to dwell on the past today, but rather to look to the future. We all need to come together with a plan that works for everyone and build a good foundation for our future relationships with the European Union. For the sake of all our people, the United Kingdom and the European Union need to work together as strong allies and close friends when we leave.
Europe has been a strong friend to Northern Ireland and gave us strong support during our darkest days. I am confident that friendship will continue. I welcome the fact that all sides want a frictionless border. However, we all know that finding a solution will require a lot of innovative thinking. Any solution must not diminish Northern Ireland’s place as an integral part of the United Kingdom, as enshrined in the principle of consent in the Belfast Agreement.
And can I make it clear to you, Mr Barnier, that I will not accept a hard border. I will also not accept an internal UK border. I would also urge EU leaders not to heed those who are merely using Brexit as an excuse to break up the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Let me also say to you very clearly – and I hope your are listening, Mr Barnier, and not twiddling with your telephone as you seem to be doing; I would suggest, with the greatest respect, that you actually listen to the speech – that Dublin does not speak for Belfast. We will take care of ourselves."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-074-000 | "Madam President, in September 2014 I voted to keep Scotland in the United Kingdom union and in June 2016 I voted to keep the UK in the European Union. Today, I face the reality that Brexit will remove my country from one union and leave the other union hanging by a thread. Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union. Edinburgh, a city I have represented in this House for 33 years, voted 75%-25% to remain in the European Union. The overwhelming feeling in Scotland is that we are being dragged out of the European Union against our will, a feeling only compounded by Ms May’s determination to pursue a hard Brexit for which she has no mandate.
The resolution we are about to vote on recognises this fact, but provides no solution. The Council document calls for a flexible and imaginative solution to be found for Ireland. I, of course, agree, but I think the same should also apply to Scotland. The Scottish Government has put forward a bespoke proposal for Scotland, which I think deserves serious attention in this House. In conclusion, I want to say that if the UK does not show flexibility in these talks it will not only be the UK leaving the European Union, but the UK will not exist any longer."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-089-000 | "Mr President, I keep hearing what a positive project the European Union is. Article 8 of your beloved Treaty says ‘the Union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries’ in a spirit of ‘good neighbourliness’. Well I get that, I understand that, I am with that, that makes a lot of sense. So why, if that is the case, would Mr Tusk have written Clause 22 in his Memorandum giving the Spanish a veto over the future of Gibraltar when everyone knows that the Spanish are antagonistic towards the wishes of the people of the Rock? And why, Monsieur Barnier, in a spirit of ‘good neighbourliness’, would you have plucked this bizarre figure of GBP 52 billion out of the air that you say is our final settlement payment?
Remember one thing. From the moment we voted Brexit to the moment we leave, we will have put GBP 30 billion net into this European Union, and you want another 50. It just does not work. For any negotiation in life to work both sides stake out a position. Both sides ask for more than they realistically expect to get. I understand that, but you have gone so far with this that it is just impossible for us to see any accommodation.
I think there needs to be give and take on both sides, and I think if you gave on the money and you gave on Gibraltar, then what I would like to see the United Kingdom Government doing is saying there are 3.3 million EU citizens living in the UK, they all came to Britain legally and we will now unilaterally guarantee their rights for the future. Both sides need to give on this for any sensible deal to come out of it. We can walk away without a deal, it will hurt European workers and European companies more than us, but surely it makes sense for both of us to come to a sensible accommodation."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-097-000 | "Mr President, I would like to raise a point of order under Article 11.2 about this morning’s debate. Calling other colleagues members of the mafia or gangsters does not show mutual respect, does not represent the views of the vast majority of the British people, and is not the view of the British Prime Minister, who wants to remain friends, allies and partners."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-099-000 | "Mr President, there has been a lot of confusion in this House this morning, talking about British aggression over Gibraltar. Can I just remind colleagues across Parliament that it was actually Spain that sent one of their warships into Gibraltarian waters."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-118-000 | "Mr President, because this is a second reading we only have votes on the amendments. This deal has been a long time in the making: it has taken at least five years to get to this point, so I am pleased to have strong support across Parliament. This is about ensuring patients’ safety and encouraging innovation. It is sad for me that the Right of this House has chosen not to support something that improves patient safety and benefits patients right across the EU. Shame on you."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-152-000 | "Mr President, we welcome the position of the European Parliament ahead of the Brexit negotiations, that it is unambiguous in relation to Ireland. It recognises that the people in the North voted to remain and it commits that the Good Friday Agreement must be preserved in all its parts. Crucially, the Parliament position calls on negotiators to do everything to avoid any hardening of the border. Written as it was by Groups with whom we have fundamental disagreements regarding the current and future direction of the EU, we in Sinn Féin consider this report to be a successful vindication of the dialogue with which we and other Irish MEPs have been engaged in since last summer.
Parliament’s position is even more positive when compared to the draft of the Council. Despite assurances from the Fine Gael Government, the Council draft is weak, non-specific, and simply not up to the standards that the Irish people, North and South, require. My appeal to this House, and to the other European institutions, today is: please do not allow the people of Ireland to suffer the consequence of our own government’s incompetence."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-155-000 | "Mr President, although we had reservations on one or two points in this resolution, Labour MEPs voted in favour of this resolution, which provides more clarity and realism on the issues facing us than does the position of the British Government. The British Government still has not said what it wants on many of the key issues that will be coming up in this mother of all divorce cases, but it has said that it wants exactly the same benefits as Britain currently has as a member of the single market. Well, we will hold them to account on that, but it does seem, generally, that the British Government is intent on testing to destruction the theory that you can have your cake and eat it. When it becomes clear that that is not possible, then there will be a question as to what happens next. What should Britain do if the outcome of this Brexit process is damaging, costly and dangerous to Britain? That is why I am glad that this resolution confirms that it is possible for Article 50 notifications to be withdrawn and revoked. We may need it."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-158-000 | "Mr President, today is the day when even Theresa May has started to acknowledge the reality of where we are. The empty nationalistic rhetoric and flag—waving that characterised the debate last year, and again in the last week, has always resulted in damaging our interests. It angers me that people wrap themselves in the British and Gibraltarian flags when they had actively worked against the interests of citizens of both places. We are about to enter detailed negotiations with our friends about the future of our country. It is time to settle down to serious politics, recognising through the process that we have lost some of our sovereignty, and focus on ensuring that eventually we will reach a deal that works for the citizens of the UK and Gibraltar, as well as our European colleagues."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-159-000 | "Señor presidente, el Peñón no pertenece al Reino Unido ni a España, sino a los gibraltareños, y la gente de Gibraltar ha determinado que su futuro debe continuar con el Reino Unido: en un referéndum, en el año 2002, votaron por seguir siendo británicos. El resultado fue del 99 %.
No hay que discutir nada más.
El Peñón se queda con el Reino Unido, igual que Ceuta y Melilla se quedan con España. La inclusión de Gibraltar en las orientaciones para la negociación sobre el
es una amenaza sin razón. La Unión Europea habla mucho sobre la democracia, pero estas palabras no valen nada."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-165-000 | "Mr President, the two—year negotiations for leaving the EU have now started, and I was appalled by the name—calling and jeering in this Chamber earlier from UKIP colleagues. It does not represent the views of the vast majority of the British people or the views of colleagues across this Chamber.
Real people’s lives, jobs and future are at stake, and we need amicable solutions. There is a huge amount of work to be done on our future relationship. I do think this resolution could have done a lot more on that future relationship and set the tone on some of the detailed discussions that we need to go ahead. It is time to roll up our sleeves, colleagues, and help to find those solutions. I am ready to work with anyone across Europe who wants to achieve amicable negotiations and that long-term partnership."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-167-000 | "Mr President, the British problem – or obviously from a UK perspective, the European problem – is very simply stated. Britain wanted to be part of a common market, not a common government. Guy Verhofstadt expressed some of the reasons very well in his speech this morning: the fundamental difference between a bottom-up common law system and the Napoleonic system on the continent. It is not an argument that applies everywhere, but our economic cycle has always been Atlantic rather than European; our outlook has always been maritime rather than continental. In the talks at the beginning of last year, David Cameron tried to get a looser a deal from the inside. The other Member States decided that that was not a concession they were prepared to make, which is absolutely fine. We are therefore going to seek it from the outside. What should be the framework of that deal? I think a good model is Canada’s relations with the United States. Canada has, on its doorstep, a political union; it is not part of that union, but it enjoys the closest military security, economic and commercial links with that union compatible with being a sovereign state. You will lose a bad tenant, and you will gain a good neighbour."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-170-000 | "Mr President, it is happening. The United Kingdom are packing their bags and they are leaving the European Union. When David Cameron attempted to get what he called a better deal for Britain, he was told that the four freedoms were sacrosanct: they could not be changed. And predictably, when he went back to the people of the United Kingdom he ended up losing, and he ended up losing because he went back with nothing because he was told that the four freedoms were sacrosanct.
Yet, at the moment, we are now embarking on another process. A white paper where we look at the future of Europe, where two options could potentially have satisfied the United Kingdom’s grievances. Option two is nothing but the single market, so we could potentially have a situation next December where we have decided to restrict freedom of movement whilst still negotiating with Great Britain on the basis that market access cannot happen without freedom of movement of people. Someone please explain this contradiction."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-171-000 | "A Uachtaráin, bhí díospóireacht againn i rith na maidine ar an mBreatimeacht agus den chuid is mó bhí sé cothrom, féaráilte agus ciallmhar. Bhí áthas orm agus cuirim mo bhuíochas in iúl do na feisirí a rinne tagairt d’Éirinn – Comhaontú Aoine an Chéasta agus cás na teorann.
Anois, tar éis na díospóireachta, tá cinneadh déanta ag an bParlaimint, agus le móramh mór glacadh leis an rún a bhí os ár gcomhair: 516 i bhfabhar agus 133 i gcoinne. Ba é an móramh céanna é don chuid is mó do na leasuithe. Dá bhrí sin tá an Pharlaimint aontaithe, agus is féidir linn dul ar aghaidh anois agus idirbheartaíocht a thosú idir an Ríocht Aontaithe agus an tAontas agus teacht ar chomhréiteach a oibreoidh don Ríocht Aontaithe agus don Aontas amach anseo."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-172-000 | "Mr President, I voted against Parliament’s draft resolution on Brexit this afternoon. From the outset, I do welcome the fact that the text recognises Northern Ireland’s unique position in respect of our land border with the Republic of Ireland. This builds on existing commitments by both the UK and Irish governments, and indeed the European Council, to give these challenges priority and adopt a flexible and imaginative approach.
However, I cannot neglect the fact that this resolution would severely limit what can be achieved in the talks ahead. It would prevent the UK from opening trade talks with non—EU countries before 2019. It would take future trade relations with the EU off the table for the next two years, and it would tie the UK into paying an endless and excessive divorce bill well after it leaves.
These are restrictions that would affect taxpayers in Northern Ireland very directly. They would also prevent local firms from accessing new markets and from exporting goods and services in the short to medium term. So while the text is cognisant of the needs of Northern Ireland, the resolution is not conducive."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-174-000 | "Mr President, I represent Wales, which is a nation in the United Kingdom which voted to leave the EU. A week ago today, the Prime Minister triggered Article 50, formally beginning the UK-EU Brexit negotiation process. It was an historic day. After legal challenges, lengthy delays and threats, we will be leaving the EU, and become an independent, self-governing and democratic country once again. This Parliament is calling for unreasonable demands, some of which are going to be impossible to meet. The Commission is meeting a GBP 52 million divorce bill.
Can I just ask this: do you actually want a Brexit deal? The people of Wales and Britain voted to leave the EU, not Europe. We still want to be your friends and trading partners, but if you are not going to make us any sensible offers, we will take our business elsewhere. The EU only represents 15% of the global economy. A new, global Britain is going to see us become more forward-facing."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-175-000 | "Mr President, this morning was important with a really strong resolution and a good debate. For me and for the people I represent, which is a border constituency in Ireland with Northern Ireland, paragraph 20 is important. It talks about the unique position and special circumstances on the island of Ireland and says it must be addressed in a withdrawal agreement. It very specifically says that we must do everything possible to avoid a hardening of the border. I drive through Northern Ireland to visit my constituents in Donegal. I see no difference in our territories except that there are kilometres where I am from and there are miles in Northern Ireland. I want that difference to be the only one that exists after Brexit, but – let us be frank and honest – there is a lot of work to do to live up to the words that we have voted through and there is a political responsibility on the British Prime Minister and her Government to deliver more on this commitment. We did not vote for Brexit, but we have to live with the consequences of it."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-176-000 | "Mr President, I want to pick that point up actually because of course the economies of Northern Ireland and the Republic are inextricably linked, as of course is the peace process that was painstakingly negotiated over many, many years.
There was a UKIP amendment that tried to remove the competency of the European Union in relation to the border issue. It said that the Common Travel Area is not dependent on EU membership, and I was surprised to see that the Tories supported it as well. Yes, the Common Travel Area predates the European Union, but it was drawn up at a time when the immigration policies of the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom were the same, and indeed the customs policies were broadly similar.
It is the policy of the British Government now, apparently, to tear those two regimes asunder. That does make the Common Travel Area an issue to do with Brexit as has been explained. It was not voted for by the people of Northern Ireland and it is an issue that the British Government has to face up to its responsibilities on. It is not enough to simply wish this issue away. We need real political leadership and we need this to be addressed."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-291-000 | "Mr President, today, having seemingly learned from the hip replacement and breast implant scandals, the medical devices regulations have been updated. This should be welcomed. Introduced are a concentration limit for 1B carcinogenic, mutagenic and repro—toxic substances (CMRs), and also for endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in devices that include a benefit risk assessment of their presence as they are CMRs or EDCs – lots of jargon there. Such assessments would have to be updated within five years. I only wish it could have been more speedy than that. However, all changes to medical devices that increase patient safety and patient choice, without reducing their clinical effectiveness, are to be welcomed. I am 100% sure that in the post—Brexit United Kingdom these standards will be maintained in cooperation with our European Union Member State counterparts."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-295-000 | "Mr President, I have worked on this dossier for almost five years with other colleagues, so it is a good day that we have approved tougher and better legislation on medical devices because public health is our primary concern here and that is vital. But so, too, is the medical devices industry: it is a vital part of our economy and it produces products that sustain lives, quality of life improves and our lives are extended by it. So good work has been done across the House.
The next step is implementation, and here the Commission and Member States and we ourselves must keep a watch so that what is in the legislation is put into effect. There are two core issues, but I will deal with one in particular and that is post-market surveillance of products. Many of the problems with faulty devices were made worse because there was not adequate post-market surveillance. In other words, there was no reporting system and the problems were not identified. This legislation changes that and let’s make sure it is fully implemented."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-714-000 | "Mr President, there is a battle being waged at the moment against hate speech, and, while gearing up to take part in this sounds laudable, without care the result can be, inadvertently or otherwise, censorship. It leads to questions about who determines what hate speech is.
Free speech is essentially accepting that people are free to say things we do like, not merely free to say things we do like. Should these be offensive then they can be tackled by a forthright debate. Indeed, debating ideas in a public forum makes it harder for those ideas to be formed as an individual insult, and a public debate provides the target of offence with a rebuttal.
There is a quotation that is commonly attributed to Voltaire: ‘I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it’. That was in fact written by Voltaire’s biographer, Evelyn Beatrice Hall, and she was absolutely right."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-727-000 | "Mr President, we learned something from the European Parliament’s reaction to Article 50. This debate is on an EU response to all the things you try and associate with the Brexit vote. If you genuinely want to build a better Europe, how about this: stop what you are doing and think about why people voted the way they did. Those you call ‘populists’ are patriots. We love our countries, we love our communities, we love living in nations where the people are the masters and, through democratic decisions, the people have the final say. What they hate is you lot imposing unfettered immigration that has transformed communities without the people’s say. They do not like seeing their streets changed without their approval. They do not like living in places that no longer resemble those they grew up in, and they know the EU is to blame. You can call us all the names you like, but it will not change the result. The majority of the British people voted to get our borders back, to get our democracy back, to get our country back and the sooner we are out of this place, the better."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-731-000 | "Mr President, I want to emphasise the social and citizenship aspects in this debate, in particular media literacy and digital participation within a safe internet. Media literacy enable citizens to use and create media content effectively and safely. Media-literate people are able to exercise more informed choices, understand the nature of content and services and take advantage of the full range of opportunities offered by communication technologies. Media literacy and education for citizenship is not only important for learning about the tools, but also to encourage a shift in political cultures and practices so that individuals can be not only digital consumers and users but active citizens in connected societies.
I remain very concerned by the lack of effective response to cyber bullying and discrimination online. Consumers and citizens, in particular the most vulnerable, especially children, must be properly protected online. Member States and the EU must work with internet providers and platforms in order to ensure that illegal and offensive content is effectively taken down and stays down."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-732-000 | "Mr President, we talk a lot at the moment of fake news, whether we think of Trump’s tweets, Putin’s control of the Russian media or the false promises spread by some Brexiteers during the UK’s EU referendum campaign. We might have a new word for this but it is plain, old-fashioned, populist propaganda, lies and half-truths, seeking to muddy the waters and twist reality for political gain. The internet, social media and 24-hour news cycles have made their job all too easy.
Fake news is not the only addition to the political lexicon in recent years though. ‘Truthiness’, ‘post-fact’ and the use of ‘metropolitan liberal elites’ as a pejorative, are all part of a wider movement against expert opinion and reasoned analysis towards a world of half-truths where views and opinions are reported as facts. We must not underestimate the difficulty in counteracting these forces. Trust in governments, politicians and traditional sources of media is low and they are deemed to be biased. Indeed, the arguments put forth by official institutions, even very credible ones, to counteract fake news are derided as nothing more but the same thing: merely another opinion, a different point of view."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-779-000 | "Madam President, the proposed abolition of roaming charges for mobile phone users has become an icon of how slow and cumbersome the European Union has become in its ability to make decisions.
This agreement has taken 10 years. In part, progress has been made, but the fact that the telecommunications industry has such huge lobbying power in Brussels has acted as a drag anchor on the progress that could have been made.
What brings down prices is rarely legislation. That is why light-touch legislation around the world is so much more effective. What brings change is competition. If the European Union had allowed for a truly free and competitive market then the charges would have been zeroed probably decades ago.
As ever, the EU has drummed up regulations, and we have heard already from a number of previous speakers that all will happen is that income revenue for the companies will then be derived from charging domestic customers much, much more. This is hardly fair, it is hardly equitable. I think this ought to go back for review again by the committee to try to look at a more lighter-touch approach and one that is speedier in terms of delivery."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-781-000 | "I do not think that you listened to the whole of my speech. The point that I made was that the lobbying power in Brussels, which is actively encourage, actively interacted with by the European Union, has proved to be a drag anchor. That was the critical point that I was making.
I was also making the point that, across the world, a lighter touch in terms of regulation, one that does not involve trilogue: Council, Commission to the Parliament and then back all the way round things, would not have achieved where we are. The point I am making, therefore, is let us just put together three components: stop the lobbying, stop the drag anchor and stop the trilogue."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-791-000 | "Madam President, once again the European Union is abandoning free markets in favour of central planning. First we regulate retail prices, now we come back and regulate wholesale prices.
Will we never learn that regulatory intervention in market prices almost always produces unintended and perverse consequences? Think of the empty shelves in the Moscow Gum department store when they tried to regulate prices. Look at the ETS scheme in Europe that has failed for 10 years to deliver the sort of prices that the regulators want.
Several other speakers, including my group colleague Mr Borrelli, have remarked that operators will recover their lost revenue elsewhere, which will have a regressive effect. It is the European Union’s cynical pursuit of any measure that looks vaguely like a benefit for voters or of generating any positive headline. Be sure, this proposal that we are voting on today or tomorrow, will have unintended consequences which will come back and bite our ankles."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-800-000 | "Mr President, I welcome this proposal, which is the final piece of legislation required to ensure that mobile roaming charges will be removed by this coming June – something we have promised for a long time and something that the EU has delivered for its citizens. As an MEP who campaigned with others for the abolition of ..."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-805-000 | "Mr President, I did not realise that my Kerry accent was so magnetic that I would set the alarm bells ringing in Parliament, but I do hope that you enjoyed your roaming free of charge around the Parliament.
So now to this topic. I welcome the proposals, which are the final piece of legislation required to ensure that mobile roaming charges will be removed from this coming June. It is something we have promised for a long time and something the EU has delivered for its citizens.
As an MEP who has campaigned with many others for the abolition of roaming charges for the last seven years, I am delighted that we are now nearly there.
It is already eighteen months since, in 2015, it was proudly announced here in the European Parliament that, after a long process, ‘roam-like-at-home’ was to be introduced by June 2017. It was a very high-profile and important announcement. While tomorrow’s vote might not have the same fanfare, its importance cannot be overstated.
The introduction of this wholesale roaming cap is an absolutely essential piece of legislation, as it allows for ‘roam-like-at-home’ to happen in a cost-effective manner this June.
The caps that we arrived at in the end: EUR 0.032 for a voice call, a gradually-decreasing cap from EUR 7.75 in 2017 to EUR 2.50 in 2022 per gigabyte of data and EUR 0.01 for text messages represents a fantastic result for the European Parliament, particularly given that the majority of Council favoured higher caps. Wholesale data prices are declining by around 40% annually across the EU. The overly-cautious Council position just did not reflect reality. I feel the final result could have even been better, but such is the nature of compromise.
In my own country we are very pleased with the outcome, because it means that the higher caps, which would have put artificially-high costs on to Irish producers – this will not happen now. It is a good day for the European Parliament, especially when we speak about Brexit – again an indication that the United Kingdom citizens will not benefit from this. It is no wonder Roger Helmer and his colleagues were so agitated."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-892-000 | "Mr President, it is almost a year since we last discussed Venezuela in this House. Given that at the time we had just witnessed the assassination of the opposition leader Mavare, it is difficult to believe that a year on from that situation, the situation in Venezuela is actually worse. National Assembly elections held in December 2015 saw President Maduro’s party lose to the opposition. However, this has led to little change, given Maduro’s and his government’s efforts to block all of the National Assembly’s initiatives. Having initially been achieved by means of using the Supreme Court to strip the assembly of its power, Maduro is now reverting to the far more conventional dictatorial tactics of arresting opposition politicians and sheer brutality. Continuing to cling on to power in these circumstances is concerning, given the situation on the streets, and it is difficult to see that the current situation is tenable until the scheduled Presidential elections in October of 2017. As Venezuela’s economic model collapses, food shortages and street riots are becoming more frequent parts of everyday life. So therefore, early free and fair elections are clearly a must, and we should do all we can in the European Union to support the democratic process before it becomes a total dictatorship."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-925-000 | "Madam President, to be very clear, the purpose of this resolution is because we have a September evaluation. I really believe that the members of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs – and indeed other Members who have expertise and interest in this extremely important topic – need to give their views to the Commissioner. I do not see any problem with this. In fact, I think this is a positive and important part of our work.
I want to begin with what you said about your trip to the United States. I think it is very important, Commissioner, particularly for the Civil Liberties Committee, that we have an interaction with you before we go to the United States in September. Why are we doing this? Why are we proposing this resolution? We are not doing it because there have not been significant and key improvements on Safe Harbor thanks to Privacy Shield, but because we want to ensure in Parliament that Privacy Shield stands the test of time and that it does not have weaknesses that would be difficult for the future.
We know that Privacy Shield protects the fundamental rights of anyone in the EU whose personal data is transferred to the United States, as well as bringing legal clarity for businesses relying on trans-Atlantic data transfers, and we cannot allow that to fail. So the resolution acknowledges that the final agreement on the Privacy Shield, adopted in July 2016, has taken a number of Parliament’s concerns into consideration. We know that key improvements have been made compared to the former Safe Harbor. We note also that the agreement will facilitate data transfers from the EU to the US, particularly from SMEs and business in the EU, and that the EU Data Protection Authority’s supervisory powers remain unaffected by the adequacy decision, including the power of suspending or banning data transfers to US companies that are members of the Privacy Shield. We also take note of the clarifications and interpretations of the US Administration, in particular as regards the processing of personal data by security agencies.
However, several issues must be resolved. The resolution highlights issues of concern that remain unclear, particularly, for example, those made by the Article 29 Working Party, which – as we all know – is deeply involved in these matters. These include concerns regarding the principle of data retention, the bulk collection of personal data for national security purposes, the need for sufficient judicial redress, and the effect of independent oversight, as well as several law enforcement issues. If these concerns are not taken into account, the Privacy Shield risks not achieving its purpose and could face further challenge in the courts. This is one of our deepest concerns. Both citizens and businesses relying on transatlantic data flows need that certainty of a robust legal framework, and this text calls on the Commission to conduct that proper assessment. It does not doubt that that will happen, but we are doing our job in ensuring that every part of this detail is covered.
We will raise these concerns during our LIBE delegation with our US counterparts, and we are now experienced in these negotiations. The Parliament has consistently called for a stronger agreement, following the invalidation of Safe Harbor in October 2015, and we now want the protection of personal data which meets the requirements of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the data protection legal framework.
Commissioner, today we are calling on you to conduct a proper assessment to ensure this legal certainty is provided for citizens and business alike. We in the Parliament simply want to do our job. That is what the resolution is saying today."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-932-000 | "Madam President, last year some of us stood here and warned that the Commission’s EU-US Privacy Shield agreement would not protect citizens’ privacy rights; and how right we were. The so-called ‘shield’ is an insult to citizens across Europe whose privacy has been further undermined.
The agreement allows the US intelligence to carry out mass surveillance and collect huge amounts of private data and bulk information indiscriminately. It allows US companies to collect data on individual citizens every time they go online, with no effective legal protection, and it is only voluntary. It only applies to companies that have signed up. The rest can run fancy free with our information. So this shambles breaches our fundamental privacy rights and it needs to be fixed.
It needs to be fixed urgently with a robust, effective and enforceable system that protects the privacy rights of citizens, not the interest of spooks and big business. I would call on the Commissioner to fix it before the European Court of Justice forces you to do so for a second time."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-05-Speech-3-978-000 | "Madam President, women’s rights and gender equality are under attack around the world, so now more than ever we must push to strengthen international cooperation on women’s rights and empowerment, including our reproductive rights. The EU has always been a crucial promoter of gender equality in Europe, and on the world stage, and we must redouble our efforts for the sake of those who come after us at home and abroad.
The UN Commission on the Status of Women has been a key international forum for the promotion of gender equality and for mainstreaming a gender perspective across policy fields. At this moment in history, with misogynists like President Trump normalising sexual harassment and limiting women’s reproductive rights, the movement for gender equality must become unashamedly intersectional, in order to tackle the gravest forms of discrimination, exploitation and abuse that women face. We must be specific in tailoring policies that tackle the problems faced by different groups, be they refugees, migrants, young girls looking for an education, women with disabilities, or older women facing poverty.
We must be able to give a voice to those who have been denied one and we must make our voices heard in the corridors of power. We must ask men to step aside and give women a seat at the decision-making tables, particularly in policy areas such as defence and security, where we can offer an alternative to patriarchal warmongering and remind the world that it is always women and their children who pay the highest price when conflict ensues. The role of women in peace-building and conflict prevention is therefore crucial and both the UN and the EU have a key role to play in this respect."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-06-Speech-4-023-000 | "Madam President, this debate is about Roma, but because of the EU’s four fundamentalisms – I will not call them freedoms – it is also about migration. Your cult-like adherence to complete open borders means it has to be. The EU signed its own political death warrant when it expanded to the east and brought into the EU vastly poorer former communist countries. Using EU rules, the great migration westwards began. For the first time in British recorded history, net migration to the UK soared to over a quarter of a million and as high as a third of a million recently.
One of the communities particularly hit was in Sheffield. According to reports, the Page Hall estate received an influx of 6 000 Roma and eastern European migrants in four years. Such had been the pace of migration into the UK that the then government’s integration adviser, Dame Louise Casey, was quoted to have said whole areas have changed beyond all recognition because of a failure by government to handle mass migration.
Now no one can deny anyone the ambition to get a better deal for themselves or their families, but as elected representatives we are answerable to our constituents first and foremost. My constituents watching this know that they are my boss. Like any good employer-employee relationship, if my employers do not think I am doing a good job they will remove me. This is perhaps why UKIP has won the Thurrock local elections for three years running.
What we have seen is the EU’s top-down agenda forcing change on communities that no one voted for. Let us look at the Page Hall estate again, a whole estate transformed without any one voting for it. In fact one Labour politician – yes, Labour – warned of riots due to the levels of Roma migration into Sheffield.
The knock-on effects of uncontrolled migration across the UK have seen school class sizes increase. Families struggle to get the right school place for their children; A&E waiting times are unbelievably high; the housing waiting list puts social housing beyond the reach of many of my constituents, and the pressures are always felt hardest in working class communities.
EU policies have turned a Europe of different nations and cultures into a free-for-all. It may suit the rich and wealthy to have easy access to cheap cleaners and au pairs, but working class communities have seen their neighbourhoods change and opportunities disappear without their consent. Brexit gives us a chance to change all this. If the Conservative government betray the millions of people who voted for proper border controls they will never be forgiven. We toppled one prime minister; we can do so again."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-06-Speech-4-025-000 | "I would like to thank the honourable Member for that speech. I do not know whether the translation was a bit skew-whiff, but I actually pointed out that the British Government had no integration plan whatsoever. Because of EU policies and because of complete free movement, there was no integration plan and, because of the levels of immigration into the UK, there could not have been an integration plan because the pace of change was far too quick.
That was the point I was making, so trying to paint a picture of everything being rosy in the European Union is precisely why people are fed-up with this place. Your failure to grasp this will mean that other nation states will vote to leave."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-06-Speech-4-027-000 | "Madam President, I am happy to e-mail the lady my speech where she can see that she was probably listening to a completely different speech. Trying to put words in my mouth, Madam, to make cheap political points actually debases this Parliament and this Chamber, which my constituents will see.
Two-thirds of the people in Essex and three-quarters in my constituency of Thurrock voted to leave this place and your ramblings there, Madam, are precisely why they were completely correct to do so."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-06-Speech-4-029-000 | "I do not think there is anything to say to that level of rubbish. Another person trying to put words in my mouth – and you carry on doing this, carry on trying to paint everything in the European Union as rosy, keep demonising people who raise legitimate concerns.
In my speech, I mentioned the fact that the British Government had no integration plan, the fact that they had not put any plans in place to be able to manage migration when the European Union expanded. These are legitimate concerns, and are concerns that led 17 million people to vote to leave the European Union.
So, carry on, Sir, as you will; we will be out of this soon enough and you can keep talking to the echo chamber."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-06-Speech-4-046-000 | "Madam President, I welcome the opportunity, unlike my Italian colleague across the floor, to mark International Roma Day and to recognise the culture and tradition of Europe’s largest ethnic minority community.
Eight million Roma live within the European Union, and while the EU has developed a framework, we all know that the situation continues to be awful for the Roma community. For years the Roma community have been victims of forced assimilation. Their time-honoured culture and traditions were eroded and the cohesiveness of their communities were shattered.
We also must never forget that half a million Roma were killed by the Nazis during the Holocaust. We all must work together if we want to realise the aims of the framework and to break down the prejudices that do exist towards their community. We must work to build trust among the community for the institutions within the various Member States. Is it any wonder that children do not go to school when they are faced with attitudes like those we have heard today, on a day-to-day basis?
In Ireland, two children were taken from their parents by the police. Why? Because they were blond and they could not possibly belong to the Roma family. So is it any wonder that there is no trust within the Roma community for the institutions?
It is not okay that in 2017, members of the largest minority in the EU are still more likely to die early, to be illiterate and to live in squalor than the rest of the population."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-06-Speech-4-048-000 | "Madam President, in my north-west England constituency, there is a significant population of Roma in both rural and urban areas. For example, the annual Appleby Horse Fair in Cumbria has become one of the most celebrated Romany festivals in Europe, filmed, photographed and featuring in tourism guides. On the other hand, public perceptions of Roma are still based on disinformation.
Last year’s referendum campaign unleashed a new wave of increased hate towards ethnic minorities, with Roma communities being particularly targeted. A Roma community development worker in Manchester told me that on 24 June 2016 – the day after the referendum – a group of Roma children who used to play in a public park had disappeared from public view overnight, frightened by the rampant, unpleasant public mood towards people of different nationalities and ethnic backgrounds. Brexit has turned my country into a shameful, intolerant place and the Roma were sadly amongst the first victims. The Brexiteers, UKIP, the Conservative Government and the right-wing press must take responsibility for whipping up hatred on a scale not seen for decades. But on Roma Day, let us find ways of addressing the issue..."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-06-Speech-4-070-000 | "Madam President, our thoughts and condolences are with the victims and families of the atrocious terrorist attack in the St Petersburg metro this week. Nevertheless, we cannot allow this to silence our condemnation of President Putin, his leadership and foreign policy, particularly aggression regarding Ukraine and Syria. Following the revelations of corruption against Prime Minister Medvedev in a video published by Alexei Navalny last month, we saw a wave of protest against the government, largely from a new generation of Russians that wish for a better, and better governed, future for their country. The large number of arrests, including Navalny himself, reminds us all that presidential elections are looming next year.
I encourage the European Union to continue to press for the release of Navalny and to keep up the political pressure in the Council of Europe in response to the trumped-up convictions we have seen levelled against Navalny in Russia, largely aimed at preventing him from standing in the presidential elections next year. We are yet to see the exact response from the Kremlin following these protests and the attacks this week, but past experience suggests to me that political capital will be sought by President Putin from this."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-06-Speech-4-123-000 | "Mr President, protecting human rights activists from reprisal is a priority for the EU and indeed my own country, Ireland. It is imperative that the Belarusian authorities release and drop all judicial charges against peaceful protesters, journalists, human rights defenders, civil society activists and opposition members who have been detained in connection with the current wave of demonstrations. I welcome the call for this in the resolution. We should not allow ourselves to be mollified by piecemeal concessions when gross human rights violations remain. The political will for liberalisation shown by the Belarusian Government is incompatible with their use of capital punishment and renders them undeserving of EU
. I welcome this resolution by the Parliament and hope the Belarusian Government will act immediately to address the concerns that have been outlined in this resolution, particularly the call for electoral reform, and for Belarus to join the moratorium on the death penalty."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-06-Speech-4-124-000 | "Mr President, the right to protest, to express dissent and disagreement with the status quo, is important for modern democratic societies. It is worrying, therefore, to witness the on-going crackdown on civil society in many countries including, sadly, some Member States such as Hungary. But beyond our borders, in Russia and Belarus, young people are even more fed up with corrupt, dysfunctional and undemocratic governments. It is very worrying to see brave young activists, poets, journalists and human rights defenders being arrested and harassed. We must always speak out for freedom of expression. In that respect, I am pleased to support the Belarus Free Theatre, which continues to expose both their own country and Russia’s abuse of human rights. Our resolution calls for more support for educational exchange programmes and scholarships. It is only through people to people contact and investing in young people and their opportunities, that a vibrant civil society can be built."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-06-Speech-4-138-000 | "Mr President, today’s resolution is very useful in highlighting the problems of forced child marriage and acts of sexual violence against women in Bangladesh, which we all rightly condemn. We must, however, distinguish such concerns from a wider condemnation of cultural norms and morals in Bangladesh, with very different social traditions and economic imperatives to those of our own here in the European Union. I am also mindful of the fact that in the United Kingdom and in Spain, the legal age of consent for marriage is 16, with the permission of parents.
On a separate point, I note in paragraph 13 the reference to the Foreign Donations Regulation Act, calling for its amendment. Of course, we wish to see a vibrant and free civil society operating in Bangladesh, and should be concerned by any legislation that prohibits such development. However, there have been problems with some NGOs and charities operating as vehicles for the funding of jihadi terrorism organisations and we must support the Bangladeshi Government’s right to crack down on these practices. Bangladesh is a secular country and enjoys a PCA with the European Union, and we should help it in its democratic progress and its prosperity."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-06-Speech-4-147-000 | "A Uachtaráin, is rud uafásach, mhífhéaráilte, sean-nósach é an nós ‘pósadh leanaí’. Faraor, tá sé forleathan timpeall an domhain, agus measann an ghluaiseacht idirnáisiúnta ‘Cailíní, ní Brídeoga’ go mbíonn ar suas le 71% de chailíní faoi ocht mbliana déag d’aois pósadh.
Níl seo féaráilte. Is í an Bhanglaidéis ceann de na tíre is measa. Tá sé i gcoinne an dlí. Ach cén mhaitheas an dlí nuair a thugann an rialtas isteach leasú a cheadaíonn eisceacht i gcásanna speisialta? Cad is cás speisialta ann? D’fhéadfadh gach cás a bheith ina chás speisialta.
Dá bhrí sin, caithfimid brú a chur ar údarás na Banglaidéise an lúb ar lár seo a athrú agus freisin, ba chóir dúinn cabhrú leo chun oideachas a chur ar fáil agus chun cosc a chur ar an gcultúr a ligeann don sean-nós uafásach de phósadh leanaí tarlú agus é a stopadh go deo."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-06-Speech-4-149-000 | "Mr President, I am obliged to you. I take the floor today in my capacity as Chairman of the Standing Committee, within the International Trade Committee, for South Asian Trade, and with Bangladesh I have had the unique ability to see at first hand the tremendous amount of improvement that has taken place using trade mechanisms for women’s empowerment in Bangladesh and in particular female-headed households.
What we see here today is, however, a tremendous regression from the progress that has been made. At the very moment in time at which a young female needs the support of her society and country, it seems that other obligations may be placed in the way and her best interests not necessarily taken into account.
So I say simply this to the Government of Bangladesh: as a Union we have worked with you, we have stood with you, we have been very proud to see the tremendous improvements that you have made, but please, listen to what this House is conveying to you today. These sorts of developments do not take us forward. They challenge our relationship and we do not want to move away from encouraging you to keep moving forward on women’s empowerment issues."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-06-Speech-4-157-875 | "I believe we must demand that the government of Bangladesh respect its international obligations on human rights, and not only with respect to child marriage, important though that is. The Bangladesh authorities must condemn acts of violence towards innocent citizens. They must commission an independent investigation into extrajudicial killings and bring those responsible to justice. I listened to a recording (in translation) of a serving Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) officer exposing crimes he and fellow officers are instructed, by the authorities, to carry out. He describes how RAB officers select and kill people. These extra-judicial killings are known as ‘crossfire’. Officers place a discharged weapon beside the body to fabricate evidence against the dead individual, claiming they opened fire on RAB officers and were therefore killed in self-defence. He reveals that RAB officers are instructed to capture, kill and dispose of the body without it being traceable. He concludes that the victims are mainly from the country’s opposition parties. The government is using the RAB in its crackdown on the main opposition parties which continue to demand free, fair and participatory national elections in Bangladesh following the flawed elections in 2014."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-06-Speech-4-184-000 | "Mr President, when this issue of roaming charges came before the Parliament, mine was one of the very few voices and very few votes against it. There is a competitive market, and there was no obvious need for state intervention. By privileging one particular type of tariff – in other words, that of the person who travels a lot – we end up effectively requiring a subsidy from kids on estates who don’t travel in order to subsidise people like us who do a lot of travel. But that is not my point today. I lost the argument and I lost that vote. My point is that the reduction in international roaming charges is happening anyway, is happening globally, and has nothing to do with this legislation. It is being done by individual operators.
We politicians are not as important as we think we are. There is this solipsistic fallacy where we assume that everything going on in the world is somehow the creation of laws and law-makers. A parting bit of advice as Britain comes towards the end of its time here, my friends: we are really not at the centre of affairs."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-06-Speech-4-186-000 | "Mr. President, I am very pleased that now we are finally there in our seven-year battle to introduce ‘Roam like at home’ for our citizens, and I would like to thank all MEPs who voted in favour today: 547 in favour, 27 against, 50 abstaining. Indeed, I would take issue with what my good friend Mr Hannan said from the United Kingdom. The European Parliament did play a huge part. If the markets had their way, the prices would be much higher because they would collaborate with one another. When the Commission made its proposals, the wholesale prices were much higher, and it was only the good work of those of us who were actually involved – and if Mr Hannan and his colleagues had got more involved they would know what was going on – that reduced, first of all, the roaming charges over a period of years, and now finally this piece in the jigsaw: the wholesale charges and we can have ‘Roam like at home’. Otherwise, the prices would be sky high, as Mr Hannan would like us to have."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-06-Speech-4-266-000 | "Mr President, along with other members of my group I voted against the committee’s report on the adequacy of protection afforded by the EU/US Privacy Shield in favour of supporting the alternative text tabled by the EPP and the ECR. The committee report contains very critical statements that I believe could potentially harm businesses that rely on the Privacy Shield to transfer data across the Atlantic securely and efficiently.
This criticism comes before the upcoming comprehensive annual review which is envisaged in the Privacy Shield framework, which ensures that the European Commission and data protection authorities can monitor the functioning of the system and keep it up to date, and so the claims in the report are therefore premature. The EPP/ECR text better acknowledges this upcoming inclusive review and is more balanced in its critique of the Safe Harbour system which has not changed in the time since the EPP resolution of May 2016, which welcomed the substantial improvements in the Privacy Shield compared with Safe Harbour. This allows the comprehensive review to take place and assess the findings afterwards."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-06-Speech-4-267-000 | "Mr President, in fact for many years the European Parliament has been at the forefront of efforts to protect citizens from the abuse of their personal data, so I was therefore very pleased to vote for this important resolution on improving the EU/US Privacy Shield, and I do not agree that it is a burden on business. This is not just a matter of human rights, it is also a matter of consumer confidence, and there are very real concerns about the scope of the protection within this agreement. It is better than the US Safe Harbour protections, but there are concerns about the use of data through automatic decision-making, and there are concerns about the remedies that will be available to EU citizens if there is a problem. So it is absolutely right that Parliament has taken a firm stand here. I also think that the Commission should have allowed Parliament to scrutinise this in a better way, because the use of the Implementing Act procedure in this particular instance has not worked out to our advantage. But overall I am extremely pleased with this resolution, and it enables us to take forward our work in this area."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-06-Speech-4-311-000 | "Mr President, in the 1600s, when Naples was experiencing its golden age, it was known as the most fertile plain in the world. In the past 20 years, however, Naples and the Campania district have had new nicknames: ‘Land of Poison’, ‘Triangle of Death’, ‘Land of Fires’. The latter, of course, refers to the region of Campania where toxic wastes have been illegally burned and buried in a systematic fashion since the late 1980s. This is environmental sabotage on a grand scale.
From 1994 to 2008 the region of Campania in south-west Italy was under a formal state of emergency declared due to the saturation of regional waste treatment facilities. There is growing evidence, including from the World Health Organisation, that the accumulation of waste, illegal and legal, urban and industrial, has contaminated soil, water and the air with a range of toxic pollutants, including dioxins. It has even emerged that the United States Navy, whose European Command is based in Naples, conducted a USD 30 million study from 2008-2011 into local air, soil and water. They found unacceptable health risks and advised their personnel accordingly. Throughout all the research, a high correlation between incidence of cancer, respiratory illnesses and genetic malformations and the presence of industrial and toxic waste landfills has been found. Reported cases include women getting breast cancer unusually early, men developing lung cancer despite never having smoked, and children born with Down’s Syndrome to comparatively young mothers. All this is very, very worrying.
Many people say that the catalyst for this catastrophe is illegal trade and that hazardous waste is a by—product of tax dodging in a country with one of the highest levels of evasion in western Europe. Businesses massaging their income had to mask the scale of their activities and that meant hiding huge amounts of hazardous waste. Yet some people’s solution to this is to blame the European Union and, above all, the Commission. There is a phrase, ‘where there is a will, there is a way’, but you could also say, ‘where there is no political will, there is undue delay’. Commissioner Vella has pointed out the efforts they have made to help. The European Court of Justice fined Italy EUR 40 million, which they paid in 2015, and again another EUR 40 million in late 2015, again EUR 20 million, and, as has been mentioned, EUR 120 000 daily.
But all the fines in the world will not solve the problem unless there is a real, genuine effort and the political will to do so. The Commission is prepared to give EUR 172 million, but it can only act within the Treaties and the powers given to it. So I think there is need for fresh thinking and here and for cooperation so that the Land of Fires can once again become the most fertile plain in the world and a great place to live."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-26-Speech-1-044-000 | "Mr President, Mr Orbán, not for the first time you sit here as the democratically elected leader of a great nation, and you stand up and make a reasoned argument as to how the Hungarians do things and how there are different cultures within Europe. You are prepared again and again to come back here and to be attacked and abused by non-entities who want Hungary to bow to their will, and not to the will of the Hungarian people or its leader. I am beginning to wonder: at what point, sir, do you – as an intelligent man – stop banging your head up against a wall?
You spoke today and you behaved today as the leader of a nation, but is it not becoming obvious that, as a member of the European Union, you are actually not a nation? Just as we are seeing in France at the moment, with huge interference in the French presidential election, even with the unelected Commission now coming out and backing this godlike creature called Macron. No, you are not the leader of a nation, and these people will go on interfering in the lives of Hungarian people, and you will never be forgiven. You are a sinner in their eyes, not just because you want to close down George Soros’ propaganda machine that masquerades as a university – nothing to do with that. It is because you will not pay the price for Ms Merkel’s supreme folly and sign up to migrant quotas, and they will never, ever forgive you for it.
Surely, since you yourself have said in the past that we need to get rid of a utopia called supranational Europe, it must become clear to you – as it became clear to eurosceptics in the United Kingdom – that this set of organisations, bound by their Treaties, are not open to reform. Institutions like this are led by fanatics. They are turning this into a state, and the nation state cannot coexist alongside.
Now you were bold enough to call a referendum on the migrant quotas, and 88% of those that voted agreed with you. Surely logic says it is time for you to give the Hungarian people a referendum on whether they stay part of the European Union or not. Who knows, you might come and join the Brexit club, and then we could fight for a nation of democratic states working together, trading together and put this nonsense behind us."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-26-Speech-1-120-000 | "Mr President, I wish to congratulate my Socialist and Democrat colleagues, because we have worked together to push the Commission and Member States to move forward on social rights in Europe, and here it is now – back on the agenda. I am proud to be part of the political group that fights for a true, social Europe.
With the snap general election in the UK, the Labour Party is right to insist that it will maintain the EU’s high social standards, and indeed Britain’s standards must be raised up along with the rest of Europe, regardless of Brexit. So, my party, the British Labour Party, must send out a clear message – a message which so many young people are desperate to hear: we will maintain freedom of movement, we will say loud and clear that we reject a hard Tory Brexit, and we will protect our hard—won European social rights."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-26-Speech-1-122-000 | "Mr President, I want to thank the Commission for coming forward with this proposal on work-life balance for parents and carers. From a personal perspective, I am especially pleased to see the proposal for paid carers’ leave. Back in 2005 I co-founded the European Parliament Interest Group on Carers with former colleague Kathy Sinnott, and since then I have either chaired or co-chaired that group with some of the colleagues, many of whom having spoken in today’s debate.
On very many different occasions the Carers Interest Group has called for a carers’ leave directive and indeed that call has been repeatedly supported by Parliament, and today we have a proposal on the table. Also, Commissioner Thyssen, your proposal on flexible working arrangements should help family carers to find the work-life balance that will allow them to continue to care. Today, we are taking a step towards Social Europe and while we still have a long way to go, I for one am pleased that we have made a start and I look forward to working on these proposals in Parliament."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-26-Speech-1-143-000 | "Madam President, let us be honest today. Across this House most – if not all – of us share concerns over the current direction of the Turkish Government under President Erdogan. Maybe some speakers today will try to out-compete each other in their condemnations, or even – as the previous speaker said – their insults. Yes, we all share concerns over press freedom in Turkey. Yes, we all share concerns over the treatment of the opposition and the conduct of the referendum; and we all share concerns over President Erdogan seeking to grab more executive power for what has, up to now, been largely a ceremonial presidency.
However, many in this House also realise that, at times, we need to work with Turkey. We need to work with Turkey when it comes to controlling the flows of refugees and migrants and we need to work with Turkey on regional security as an important member of NATO. We need to work with Turkey as we share concerns over issues such as Russian aggression. So, in reality, we are talking about a difficult balancing act and this balancing act needs two things. Firstly, we need to be honest with Turkey that it may never be a member of the EU. There are too many concerns: prejudice against a largely Muslim population; a landmass which lies mostly in Asia; the prospect of freedom of movement for millions of Turks; the prospect of voting weights in the Council and here in this Parliament; and an EU external border which would be with countries such as Iran, Iraq and Syria. Secondly, we need to have a more robust and critical relationship between Turkey and the EU.
But in seeking both, the EU has to ask itself: is the EU ready for the consequences of Turkey possibly opening its borders with Greece and allowing people to transit to the EU, and of President Erdogan seeing himself being pushed into the arms of countries such as Russia or Iran? So, while Turkey is not ready for EU membership – and it is not even ready for visa liberalisation – completely turning our back on Turkey is not an option. This is why the ECR Group welcomes calls for a different kind of relationship with Turkey. It will be a difficult balancing act requiring much diplomacy. It may be a more difficult relationship, but it will be a more honest relationship – more cautious, more critical, focused more on cooperation and no longer on the distant goal of EU membership."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-26-Speech-1-155-000 | "Madam President, the recent constitutional referendum in Turkey signals the end of democracy. The result in itself was highly dubious, given the accusations of electoral fraud. But even so, a large number of Turks voted against democracy and in favour of a form of dictatorship. Now that is bad enough, but what is interesting and highly disturbing are the voting figures for Turkish citizens living in Europe who had an overseas vote. Despite a narrow majority being achieved overall, those Turks voting in Europe voted by large majorities for Mr Erdoğan’s proposals. In France and Germany that was over 60%, and in the Netherlands, Austria and Belgium, that was over 70%. So in Turkey while half the voters chose to vote for democracy, those Turks living in Western liberal democracies voted by a large majority to abolish it. Perhaps those Turkish voters living in Europe might vote for a form of Islamic authoritarianism in Europe, given the chance.
The logical conclusion of this vote is that those Turks living in Europe who voted for dictatorship and against democracy should have the courage of their convictions to live by their decision. They should migrate back to Turkey to enjoy the benefits of what they just voted for.
And what if Turkey’s bid to join the EU had been successful? That application was supported by the EU, and in the UK by the Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green parties. MEPs from those parties always voted in favour of Turkish accession. Needless to say, only UKIP MEPs voted against it. If Turkey had joined the EU, then we would now be faced with an interesting situation. You would have one country, Britain, trying to leave, and you’d have another country, Turkey, that you would want to expel. I just wonder if that would take as long as the Brexit process."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-26-Speech-1-168-000 | "Madam President, I have been to Turkey four times since the coup last year and, each time, I have seen a deterioration of democracy and civil society, along with a growing culture of fear in cosmopolitan cities such as Istanbul and in the Kurdish communities of Diyarbakir and Nusaybin in the south. The last time I visited, just this past weekend, I spoke with representatives of civil society, artists, the media, opposition parties, trade unions, dismissed educators and public health workers, and minority groups, such as the Armenian community. All were absolutely unequivocal in their belief that the European path is the correct future for their beloved country. It is not the Turkish people with whom we have a disagreement. It is Erdogan and his bloated sense of self—importance and his gross appetite for power. Therefore, we must find a way to support grassroots organisations and particularly the youth who hope for a return to a better democracy."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-26-Speech-1-193-000 | "Mr President, the more perceptive amongst us will realise that I am not Constanze Krehl. Unfortunately Ms Krehl cannot be here tonight – she sends her apologies and has asked me to speak on her behalf. I am sure that, if Ms Krehl was here, she would want to thank the co—rapporteur, Mr Van Nistelrooij, and all the shadows for their usual cooperation in this important report.
I want to start my contribution by making a general point about structural reforms. I think that too often structural reforms are seen as being only about privatisation, cuts and austerity, but they should not be. Structural reforms should be about positive things and about changing an economy in a positive way. It should be about changing an economy to promote jobs and growth, to promote research and development, and to promote education and training. All these things are important. Those are the type of structural reforms that I think we should be supporting.
That is why structural funds are so important when we talk about structural reforms: structural funds are an investment in all the things I have just mentioned. That is why, in the current programme of structural funds, we have ex-ante conditionalities: to make sure that structural funds are producing results and are achieving jobs and growth. We put in place conditionalities to make sure we promote policies on growth, the environment, gender equality and many other things. These are the type of things we can use structural funds for in order to improve growth across the European Union.
Today, we are talking about using technical assistance to support structural reforms in Member States. This will be on a voluntary basis. Member States can, if they wish, take advantage of this new policy and can, of course, add their own funds to it as well. We should not forget that some of the technical assistance will go towards important areas and important policies, such as education and training. However, we also should not forget that the Commission is proposing EUR 143 million to be redirected, mainly from structural funds, towards technical assistance. Therefore, my group believes it is important that the new reform programmes align with cohesion policy aims, because we are using cohesion policy funds. We also believe it is important that local and regional governments are involved in the reform process so that their needs are met – Mr van Nistelrooij mentioned this in his contribution as well. We also think it is important that Parliament receive the support plans and monitoring reports so that we, as a democratic body, can look at the progress which is being made.
We also believe that it is important, from a budget point of view, that this programme, which redirects structural funds, does not set a precedent for the future. Certainly, we in the S&D Group could not accept the slicing of structural funds to be used for future new programmes and initiatives. If we want new programmes and new initiatives, then we have to find other ways of funding them. We have already seen a cut in the current structural funds programme, and if Brexit happens, the EU budget will be cut in the future as well. There will be less money for all programmes, including structural funds. So those of us who want to protect structural funds have to make this point now. They have to make the point very, very strongly that this cannot be a precedent for the future. We know that structural funds could also be under attack in the future from those who want to reduce the funding of structural funds or want to scrap structural funds altogether.
So I would say, in conclusion, that the S&D Group supports this report. We have been the co—rapporteur, with Mr Van Nistelrooij, on the report. We support it, and we also support the proposal put forward by the Commission and will be voting for it tomorrow, but we would not want to see this as a precedent. The S&D Group believes that structural funds have always been one of the most important policies of the European Union, and should be in the future. We will be fighting to defend them in the future."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-26-Speech-1-272-000 | "Mr President, since 2007 the European Court of Auditors has been issuing two opinions on the general budget: an audit of the accounts and an audit of the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. The only one of those two opinions that matters is the second. So why two sets of audits? It’s a smokescreen.
This is a gloss, a flagrant attempt to disguise the fact that, in the audit that matters, year after year the EU’s general budget accounts fail to meet minimum accounting standards. To quote Mr Zeller’s statement, we deeply regret that, for the 22nd year in a row, payments are materially affected by error because of the fact that the supervisory and control systems are only partially effective. This means that we have ended up with a 3.8% error rate, with thousands of millions of euros not properly accounted for – not just this year, but year after year. I propose that we vote against granting this discharge. It is time we took a stand and forced the Commission to get its house in order. I am actually bemused as to why everyone is so happy about this."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-26-Speech-1-318-000 | "Mr President, I speak not only as the rapporteur for opinion on employment, but also the person who chairs Parliament’s Delegation for Relations with South Asia, which includes Bangladesh. I have been to what remains of the Rana Plaza site, met survivors, seen the work of the Accord, the Alliance and the Sustainability Compact there, argued with brands and manufacturers about compensation, and with the Government about how we actually entrench and embed high labour standards. I think that is something we need to see in general, not as a niche, and we also need to recognise the important role that price has in this downward pressure on standards. I think we need to question, in fact, the model of fast fashion that we have, and the price that workers pay for that. The supply chain accountability people have spoken of is absolutely crucial, as are empowered workers in free trade unions, able to engage in genuine and constructive social dialogue to help move us forward to something where we have this as a norm, not, as I say, as a niche. We want to see the Commission and the European Union actively engaging on the international scene and, indeed, promoting such things as the UN Guiding Principles, which are often unknown in some of the countries with which we have trade relationships."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-26-Speech-1-329-000 | "Mr President, the life and death of 23-year-old Taslima Aktar, a Bangladeshi garment worker, reads like something out of Charles Dickens. Yet she died on our watch last year on 13 October 2016 after collapsing exhausted at work. Paid a pittance, forced by grinding poverty and poor education to labour in a sweatshop making clothes for the western fashion market, Taslima was consistently denied a break when she felt unwell. After being pronounced dead later that day, her employer left her body outside the factory for her family to collect.
Taslima’s death sparked mass strikes, which were met with repression and punitive measures. Union organisers have subsequently been harassed and arrested and activists have been blacklisted. We must ask ourselves: what price, fashion? For Taslima’s sake, and in memory of all garment workers who suffer injury or who have died at work, I urge the Commission to do everything in its power to put people before profit."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-26-Speech-1-360-000 | "Mr President, 20 years ago I was serving a life sentence in jail and the IRA cessation had collapsed. 20 years ago an inclusive negotiation emerged after the British Conservative Government lost the election and a new administration, along with the political parties and support from the EU and the USA, built the foundations of Ireland’s peace process. I stand here, a former political prisoner released under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement and now, 20 years on, our political process is in serious trouble because of Brexit and because an anti-equality axis was formed by the British Government and by the DUP. I call on this Parliament to support the case for the north of Ireland to secure designated special status within the EU. This cannot be left to the British Government to grant. The Westminster election power grab aims to copper-fasten a hard Brexit, copper-fasten partition, copper-fasten a hard border and hollow out the Good Friday Agreement in all of its parts. This Parliament and the EU cannot allow that to happen because the Good Friday Agreement is an international agreement and it was lodged at the United Nations."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-26-Speech-1-363-000 | "Mr President, human rights in Iran continue to deteriorate with developments that are deeply worrying. On Monday, the Supreme Court reconfirmed the prison sentence of British Iranian citizen Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. One year on from her arrest, the charges against her are still unknown and her husband and young daughter remain separated. Monday also marked the first anniversary of Swedish-Iranian Doctor Djalali’s imprisonment in Iran, where he faces the death sentence. Other EU-Iranian prisoners suffer in Iranian prisons in violation of their human rights, some of them away from the public eye. All of them must be released without exception.
Last week the Iranian government reportedly executed seven prisoners, some of whom were minors when they were convicted, and an eighth man, Peyman Barandah, is due to be executed on 10 May. The EU External Action Service and national foreign ministries must do more to make sure that all EU-Iranian prisoners held in violation of their human rights come back home and that Iran immediately halts all executions."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-27-Speech-2-019-000 | "Madam President, I tabled a number of amendments to this report on the basis that it was allowed, to then be informed by the services that it was not allowed, to then be informed again that it was allowed, to then being finally informed yet again that no, it would not be allowed, the nature of the beast here now, under the rules.
My concerns are based in a number of areas. First, there was a crossover of investment into the defence area. I am totally against this; Ireland is a neutral country, and we intend to stay so. I was also worried that in the area of new investments, and especially in PPS and in securitisation, the European Investment Bank (EIB) is not guarding against the added risks of socialising losses while privatising profits. I wanted cast-iron guarantees against conflicts of interest, especially in the area of disbarment policy, where the EIB falls well short of the standards set by the World Bank. On transparency also, the EIB falls well short of what I would like to see. Because of these and other concerns, I cannot recommend the discharge."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-27-Speech-2-023-000 | "Madam President, this report includes two very fundamental proposals. One is for the EIB to demand more capital from shareholders – that’s Member States – with that wedge entailing another big bill coming down the line for the United Kingdom, regardless of the Brexit vote. The second proposal is to increase the budget for external lending. Well, neither is justifiable given the EIB’s performance to date. And let me remind you that the EIB lent almost EUR 80 billion last year in order that the EU can broaden and deepen its control. And, astonishingly, the Committee on Budgetary Control stated that the soundness of funded projects should not be assessed only in terms of economic relevance, confirming both the political nature of the EIB and that the EU does not have a grip on the realities of the market. Lending taxpayers’ money without judging solely upon their economic viability is folly of the first order. And let us not forget the billions in soft loans doled out by the EIB to the car companies who cheated the system and polluted our air – hence why we’ve got the air quality problem. But thank you, Madam President, for allowing me to speak this morning."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-27-Speech-2-029-000 | "Madam President, when the President of the European Investment Bank came to the ECON Committee a few weeks ago, I asked him how the UK could repatriate the reported EUR 9 billion it has invested in the EIB. I suggested that an in specie distribution of some of the bank’s UK loan book into a UK sovereign fund might be an idea. He didn’t answer. It is crucial for the EIB to take Brexit into account when engaging in long-term commitments. For example, the EIB should not expect the UK to guarantee EIB bond issues. The existing contingent joint and several liabilities run to the order of some EUR 500 billion. That’s a worrying sum when one considers the political motivations behind it. The EIB is propping up economies which are structurally unsound as a result of their membership of the euro – in Greece the EIB has invested 10% of Greek GDP – but worse, this report suggests the EIB should call for even more capital, and demand even more from the British taxpayer. This is a dangerous fantasy economic nonsense and for that reason we cannot support this report."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-27-Speech-2-069-000 | "Mr President, there is a scene in the British sitcom, Fawlty Towers, in which Basil Fawlty is thrown into an illogical rage by his car breaking down yet again. He begins to whip it with a tree branch while swearing at it. Jeroen Dijsselbloem has surely become the Basil Fawlty of Europe. Instead of just admitting that the euro does not work and the engine is broken, he rains down abuse on the unfortunate people of southern Europe in an impotent display of ill temper.
We are nearly a decade on from the start of the crisis and yet we are still talking about keeping Greece locked in a currency union with Germany. This is unbelievable. The engine is faulty, the vehicle does not drive and all the state of denial is achieving is more human misery, more poverty, more unemployment, more damage to the social fabric and more deflation without end. A proud nation is being sacrificed to the ideology of integration at all costs and, from where I am sitting, that looks shameful."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-27-Speech-2-097-000 | "Madam President, the right-wing leaders of the European Union have promoted dangerous austerity policies in Europe, especially in Greece. These policies have been self-defeating and they threaten to tear Europe apart, as they have now torn the UK away from Europe. Austerity has fed the cause of the rise of the far—right, divisive nationalism and dangerous xenophobia. These forces exploit the concerns that ordinary citizens have regarding economic policies that harm them, and so they resort to scapegoating others. But let me remind you what the European treaties say: Article 3 of the Treaty on the European Union says that the EU shall work for a social market economy and social progress, and promote social justice and solidarity among States. That is the spirit of the true European Union, and I believe that social justice in the UK and Europe is still possible, and we must choose it together."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-27-Speech-2-134-000 | "Mr President, it is perfectly within your rights under the Rules of Procedure to take a block vote on all these amendments."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-27-Speech-2-200-000 | "Madam President, I voted in favour of this report, given its essential evaluation of the European Union’s policy objectives in this area. In particular, I welcome the report’s recognition of the principles of economic recovery, the promotion of youth employment, the fostering of innovation and SMEs in the sphere of entrepreneurship, and environmental sustainability and climate action.
Notably, I also welcome the report’s recommendation for the monitoring of EFSI’s added value and additionality, thus fostering the geographical spread of the programme as we move forward. There can be no doubt that the sum total of these efforts may result in greater economic and social cohesion across Member States, and I am very pleased that tomorrow in my own constituency, in the city of Limerick, I am hosting an information day for businesses, local authorities, agencies etc. on EFSI and the EIB, which recently opened an office in my own country in Dublin."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-27-Speech-2-203-000 | "Madam President, what is the purpose of a bank that is backed by the taxpayer and that intervenes in the private sector? The only possible justification is that governments know better than the market. If there is a good bet, investors will see that and will put their money in accordingly, but the notional justification for this kind of bank is that we know better than the market and will make better decisions.
As a matter of fact, as we have heard during this debate, that has not been the outcome of these EIB loans, and in fact it never is. If you take that argument to the extreme, you get East Germany rather than West Germany, and North Korea rather than South Korea. We have tested to its limits the idea that the State knows better than the market. The real purpose of a bank like this is that it opens the door for us to promote projects that we happen to like. It therefore inevitably opens the door to favouritism and cronyism. Yet the only solution we have heard today – the only criticism – of all the failings of the EIB is to bring it under more direct political control. In fact, we politicians should learn to do less."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-04-27-Speech-2-229-000 | "A Uachtaráin, vótáil mé i bhfábhar na tuarascála seo agus dar ndóigh tá sé tábhachtach go gcuirimid béim ar ár gcultúr oidhreachta agus aontaím go mór leis an moladh atá ann go mbeadh an bhliain seo chugainn ina Bliain Chultúir Oidhreachta na hEorpa. Thabharfadh sin seans dúinn aird agus aitheantas a thabhairt dár n-oidhreacht agus, go háirithe, an pháirt a ghlacann cultúr i saibhreas ár saol i gcoitinne agus i bhfás gheilleagar na hEorpa. Freisin, ba mhaith liom nach ndéanfaimid dearmad ar scéalaíocht mar chuid den oidhreacht sin. Nílim ag caint faoi scéalta a dhéanann daoine suas, ach scéalaíocht a insíonn dúinn faoinár n-oidhreacht agus go háirithe ár n-oidhreacht Chríostúil atá an-saibhir san Eoraip agus a nascann sinn le chéile. Agus mar fhocal scoir, ná déan dearmad ar spórt mar chuid dár gcultúr oidhreachta chomh maith."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-15-Speech-1-010-000 | "Mr President, on 14 February, in this very Chamber, Mr Papadakis, one of the Non-Attached Members of this Parliament, referred to Israel as a terrorist state during a foreign affairs debate. I objected to that at the time and understand it was referred to the Bureau. I will be writing to you personally, Mr President, asking why no action has been taken."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-15-Speech-1-043-000 | "Mr President, this report identifies eye-watering levels of fraudulent activity costing the Member States of the European Union EUR 637 million in 2015. When you add irregularities that are not fraudulent, the total amount of money involved goes to over EUR 3 billion. That, of course, is just the known fraud and irregularities because as the rapporteur correctly points out, by definition, there must be more that is not detected. And that is also before even asking the fundamental question as to whether taxpayers got value for money from the cash that was spent.
But this report in a lot of ways beautifully illustrates the European project as a whole, because whenever you have more Europe in one area it will result in problems implementing across 28 countries and the European Union will inevitably have to propose more harmonisation as the answer. For example, you get proposed responses like a European public prosecutor’s office, because the system will fail to function without it, and responses include imposing rules across all 28 Member States.
This is the very essence of the acquis communautaire. Once power moves from a nation state to the European Union in one area, it inexorably follows that powers must continue to flow in that same direction. That is how the European Union is set up. Really, there can only be two honest positions here. Either you support a European super state, with all that entails, and the loss of sovereignty and identity that comes with it. That view is logically internally consistent, and however much I disagree with it, I respect those who honestly hold that view. The other position is to recognise that the alternative is to leave the European Union and to get off the train before it reaches destination super state. That is what we in the United Kingdom are doing. But I just think if only the European Union had remained as a trading organisation rather than a political monolith, I am sure we would not be in this position today."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-15-Speech-1-079-000 | "Madam President, the diversity of learning structures and educational pathways represents an opportunity for sustainable economic development as well as for personal development of learners and citizens. I know from personal experience that lifelong learning develops creative and critical thinking, helping us to gain in self-confidence, to become problem solvers, entrepreneurs and responsible citizens, and to acquire the intercultural social and transversal skills needed to achieve more inclusive, open and tolerant communities.
We are often asked to equip learners with skills and competences for a world that does not yet exist. Therefore, properly including lifelong learning in our education policy is key, and promoting EU collaboration and harmonisation across Member States is important. In the context of demographic changes, flexible economies and uncertain job markets characterised by increasing digitisation, robotisation and automation of production, we must also embrace the concept of occupational literacy promoting active engagement in arts, citizenship and sport.
Furthermore, we must include refugees, as they have much to offer and they arrive with skills and a desire to contribute."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-15-Speech-1-096-000 | "Madam President, there are obviously huge economic and environmental and social costs to food waste. Around 88 billion tonnes of food are wasted annually in the European Union with the associated cost estimated at EUR 143 billion. It is welcome that this issue is getting increased attention. But we can and should do more. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety was of course the lead committee on this file but I felt it was extremely important that the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development had a say also. In putting together the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development’s opinion on the report I want to concentrate on farm waste and how producers can be assisted in tackling it.
Finding innovative solutions to the problem of food waste from the farm to the supermarket shelf, to the consumer is in everyone’s benefit. Firstly it goes without saying that no farmer wants to produce waste food. Farmers’ livelihoods depend on getting their produce to the market and loss of produce at farm level equates to loss of investment and income. Therefore farmers can be part of the solution here. Farmer-led initiatives can and have offered viable economic solutions and provide value for products which might otherwise go to waste as well as socially innovative projects such as gleaning and offering food that might otherwise go to waste to food banks. In Europe we import 40 million tonnes of feed yet we waste 89 million tonnes of food. So there is also potential for the use of former foodstuffs, by-products, in the food chain in feed production. But I also recognise the stress and need for increased traceability.
The role of retailers also needs to be recognised. We will all have heard stories from producers in our constituencies about farmers having to search for secondary markets at short notice, even plough their produce back into the soil, because the supermarket does not accept their product. This can be for a number of reasons, from standards in terms of a product specification to cancelled orders owing to changes in consumer demand and over production as a result of requirements to seasonal demands.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank my shadow rapporteurs on the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and can I also congratulate the rapporteur on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, Ms Borzan, on her excellent report."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-15-Speech-1-104-000 | "Mr President, the data on food waste in European Union are quite astonishing. Almost 88 million tonnes of food is being wasted in the EU each year, and a number of studies have shown that between 33% and 50% of the world food production is not consumed.
Consequently, I concur that such waste is an issue of great importance, affecting both national and global food security. The rapporteur believes that a solution to this problem is a coordinated policy at EU level with the EU action plan for the circular economy laying the foundation, in conjunction with the Commission evaluating the relevant legislation to see if it is fit for purpose and identifying if there are gaps, overlaps or areas in need of clarification or further action.
However, my party UKIP and I believe that an issue as great as this should be addressed at a global rather than a European level with the national parliaments of Member States monitoring wastage and food safety issues in their countries without the creation of further EU bureaucracy and legislation."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-15-Speech-1-106-000 | "Mr President, thank you very much for the opportunity to address you on this particular subject. All UK citizens who have food waste caddies are very familiar with this initiative and obviously they will be watching, I hope, all of the developments that take place in terms of the debate this evening and the voting this week on this. As ever they will be looking at it somewhat critically. Why is the European Union actually doing this, and what does it actually imply and mean in terms of implications?
I think the negative that really needs to be addressed and voiced this evening is this issue again of European Union control on every aspect of the food chain, from animal health and welfare, packaging, crop selection, transport, consumption and waste disposal, and it is all about performance targets and does not address local issues. So, in short, the European Union is trying to take control of every issue, be it from farm to fork to bin, and I do not think that is the right way to go about it. I welcome what the rapporteur is trying to do, but I think at this stage it has gone too far in terms of just addressing numbers and meeting those targets. It is not actually looking at local Member State issues and how they need to manage and address what happens at the sovereign state level."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-15-Speech-1-109-000 | "Mr President, I would like to agree with all of my colleagues in thanking Ms Borzan for this report. She chose a very challenging subject for a word-limited own initiative report but I think she has done a terrific job. And, for the record, having followed two British Members, both happened to be ladies this time, I would like to say that I think it is entirely not the case that this is not of use to all of us. It is extremely useful to share best practice, it is extremely useful to share benchmarking, not to repeat the reinventing of the wheel across 28 Member States. What is wrong with that? I think it is a terrifically good idea and there are lots of ideas in here. I compare it for example with a House of Commons report from the UK and so many of the things are along the same lines – similar thinking, the gathering of data, the use of data. It is all terribly important and I think this report really does a great job in bringing all of those threads together.
I would just like to welcome very much what the Commissioner said about rethinking within the Commission on animal feed. I recognise why every time I meet somebody over about 70 they talk to me about how food used to be collected to be fed to pigs and chickens, etc. and I try painstakingly to explain to them why, for public health reasons, that had to be stopped. And they always kind of look at you a little bit blankly because clearly the use of food waste in animal feed would be a good move forward. So thank you, Commissioner, I really welcome your thoughts that that is being rethought through, because I do think that this House would welcome that so long as public health was adhered to. So thank you again and I look forward to seeing some of these ideas come to fruition."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-15-Speech-1-131-000 | "Mr President, I left home at 5.30 this morning and arrived in here at 7.30 this evening, and this is the story for many MEPs. That is not very resource efficient, and that is something we need to tackle in the broader sense.
At least we are trying to tackle the food waste, which is similar. The figures, which have been mentioned, actually are staggering: 88 million tonnes of food are wasted each year at a cost of EUR 143 billion; the food that is produced globally but not eaten uses a volume water equivalent to the annual flow of the Volga River in Russia and adds 3.3 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases to the planet’s atmosphere. At time we are talking about meeting the two degree target, this is something we really have to tackle and thankfully we are beginning to do so. Also, of course, we have signed up to the UN sustainable development goals, and that is about halving the per capita food waste at the retail and consumer level.
I was glad to hear the Commissioner mention the necessity for a reliable method to measure food waste, and this is something I welcome the report. Also the ‘best before’ and ‘use by’ dates. I am beginning to wonder: is there a need for a best before date? Maybe the simple thing would be to abolish it. Food is either safe or it is not, the ‘use by’ date would be proper and that would help to end the confusion. This is a major topic and I look forward for further development in the future."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-15-Speech-1-160-000 | "Madam President, this report calls for harmonisation of controls at all points of entry into the customs union and for increased surveillance and security measures. I want to talk to you about Ireland post—Brexit. There are 277 roads crossing the border in Ireland. This is not counting farms that straddle the border nor houses where you enter the front door on one side of the border and leave it through the other side. Now during the conflict in Ireland cross—border smuggling was a daily occurrence. Among the achievements of the Good Friday Agreement was that smuggling was dramatically reduced.
If the might of the British military could not close the border, EU customs officials will not be able to close it; mission impossible. So bringing back customs posts on the border in Ireland will be unworkable as well as politically unacceptable and also an invitation to smugglers to set up shop on the border. Increased surveillance and security will be a direct threat to the peace process if the controls are located on the border in Ireland. The integrity of the customs union demands that a solution be found which keeps the north of Ireland in the EU and in the customs union and the only way to achieve this, short of Irish unity, is through designated special status within the EU and it is something that the Irish Government and this Parliament must insist on."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-15-Speech-1-162-000 | "Madam President, I think we can all agree here that illicit trade and corruption in trade are problems that must be tackled. The rapporteur is spot on when she says that overly complex customs rules can harm SMEs. So a balance is always necessary. But also, every chain is only as strong as its weakest link – and again the rapporteur is absolutely right to recognise issues with so—called forum shopping, where goods are shipped through the area where it is perceived that customs controls are the most lax.
So, of course, there are issues. I also note that a recent report by Transparency International shows that, sadly, corruption is the norm and not the exception in public life, ranking 176 countries across the globe for corruption. We see that in the European Union there are countries like Denmark, Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom which all come out in the top ten, but there are other EU countries – and I will not name names for the sake of fairness – which are ranked lower than the one-party communist state of Cuba. So, when we talk about clamping down on illicit trade at EU level, there is immediately an issue. And when we look at the EU accession countries – the countries that the EU wants to absorb – the corruption levels seen there are ones that, frankly, would make Al Capone blush and, indeed in one case, are even worse than Iran.
Fundamentally, it is the same old problem. When you try to write the same rules across 28 countries, one size never really fits all, and trying to harmonise too much ends up causing problems."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-15-Speech-1-179-000 | "Madam President, we are now seeing a giant, international cyber attack wreak havoc on private and public computer systems across the world, including the National Health Service in the UK. This is a wake—up call on the need to invest in our e-government systems and cyber security.
In the meantime, there is a real risk to our very democracy that comes from harvesting and analysing online data. New technologies enable secretive, private companies to target social media users and determine what information they see. The
journalist Carole Cadwalladr has exposed worrying links between the far right, the Brexit Leave campaigns, Donald Trump, the Russian Government and technology companies owned by the Conservative billionaire Robert Mercer. It appears that the funding of electoral campaigns is opaque and under the radar, provoking legal questions.
As we seek to protect our governments and democracies, we must take action to adapt our laws in order to prevent such unethical manipulation of voters online, and instead use online platforms for open and transparent democratic debate."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-16-Speech-2-007-000 | "The next item is the debate on the Council and Commission statements on Making relocation happen ().
Before I give the floor to Commission Avramopoulos, and good morning to you, Commissioner, I just want to announce that the Council has excused itself from this morning’s debate."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-16-Speech-2-015-000 | "Madam President, this question is an existential one for the EU. Your answer to this will define the future of your project. It will say whether the EU is to be a collective of freely cooperating peoples, based on friendship and enlightened self-interest, or a centralised coercive structure feared and hated in equal parts by its constituents, and bound one day to explode in a welter of vituperation and vindictiveness.
I urge you to look to the self-interest of your project, your peoples and your nations. However, my experience of the direction of your mentality leads me to the sad conclusion that you will continue along the path of self-destruction, both in terms of encouraging destructive economic migration from those poor benighted countries and in terms of sowing discord amongst your constituent nations."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-16-Speech-2-085-000 | "Mr President, I would like to thank the Commission for this paper, but it is not before time. Often, the debate on globalisation is polarised. On one side we have the gung-ho supporters of free trade, regardless, and on the other we have the protectionists, for whom no trade deal is ever right. For me, this is the challenge of our generation: to manage globalisation so that free trade is fair trade. As you said, Commissioner, this must ensure that the benefits of trade are distributed fairly among our citizens. But in the last decade this has not happened in the EU. While our economy has grown overall, real incomes of middle-class households have largely stagnated.
Commissioner, some of the messages to be sent to our citizens are contradictory. We, for example, have extra-judicial courts to enforce investors’ rights but no binding mechanism to enforce environmental standards, health and safety standards and decent work conditions. However, I do welcome this paper and the work done by Commissioner Vestager in trying to ensure that large corporations pay their fair share of tax, a crucial element for fair globalisation. At EU level, investment in universal broadband access allied to lifelong learning will be essential if EU citizens are to benefit from globalisation. Finally, as rapporteur for the Globalisation Fund, I believe it has a role to play in providing a safety net, but it must be adequately resourced and sufficiently flexible so that it is available to workers in the SME sector."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-16-Speech-2-086-000 | "Thank you very much for taking the question. It was an excellent speech, if I may say so: a lot better than we normally get around here. You actually mentioned large corporations paying their share of tax. What do you think of the way that the Government of Luxembourg has handled this issue over the past 10 to 15 years? I just wonder if you have an opinion about that."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-16-Speech-2-087-000 | "This is a global issue and probably can only be solved at a global level, and the OECD is doing some excellent work there with their BEPS project. Commissioner Vestager is pushing out the boat at European level and that needs to be done. A number of governments in the EU need to look at this issue to ensure that the mismatches between tax systems cannot be exploited by large corporations. I think all governments have a responsibility, but some more than others. I am not going to mention names."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-16-Speech-2-095-000 | "Mr President, reading between the lines, the Vice—President of the Commission seems to think that the EU can, like a kind of King Canute, roll back the tide of globalisation. Well this is of course not only not true, but also absurd. Now my new great friend as of the last four years, the Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström, was at one time apparently a psychiatric nurse, and it would seem that these psychiatric skills are badly needed within the Commission. I hope that Cecilia Malmström will have a moment to administer to her colleagues.
At every voting session here in the European Parliament, colleagues vote for rules, laws and regulations that inhibit innovation and destroy jobs, and the direct consequence is low growth, or zero growth, or even minus growth such as that which exists in Greece and Italy. I can see that the Vice-Commissioner finds that very amusing. This is not the way to deal with globalisation. You should think again."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-16-Speech-2-104-000 | "Mr President, the Commission paper on harnessing globalisation says that the EU must pursue a progressive trade and investment agenda which not only opens markets but enhances governance on issues like human rights, working conditions and environmental protection.
Many of us have been vocal in opposing certain EU trade proposals like EPAs, ISDS and TTIP, CETA and others. However, we need to recognise that the EU is the only large international actor, which makes it a stated priority to advance on progressive social values. This is an agenda that we must defend and strengthen by emphasising, for example, the decent work agenda and the alternative trade mandate.
In the meantime, my own government in the UK is desperately trying to strike up shameful trade deals and arms deals at all costs with various serial human rights violators, such as Saudi Arabia. I am very afraid that a Brexit led by Tory Britain would not be a progressive force in this world. Britain must continue to work with the EU regardless of Brexit to advance progressive social and benign globalisation for the good of all of us on this planet."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-16-Speech-2-240-000 | "Mr President, today I voted against the EU eGovernment Action Plan 2016-2020. I fully support the use of the internet and modern technology to enhance democracy, but I believe it should be a matter for individual Member States. Forcing new techniques on Member States may well run contrary to local cultures and could disenfranchise the many who are not used to using such systems.
Furthermore, it is abundantly clear that the internet is not secure, and rushing into eGovernment threatens the security of nations.
I also have grave – very grave – issues over the potential for the imposition of Brussels-generated censorship and the overall loss of personal liberty. The digital single market is a poorly disguised attempt by the European Union to take control over the internet, and the cosiness between the European Union and some internet giants makes me uneasy. I object to the power grab and I encourage all Member States to do their own thing."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-16-Speech-2-244-000 | "Mr President, today the EU voted on a government action plan on digital control of EU institutions in the public sector. What does this actually mean? Listen to the words placed in the documents. What it actually means is that the EU wants to know about every individual’s data in the European Union being controlled in every country’s public bodies: the tax system, the NHS. This document today says that the EU wants to have Big Brother beyond any concept of Big Brother. If you have private data with your doctor, the EU will know about it. If you have data about your taxation, the EU will know about it. Your passport, the EU will know about it. From the moment you get up in the morning to the moment that you go to bed at night, EU bodies will know everything about you. Big government, the big state, the big EU is here."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-16-Speech-2-279-000 | "Mr President, I voted against this annual report on the protection of the European Union’s financial interests, entitled ‘Fight against fraud’. I want to see fraud resolved and I want to see a very strong position taken on fraud, but when you have a system and an organisation like the European Union policing itself – and we know the many faults in that particular area – then you will understand why I could not support a report that, quite frankly, papered over the cracks, did not want to deal with the issues and was in essence a token gesture.
Had the report been a lot stronger in accurately identifying the scale of the issues, and had there not been amendments submitted that actually highlighted the countries at fault, then I might have supported its adoption, but I want to see scrutiny, transparency and accuracy. I do not want to see the detail being hidden."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-16-Speech-2-281-000 | "A Uachtaráin, vótálas i bhfabhar na tuarascála seo mar a rinne 553 Fheisire as 676; agus dár ndóigh is fadhb í seo a bhí ann riamh agus, faraor, beidh sé linn go deo. Ach ní hé sin le rá gur cheart dúinn cur suas leis; caithfimid a bheith ar an airdeall i gcónaí go háirithe má bhaineann sé le caiteachas airgid an Aontais.
Cuireann sé déistean orm go bhfuil mí-úsáid agus mímhacántacht ag dul i méid in ionad ag dul i laghad maidir le caiteachas airgid an Aontais. Dá bhrí sin, tá sé thar a bheith tábhachtach go mbeadh pionós dian ar na tíortha agus ar na tionscnaimh éagsúla nach bhfuil macánta agus, freisin, ba chóir dúinn níos mó cumhachta a thabhairt d’OLAF agus, b’fhéidir d’Europol, agus níos mó acmhainne a thabhairt dóibh chun deireadh a chur leis an gcleachtas mímhacánta seo."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-16-Speech-2-319-000 | "A Uachtaráin, arís vótáil mé i bhfabhar na tuarascála seo mar a rinne 623 Fheisire as 676 sa chás seo; agus taispeánann sé sin go dtuigeann feisirí cé chomh tábhachtach is atá an t-ábhar seo agus cé chomh tábhachtach is atá sé dúinn chun rud éigin a dhéanamh faoi. Dar ndóigh, tá na figiúirí den bhia a chaitear amach gach uile bhliain scanrúil. I ndáiríre, tá sé mímhorálta. Féach ar na figiúirí: 88 milliún tona de bhia caite amach gach uile bhliain san Aontas ar chostas €143 billiún ag úsáid an méid uisce a ritheann trí abhainn an Volga sa Rúis agus ag cur 3.3 billiún tona astaíochtaí CO2 san atmaisféar. Is léir go gcaithfimid aontú chun deireadh a chur leis seo."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-16-Speech-2-351-000 | "Mr President, at the core of these proposals is the creation of yet another European Union control body, this time to manage Member States’ customs authorities. Now, as always, the European Union is dressing up a power grab, and I emphasise ‘a power grab’, as something beneficial – in this case, to prevent illegal and counterfeit goods entering the Union. But the reality is that Brussels is looking to extend its control and to reduce again the sovereignty of Member States. Remember that the freedom of movement, people, services and goods is in place as a key pillar, and yet it seems at odds with what we have been voting on this morning.
The salami tactic for power-grabbing has been going on for years, and I am very glad that, once Brexit finally takes place, the United Kingdom will not have to cede yet more power and more control to Brussels – to yet another EU body – in respect of what should be a Member State competence."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-16-Speech-2-356-000 | "Mr President, today the EU voted on a report on the tools needed to facilitate trade with countries outside the European Union. The report, which is here in my hand, actually says that complex rules and procedures can overburden small and medium—sized enterprises, placing considerable strain upon them. I have been arguing for the past two and a half years that this is what the EU has been doing through its rules across the whole of Europe. It also recognises the need for free trade and cooperation agreements and says that it has them with South Korea, Canada, the US, China and Japan. Yet when it comes to Brexit and the United Kingdom, in this report the views on free trade and small business between the EU and the UK goes out of the window as MEPs in this Chamber – as you can see, an empty one at the moment – demand further punishment of the United Kingdom rather than entering into a free trade arrangement. That is the EU negotiating style."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-16-Speech-2-389-000 | "Mr President, I say to the High Representative that we continue to describe the situation in Syria as being a civil war, but over the course of the past seven years the conflict has become increasingly a proxy war between the two main divisions of Islam. Despite paying lip service to the fight against ISIS, Russia continues to target the majority of its efforts against other Sunni groups that seek to overthrow the Assad Alawite regime. Turkey is still driven by Erdoğan’s overriding aim of preventing the emergence of a Kurdish quasi—state on its Syrian border, regardless of the fact that the YPG forces have proved to be the most effective forces against ISIS and have received continuous support from Turkey’s NATO allies, including the Americans.
Western efforts have, with the exception of the US strike against the Shayrat airbase in April, exclusively been focused on the fight against ISIS. The Assad regime, with Iranian support, is meanwhile at its strongest point since the conflict began, consolidating its territorial gains and confident that Russia’s continuing military backing for it will give it sufficient protection. Such confidence was demonstrated by the horrendous chemical attack carried out in Idlib in April which killed 70 people. Such confidence has also resulted in other atrocious human rights abuses. Just yesterday the US State Department endorsed the findings of an Amnesty International report which claims that prisoners at the Saydnaya prison complex are being executed and buried and incinerated in mass graves.
In the Geneva UN talks, the departure of Assad is clearly the first point for moving forwards. I called in this House more than six years ago now for a no-fly zone, but all options must now be considered for the sake of defending civilians and their lives, of peace, including things such as transitional arrangements, territorial partitions and even amnesties, however unpalatable."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-16-Speech-2-391-000 | "Mr President, I apologise, but my headphones were not working, so I did not catch the question. It will have to be repeated. I am sorry. Perhaps you could repeat it in a compressed, concise, telegraphic form."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-16-Speech-2-394-000 | "I do not think that I used the words ‘true facts’. I stated in my speech that the Syrian Assad regime has carried out atrocities. I will stand by that statement concerning the use of barrel bombs over civilian areas, with the killing of women and children deliberately by the regime. As for the probable use of chemical weapons, the fact that the previous administration under President Obama unfortunately refused to act on it as a red line has resulted in President Assad continuing to prosecute his war in an atrocious fashion. I do not deny that the other sides have also committed war crimes. There have been war crimes committed by all sides, but this is the most horrendous situation and I have no doubt about the guilt of the Assad regime."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-16-Speech-2-409-000 | "Mr President, it is Groundhog Day once again in the European Parliament. I look up to the public gallery and say ‘Welcome to another month of one of our sessions of hand-wringing!’
Madam High Representative, I do not need to take up too much of your time, as I have said these things before in response to the same tired old speeches that I am listening to today. Whilst the extremists thrive and the people of Syria continue to die, we continue to have these debates about regime change, the influence of President Putin and how much better Syria will be once we have brought in democracy.
Our track record in the region in terms of the decimation of civilian populations to ensure democracy is not too impressive, and I am sure the peoples of Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan would forgo the prospects of a democratically elected legislature in return for a roof over their heads, food in their mouths and the prospect of living beyond the next week.
Can we deal with the extremists in Syria before even more make their way to Yemen to further destabilise that benighted country? Can we forget about forcing regime change and help the Syrian people rediscover some normality, without us deciding what that normality should be?
I will now go outside and bang my head against the wall as I fear it will be far less painful than listening to this."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-16-Speech-2-413-000 | "Mr President, High Representative, the chilling statistics of those killed and maimed in Syria are well known. We now need to focus on solutions. Therefore I welcome the strategy as a first step. However, as with everything else, implementation will be the key to success, and this will hinge on a number of key points. How will we ensure the Astana deal does not provide a carte blanche for targeting the moderate opposition? What will we do to push the UN monitoring of both the agreement and humanitarian access already vetoed by Assad? I recognise that many colleagues have mentioned the de—escalation zones and that halting violence is a positive step, but if we do not want to replicate the December ceasefire, which ended in last month’s chemical attack, we need to address the points I have just mentioned.
Furthermore, I would say it is critical that the lessons we learned in Iraq are implemented to avoid repeating the mistakes made there. Leaders who kill and maim have to face justice – there are no compromises about that at all. However, uprooting an entire administration will lead to yet another failed state. Those without blood on their hands should be allowed to contribute to rebuilding future Syria. Whatever shape the future governance of Syria takes, if it is not inclusive, it is set to fail. We need to break the cycle of sectarian violence and exclusion. All groups, clans and sects needed to commit to a peace deserve a political representation.
Finally, in this strategy, what will you do, High Representative, to add bite to our bark? How do you hope to overcome the blockages in the Council on sanctions against some of the key players involved and bring about pressure on the international community?"@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-16-Speech-2-435-000 | "Mr President, the extremely complex conflict in Syria has created the worst humanitarian crisis since World War II. Daesh and other Jihadist groups have been party to cruel and brutal atrocities, and serious violations of human rights and humanitarian law have been committed by Assad and Western—funded rebel forces. No one side should be exempt from prosecution for war crimes. The use of chemical weapons must be investigated by a properly-resourced UN mechanism, regardless of who the perpetrator is. Such war crimes cannot go unpunished.
I welcome the fact that further peace talks are starting today. We should support the UN rapporteur on these peace talks because there is no military solution to Syria, and all the sides involved must engage in the peace process in a meaningful manner. The Kurdish forces and people deserve their own stand—alone seat in those negotiations through the PYD, and any establishment of zones must serve the innocent civilians of Syria and not geopolitical interests."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-16-Speech-2-452-000 | "Mr President, Rethink Rebuild based in Manchester is one of many grassroots Syrian civil society support groups from 17 different countries who are asking for urgent and robust action to address the situation at its root, namely through civilian protection. Here is their recommendation for you:
‘We are tired of the endless political negotiations, which we know will fail because of Assad and his allies’ contempt for such processes and for international law more generally. We are frustrated that endless amounts of humanitarian aid are being doled out to Syria, whilst we have not been able to end the humanitarian crisis itself. We therefore call upon the international community to implement immediate and enforceable measures with a defined scope and the purpose of civilian protection, and in compliance with international humanitarian law to address the root issue in Syria, namely, civilian protection from the Assad and Russian killing machine. Whatever route the international community chooses to follow, it must put this at the heart of its policy, and a failure to do so will only mean that the resulting humanitarian refugee and terrorism crises will continue. #safelyinsyria"@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-16-Speech-2-463-000 | "I have received seven motions for resolutions tabled in accordance with Rule 123(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 18 May 2017."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-16-Speech-2-473-000 | "Mr President, I have a long association with the Coptic Christians in Egypt through its large diaspora community living in London. The attacks of last month against two Christian churches in Egypt were the latest in a series of atrocities. These remind us not only of the continued security risk that Egypt faces from Al-Qaeda, particularly in the Sinai, but also of the wider plight that Christians as communities face across the entire Middle East.
There are around 30 million Christians living in the region, the largest numbers based in Egypt, Lebanon and Syria. The Syrian civil war has tragically seen tens of thousands of Christians displaced and fleeing for their lives as Isis has deliberately targeted them both there and in neighbouring Iraq where, on a visit two years ago, I met a number of Assyrian Christian IDPs. I would like to take this opportunity to praise the efforts of the KRG in providing shelter for Christian refugees housed within its territory.
Whilst I of course also welcome the support from EU Member States that has been given and offered to Christian refugees from the Middle East, I believe that it is important that we recognise that such expulsions of Christians is precisely the aim of groups like Isis, who wish to see a Middle East free of all non-Sunni Muslim religious minorities. Our efforts should therefore concentrate on establishing safe haven autonomous regions within the Middle East, such as in the Nineveh Plains in Iraq, and supporting communities to rebuild their lives and defend themselves in the places that their civilisation has been rooted for over two millennia. With some five million refugees and IDPs uprooted from their homes due to the conflicts in Iraq and Syria, it is easy for the plight of the Middle East Christians to be forgotten."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-16-Speech-2-477-000 | "Mr President, Madam High Representative, this is not the first time that I have stood in this Chamber to draw attention to the terrible suffering of Christian communities throughout the Middle East. It would appear that, far from major moves being made to alleviate that suffering, it is doomed to continue.
Only this Easter, speculation increased over whether or not Christianity had a future in the Middle East. These are ancient communities, existing since the earliest foundations of the faith, and it is a daunting prospect that we could let Asian communities wither in the face of the growing radical Islamism throughout the region.
Whilst the bombings of the Coptic Church in Egypt by Islamic State were a tragedy, the support by the Egyptian Government is a model that should be emulated throughout the region. The attack was not just on a community but on all Egyptians. We must continue to draw attention to the situation of Christians and to make sure that more is done to prevent the destruction of these ancient communities."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-16-Speech-2-502-000 | "There is a request for a blue card, but I am not taking blue cards because of our time constraints, and that was already announced by the previous Chair."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-16-Speech-2-516-000 | "Madam President, it is very good that we are having this debate, firstly because for too long we have seen destruction and execution, the destroying of the Christian heritage and people in the Middle East, and we are really the only ones they can turn to. It is especially important that we send out a message to our fellow Christian brothers and sisters that the European Union is going to stand behind them.
I was very encouraged by words of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Ms Mogherini, which are important to these people not only psychologically but also in a practical sense.
The fact that four out of five people killed because of their religion are Christian tells its own tale, and we have a powerful role to play, especially in terms of humanitarian aid, development aid, etcetera. It should be a condition of aid that religious tolerance will be practised in these areas, and especially that there will be due regard for Christians. Many of us in Europe are Christian: are we are going to stand up for Christians in the Middle East?"@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-16-Speech-2-521-000 | "The debate is closed."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-16-Speech-2-524-000 | "The next item is the debate on the statement by the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the Dadaab refugee camp ()."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-16-Speech-2-531-000 | "Mr President, Kenya has accepted refugees at Dadaab since 1992. The tripartite agreement between Kenya, Somalia and the UNHCR has led to some repatriation, thus we have been content to ignore this issue. In that time Kenya has suffered many terrorist-related attacks, not least at the Westgate Shopping Centre attributed to Al-Shabab recruitment in Dadaab. These camps should provide temporary safe havens and not dump victims of war and droughts. Dadaab represents all that is wrong with the way that we deal with displaced persons. Ludicrously, in a separate debate this week we will vote to condemn one of the only stabilising states in this region. Ethiopia has provided troops, material and money to overcome the anarchy in Somalia, but it is always inconvenient in this place to look at the bigger picture. Thus we find ourselves bemoaning the plights of displaced people, the inadequacies of African governments, and at the same time, undermine yet another country in this troubled region."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-16-Speech-2-539-000 | "Mr President, I have visited Kenya twice in the past few months, meeting EU officials and the British Embassy, and I know the resolution is right to emphasise the impact of climate change in the East Africa region and the human displacement and famine it has caused, in combination with the enduring conflict and human rights abuses. These large-scale international processes require regional and international responses, and the EU can and must play a role. Kenyan authorities have done much to host these refugees over 25 years, and the international community, including the EU, must step up its efforts. 60% of the camp’s residents are women and children, and we must do more to ensure access to education while they are in the camps and for those who voluntarily return to Somalia or seek asylum. More must be done to provide mental health support, and the needs of women and girls must be taken into account. President Trump’s cuts in US funding to the region will not help, and neither will Brexit, as the UK’s special relationship with Kenya has allowed the country to punch above its weight at EU level, especially helping in the fight against Al-Shabab on the border. Security and a compassionate response must go hand in hand."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-16-Speech-2-558-000 | "Mr President, Commissioner, reports emerging from Chechnya are extremely worrying. It is incomprehensible that in a modern civilised state, anyone’s liberty – and indeed their health and life – would be under threat based on their sexuality. It would appear that the Chechnya government has slipped back towards barbarism, and my thoughts are with the families of those who have lost loved ones in this awful persecution.
Russia has in recent years been under much criticism and scrutiny for their attitudes towards homosexuality, but the Republic of Chechnya has gone to new extremes. The federal government must show the world that this will not be tolerated and do more to investigate and stamp out any and all of those persecutions in Chechnya."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-16-Speech-2-566-000 | "Mr President, I am glad, colleagues, that we have been able to achieve such a degree of cross-party unity across this House on this really crucial issue. But remember, we have got the easy job. We have a massive debt of gratitude to civil society and the NGOs and journalists who brought this to our attention at all – people who are really struggling in their daily lives against shocking persecution. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the International Crisis Group, vital NGOs who do vital work need further support; journalists at Novaya Gazeta; and indeed the brave citizens who are struggling on a daily basis.
The situation in Chechnya is the subject of this motion, but it is an example of a growing trend, and it is something I have been reflecting on a great deal in the light of the Brexit vote in the UK. There is a trend in politics to create scapegoats – to ‘other’ – to store up hate, and it is a growing trend in politics – and progress is reversible. It is one thing that we must always be on our guard against. There are powerful forces who, with some success in many cases, are undermining and misrepresenting human rights at a time when the EU must be the voice – the antidote – to promote those values and to be the voice for minorities within the wider world. We have a job to do, and many people are relying upon us. I endorse the motion and thank everyone for their support."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-16-Speech-2-572-000 | "Mr President, I am very grateful to the Commissioner for his explanation of the work that has been done on behalf of the European Union. Of course, we are only here, as colleagues have pointed out, because of the hard work of civil society in highlighting this.
The appalling examples of denial that we have seen from the Chechen and Russian authorities do no justice to the people who are suffering, but we do know now, because of the hard work of NGOs, because of the hard work of organisations like Novaya Gazeta and the journalists who face recrimination and death, that this is occurring. I am a gay man and I am able to be here with other gay men, other lesbians, other LGBTI people and do the work that we do, because I know I am not going to be dragged from my seat by the authorities. I know I am not going to be beaten up by the canal and left for dead and then that be denied by the police and indeed by my own government – they are here to protect me.
I do not know if there is anybody here watching in Chechnya or in Russia, but you are not the problem if you are LGBTI; you are not the illness. It is the people who are doing this to you that are the problem and it is this organisation, the international community, who will stand to defend you."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-16-Speech-2-573-000 | "Mr President, ‘I will never allow the tyranny of a majority to oppress a minority’, said MEP Michael Cashman as he cut up his Visa card in this very Chamber in the lead up to the Sochi 2014 Olympics, when Putin was making anti-LGBTI laws. And three years on, we can see that we must never be complacent. The reported persecution of gay, or allegedly gay, men in Chechnya is shocking, and the international community must act resolutely to end it. Mr Putin apparently said that he would support an investigation after Angela Merkel pressed him on it. But Russian authorities still continue to dismiss reports as rumours. So the EU must increase the pressure. The human rights defender Yuri Guaiana was arrested trying to deliver a petition with two million signatures, demanding justice for LGBTI people in Chechnya. He was later released because of international pressure. All too often in this Chamber we find ourselves defending human rights defenders. Yes, the EU is a key protector of human rights in the world, and all of us, as parliamentarians and citizens, must join in support of the effort to ensure those who fight for human rights have the support they need."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-16-Speech-2-616-000 | "Mr President, may I start first of all by recognising the tremendous confidence that colleagues have placed in me by supporting my rapporteurship on a continued basis for this file. It is greatly appreciated, bearing in mind the changing political dynamics within the European Union. May I also give due recognition to Commissioner Frans Timmermans for his attitude towards this file and, in particular, for taking on the mantle of ‘Europe only where necessary’.
I would like to start by thanking all of my shadow rapporteurs involved in this report who have contributed to the final text, and for allowing it to reach this particular stage with relative ease. It was adopted with a large majority in committee.
I will try to summarise the key points within the report as quickly and efficiently as possible. As is always the case with this annual report, which I have taken the lead on for some years now, it aims to strengthen the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. As laid out in the Treaty of Lisbon, they are guiding principles of the European Union and should always be respected fully. 2014 saw a decrease in the number of reasoned opinions issued by national parliaments, but my report notes that this could be put down to a significant decline in the number of proposals from the Commission. It also draws attention to the fact that justifications of subsidiarity and proportionality by the Commission have, on many occasions, been deemed incomplete or non—existent by some national parliaments. As a result, I have asked the Commission in my report to improve its explanatory statements with a factually-substantiated analysis of its proposals on subsidiarity and proportionality grounds.
The report refers to the Impact Assessment Board too, as it considered just 32% of impact assessments in 2015 unsatisfactory in relation to analysis of subsidiarity and proportionality. This is the same figure as the year before, which to me shows that in this area there is a need for improvement. The key change in this year’s report is that it calls for reasoned opinions to also consider proportionality and not just subsidiarity. I am passionate about that, as determining whether or not legislation is proportionate is often neglected, but it is equally important. This would require a revision of the Treaties, but in my opinion it is a necessity and a greater step towards reducing the democratic deficit.
I am pleased that groups supported my recommendation for an evaluation of the number of national parliaments required for a yellow card to be triggered. I think it is a good idea for the status quo to be questioned once in a while, and for us to step back and consider whether the thresholds are appropriate. Furthermore, I have called for proportionality tests to be able to discard proposals with disproportionate burdens on competitiveness and SMEs. This is crucial for business back home, regardless of the Member State, if they are to remain competitive.
There are also proposals for an extension of the time limit for national parliaments to submit opinions which could be carried out by secondary legislation and subsequently incorporated into the next treaty revision. I think it is important to take into account the fact that there are instances where national parliaments simply cannot present a reasoned opinion in the timeframe – in cases of a natural disaster, for example."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-16-Speech-2-633-000 | "Mr President, I want to congratulate Mr Karim for his report. I think how we address the question of subsidiarity and proportionality is a really important issue. This Commission has done an awful lot more than previous Commissions in addressing the question of better regulation. I think the inclusion of impact assessments is absolutely essential. I would like to see more impact assessments done on a Member State by Member State level and that requires, of course, the Commission to work with the authorities in those Member States to produce the evidence. I think we would have a much greater involvement of national parliaments if we saw a specific impact assessment Member State by Member State, rather than a generic impact assessment across the 28 Member States of the European Union. I also think the idea of a green card is a good idea. I think it sends a very positive signal towards the institutions to do much more, and I would agree with other colleagues that we, in this Parliament, should adopt that procedure. We cannot criticise other Member State parliaments when we ourselves encroach on their space, and I think we regularly do that in reports and initiatives which have nothing to do with EU law and everything to do with national law."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-16-Speech-2-638-000 | "Mr President, I will indeed be brief: you have indulged me more than enough earlier in proceedings today and I am obliged to you for that. I wish merely to finish off by saying the following: that this is not, and never was intended to be, a navel-gazing exercise. This is about the future of democracy in Europe, throughout Europe, for each and every one of our citizens. I only wish that we had had proper procedures in place many, many years before. It is quite clear that our national governments cherry-pick when it comes to Europe. When we provide something good and positive, they claim it for themselves and they say they have delivered this. When we deal with something that is a tricky proposition to sell before constituents, they automatically say: ‘this is from Europe and nothing to do with us’. And when you have that level of verging-on-almost-dishonesty in our political system, is it any wonder that today we find ourselves where we are? Just on a personal basis, I have led on this file with the confidence of colleagues now for many, many years here in this House. I rather suspect this will be the last time that I do so, because of the particular dynamics in terms of the UK situation, and it is a matter of great personal regret for me that, based upon the lack of truly democratic transparency for our citizens, my country finds itself in this particular situation today. But of course, I wish all of my colleagues well. I will watch from afar as this Union deepens and strengthens, I hope, always remembering that at some stage I tried to play a constructive role whilst I was here."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-16-Speech-2-646-000 | "Mr President, as the EPP shadow rapporteur for this file, I want to congratulate the rapporteur for the excellent work done. The rapporteur has involved people in this process from the start. I also want to say that this is one of the most important debates this Parliament will have, because this is the first time, when this report is adopted tomorrow, that any institution of the European Union has actually got a report on the table.
I am aware that the Commission is in a consultative phase right now in terms of the future regulatory environment, and I would ask them to study carefully, as the Commissioner said, what we have produced in this report. We see this as an opportunity, not just for businesses here within the European Union but – much more importantly – for customers. This is about getting the best deal possible for customers. It is about moving into new space, and also about transforming how we deliver financial services.
A key issue for our group, the European People’s Party, was the question of financial stability. We want to make sure that as we go forward we do not lose the very important steps that have been taken in the last decade or so in terms of financial stability. That is an important issue. Europe is lagging behind. The great majority of the large FinTech businesses have been established in the United States, in China and Israel – not in Europe. We are behind other parts of the world, notwithstanding the fact that in places like my own constituency of Dublin, in the Netherlands, in France and in Germany and elsewhere, and London especially, we have seen fantastic hubs being developed.
We need the right regulatory environment, and that is about the regulators working with innovators to make sure that we can do that. Sand boxing was an idea that we have produced in our report. We think that there is further merit in that. We have said many things when it comes to data security. We believe that those issues need to be resolved. We also believe it is important for the digital market economy – the digital single economy – that we make sure this transformation occurs right the way across all of the institutions here in the European Union. This is about a new opportunity for Europe, seizing the opportunity that is there for the digital single market and making sure that our businesses in the European Union, big and small, can flourish and grow within this transformative space."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-16-Speech-2-649-000 | "Mr President, finance flows like water. It will always find the path of least resistance and be drawn by economic gravity towards locations with a critical mass. We all benefit from having access to finance, but some voices in the EU are determined to put barriers in the way of its flow. We hear the new French President and his ‘macaroons’ want to draw bankers from London and that the EU wants to stop London clearing euros. These, ladies and gentlemen, are not realistic threats. There is so much hot air from Mr Macron that he could power a Montgolfier. He was able to rise silently with vacuous grace, as he was plucked from the French establishment from among his merchant banking chums, to save them – temporarily, may I say – from Madam Le Pen’s French Revolution. The EU should recognise that even a Socialist utopia like the EU is a properly functioning financial market. London’s pre—eminence in global finance could service this EU more easily from outside the Socialist paradise. The UK has all the attributes that could make it the EU’s best friend, but instead we are told by Macron that voting for Brexit is a crime, that the UK must be made an example of, so that no country considers leaving. He may be taking his orders from the German Chancellor, but what sort of club is the EU that can openly..."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-16-Speech-2-654-000 | "Mr President, the fintech revolution is one that is having, and will continue to have, significant positive effects on our economies. It will make finance safer and better for consumers and will help us to find cost efficiencies and improve the quality of our financial services. This is an area that I have particular interest in, as it is one that I see has huge potential for innovative solutions across the entire economy in terms of making payments, financing investments and managing data. The innovations we are seeing today are already allowing us to manage our personal finances easily, transfer money across borders and buy and sell shares – all on our phones. These represent enormous technological developments compared to just a few short years ago. Financing businesses, and SMEs in particular, has proven difficult in recent times, particularly in the years since the economic downturn. Fintech innovations such as peer—to—peer lending can bring significant, new options to startups. Peer—to—peer lending can provide much—needed capital investments to our SMEs at competitive lending rates. There are obviously regulatory questions that come up in this discussion, however, and so I think that the support is timely. It is important this sector is regulated properly, but we should be careful not to over-regulate and stifle the innovation we are seeing today. The question of cybersecurity also comes into focus, especially after the last weekend, and I welcome the proposal by Microsoft for a global gathering on cybersecurity. Overall, this is a very positive development."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-17-Speech-3-023-000 | "Mr President, imagine you invited a very important guest round for dinner, you had made all the preparations, there were some very important confidential conversations that needed to be had and you thought everything had gone well, and yet within hours your guest had told the outside world that you, the host, were deluded – that you were living in a different galaxy. And then all the contents of the conversation were blabbed to an opposition newspaper, and to add insult to injury, you say the food was actually not very good either. And then a few days later, in a display of extreme petulance, you even deride the national language of the host – which, by the way, is looking a bit silly, because last Saturday’s extravaganza known as the Eurovision Song Contest saw 90% of the songs sung in English.
If you were the host and you had been treated like that by somebody that you thought was important and somebody you thought you could trust, I think you would be asking yourself whether you were dealing with a reasonable person. I do not know, Mr Juncker, whether this is how you carry on in Luxembourg – I doubt it, because in any other part of the civilised world, frankly, that behaviour would be considered bloody rude and the act of a bully – but I will tell you something: your attempt to bully the Brits through this negotiation is not working. Sixty-eight per cent of the British people now want Brexit to happen, and all of that on top of a ludicrous ransom that Monsieur Barnier wants, which I am told has now doubled to EUR 100 billion.
Either we get some grown-up reasonable demands from the European Union or the United Kingdom will be forced to walk away before the end of this year. We cannot spend two years with this farce. There is a big, big world out there. I very rarely agree with Marxists, but I am beginning to think that perhaps Mr Varoufakis is right when he says about negotiating with the EU that it is a technocracy that is desperately clinging on to its own exorbitant and illegitimate power. You may have crushed Greek democracy two years ago, but you ain’t going to do it to us."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-17-Speech-3-025-000 | "Mr President, we now know how the EU 27 leaders plan to negotiate with Brexit. On first glance it appears reasonable but, like everything the EU says, on closer inspection you can see the malevolent intent of an EU that tempers no opposition to its control. Like a playground bully, it says no Member State can talk to the UK separately, like an emperor it grants Spain a veto over Gibraltar, and like a jilted spouse it says the UK cannot go out and get a new trade partner until the divorce is finalised, or else.
But for those in this Chamber who want to bully us, threaten us or demean us, may I remind you of the English poem by Rudyard Kipling about a Norman king warning his son about taking advantage of the English:
‘The Saxon is not like us Normans. His manners are not so polite.
But he never means anything serious till he talks about justice and right.
When he stands like an ox in the furrow – with his sullen eyes set on your own
And grumbles, “This isn’t fair dealing,” my son, leave the Saxon alone.’
So when a French President says Brexit is a crime, we will say: we will not be imprisoned by your rudeness. When a Maltese President says the UK deal must be an inferior deal, we will say: no deal is better than a bad deal. When a German President says that without the EU, Britain cannot have its voice heard in the world, we will say: listen to the sounds of a free Britain, an independent Britain, an outwardly looking Britain, trading, growing and expanding in the world, looking forward and not backwards."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-17-Speech-3-028-000 | "We are often warned that maybe the interpreters have got it incorrect, but I don’t know if they got it correct when you used the word ‘troops’. If you did, I do not think it is an appropriate word, when you talk as a German MEP talking about negotiation with Britain about their freedom and sovereignty, to use the word ‘troops’ given the damage troops and wars have caused to this continent. Were the interpreters correct? If they were, please withdraw the word ‘troops’. We have had enough troops and enough war on this continent."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-17-Speech-3-031-000 | "Madame la Présidente, aujourd’hui je vais suivre l’exemple de M. Juncker et m’adresser à l’hémicycle en français.
Le Royaume-Uni veut un partenariat propre et sérieux avec l’Union européenne. Nous voulons un accord total sur nos relations économiques et en matière de sécurité. Nous voulons que l’Union européenne se porte bien et prospère après notre départ.
Nous voulons protéger les droits des citoyens européens qui vivent actuellement au Royaume-Uni, comme nous sommes convaincus que nos partenaires voudront également protéger les droits des citoyens britanniques en Europe.
En matière de paiements, nous respecterons naturellement nos obligations juridiques, mais vous ne devrez pas inventer de chiffres aussi énormes pour boucher les trous de votre budget.
Nous ne voulons pas de contrôles à la frontière entre l’Irlande du Nord et l’Irlande. Cependant, il est difficile d’envisager comment cela fonctionnera sans savoir quelles sortes de relations commerciales nous entretiendrons. Plus tôt nous commencerons les négociations sur un accord de libre-échange, plus il est probable qu’elles seront couronnées de succès.
Madam President, let us work together to build a new relationship that benefits all our citizens."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-17-Speech-3-033-000 | "Madam President, five million European citizens are living their lives in constant frustration and a legal limbo. It is a state of anxiety for thousands of EU and UK citizens, with 7% reporting depression, some even suicidal. This is intolerable. The two parties in Brexit need quickly to agree to guarantee EU citizens’ right to reside. This is about treating people with dignity, allowing them to plan their lives, their learning and their loves. The British Government must stop blaming and start acting governmental: no posturing, no calculating, a ‘right out of the gate’ comprehensive agreement.
All that is needed is one bold and generous political act, and British agencies must tear down the barriers they have erected which are causing daily frustration and fear for so many people. Outside the convention of ‘nothing is agreed till everything is agreed’, we need a comprehensive right to reside agreement first and we need that very, very quickly."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-17-Speech-3-034-000 | "Madam President, the Council’s guidelines on Brexit give support to the Good Friday Agreement in all of its parts, and that is crucially important. This is a commitment by the EU to not allow for any hardening of the border between the north and the south of Ireland. It is a commitment not to allow Irish and EU citizens like myself to be dragged out of the EU against our will. It is a recognition that the north of Ireland is not an internal matter for the United Kingdom, and a commitment that the people of the north will never again be left at the mercy of a ruthless and reactionary British Government in London.
Now that we have the guidelines, we should be putting some flesh on them regarding no hardening of the border in Ireland and fully upholding the Good Friday Agreement in all of its parts. There should be no weakening of this commitment in the negotiation directive that is to be adopted next Monday. Brexit is incompatible with the Good Friday Agreement. Brexit is the worst thing to have happened in Ireland since the last disaster in Ireland, which was the British partitioning of Ireland."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-17-Speech-3-035-000 | "As someone who does not want to see a hard border on both sides of the Northern Irish/ Irish border (as you know, my wife’s family are Irish citizens), I understand much of the emotion that runs around that place. But surely we need to look back to the common travel area agreement which was first made between the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom and, indeed, the other islands across the British Isles. The first one was made just after the birth of the Irish Free State, so why can we not negotiate a new common travel area after Brexit on a bilateral basis? We do not need to worry and concern so many people. This special relationship, I believe, is between Britain and the Republic of Ireland."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-17-Speech-3-036-000 | "Can I say to you that the Common Travel Area does not resolve the Brexit disaster that will happen in Ireland, and you should know that better than most. So be very clear. You talk about renegotiation. Last week, Tony Blair talked about renegotiating the Good Friday Agreement. That is a no-go area and the Common Travel Area does not solve the problem. You are deluding yourself if you think that is the solution. The only solution to the Brexit problem is that we have designated special status for the north within the EU, or Irish unity."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-17-Speech-3-037-000 | "Madam President, I would pick up on Mr Guy Verhofstadt’s point about how eurosceptics and populists have been beaten three times in recent elections. Actually, it is four: in Scotland, we saw them off handsomely with 62% of the vote in favour of remaining within our European family, and we remain in favour of remaining within our European family. Scotland will not be silent, passive, bystanders within this process.
I would also urge you that while the people of Scotland want to work with our friends and colleagues across the EU, there is a deliberate wilful agenda within UK politics to misrepresent and demonise this process and the personalities involved within it. We have heard it today: ‘do not give them more ammunition, do not give them what they want’. This is them getting their excuses in early – ‘Brexit would have gone great except for those bloody foreigners’; that is the narrative they are trying to kid the British people with. Do not give them what they want; it is not in Scotland’s name.
As for our guidelines, I read them with a heavy heart, but I see little to dislike. I would urge the suspension of the ‘nothing is agreed till everything is agreed’ principle for citizens’ rights. You could give real impetus to this by committing to an early agreement on this issue, and we could make that work now for all of our citizens."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-17-Speech-3-042-000 | "Madam President, the European Council guidelines set out much more clearly than anything the British Government has produced what the issues are in these negotiations. We still do not know, nearly a year after the referendum, what the British Government hopes to achieve in terms of access to the single market and the Customs Union, in terms of how it intends to protect British farmers if they are no longer part of a common market with an agreed system of subsidies across Europe, or what is going to happen to British fishermen. We do not know what is going to happen to British participation in the various technical agencies – the Aviation Agency, the Medicines Agency, chemicals and so on, whose certifications are a requirement for selling in the single European market. We only have silence from the British Government, yet there are nearly a thousand issues, more than a thousand issues, that need to be settled in this negotiation. We still do not know what the British Government’s intention is. Far from providing strong and stable leadership, Ms May is actually providing desperate and deluded leadership to the British people."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-17-Speech-3-044-000 | "Madam President, Mr Weber said that the winds of change are blowing through Europe. I do not disagree with him – change is on the way. Mr Fitto from the ECR mentioned change; Mr Verhofstadt mentioned change; and apparently there is a process underway to decide what that change will be called the White Paper on the future of Europe.
However, to know what the winds of change are and what direction they are going in, you must consult with the people. We were told last March that we would be consulted with. We were told that there would be a series of Future of Europe debates to harvest and harness the opinions of the desired way forward. Last week, I met Commissioner Hogan, and he knew nothing about this process. Yesterday, I asked Jean-Claude Juncker at the GUE/NGL meeting where this process is. Nobody can tell me. If the winds of change are coming, surely we should talk to the people. Perhaps Donald Tusk can tell me where these meetings will take place and when the consultation will take place, because, if you are serious about it, you have got to talk to us. Have you any news, because no one can tell me?"@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-17-Speech-3-045-000 | "Madam President, everyone seems a bit embarrassed by Mr Juncker and his chief of staff, Mr Selmayr, including Donald Tusk, Ms Merkel and Mr Barnier. You also think that we are being observed by other planets, as quoted in the French press (I can read French). You accuse Ms May of living on another planet, but I think it is you, Mr Juncker, who is just living on your own Juncker planet. You are an embarrassment, Sir, and you should step down. Mr Corbett praises the EU for their negotiating stance, but nobody is listening to his leader back at home. You are going to be annihilated in the polls. You are being run by a Marxist, so nobody is listening to you. Ms Bearder sounds completely and utterly mad, and her party is going to be wiped out at the next general election. But the good news is that 70% of the British public support Brexit. We are a resilient bunch. We won the war for you in this place in World War II. We are not going away, so negotiations in reality will take place with the EU 27. It is business, not you career politicians, that actually [...]"@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-17-Speech-3-048-000 | "Madam President, first of all I would like to say I welcomed very much Mr Barnier’s visit to the Republic of Ireland that last week and his very clear message on how difficult this process is going to be. Let us be under no illusions: solving the problem of the border, be it a hard border or a soft border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, is going to be massive. Be under no illusions about that, though I welcome the attempts and his clear spelling out of that problem. But I want to also make clear that politicians in Dublin or Brussels do not speak for the people of Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland will speak for itself, and the people will decide for themselves. They are an integral part of the United Kingdom, and they will decide where their future will be – nobody else and none of this process will do so. While I make that very clear, I do so with a degree of sincerity, so that everyone understands where we stand. But I am extremely concerned at the way in which this process is going. I am very concerned that we now have megaphone diplomacy across the English Channel, instead of cool heads sitting down and realistically looking at how we are going to solve these problems in the future between us. We want good relations between the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe, and I sincerely hope that both sides can realise that as this process goes forward and work to achieve that."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-17-Speech-3-062-000 | "Madam President, I welcome the more conciliatory approach I have detected here this morning. If you continue with that, I think we can have mature and sensible negotiations and a proper conclusion. I would also like to thank Mr Barnier for coming to the EPP Bureau meeting in Wicklow last week and for taking time out to speak to the Dáil (the Irish Parliament), and indeed visit the North. In relation to the North, if the European Union, Ireland and the United Kingdom do not want a hard border, then why should we have a hard border?
I just want to correct one thing: it has been incorrectly stated that Tony Blair said we needed to renegotiate the Good Friday Agreement. What he said was that the Good Friday Agreement came into being on the assumption that both Ireland and the UK would be in the European Union, and that we needed to reword it when the UK leaves. He did emphasise that he was not talking about changing the substance of the Agreement."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-17-Speech-3-066-000 | "Madam President, today I have sat in the European Union Chamber here in Strasbourg, listening to the debate on the conclusions of the European Council meeting of 29 April this year. Quite frankly, the level of ignorance displayed in the comments made by MEP colleagues has been astonishing, and also frightening. But I am not surprised: as a Member of the European Union Committee on Constitutional Affairs, all I see and hear is the one perspective of pro-EU, and calls to penalise the United Kingdom. There is never any balanced or non-partisan exploration of the Brexit aspect, the contribution the UK makes financially, defence- and security-wise, or why the vote went the way it did. Now 68% of the United Kingdom want Brexit concluded, and I have every faith that after 8 June the United Kingdom Prime Minister, Theresa May, will deliver and put the United Kingdom, its citizens, its economy – and rightly so – in the forefront of this."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-17-Speech-3-104-000 | "Following on from what my friend Mr Eickhout said, I think climate change is going to be a hugely important issue here at the G7 summit, and especially the role of the larger—than—life character President Donald Trump. The Paris agreement is a global agreement, and if the United States were to pull out of it this would undermine it completely. And this is a man, Donald Trump, who claimed that climate change was created by the Chinese to attack US manufacturing competitiveness, who claimed that global warming is an expensive hoax, and who claimed that wind farms are bad for people’s health. But I think that, as a businessman, he is person who is subject to change, and I think the G7 is a great opportunity to convince him that what he has said in the past is not actually true. And in the interests of US citizens and world citizens, we need to adopt the climate change agreement in Paris and implement it, and the United States has to do so above all else."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-17-Speech-3-156-000 | "Mr President, where are the richest countries in the world? Or rather, which states and territories have the wealthiest people? One thing you notice is that they are all small: it’s the Switzerlands, the Singapores, the Monacos, the Channel Islands, the UAEs, the Bruneis. Of the countries with the highest GDP per head, the top 10, there is only one large state – the United States of America. Why? Because it has pulled off the trick of administering itself like a confederation of tiny statehoods. As Aristotle observed, to the size of a state there is a limit, just as to implements, animals and plants, for they cannot retain their natural facility when they are too large. Ever since I’ve been in this Chamber, I’ve been told that the flow of history is towards federalisation and big blocs like the European Union, but I’ve got to say there’s no evidence for it. In 1946 there were 76 independent countries; today, there are 195. The tide is flowing the other way."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-17-Speech-3-183-000 | "Mr President, there is a wealth of experience in this House. Looking around, I see colleagues who used to be doctors, soldiers, actors and ship’s engineers. There are obviously one or two duds, but also a lot of people who have brought real experience to the table. But almost no one here is a tech entrepreneur and even those who do have backgrounds in it are not in the same position to make decisions about regulation and investment as those who are directly involved with the sector.
London has become, arguably, the world capital of the FinTech sector. What did the government have to do with that? It simply stood back and created a climate where the laws were enforced and where regulations were friendly. That is all you need to do. I promise you that there are a million guys out there who are much more interested and involved than anyone in this Chamber. It is not going to be our business once we leave, but if you really want technology of this kind to flourish in the remaining European Union, the best thing you can do is to stand back and let them get on with it."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-17-Speech-3-365-000 | "Mr President, the fact that today’s debate on the ECB is happening on the same day that the Governing Council of the ECB is meeting does not say a lot for Parliament’s scheduling ability, especially as I understand the ECB was not even invited to today’s debate.
The role of the ECB within the new post-crisis supervision and architecture is absolutely crucial: crucial to prevent financial shocks in the future; crucial to secure the confidence of citizens. The decisions taken by the ECB, from quantitative easing to the various programmes of support are working. Growth has returned. Three million jobs have been created in the eurozone in the last year. Inflation is slowly moving towards the ECB target of 2%, and despite all of the Armageddon predictions, the euro remains and has not been fragmented.
The crisis came from light touch supervision. We are not going back to that. That is why we need a strong independent ECB, but that independence must also deliver accountability and transparency, and it is at that level that the ECB has much to do. I want the President of the ECB to appear before all parliaments of the 19 Member States of the eurozone; not just the big Member States. President Draghi has appeared before parliaments in France, Spain, Italy and Germany. It is time that engagement took place at all levels across eurozone countries. We cannot have an inside or outside track. All Member States must be treated fairly. Appearing before some parliaments and not others sends out the wrong impression.
The euro is our currency. We must defend it. The ECB is our central bank. It must treat all Member States with respect, and that is where the change needs to happen."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-17-Speech-3-382-000 | "The ECB is supposed to be independent, but as everybody in this room knows, it is merely a pure political vehicle for the monetary control of European countries. We could see that when Mario Draghi, the chairman of the ECB, said that he would do ‘whatever it takes’ to save the euro. Well, ‘whatever it takes’ cost millions of lives in poverty and unemployment in Greece. It was a transfer union from people in the North to try and save the South, but asked for austerity programmes even more. When we saw Cyprus depositors lose their money, and when we see the pension industry, the many young people in this audience today should be concerned that their futures are at risk because pension industries and insurance industries will not be able to pay for them in the future. He may have saved the Union for the moment, but he has left a time bomb of destruction under the European nations. It has not gone away, and I pray: do something now, before it explodes and causes all of Europe to have a problem once again."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-17-Speech-3-386-000 | "Mr President, in 2015, Mario Draghi claimed in a letter to me that the ECB didn’t prevent the burning of our senior bondholders in Irish banks, but then the Irish parliamentary banking inquiry found last year that the ECB had indeed blocked burden share. We’ve learned that Mr Draghi’s predecessor, in correspondence to the Irish Government, stated in black—and—white terms that the ECB threatened to cut emergency assistance to Ireland if the government didn’t request a bailout, and then demanded a series of austerity measures and a fire sale of public assets, against the opinion of even the IMF. Where exactly in its mandate does it say that the ECB has the power to do this? Its so—called independence is pure fiction. In reality, we all know that Mr Draghi is completely reliant on the Governing Council and the Eurogroup, an organ that doesn’t even exist in the treaties. So now we hear that new initiatives are being dreamt up by the Commission about introducing democratic oversight of the euro. They are meaningless unless they are about democratically and dramatically reforming the ECB, and a key part of that has to ensure that the ECB is accountable to national parliaments, as well as to this House."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-17-Speech-3-387-000 | "Mr President, honourable Members, even before the Brexit referendum, the ECB was trying a power grab of UK financial services, in an attempt to restrict clearing of euro—denominated derivatives to inside the eurozone. The EU – or ECB rather – was unsuccessful then, but the French and now a German MEP repeated the suggestion. In fact, Manfred Weber appeared to go further last month, and sought to exclude London from all business conducted in euros. What better example, honourable Members, can we have of the EU’s ability to cut off its nose to spite its face.
London clears derivatives and currencies from all over the world without being in political union with third countries. For the EU to introduce geo-blocking of euro clearing would be a message to the whole world that the euro should not be regarded as a global reserve currency. Manfred Weber, as leader of Merkel’s Christian Democrats here in Strasbourg, should think twice about what the EU might lose if it seeks to punish Britain and the city of London. The EU will quickly discover that an economic blitzkrieg is a double-edged sword."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-17-Speech-3-411-000 | "Mr President, I would like to start first of all by thanking my friend the rapporteur Jean-Marie Cavada on delivering what is for European Union citizens a real breakthrough. For far too long we have tried to work towards deconstructing borders, only today to find ourselves in a situation where our citizens can physically pass through a border, but a big part of their life stops as soon as they do so because they cannot access the digital content that rightfully belongs to them. Therefore, it was essential that this matter was dealt with, and I congratulate you for the approach that you have taken and the well-balanced inclusive solution that you have arrived at.
That balance has been struck between consumer rights and right holders. It was essential that this Parliament delivers a strong message of support to the rapporteur’s work. I will certainly do that, and my Group also, through the trilogue outcome, which we will be voting on tomorrow. I truly believe it is a digital single market success story. It strikes the right balance between providing online content to consumers while they are temporarily outside of their own Member State, whilst ensuring that sufficiently robust residency verification safeguards are in place for rights holders.
I am happy to see that the verification methods strike the right balance between being effective but respecting data protection rules in order to avoid abuse. Service providers will do so by verifying a subscriber’s country of residence through payment details, an internet contract or an IP address check. Slowly but surely, the digital single market is being addressed and consumers and rights holders can both be happy with the outcome of this report."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-17-Speech-3-467-000 | "Mr President, the European Union itself has created serious security problems because of its open borders policy. These problems became all the more obvious after the accession of the Eastern European countries in 2004. Even the Head of Europol, Rob Wainwright, has said that Schengen not only facilitates the freedom of movement of people, but the freedom of movement of organised crime and criminals. To try and fix the problems and restore some kind of stability the first step should be to abolish the Schengen area. The only real solution is to restore the control of borders to nation states. They all have different challenges and they have to approach their particular problems in their own way. Unfortunately, the waiting times at borders are going to be longer in some countries than others.
Regarding what databases are required to help with border controls, of course the authorities need the fullest possible information on police records, identity documents, fingerprints, criminal intelligence, etc. What we do not need is the EU’s own databases, such as the Schengen Information System working under SIRENE. SIRENE is a police organisation and is part of the EU’s own developing police force. These organisations duplicate the work of Interpol and are unnecessary. Interpol already has at least 12 databases which are at the disposal of nation states. These databases cover a range of information regarding DNA and fingerprints for criminals and missing persons, stolen and missing documents, and counterfeiting, to name just a few of many.
The framework for increasing international cooperation in this sphere is Interpol and not EU organisations. When Britain leaves the European Union, which I hope will come sooner rather than later, it should withdraw from Europol and SIRENE and be at the forefront of increasing international cooperation via Interpol."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-17-Speech-3-521-000 | "Madam President, this report sparked my interest, unfortunately for all the wrong reasons. I believe it has a detrimental impact financially on our British small and medium—sized businesses and individual car owners. Following the Commission’s White Paper entitled ‘Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area’, with its view of a sustainable mobility, here we are again seeing a one—size—fits—all policy, a vision of harmonisation of transport for all Member States.
Do not misunderstand me. The safety of road users and the environmental impact of fossil fuels needs to be addressed, but the present situation is a knee-jerk reaction that many cannot afford or have the facility to accommodate. However, once again, I feel this motion put before us pushes the anti-vehicle agenda. It stresses that road charging should be introduced across the EU. Yet in the UK the public have completely rejected any attempt to bring back pay—as—you—go road pricing.
I am so glad that the people of the UK have voted to leave the European Union and I believe this motion is all about control, rather than the individual’s choice."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-17-Speech-3-522-000 | "Madam President, at the heart of the resolution for yet more regulations for the road transport sector are the two elements that are always central and dear to the European Union: control and tax. The European Union wants to intervene in the road transport sector, in the name of climate action, to control the sector and thereby further erode Member States’ sovereignty, and then to tax it dry.
These proposals are even more ridiculous when one considers the Dieselgate scandal, when the EU rules were not enforced and went unnoticed for years, resulting in an environmental scandal. By taking further and tighter control over the road transport sector, the EU is expanding its reach. As each new rule is implemented the Member States’ ability to manage this area is reduced, and as the rules become stricter so the economic costs increase, costs that consumers, drivers and passengers will ultimately pay.
All talk of the improving emission standards rotates around the ‘polluter pays’ principle. The tighter the rules, the higher the cost. Remember the scandal of the failed emission trading scheme so beloved by Brussels? We saw that emission controls are a mask for the EU to raise and collect taxes. I had a minute and half, Madam President…"@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-17-Speech-3-537-000 | "Mr President, the transport sector is responsible for around a quarter of Europe’s greenhouse emissions, and is a particularly problematic sector for Ireland. Achieving 80% decarbonisation across the EU by 2050, which is the goal, would likely require the decarbonisation of the road transport sector by around 95% by 2050. As EPP rapporteur on the Renewable Energy Directive, this is an area in which I have a keen interest and an area where I believe there are huge opportunities to make great emission savings with innovative solutions.
Electromobility is an important way forward if we are to have any hope of achieving this target. The electrification of transport would displace imported carbon-intensive fossil fuels and eliminate harmful air pollutant emissions in our cities and towns. There is great potential in this. The EV market share in Norway, for example, increased from 1.4% in 2011 to 17.1% in 2015, due to favourable policies. This is a blueprint for us. However, the foundations need to be laid for this and I welcome the Commission’s ideas, in the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive, to increase the amount of charging points in our buildings. We need to ensure the right infrastructure is in place if this is to be successful.
In addition to this, sustainably produced biofuels will continue to play an important role, not only as a means to decarbonise our transport sector, but also for economic growth in rural areas. Yes, there is a sustainability question about some feed stocks, palm oil for example, but I think our challenge in the work on the Renewable Energy Directive will bring certainty for producers of sustainable biofuels."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-17-Speech-3-539-000 | "Well, I didn’t refer to that in my speech, but obviously we do not support social dumping. The proposals here, by the Commission and by Parliament, will address these issues in an equitable manner. I support equality, I support fairness, and definitely there are huge opportunities here for us to get a good and better transport system in Europe."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-17-Speech-3-559-000 | "Mr President, we look forward to the Commissioner’s proposals in the road package at the end of this month. I would urge her to look at the area of serious road injuries and road deaths, and I know she has already committed to doing so.
There were 35 000 serious injuries on Europe’s roads in 2015 and 26 000 fatalities. It is an area where technology can play a really, really important role in reducing such figures. Be these vehicle to vehicle or vehicle to infrastructure instruments, Europe has been to the fore in leading road safety and ensuring that cars and infrastructure are equipped with the relevant technology that can indeed save lives, and we can do still more.
Who among us can remember a time when we did not have seat belts in our cars? Now they are a requirement for all cars for sale in Europe and on European roads. So Europe has indeed been a leader in this area.
I would like also to mention the whole area of drivers and road vehicles. There has been much discussion around this, and here again we need a European solution. I would like to quote from a letter that the Commissioner has had from a number of road haulier associations across Europe, including the Irish Road Hauliers Group, asking for flexibility in rest periods, considering that those coming from outermost regions, and particularly islands, do have a difficulty in getting back to their home base at weekends."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-17-Speech-3-582-000 | "Mr President, I think there are two takeaways from the Korean Free Trade Agreement. Firstly, that free trade agreements do improve trade and they do create jobs here in Europe, but secondly, free trade agreements that have obligations on social environmental standards are only really going to mean anything if those standards can be enforced separately from the wider trade agreement. If they are simply the obligatory part of the agreement, but have no sanctions attached to them, they are not going to be effective, so what we have to argue for in future trade agreements is that the Sustainable Development Chapter itself should be subject to sanctions.
In addition, I want to join with my colleagues to say that we have some hope that the new president, President Moon of South Korea, will actually respond to our request. He has shown in the past in his work as a human rights lawyer that he is receptive to good labour rights and I wish the Commissioner well in her dialogue with him."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-17-Speech-3-603-000 | "Mr President, it is always a pleasure to see
Commissioner Malmström in the Chamber. Madam Commissioner, I very much welcome the very open way in which you deal with trade matters in terms of this Parliament and the transparency that we get.
Bangladesh really is a story with two sides to it. One side is a matter for which we, as the European Union, and certainly this Parliament, can feel tremendously proud. We have played our role in helping development, making sure that some of the most disadvantaged people in Bangladeshi society today find themselves in a situation where they can earn an honest living with pride, and this is something which this House really has invested in greatly.
When one looks at the tremendous achievements that have been made, then one has to look at where we are today. It is quite clear to me that Bangladesh, the Government of Bangladesh, is either not listening, or choosing not to listen, or it is not understanding what we are saying. That is why I intend simply to pass on a very clear message today. It is not to deal with the details, as the Commission is dealing with that, but it is simply to say to Bangladesh that we do not want to see a situation where, from the clutches of victory and tremendous achievement, you deliver a negative result. We have done all that we can to make sure that the doors remain open for you. Please take that message today and react in a positive way, so that we can carry on with our journey of progress."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-17-Speech-3-608-000 | "Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for pursuing this issue. When we went to Bangladesh it was very clear that access to our market is a huge issue in Bangladesh. As the Chair of the Development Committee, of course I welcome the fact that tens of thousands of workers – particularly women – are gaining a livelihood and making their lives better because they have access to our market. But we also met trade unionists, and they told us about the difficulties they face trying to organise in the workplace, and the serious intimidation. So we welcome what you have done so far, and the letter from your services to the Ambassador in Brussels, because it is important to remind the Bangladeshi authorities that the EBA is not just a technical agreement. It is underpinned by our values, and that includes respect for rights at work.
I have got a couple of additional questions. The first is about even-handedness. This kept coming up time and time again in Bangladesh. It is in no one’s interests to withdraw trade access from Bangladesh, only to see business move to countries where conditions are equally bad or even worse than in Bangladesh. So what reassurances can you give us about the Commission’s future trade agreements with other countries, that they will be similarly tough in making sure people comply with ILO standards and other human rights obligations? Secondly, responsibility of our companies: you cannot get investment in jobs and improving people’s lives unless people get a decent price for the goods that they manufacture. We had the report voted in Parliament last month. The Commission has now adopted your new sustainable garment value chains initiative. What is really going to happen? Are you going to do more? What more is the Commission going to do now to make sure that actually fair prices can be paid for goods from Bangladesh and similar countries for their garments?"@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-17-Speech-3-609-000 | "Mr President, I would also like to thank the Commissioner for her ongoing interest and commitment to the issue of the ready-made garment sector, not least in Bangladesh, and I am speaking here in my role as Chair of Parliament’s Delegation for relations with the countries of South Asia, and we have followed the Sustainability Compact from the start. This was seen by many as a positive innovative response to the problem so brutally exposed by the Rana Plaza tragedy and indeed has been seen as a potential model for engagement with other governments, because I take the point that Linda McAvan has just made, that Bangladesh is not the only country with problems.
I think many of us would welcome the engagement of the Bangladeshi Government over the years with the Compact, but we want to see that engagement renewed and regenerated because this gives an opportunity for Bangladesh to actually be a leader in terms of sound trades union activity, good social dialogue, responsible production; just as we on our side ought to keep our side of the bargain about responsible supply chains so that we know we are not putting people’s lives at risk to clothe us."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-17-Speech-3-628-000 | "Mr President, I am giving a speech on behalf of my colleague, William Dartmouth, who has had to return to the UK. I see I am not the only person engaged in substitution, as my old friend the Agriculture Commissioner is here substituting for another Commissioner, so I am setting a trend.
In the UK, the Remain camp are obsessed with access to the single market. This is significant because this report talks about the entry fee that Norway must pay for such access. Clegg, Blair, Mandelson and other Europhiles tell us that the single market is so important that any price is worth paying to get into it. So what happens in Norway? They have been the lucky recipients of 12 000 directives and regulations. Some of these are exceeding the authority of the original agreement. A recent 56-page report by
has found that the cost to Norway of this agreement has risen tenfold since 1992. It now costs them GBP 650 million a year for their five million people. In Norway, the polling company Sentio has found that 47% of Norwegians want a referendum on this agreement against 20% who do not. If Norway is having misgivings, Clegg and company should forget all about saddling the British with a bill that could approach GBP eight billion a year."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-18-Speech-4-035-000 | "Mr President, this report calls for the Commission to ‘raise the profile of ESI Funds’ investments and to make it clearer that EU funding is involved’. Let me make it crystal clear right from the start of this speech that there is no such thing as EU funding. This money comes from the pockets of citizens of your constituent nations and for you to even consider throwing more of it away on self—promotion is simply a sign that you understand nothing of the issues confronting your voters.
We have already seen the decades of audits proving that the EU is utterly unable to prevent misappropriation, misspending and fraud. Giving you tens of billions of euros for self—aggrandisement between 2014 and 2020 seems tantamount to financial suicide. This budget is no more than a very expensive carnival parade, replete with all the clowns and sideshows, parading throughout Europe to the music of the
and the smell of burning money. The profusion of EU spending plaques across Europe, following this deluge of taxpayers’ money on projects which could have been done – if indeed they should be done – by the nation states much more cheaply and more effectively, may indeed prove to be no more than gravestones for your expansionist empire.
The concern this report states regarding the backlog of unpaid invoices is extremely valid. Who is going to bail out your vanity schemes when the UK leaves? Many of the nations in the south and east of Europe are already groaning under the weight of supporting the euro and your backing of the banking establishments. This empire—building will come to a shuddering halt sooner or later and, for the good of your peoples, I urge you to make it sooner."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-18-Speech-4-045-000 | "Mr President, EU cohesion funding has been vital for the north of Ireland and for border communities recovering from years of conflict and neglect. Now all of this good work is under threat because of a Brexit that most people in the north do not want and did not vote for. By supporting Brexit, the DUP has let the people of the north down, again, as we stand to lose EUR 982 million of much-needed and essential structural funding. This is funding for thousands of projects in the north of Ireland that people depend on for their businesses, for community projects and for infrastructure. Some projects are already being delayed because of the fears and uncertainties surrounding Brexit. It is hurting our communities now as you know, we spoke about this, and it will only get worse in the future if we do not have access to such cohesion funding and structural funding for the north, because we will see projects collapse.
Commissioner, the EU needs to ensure that the benefits of decades of cohesion funding for a community that has been emerging from conflict are not lost, by ensuring that the north is guaranteed ongoing access to cohesion funding in the future after Brexit, as part of us being afforded designated special status, or whatever it is called, within the EU."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-18-Speech-4-052-000 | "Mr President, firstly, we must not underestimate the negative impact of Brexit on deprived areas of the United Kingdom who benefit from ERDF and ESF regional development funding, particularly my region, the North-West of England, and specifically the rural area of Cumbria, but also Liverpool, which was regenerated with European money after Margaret Thatcher’s government decided to let it rot.
It is crucial that future cohesion policy is in line with sustainable development goals encompassing a broad range of objectives, not only oriented towards economic growth but promoting sustainable development of societies and individual and collective wellbeing of communities. Therefore, structural investment funds must be used for creative, innovative and smart initiatives that benefit a large part of the population, including the most vulnerable people. Although I welcome the important work done on urban agendas, I believe the specific needs and challenges of rural areas must continue to receive proper attention."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-18-Speech-4-065-000 | "Mr President, Zambia is one of the few countries in Africa that have seen more than two peaceful transfers of power: one of the continent’s democratic success stories since moving to multi—party elections in 1991. The close elections last year, which saw incumbent President Lungu narrowly beat the opposition party leader Hakainde Hichilema, has the potential to jeopardise that success.
Concerns were first raised after the Constitutional Court quickly dismissed Hichilema’s electoral petition, with events coming to a head after the bizarre arrest of Hichilema on charges of treason. In response, the influential Zambia Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a strongly-worded letter claiming that the country had become a dictatorship in all but name. Despite Zambia’s overall success, this is not the first time that a President there has sought to consolidate his power, as was seen by the former President Chiluba’s unsuccessful attempts to secure an unconstitutional third term in 2001.
We must now support the EU’s efforts to see tensions relieved and ensure that Zambia and its democratic constitution is upheld and supported by the European Union."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-18-Speech-4-085-000 | "Mr President, as host of the African Union and a key regional contributor to UN peace missions, Ethiopia’s role is strategic. With conflicts in neighbouring South Sudan and Somalia, in addition to the repressive regime of Afwerki in Eritrea to its north, Ethiopia has found itself host to the largest refugee population in Africa. For one of the poorest countries in the world by GDP per capita, such responsibilities place great strain on the country’s resources. I hope therefore that today’s resolution can be seen in a constructive manner, reminding Ethiopia’s government that the EU is here to support its actions but that fundamental human rights to free speech and a right to peaceful protest must still be upheld.
I welcome the calls in the resolution for a UN-led inquiry into the heavy-handed actions taken by the government in response to the protests in Oromia state. This, along with the release of political prisoners including Dr Gudina, will be vital to improving Ethiopia’s record of enforcing the rule of law and democracy – a key part also of honouring its obligations under the EU’s Cotonou agreement."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-18-Speech-4-098-000 | "Mr President, the case of Dr Merera Gudina offers a worrisome insight into the state of freedom of expression, association, and assembly in Ethiopia. I therefore strongly support calls on the Ethiopian authorities to prevent ethnic, religious or political discrimination and to encourage and act in favour of a peaceful and constructive dialogue between all communities.
I also wish to remind the Ethiopian Government of their obligations to guarantee fundamental rights, including access to justice and the right to a fair trial, as provided for in the African Charter. There can be no denying that the political, economic and democratic stability of Ethiopia is crucial to the development of the countries of the Horn of Africa. We must therefore remain dedicated to the fostering of a healthy working relationship between the EU and the Ethiopian Government in order to advance democratic values in this state. We have got to keep working and we intend to do so."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-18-Speech-4-099-000 | "Mr President, colleagues, I am very glad to see the issue of human rights in Ethiopia brought to this agenda. However, I am deeply concerned that the resolution bears no mention of the systematic and widespread sexual violence against women as part of the persecution of ethnic minorities in Ethiopia. We have had testimonies in this Parliament from victims, survivors and civil society activists. We heard of mass rape and torture in prisons and camps, we heard of systematic abuse to break up Ogaden and Oromo communities. These are horrifying crimes, taking place far away from the cameras and the gaze of the world’s media. All of us here must give voice to the voiceless and issue a strong call to the Ethiopian Government to stop these atrocities immediately, investigate reports and bring the perpetrators to justice."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-18-Speech-4-114-000 | ". – A Uachtaráin, is dóigh liom gurb é seo an tríú nó an ceathrú huair go bhfuilimid ag déanamh díospóireachta anseo faoin tSúdáin Theas ó bunaíodh an tír thall ansin. Ach in ionad rudaí a bheith ag éirí níos fearr, tá siad ag éirí níos measa agus an chúis ná an cogadh cathartha – an cogadh is measa. Mar i gcogadh cathartha déanann daoine scrios ar a dtír féin agus tá scrios déanta acu sa tSúdáin Theas.
Tá na daoine ag fulaingt go huafásach dá bharr; 2 mhilliún duine ídithe as a mbailte, 1.6 milliún duine tar éis teitheadh trasna na teorann agus 7.5 milliún duine i mbaol ocrais. Meastar go mbeidh ar a laghad EUR 1.4 billiún ag teastáil chun cuidiú leis na bochtáin agus, chun creidiúint a thabhairt don Aontas, táimid ag tabhairt EUR 381 mhilliún. Ach i ndeireadh na dála, níl ach freagra amháin ann: deireadh a chur leis an gcogadh cathartha uafásach seo."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-18-Speech-4-116-000 | "Mr President, it is just five months since our last resolution concerning South Sudan, and the situation there has actually worsened. The country is verging on becoming a failed state. Famine was declared in parts of the country in February, in part due to the chaotic political and economic situation; increasingly, voices are being raised with concerns that the conflict is escalating towards genocide; and such grave war-crime concerns must now be taken extremely seriously and all options considered. Not only is there a humanitarian obligation to act but the impact of further escalation, in an already destabilising region of the Horn of Africa, would be detrimental to EU Member State interests.
Nearly a year after the UN Security Council voted to send a regional military protection force of 4 000 troops to supplement the existing UNMISS peacekeeping forces, I am pleased to note at last that the South Sudanese authorities have finally, and for the first time, allowed these troops to arrive and be stationed on their territory. This is a welcome step but the EU must now go on to pressure South Sudan fully to honour all its obligations and to bring all the war criminals to justice."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-18-Speech-4-142-000 | "Madam President, my Group wishes to move an oral amendment which has been lodged, I am afraid, very late, so it does not appear on the voting lists. On paragraph one, this is a technical-factual update to the text, asking to incorporate the following: ‘and to drop the cases against Berhanu Nega and Jawar Mohammed, who were charged in absentia and are currently in exile;’."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-18-Speech-4-144-000 | "Madam President, again it is a factual update. I wish to add the following: ‘whereas online activist Yonatan Tesfaye has been convicted under anti-terrorism legislation for comments he made on Facebook, and faces between 10 to 20 years in prison;’."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-18-Speech-4-177-000 | "Madam President, I wonder what the case is for these countries to be making payments to less developed parts of the EU. I do not think we can make a moral case for it: there are many more deserving parts of our planet than EU Member States. If you have extra money to give away you should surely be giving it to the places where it will be most put to use. It is bizarre that we are giving more to wealthy European farmers than to poor African farmers.
Perhaps the case is supposed to be economic, but if it is then I submit it is not working terribly well. If grants from the EU raised a country’s economic standard, then Greece would be the wealthiest country in Europe, having been the biggest per capita recipient of funds since 1981. There would be arguments in this House about whether the Greeks should continue to bail out the Germans.
In fact, the best way for us to raise the standards of living of any country is simply to allow them to engage in global markets, and that means looking beyond Europe and raising our eyes to more distant horizons."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-18-Speech-4-318-000 | "Madam President, while there are a number of very positive suggestions in this resolution on the EU-Korea free-trade deal, I still abstained because of the proposals on setting up the special investor courts to replace the old ones. The new system would involve the setting up of special courts, outside the jurisdiction of national courts or the European Court of Justice, where investors could sue governments if they believe that the actions taken or the legislation adopted by those governments would put their investments at risk. Examples of this are where tobacco companies have successfully sued the Uruguay Government over public health legislation or where American waste companies successfully sued the Canadian Government when it tried to ban the export of toxic poly-chlorinated biphenyl (PCB) waste.
I strongly argue that we do not need special courts to protect investors. We do not have special courts to protect citizens’ rights, to protect the environment, or to protect human rights or workers’ rights. This week, the Commission launched a communication on harnessing globalisation and making it work for citizens. Giving the same level of protection to citizens, to workers and to investors would be a great start."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-18-Speech-4-319-000 | "As we approach the fifth anniversary of the entry into force of the free-trade agreement (FTA) between the European Union and the Republic of Korea, I find it most timely that we should review its implementation. I therefore welcome this report’s assessment of an agreement that went so much further than previous FTAs in lifting trade barriers with our Asian partners. Notably, the agreement has led to a 47% increase in EU exports to Korea, transforming a EUR 7.6 billion deficit into a EUR 2.5 billion European Union trade surplus and creating 200 000 jobs.
Looking to the future, we should therefore aim to strengthen this trading relationship further, a relationship that we may harness to encourage further economic growth and development for the mutual benefit of the EU and Korean citizens: a ‘win win’!"@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-18-Speech-4-408-000 | "Madam President, in the next few weeks, the Commission will unveil its new proposals for regulation of road transport. Improving workers’ rights in this sector and stopping the exploitation of truck, bus and coach drivers should be the absolute top priority of these proposals.
Unfortunately, this resolution does not sufficiently underline this priority and in particular the paragraph on establishing a European road transport agency to protect and promote workers’ rights, amongst other areas, including proper enforcement of road transport legislation, was rejected. This resolution also does not establish sufficiently strong protections on tackling climate change and air pollution. So in overall terms, I am sorry to say that I voted against this resolution."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-18-Speech-4-550-000 | "Mr President, Commissioner, first of all, both of you have been very busy this week, compliments to you. I listened carefully to the Commissioner’s statements and I think they are logical. Obviously we have to create awareness, and this debate will help to do that. Secondly, getting more evidence; and thirdly, she said enforcement authorities need to cooperate more, and maybe in due course legislation here at European level.
There is no doubt about it. I think Mr Peterle put it very well; he said we do not want a two-quality Europe, and definitely this is emerging regarding some food products. If food products have the same packaging throughout the European Union, the same brand name and are marketed as being the same, then we must ensure that the ingredients are the same. We have been given examples of biscuits and fish where this is not the case – fish fingers and probably many more. This has to stop; we have to have equality across Europe – that is what the single market is about, that is what EU citizenship is about. So this is a good debate."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-31-Speech-1-040-000 | "Madam President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for her statement. CO2 emissions across the transport sector need to be addressed. However, in the road haulage industry, where margins are very tight, it is extremely important that small- and medium-sized businesses are not run off the road and out of existence through unrealistic targets. I hear dangerous talk on cabotage, but some reassuring words on dubious letterbox companies that exploit workers. It is action, more than words, that can only work. May I suggest you allow each Member State to tackle the individual companies who blatantly abuse this system across the EU?
Fragmentation of the internal market should not be used as an excuse to harmonise road safety in Member States, especially when the UK and Sweden have the safest roads in Europe. The EU is constantly questioning the competence of national governments. May I state that the UK has been running very successfully its networks and transport infrastructure for many years, and certainly does not need any further interference from the EU? It will be a great day when we regain our independence and leave the European Union."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-31-Speech-1-045-000 | "Madam President, I would like to thank the Commissioners for coming to speak today on their new package. I very much welcome it. Clean, competitive and connected. I certainly share those ambitions, as we all do here in the Parliament, particularly in the Committee on Transport and Tourism. I am very much looking forward to getting involved and dealing with the various pieces of legislation and reports that will come through the committees.
On competitiveness and supporting workers on the working conditions which they experience, that is extremely important. In particular, we hear so much about the difficulty that road haulage companies have in attracting employees and ensuring that they stay with the job. It is an ageing profession and a profession that does not have enough women, so I very much welcome the fact that you are addressing that.
Regarding connected cars, Europe needs to be more ambitious, provide the necessary infrastructure and facilities to develop this whole area, and not let the rest of the world run away with it. It is very important that Europe is at the forefront in this whole area, while recognising that we also need a clean environment for all our citizens. It is a big challenge and they are big ambitions, but we have the capacity to do it. I am very much looking forward to getting stuck in and working in this area."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-31-Speech-1-071-000 | "Madam President, I want to join Bogdan Wenta in thanking Norbert Neuser, who cannot be here today, for the work he has done with colleagues to get the text and focus on why we need a new Consensus on Development.
We need one because we have to find a way for the EU to implement the sustainable development goals. We need one because we need a recommitment by the Member States today to tackle global poverty, and I think we need one most of all, today of all days, because we are hearing that Donald Trump will pull out of the Paris Agreement on climate change. That is a blow to sustainable development goals, a blow to what we want in Europe. So, today of all days, we should give a signal that Europe is prepared to step up and give the leadership we need, and that it will meet its global commitments to our collective future on this planet.
The important things for me and for my Group in this Consensus are that we recommit; that poverty eradication is the primary goal of European development policy; that we make the commitment again to reach our target of 0.7% aid; and, for the first time in the Consensus, that 0.2% of our collective GDP will focus on the poorest countries. We are hearing that Africa is losing out on aid. We have to recommit.
I know there are colleagues here, and colleagues I respect a lot, who are concerned about the emphasis placed by some governments on security and migration, and I know there is scepticism about whether or not countries will meet the 0.7%. I share some of those concerns and it is our job to hold governments to account and to make sure the consensus is implemented in the right way. But, above all, let us remember the other paragraphs in this text which talk about youth, unemployment, getting jobs and creating a future for the young people in developing countries. We need to send that signal today, and that is why I hope colleagues will support the Consensus."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-31-Speech-1-076-000 | "Madam President, while this resolution talks about the laudable aim of reducing poverty worldwide, should the European Union not first look closer to home? For instance, in the UK between 2015 and 2016 there were 12.8 million people regarded as being in poverty, and the UK is one of the richest nations. When we come to the poorer nations in your Union, Commissioner, the figures are much worse. In 2015, 118.7 million – almost 25% of your population – were at risk from poverty. With the nations in real trouble, you see Bulgaria at 41%, Romania at 37%, and Greece at over 35%. Should you really be taking money from taxpayers in your own nation states, many of whom are already struggling with dire need, to further your own globalist ambitions?
Why do you not, instead of chaining poor nations to our wallets with aid dependency, liberalise trade with poorer nations and give them a chance to compete on a level playing field instead of punishing them with your customs union?"@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-31-Speech-1-094-000 | "Mr President, the European Union has been a global leader in sustainable development and it is right for Parliament, the Commission and the Council to now formulate a new position for this changing world. We need to make sure we have policy coherence so that our development cooperation, our trade and our economic policies all work together and, most importantly, align with international human rights norms. Coherence also requires taking into account the contribution of culture as a pillar of sustainable economic, social and human development and of peace and resilience building.
It is tragic to see my country, the UK, wasting its time with the chaos of Brexit while the EU continues to work towards a more prosperous sustainable future for all of us. The UK must continue its participation in EU development policy regardless of Brexit, and I hope that a Labour Government in Westminster will do just that."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-31-Speech-1-123-000 | "Madam President, the phrase ‘resilience in external action’ might seem a little opaque to some, but what it means is crucial in today’s changing world. Resilience means the ability of states and societies to withstand and recover from external and internal crises. What we are seeing throughout the world, from the economic crisis to the Arab Spring and democratic uprisings, is how important civil society organisations and democratic institutions are in keeping a society from breaking down.
When social tensions rise, the ability to organise and speak to one another becomes crucial. Arts and culture, artists, creators and journalists play a crucial role in societies in crisis by facilitating expression, communication and intercultural dialogue. They can often make the difference between peace and war. When conflict breaks out, artists, writers and thinkers can often lead the way to reconciliation, and this is why the EU must invest more in promoting cultural diplomacy and exchange."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-31-Speech-1-141-000 | "Madam President, anti-Semitism is on the rise in Europe and this resolution does not attempt to understand the reasons behind it. Studies show that European Muslims are 10 times more likely to hold very unfavourable views about Jews than non-Muslims. There are two main reasons for the growth of the current strains of European anti-Semitism. The first is the anti-Semitic content of the Islamic tracts, the Qur’an, the Hadith and the Sunnah. The second is the dramatic growth in the number of Muslims in Europe over the last 50 years, a growth that is now spiralling upward.
The problem is that many Muslims take literally what is written in their works of fiction. These works are full of exhortations for discrimination, hatred and violence, and not just against Jews, but Christians too. These hateful passages are being propagated by imams in mosques paid for by Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries. These are not extremist forms of Islam: these are literalist forms of Islam. The passage that always sticks in my mind is the one from the Hadith which says: ‘Judgement day will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews. The Muslims will kill the Jews and the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees. The rocks and trees will cry out Oh Muslim, oh faithful servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him.’
If European governments were serious about combating this problem, they would do two things immediately. First, stop all overseas funding of mosques and imams. Second, end the mass immigration of Muslims into European countries. Any future migration from Islamic countries should be on a highly selective basis only, and only those migrants prepared to make a solemn and binding pledge that they reject the passages of hatred and violence should be admitted."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-31-Speech-1-144-000 | "Madam President, as someone who has Jewish heritage in my family I am fully aware of the detrimental effect that racism can have on people. As someone of black heritage, too, I have felt that in the past.
I have spoken many times, in this Chamber and beyond, about the ways that Israel, a beacon of freedom across the globe, has been attacked from all quarters. But I am afraid that the definitions in this motion have caused me grave concern: my concern is that they will enhance those who wish to do the Jews and Israel harm. In particular, I am concerned about the adoption of the definition from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. The definition is extremely broad and wide. Let me, for example, cite this quote to you: ‘Palestine belongs to the Arabs. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs.’ The author of this quote would have to be imprisoned if we adopt this definition. The author of the quote was Mahatma Gandhi.
There have been hundreds of politicians, writers and philosophers who have opposed violence but who would be caught by this definition. So I would say to those behind this motion: your definition may be well-meaning, but what you will be doing is preventing freedom of speech and creating a fear of speaking. That is why I would ask you to reflect. Go back to the drawing board, please."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-31-Speech-1-163-000 | "Mr President, I am obliged to you for giving me the floor. It amazes me how we can be the best of parliaments and sometimes the worst of parliaments all in the same session. I have sat through this debate and listened to some of the most corrosive, divisive and cancerous language that I sometimes hear from time to time.
Equality is a cornerstone of the European Union. If we allow discrimination and its cancerous effects to take root, we are nothing. It particularly interests me that those colleagues here today who decided to speak about another one of our great religions in the way that they did actually share one thing in common, and that is a hatred for the European Union. They wish to cloak their arguments in Islamophobic rhetoric in order to attack Europe. That does not take us any further at all. As Europeans, we are equal. You attack one of us, on any basis whatsoever, and you attack as all."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-31-Speech-1-201-000 | "Thank you, Ms Jongerius, for taking my blue card. You criticised the delay in the new counter-terrorism bill, but do you not appreciate that this is a very sensitive piece of legislation? It was approved by Cabinet in April 2017. It is just about to be put before the Sri Lankan parliament and of course this is so sensitive that it has to be dealt with by various civil society groups across the political parties, across society, and across international organisations as well. This is a serious matter and I do not think it is fair to criticise the Sri Lankan Government for the delay. They are actually trying to do the job properly and make sure it is a good piece of legislation."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-31-Speech-1-203-000 | "Mr President, may I start by agreeing with and underscoring every word of what was stated by Commissioner Malmström in her opening address. May I also on a personal basis as Chair of the South Asia Trade Monitoring Committee congratulate Sri Lanka on this achievement, and may I thank Christofer Fjellner, my colleague who chairs the GSP+ Monitoring Committee, for his attitude and the tremendous work he put into this file.
It is quite clear that Sri Lanka today deserves the support of the international community, and Europe must play its part in that. It is also clear that if every country had achieved all of the standards that we would like to see, there would be no need for the GSP+ scheme. This provides a genuine opportunity and an incentive. I have only two things to put to the Sri Lankan Government today. One, this is an opportunity for you to provide opportunity in those areas where it is most required in Sri Lanka and in those communities where it is most required, and secondly, please do not give this Parliament any opportunity to turn its back on the grant of the GSP+ to you in the future. The monitoring mechanism requires you to comply. Please ensure that you do."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-31-Speech-1-205-000 | "Madam Mineur, are you not missing the whole point of the GSP+ programme being put back in place? It is actually to allow the process to begin, to allow wealth to be created, and to allow success, prosperity and wealth to pass down to all levels of the working cycle. The working man and the working woman will inevitably benefit from this. I cannot see why you are criticising it."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-31-Speech-1-207-000 | "Mr President, I am also speaking in my capacity as Chair of Parliament’s South Asia delegation. GSP+, as we have been hearing, is a process of engagement and better market access to the European Union in return for implementation of the 27 international conventions.
The implementation of these international norms – and I stress that these are not European Union wish lists, these are international norms – will be to the benefit of all Sri Lankans in many areas of everyday life and help towards much-needed reconciliation.
But the Commissioner is right. Effective and stringent monitoring is key, not least because many of us fear that the progress promised by the current Government of Sri Lanka is slow, whether that is on changes to the proposed counterterrorism act to bring it into line with international norms, operationalising the office of missing persons, moving on constitutional change; there are a number of areas.
I am pleased to hear that Commission monitoring will engage with a wide range of institutions such as the National Human Rights Commission, and civil society across the island, including war-affected areas and communities. It must build on the UN reports, such as that of the Committee against Torture.
A timeframe for changes must be agreed with the government, and I would be interested to know what the Commission has identified as key objectives for the end of 2017. Sri Lanka knows from its own experience that GSP+ can be withdrawn but we hope that all will benefit after so much suffering in the country, but it is only going to happen if the government of Sri Lanka delivers on its promises to its people."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-31-Speech-1-212-000 | "I apologise profusely for blue-carding a colleague from my own group but, based upon the comments that have just been made, Mr Marias, would you accept that we have heard all of these arguments of protectionism for European industries presented in previous cases before in this very House? But when all the time we have tested those arguments against fact and experience that is carried out in the marketplace, they have always failed to live up to the claims that were made at the outset, and in fact our industries have not been disadvantaged by granting such schemes to other countries."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-31-Speech-1-252-000 | "Madam President, I would like to join with all of my colleagues in wishing the Commissioner, and indeed our team, every success at the Ocean Conference next week.
When I started to look at this, it made me realise how far we have come on this issue of sustainable oceans, and yet also how far we still have to go. We have had a change of mindset. Certainly the common fisheries policy, which has not always been universally admired, is beginning to change, but we need to be very vigilant. Indeed, just in these few weeks when we have been talking about external fishing fleets – as I have been, and the rapporteur, the author of this report, has also been involved – you are reminded, with every article you go through, about how you have to be vigilant and to make sure that you do not slip backwards. We have to go forwards when it comes to sustainable development.
So I would like to welcome this resolution. I welcome the opportunity for a delegation from this Parliament to go to the meeting and I wish them every success."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-31-Speech-1-295-000 | "Mr President, the EU needs faster and higher quality connectivity for all Europeans. This is essential if we are to establish a digital single market. Ensuring access to broadband across all the Member States and implementing new-generation networks are two of the most important issues for the success of the digital agenda. The creation of a European society where all citizens have access to fast and high quality internet connection is essential in opening up the digital single market, not just for urban areas but everywhere.
In my own country, the digitalisation of rural Ireland is akin to the electrification of Ireland over half a century ago. The influence of the digital economy will be the driving force in balancing the rural economic environment. Leading the way, as a demonstration of what is possible if rural communities are given access to high-speed broadband, is the Ludgate Hub in my own constituency in Skibbereen in County Cork – a little town, by the way, that produced five European rowing champions last weekend.
The objective of the Ludgate Hub is to facilitate 75 digitally working entrepreneurs, thus creating a wealth of new jobs in the West Cork area. Already the effects of the initiative are producing clear results, with a number of start-ups and young entrepreneurs relocating to the area – an area that has seen a huge decline in population in recent times, as young professionals were forced to move away to larger towns and cities in search of employment opportunities.
We need many more Skibbereens. We need the digital single market. We need these proposals."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-05-31-Speech-1-324-000 | "Mr President, Sinn Féin has engaged with hundreds and hundreds of groups and organisations that are all concerned about the loss of EU funding post-Brexit. It is ironic that the only money that came to the north of Ireland through Brexit was dark, shadowy and unaccountable. The Democratic Unionist Party received an envelope stuffed with the grand total of GBP 436 000 to advertise support for Brexit in Britain but not in Ireland. The unanswered question is who paid the DUP? Did anyone fumble in a greasy till? The DUP has been asked to report on the original source of this money. There are concerns that the DUP allowed the money to be siphoned to avoid British electoral law and exploit a loophole. Serious allegations by openDemocracy linked the previously unheard of Constitutional Research Council and the well-known Saudi intelligence to the cash. Whoever the donors are, we know that the DUP took the Brexit money, but we will pay the price."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-01-Speech-2-007-000 | "The next item is the debate on the Commission statement on the risk of political abuse of media in the Czech Republic."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-01-Speech-2-044-000 | "The debate is closed."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-01-Speech-2-046-000 | "The next item is the debate on the report by Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on a uniform format for visas (– C8—0164/2015 –) ()."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-01-Speech-2-055-000 | "Madam President, the existing security features for the visa system for the Schengen area have been deeply compromised. Therefore the updated security features are needed to combat counterfeiting. Hence, the legislation for an improved uniform format for Schengen visas which we are discussing today.
The UK is not a member of the Schengen area and is not therefore participating in this legislation. The UK has its own national system for issuing visas and, thankfully, access to the Schengen area does not give access to the UK, at least not officially. It is good that the EU is trying to tighten up on illegal immigration, but since anyone who can make it across the Mediterranean in a boat is going to be admitted anyway, the lines between the legal and illegal immigration are becoming increasingly irrelevant. In fact, people smugglers are now putting only enough petrol in their boats to get them offshore so that the rescue services will automatically bring their human cargoes ashore. It is now not so much a rescue service as a taxi service for the last leg of the illegal migrants’ journey.
The big problem for the EU is the Schengen area itself, which is a magnet pulling migrants to Europe. Once a migrant has achieved a foothold in the Schengen area, it opens up the possibility of onward journeys to their desired location. Although the UK is not part of Schengen, our border controls are extremely lax and open to abuse, to say the least. Our immigration system and border controls are in chaos. One simple indicator of this is to look at the official migration figures next to other known figures for migrants. In 2016, the official net migration figure was 273 000. However, the number of National Insurance numbers issued to foreign nationals was 825 000. Clearly something is wrong if there can be such an enormous discrepancy.
A leak from the German Government said that another 6 million illegal migrants are waiting to come to Europe this summer. The UK is not affected by this legislation and UKIP MEPs will therefore abstain, but we wish you luck with sorting out your visa system because you are going to need it."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-01-Speech-2-057-000 | "Madam President, well an EU-wide visa policy has existed for over 20 years. However, it is no longer secure, creating and enabling numerous threats to citizens across the European Union. The safeguards against counterfeiting and falsification have failed in, and I quote from the report, ‘several Member States’. This indicates that a pan-European Union visa system is not operationally effective and that security standards across the European Union are not 100% reliable. Now given the huge problems of unlawful migration and terrorist threat levels, which even my colleague Mr Batten has mentioned, it is quite clear that a European Union-wide visa should cease with immediate effect and be replaced with bilateral, international visa-exchange systems between individual Member States and trusted, trustworthy international countries. Now tinkering around the edges as this proposal indicates is not the solution. It needs a major, major reset."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-01-Speech-2-127-000 | "Madam President, the telecommunications revolution has improved people’s lives in a way that no legislation from this or any other chamber can begin to approach. There has been an absolute transformation of the human condition, particularly in developing countries, and it is something almost wholly unforeseen by politicians.
What’s been the response of the European Commission? I can’t help noticing that there have been an awful lot of legal actions in the last five years against US-based tech firms, perhaps in pursuit of what Commissioner Oettinger calls ‘digital independence’ for the EU. Microsoft, Google, Apple – they’ve all been on the receiving end of it. Of course there aren’t really European equivalents to these firms, and perhaps the reason for that is because of the regulatory regime that we’ve created here. It may be no coincidence that since the Brexit vote we’ve seen Google and Apple, and most recently Snapchat, relocating to London in full knowledge that Britain is leaving the European Union. Perhaps it’s precisely because of what they know about the EU’s regulatory environment that they’re shifting."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-01-Speech-2-134-000 | "Madam President, I have always advocated strongly for initiatives that support the growth and spread of high-speed connectivity throughout all of Europe. In recent years I’ve observed its true potential being realised by Irish and European citizens alike. The implementation of faster and higher-quality connectivity for all Europeans can act as a vital vehicle of improvement in the areas of economic growth and employment for all areas of European society. This report will pay a key role in the advancement of Europe’s Digital Agenda and will allow us to maintain our position at the forefront of global innovation and investment by becoming a 5G and gigabit society.
Dá bhrí sin, mar fhocal scoir, ba mhaith liom mo chomhghleacaí Michał Boni a mholadh as ucht an togha oibre agus na huaireanta go léir a thug sé chun na moltaí seo a chur os ár gcomhair. Tiocfaidh maitheas as a chuid oibre amach anseo do chuile dhuine san Aontas."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-01-Speech-2-139-000 | "Madam President, there is one charge against which I would always defend members of this House, and that is the widespread belief in many of our Member States that MEPs are lazy: that we come here and sit around and do nothing.
Frankly, the world would be a much better place if that charge were true: if, instead of constantly legislating, people would come in, and clock in for their very generous attendance allowance, and then go and work on their golf handicap or read a novel, or do something other than meddling in the lives of everybody else. But, of course, human nature being what it is, we – having claimed all of these generous expenses – decide we have to do something, we have to justify our work in some way, and so we produce reports like this.
On what conceivable measure is this anything that has to do with the European Union? Of course the protection of vulnerable adults is a critical function but by any conceivable …
I am sorry but I am being heckled by a sort of lefty Yahoo over there, who is gibbering and ranting like a stricken animal. But, by any conceivable supposition, this is something that is reserved for the Member States. Why not recognise the limits of what we can do?"@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-01-Speech-2-153-000 | "Madam President, as Russia continues the proxy war in the east of Ukraine and its illegal occupation of Crimea, it is right in this House that we and in the rest of the European Union continue to support Ukraine, standing up for the rules-based international order and values that we all believe in, and also demand a full implementation of the Minsk agreements. Ukraine has seen its share of exports to Russia halve since 2013, a major dislocation of its trade given the historic links between the two countries.
So I strongly welcome the DCFTA that has been in place since last year, and I’m equally supportive of these additional measures that aim to further support Ukraine’s now-growing economy and its further integration into the European Union’s Single Market. We do now see a commitment by Ukraine to transition to a full market economy. I’m also pleased that the Netherlands ratified the association agreement this week, a welcome sign showing that the EU is now fully united in support of Ukraine and its Euro-Atlantic aspirations."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-01-Speech-2-157-000 | "A Uachtaráin, tá mórán fulaingthe ag muintir na hÚcráine, ar dtús nuair a bhí siad faoi smacht díreach na Rúise agus le déanaí agus an Rúis ag tógaint an Chrimé uatha agus ag iarraidh tionchar mífhéaráilte a bheith acu orthu. Ach dúirt muintir na hÚcráine ó 2013 i leith gur fearr leo féachaint siar ná soir agus dá bhrí sin is dóigh liom gur cinneadh maith é sin dóibh agus dúinne, agus tá sé ceart agus cóir go dtabharfaimid aitheantas ar an gcinneadh sin trí chabhrú leo chun a ngeilleagar a fhás, chun jabanna a chruthú agus chun a dtáirgí a dhíol. Agus dá bhrí sin, is dóigh liom gur maith an tuarascáil í chun seans a thabhairt dóibh easpórtáil isteach san Aontas agus is dóigh liom freisin go bhfuil moladh tuillte ag Uachtaránacht Mhálta as ucht teacht ar chomhréiteach faoi na moltaí is deacra a bhí sa tuarascáil seo, go háirithe mar a bhain le cúrsaí talamhaíochta. Tá súil agam go bhfuil saol maith roimh an Úcráin amach anseo agus go mbeidh siad mar bhall den Aontas lá éigin."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-01-Speech-2-182-000 | "Madam President, I voted in favour of this proposal which calls for the boosting of Europe’s digital innovation capacities through partnerships in digital technologies, value chains, digital innovation hubs in all regions and prioritising standards. This is absolutely vital if we are to become more competitive in Europe and at the international level, and greater digitisation of industries throughout Europe, including in my own country, Ireland, is a priority.
One area I just want to mention is the area of shortage of skills. There’s an organisation in Ireland called Coderdojo which helps young people to develop the skills necessary. I hope that all countries in Europe could found Coderdojo clubs and I am looking for MEPs to become an ambassador in their own country for this, because this is needed to get the coding skills that are necessary to fill the jobs that are lying vacant at the moment, and the many thousands of jobs that will be created into the future. So, MEPs: Coderdojo, become an ambassador."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-01-Speech-2-192-000 | "Madam President, the European Union’s global strategy aims to be both principled and pragmatic, yet this is clearly impossible. The policy can only be either principled, or pragmatic, it cannot be both. And here the European Union is trying to use words to pull the wool over our eyes. It is making the claim that it can be all things to all men in the name of promoting civil society. The reality is that the European Union is consolidating its strengths as a global actor to compensate for, and in the wake of, Brexit. It is hardening its tone internationally, often in areas that do not concern it, and is accelerating its plans for its own military forces. But the sad reality of European Union foreign policy is that it has a history of destabilising regions like the Ukraine and the Balkans, and also unleashing events that it cannot control, like the migrant crisis. It did not have my support today."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-01-Speech-2-197-000 | "Madam President, whilst it was recently reported that the rise in anti-Semitism in the UK was one of the highest in the world, much of it is due to increased anti-Semitic abuse online, particularly via social media. Now that is unacceptable, but I am just trying to make a point in terms of where that is coming from.
Challenging anti-Semitism in the United Kingdom is always going to be a problem while we have one mainstream political party seen by the media, seen in terms of public opinion – and I am referring to the Labour Party – failing consistently to deal with the problem within its own ranks, very often trying to disguise its deep-rooted prejudices as anti-Zionist or anti-Israeli.
The party in my opinion – and this is my view, I can only go with what I hear and see – has seemingly time and time again refused to tackle the issue within its own senior ranks, just inflicting simple reprimands but actually not dealing with the issue. If anti-Semitism is going to be dealt with, and the UK is a good example, then political parties need to take responsibility."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-01-Speech-2-203-000 | "Madam President, whilst I welcome today’s resolution, it is tragic that 70 years on from the Nazi atrocities such a resolution is even necessary. It is quite clear from the statistics that the number of anti-Semitic attacks, both verbal and physical, is on the rise in Europe, including in my own country, the United Kingdom, particularly on the internet. Indeed, we saw in Paris and in Brussels in the last few years actual terrorist attacks specifically committed against a kosher supermarket and the Jewish Museum in Brussels.
As the populations of EU Member States become ever more diverse it is important we pay close attention to encouraging and ensuring that the successful social cohesion and integration of all communities is worked towards. I am pleased, therefore, that the resolution goes beyond looking just at the topic at hand, but at the need to ease tensions across all the divides. I particularly welcome the emphasis on cross-border cooperation with regard to this issue, and the need to work together in times of terrorist attacks, particularly in the realm of sharing intelligence on extremist groups. Finding ways to prevent the radicalisation of vulnerable individuals will also be key in this area."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-01-Speech-2-204-000 | "Madam President, I am the last speaker in this debate and I have to say that there is really little to be said that other colleagues have not said. It is deplorable, at this time in the 21st century European Union, that many of our citizens live in fear of discrimination, abuse and hate crimes simply because of their religion.
As Vice—President responsible for Parliament’s dialogue with religions, I have been meeting religious leaders from across the European Union including, of course, Jewish leaders. We are hearing stories that send shivers down our spine of children being afraid to go to school and families contemplating leaving Europe because of the fears that they have. I was therefore happy this week to contribute to the launch of the OSCE’s practical guide to combating anti-Semitism. This work should help public authorities to take the necessary steps to ensure the safety and security of our religious communities. This is absolutely vital and I fully support this resolution."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-12-Speech-1-065-000 | "Mr President, I would like to congratulate my colleague on this excellent report. It underlines that this Parliament is a champion of Horizon 2020, the largest research area in the world.
The programme delivers on the priorities of people across the EU, stimulating jobs and growth, not just now but long into the future. It is also a shining example of how the EU brings added value to all citizens, far beyond those directly involved. It is through this programme we can diagnose, treat and cure illnesses and diseases or find affordable, sustainable ways of meeting our energy needs.
We must recognise the success of Horizon 2020 and realise it demonstrates the need to allocate more resources to this excellence-based research long into the future to protect and strengthen its achievements.
Finally, when we do something well we should learn from it, build on it and, vitally, as the Commissioner said, tell people about it!"@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-12-Speech-1-093-000 | "Mr President, as shadow rapporteur I wanted to say a few words on the Natural Disasters Agreement. We started discussions with differences between Parliament, the Council and the Commission. And indeed, there are also differences between the political groups within this Parliament. So it is a huge achievement but we managed to get a common position in Parliament and then a compromise agreement with the Council. Now, of course, it is important that the money goes to Italy as soon as possible, so the people there can benefit from these Structural Funds.
I also wanted to say a few words on the future of cohesion policy. I want to thank the rapporteur for her report and the Commissioner for her excellent words. I think we
in this Parliament can actually learn something from our discussions on the national disasters issue. We were much stronger in those negotiations because we were united and therefore we also need to be united in our position on the future of cohesion policy. If we are united and speak with one voice it will be much more difficult for others to ignore us.
I would say that, at this stage, we should not be talking about detailing too much. Detail can come much later, because at the moment there is so much on which we can agree with, we need to agree an adequate budget cohesion policy, that all regions should get something, that there should be more for poorer Member States. We should agree on simplification, we should agree that there should be a greater focus on performance, but the main thing today is to agree this report and to start the fight for the future of cohesion policy."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-12-Speech-1-107-000 | "Mr President, this report highlights an increase in euro-scepticism and anti-EU reporting, which the rapporteurs claim distorts information on EU policies. In other words, it raises alarm bells at the obvious fact that, just as happened to the Roman Empire, the wheels are starting to come off the EU chariot.
You rightly understand that this rise in populism throughout the EU isn’t going away, and is a threat to the existence of the EU institutions. So how do you respond? By expressing the desire to waste more taxpayers’ money on dead-end projects and pro-EU political soundbites. This strikes me as a case of ‘thou doth protest too much’ and underlines that, in these times of austerity, the taxpayer has found you out. Indeed, with just 34% of citizens claiming to have heard about EU co-financed projects, it underlines how these projects are not doing much to help at all, yet you still call for more money to be wasted. As Abraham Lincoln famously said: ‘You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.’"@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-12-Speech-1-139-000 | "Mr President, the Mediterranean illustrates perfectly the flaws in the common fisheries policy. It is very different from the Baltic or the North Sea, but the EU says one size fits all. The Mediterranean is not an EU sea and the EU has to buy off non-EU countries which are either massively corrupt, dictatorships or failed states. So agreements are not worth the paper they are written on and do nothing to help ordinary people.
This report is full of the usual nonsense, with unrealistic technical measures, unworkable quotas and unworkable minimal sizes of fish. It contains lies and half-truths about the behaviour of non-Western governments. There are no proper controls on subsidies, vested interests or industrial scale fishing. There are massive incentives to simply cheat the system. They are all backed up by platitudes and mother-and-apple-pie sentiments which tell us nothing.
In short, everything here does what you should not do – it reinforces the failure of the common agricultural policy (CAP). And while we are on the subject, Britain wants its territorial waters back and we want British fish for British fish and chips."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-12-Speech-1-148-000 | "Mr President, while the topic here is about the fishing sector in the Mediterranean, fishing of course affects all areas and is important to everybody. I come from Ireland and fishing is a very important part of our economy. For that reason, I was pleased to hear Commissioner Moedas refer to the need to engage with stakeholders, and also the need to have up-to-date scientific evidence when we are making allocations, etc. That is a very important point.
I think also it was good to hear Commissioner Moedas refer to third countries, because we cannot do this on our own, even if we were perfect within the European Union in fish management, stocks, etc., we could not achieve much, and, especially in relation to climate change, the environment and the sea are very important. The amount of plastic in the sea is an absolute scandal and that is something we really have to work on, both from the point of fishing stocks but also from the point of view of climate change."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-12-Speech-1-190-000 | "Mr President, I am honoured to address today’s plenary as the rapporteur for the report on Statelessness in South and South East Asia. For the overwhelming majority of colleagues in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, it was felt that this report was worth embracing – from the very first draft through to the final text – unequivocally, and irrespective of political affiliation, because we are deeply appalled at the UN Refugee Agency’s estimates that 135 million children under the age of five, across the South and South East Asia region, have not had their births registered and are at risk of becoming stateless. We are mindful that being a Rohingya, for instance, (the largest stateless ethnic group in the world) equals living literally in the shadows, as a non—person in the eyes of the authorities, unable to stay in, unable to move out, stripped of property rights and denied access to health, education and the right to start a business.
As a proud British Conservative, I uphold a rich tradition that champions the cause for the small state, both in number and regulatory functions. The raison d’être of the state, anywhere in the world, is to defend, protect and enforce the rule of law so that each and every individual is genuinely free. People of all ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds must have their unalienable rights protected, down to the last individual, because the smallest minority is the individual.
My thinking is influenced by Aristotle’s emphasis on the individual. Our prosperity in Europe is the result of the consciousness that no one should be above the law. It was the Magna Carta, in the early 13th Century, and the contributions of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke on the social contract, that paved the way forward. As in 18th Century Prussia, those at the mercy of the Myanmar authorities must be able to stand up and say that there are judges in Berlin. The Myanmar authorities’ failure to fulfil these essential state functions must spur the international community to act. We must recognise the progress made in Indonesia, Cambodia and Vietnam. However, there are still millions who are stateless and persecuted every day because of it. Enhanced political and economic relations with Europe go in tandem with individual freedoms and the rule of law. These are the messages that Myanmar, and any other country in this region and the world, must be reminded of. I am proud of this House, honourable colleagues, because we seized this noble opportunity to focus across the political spectrum on the absolute essentials of life, liberty and the right to happiness. Tomorrow’s vote will provide hope to those who are suffering and ensure that promoting citizenship is a priority for the EU."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-12-Speech-1-230-000 | "A Uachtaráin, táim chun labhairt anocht ar an gCairt Eorpach um Theangacha Réigiúnacha nó Mionlaigh agus sinn ag ceiliúradh 25 bliana ó glacadh leis. Is conradh é atá chun cosaint a thabhairt do chainteoirí teangacha neamhfhorleathana. Is buncheist bheo í teanga san Eoraip mar atá sí sa bhaile; agus cheana féin tá an iomarca modhanna leithcheala á ndéanamh agus níl aon amhras ach go bhfuil cearta teanga daoine á sárú i gcás gach teanga réigiúnach dúchasach nó mionlach san Eoraip. Ní teanga mhionlach mo theanga, is í an Ghaeilge mo phríomhtheanga agus ba mhaith liom go dtabharfaí an t-aitheantas iomlán sin di. Tá sé tábhachtach go seasfaimid mar fheisirí go láidir ar son ceart teanga agus ar son ceart daonna, agus ba mhaith liom ardmholadh a thabhairt do gach feisire eile a labhrann anseo anocht faoin ECRML, fiú nuair nach raibh ateangaireacht ar fáil—rud atá scannalach. Tá ár dteangacha tábhachtach, ní amháin dár bhféiniúlacht ach dár bhféinmhuinín, dár n-éiceolaíocht, dár gcultúr agus níos mó. A chairde, mar a dúirt mé cheana féin, nuair a thagann sé go dtín ár gcearta teanga nó aon chearta eile go bhfuilimid ina dteideal, nílimid ag stopadh go mbeidh siad againn agus bí cinnte go dtiocfaidh ár gcearta agus, leis sin, go dtiocfaidh ár lá."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-12-Speech-1-235-000 | "Mr President, Theresa May has managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Consequently, there is much talk of a ‘soft Brexit’. There is no such thing as a hard or soft Brexit. There is only exit. ‘Soft Brexit’ is just code for not really leaving the EU at all.
The Conservative and Labour manifestos were committed to implementing the result of the referendum but we cannot trust either party. Both are dominated by Remainers, who want to thwart Brexit if they can. Their best hope of doing that is by negotiating a deal whereby Britain leaves the EU in name, but not in substance. To avoid that, the British Parliament must immediately repeal the European Communities Act 1972, as the first step not the final step, in the process. We must leave the EU under our law, and then tell the EU how Brexit is going to work, not ask for permission on how we might leave."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-13-Speech-2-014-000 | "Mr President, I would like to thank my colleagues and the rapporteur for their hard work and cooperation on this energy labelling file. Though discussions were rather slow at times, I am glad we did – at long last – reach an agreement. This new legislation will benefit consumers. They will see an end to the confusing system that includes an A, an A+, an A ++ and an A +++, and revert back to the original system, where A is, in fact, the most efficient product and G is the least. These new labels will prove provide clarity to consumers and will enable them to make more energy efficient and cost efficient choices.
On wrongly labelled products, we prefer to see this addressed as part of a wider review of consumer protection legislation. We have seen that abuses in the motor industry have impacted on consumer confidence, and therefore the introduction of a product database will add much-needed vigour to mass—market surveillance. My Group did have concerns about Mr Tamburrano’s proposals for the product database and the burdens it would place on industry, particularly small manufacturers, but we are satisfied that obligations have been kept to the level where manufacturers only have to submit information necessary for market surveillance. The data will also be open source and allow app developers and retailers to incorporate the information in product searches and filters. This will help consumers to make better choices. Overall, my Group is happy and will support this report."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-13-Speech-2-018-000 | "Mr President, can I say to Mr Eickhout that if we listen to industry perhaps we will have jobs and prosperity.
The European Union has hardly covered itself in glory with respect to energy efficiency regulation. Certainly the things we did with kettles and vacuum cleaners attracted ridicule in the UK, and I suspect across the rest of Europe, and tended to bring the European project into considerable disrepute. The problem we face is that we are constantly tinkering with regulations, and the effect of that is to confuse consumers and to create problems for industry. But in my party we reflect on the fact that we shall very soon be out of the European Union and shall be free to make our own rules – and frankly, if the rest of the European Union, the other 27, wish to tie themselves up in absurd red tape, ‘Go for it’ is what I say."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-13-Speech-2-025-000 | "Mr President, first of all I welcome the proposals here today and again compliment Commissioner Cañete and his team for the good work they are doing in helping us to meet the Paris climate targets.
This is one area where a lot can be done in a very easy fashion. Firstly, I am becoming more and more convinced that consumers in general want to reduce their carbon emissions, and all they need is help to do so. This is one area where consumers will embrace what we are trying to do. Simplifying the labelling is absolutely crucial. How could anybody come up with a scheme of A, A+, A++? If you are going to buy an appliance and you see it marked ‘A’, well, you cannot get better than ‘A’ so it does not really make a whole lot of difference whether it is A+ or A++.
But there is a big difference, psychologically, between A and C, and A and G, and also the seven different colours will help consumers. This is the way the European Union needs to move in everything. Make it easier for consumers to understand what it is about and they will comply.
One area I have a slight difficulty in understanding is the reference this morning to erroneous labelling. Erroneous labelling would not be possible if there were proper surveillance and proper penalties, because those who would engage in it would actually be put out of business. So I think that that is very important and I think the product database will help to ensure that that does not happen because it will mean proper compatibility of products, proper market surveillance, and will mean that suppliers will try and outbid one another to become more efficient and smarter in the appliances.
So this is actually a great opportunity for us to do something simple, straightforward, that will help us to meet the climate-change targets in Paris. Well done!"@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-13-Speech-2-045-000 | "Mr President, the most powerful signal that the European Parliament can give is that it is serious about tackling climate change and is taking real action implementing the Paris Agreement by passing the climate action regulation tomorrow. It deals with almost two-thirds of all greenhouse gases emitted across the EU. This law will translate the Paris Agreement into concrete action by the Member States.
However, last week President Trump announced that he would withdraw the United States from the Paris climate change agreement. Even though we know that many US states, cities and businesses are continuing or even scaling-up climate action and green investment. This is sending a dreadful signal to the rest of the world. But, thankfully, China has restated their strong commitment to the Paris Agreement and President Macron has announced that France will do more compared to earlier commitments. So, with or without Trump, climate action and green investment under the Paris Agreement must move ahead.
I applaud that the groups here in the European Parliament have decided to unanimously give a strong signal to the international community that it will support this report in plenary tomorrow. I am also grateful for the strong support the report received in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) and for the further work done ahead of the plenary to build an even stronger compromise.
As a result of this work, ALDE, the EPP and ECR groups agreed to table a set of joint amendments that will do three things: firstly, maintain the strength and emissions trajectory adopted by the ENVI Committee. The trajectory will secure the delivery of our 2030 target under the Paris Agreement.
Secondly, it will increase the optional use of forest credits from 119 million to 280 million tons, which will help build the business case for forest-based climate measures. In the long term, our forests are crucial to build the zero-carbon economy. At the same time, we must maintain a strong driver for energy efficient and clean transport.
Thirdly, we will give better support to lower—income Member States that have reduced their emissions significantly in earlier years. There are 17 Member States that will benefit from these measures. Farming is also covered in this regulation, and we will include special support for climate—efficient farmers. We must recognise the specific situation of the farming sector and ensure that they can continue to produce but protect at the same time.
The compromises reached will represent a balance between delivering on the EU’s commitments on the one hand, and providing fairness for all Member States and regulating the regulated sectors on the other. Because of the politically balanced agreement reached and the strong signal the climate action regulation will give to the international community, I urge you all therefore to back the report in full, which includes the compromise package negotiated ahead of the plenary vote."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-13-Speech-2-055-000 | "Mr President, over the years I have witnessed in this House the perverse mechanism of the EU continuing to further develop a failing project. In the UK, we would say that this amounted to flogging a dead horse. The EU ETS is an example of this. However, in this instance, the project is one of the biggest threats to European industry and competitiveness. Once again, we are expanding and strengthening its remit. This time the European Commission proposal, Climate Action Regulation implementing the Paris Agreement, covers all sectors that currently fall outside the EU emission trading system, with particular regard to transport, waste, environment and agriculture. The aim of this proposal is to deliver, in the relevant sectors, 30% emissions reductions by 2030 compared to 2005 levels. The Paris Agreement sets out the goal to keep global temperature increases well below 2 °C and to strive for no more than 1.5 °C temperature increase. Consistent with these goals, the Paris Agreement also requires that zero net emissions must be achieved in the second half of this century. In addition, in 2009, the EU adopted its objective of 80—95% greenhouse gas emission reductions by 2050.
The EU’s climate and energy policies keep perpetuating the same misguided path, continuing to be the solo leader in the futile battle against climate change, whereas the USA and others are acting in favour of progress and prosperity. The sole effect that this huge burden of climate regulation is going to have is to exacerbate the crisis already being experienced by European Union industries that are forced to move offshore, taking their emissions and their jobs with them. My party and I oppose the EU climate and energy policy. We reject climate hysteria and believe that the EU should accept that the Paris Agreement is close to its end."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-13-Speech-2-066-000 | "Mr President, I would like to take ten seconds to thank the visitors to Parliament for wishing me a happy birthday – and no, I am not going to tell you what age I am, but it is all transparent and it is available – and thank you, Mr President.
Now to the subject of this debate, because Mr Liese and Mr Huitema introduced the topic on my agenda: Ireland and agriculture. I know, Commissioner, that you are fully familiar with our problems in Ireland, because we have a strong and large agricultural sector. We are doing a lot of work on climate—smart agriculture, but there is only so far we can go.
I am all for ambition, and, Mr Eickhout, I hope you appreciate that. However, ambition with targets that are unachievable can be distracting, and our 2020 target was unachievable. We know that we have to do more, but what I would ask colleagues to understand is the situation where we do not have heavy industry, we have a large agricultural sector and we need much more flexibility on this issue, because farmers are concerned that the cost of this at the moment – if we look at the calculations – would be over EUR 1.7 billion in terms of purchasing carbon.
I do not want an opt-out here, because we all have duties and responsibilities, but I want an understanding that we are major producers of food – we export it to Europe and beyond – and we need an acknowledgment of that fact in the work, and I hope that in the negotiations it will be acknowledged."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-13-Speech-2-070-000 | "Mr President, I am sceptical in many ways towards the European Union, but on this, I think it is a challenge that we should meet. Unlike the drive for a single currency or the current drive for a European army, this project is in our interests. But, if we want it to be in our interests, we have to bring the people along with us. Mairead McGuinness, MEP and Vice-President for Parliament, talked about the challenges to Irish farming. There can be benefits if we meet this challenge; there can be benefits in producing our proteins locally, rather than bringing them thousands of kilometres across an ocean; there can be benefits in recycling the animal manure and reusing the energy and the fertiliser, saving on heavy use of energy in chemical fertilisers. There can be use in reusing water. In many cases in Ireland, we are using treated water. This can all bring benefits to the farming community, and we need to sell it to people by showing that there will be financial benefits locally, because if we produce locally, people can stay locally and everyone is happy and the planet benefits."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-13-Speech-2-084-000 | "Mr President, I am totally in favour of the Paris Climate Accord. I am totally in favour of the European Union approach and especially the 2030 targets and many of the proposals here make sense. They are, however, somewhat discriminatory against agricultural producing countries, including my own.
Mr Grzyb mentioned the starting date of 2018 instead of 2020, and the target is also not appropriate. For instance, we now have to start at the target rather than the actual emissions. It is estimated that this will cost us a billion, and the Commission’s proposals took into account the mistakes that were made when the targets were set originally and if we had stuck with the Commission proposals we would have no difficulty.
Parliament is now going beyond this and it means that agricultures like Ireland will be hugely burdened. We will have to purchase compliance because we will be starting in a non-compliant area and this is something that will actually totally discriminate against us in view of the economic crisis, in view of Brexit coming down the track, and now this!
It is unnecessary and it should stop and I am tabling a split vote on it."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-13-Speech-2-087-000 | "Mr President, I would like to thank all the speakers for their good wishes to my good friend and colleague, Gerben—Jan Gerbrandy, who is the rapporteur on this report, and who despite doing all the heavy work on this is unable to be with us today because he has a family crisis. I am sure I speak for all this House in wishing Gerben—Jan and his family all the best.
I would like to thank the Commission for its commitment to driving down CO2 emissions. I heard earlier that there are concerns about how we can get to 2050. Well, nobody has ever said that tackling climate change is going to be easy, but it has to be done. Even the Paris Agreement still only brings us back to a level where we know we were emitting too much. The damage continues to be done to the whole planet. Every tonne of CO2 that is emitted today will remain in the atmosphere for over a hundred years.
But there is good news. We can have a green economy. We can drive the innovation and business that can address that. It is tough for farmers to change their farming practices. We understand that. We have been as firm as we can but as amenable as possible to their difficulties in making sure that farmers can associate themselves with this message and this regulation.
We have heard from the deniers from – I am ashamed to say – the UK. They deny climate change, they even deny their existence as an effective political party in the UK, and have nearly been wiped out. I think everybody here agrees that climate change is a real issue and one on which action must be effected.
A strong vote from this Parliament tomorrow will send a message to businesses, to farmers, to industry, to consumers, and to voters and the young people of Europe that we are serious about climate change. It is a compromise, sure, but it is one that we have to make and the political groups here are committed to it.
Thank you very much for your support everyone, and for the support from the Commission."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-13-Speech-2-094-000 | "Mr President, I wish to highlight that July is Scleroderma Awareness Month. As some colleagues will be aware, I have a lifelong commitment to raise awareness of this rare and wicked autoimmune and connective tissue disease that claimed the life of my late wife, Carmen, at the age of 42. This disease, which is particularly common in females, has no known cure but early diagnosis can be of huge benefit to treatment of patients.
Accordingly, I ask all colleagues and their staff to go away and find out more about scleroderma so that they may better raise awareness in their Member States. Furthermore, I would like to pay tribute to the work of two charities, Scleroderma and Raynaud’s UK, and the Federation of European Scleroderma Associations, which work so hard supporting scleroderma patients and their loved ones."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-13-Speech-2-118-000 | "Mr President, at least we are being honest about our intentions and our motivations. We are not pretending really that the purpose of these Structural and Cohesion Funds is really to improve the economies of the recipients. If it worked, then Greece would now be bailing out Germany, as the biggest recipient versus the biggest donor. What it is all about, as the report says, is the visibility of the European Union. In other words, if you put enough 12—star flags on things, maybe people will support the project, and thus more and more people get drawn into a nexus in which they believe that they are financially dependent on the European Union.
There is though a cost to be paid. If you encourage people to look for every rise in life to Brussels, then they are not out making things and selling things and contributing to the robustness of the private economy, and therein lies our problem."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-13-Speech-2-119-000 | "Mr President, I supported this report because we need people to understand how Europe works for them, unlike the comments of Mr Hannan. We have already had a very interesting presentation of the Erasmus Programme, which has been in existence for 30 years. Many students who are on Erasmus now do not realise that it is a European Union programme. So I say well done to the rapporteurs on this report.
It is time that Europe started speaking out about its successes. We are damned by those who will point to our problems, but there are enough successes to far outweigh the difficulties that Europe faces. I welcome this report and I think it is the start of a fight-back for the European Union. I am proud that the flag of Europe is on projects. I am also proud when there is an Irish flag on those same projects and I see no conflict. I see a strength in that, not a problem."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-13-Speech-2-174-000 | "Mr President, I want to put on the record my support for this report because there are citizens in the gallery here who, I hope, do not understand because they have not experienced what it means to be in this category of statelessness. But, as we heard from previous contributions, it means that you do not have rights, and you do not have what other citizens have. There is a real problem in South and South East Asia on this issue. This report highlights this, calls for more information and wants action to address the issue.
Mention was made of the situation in Myanmar and of the 1.2 million Rohingyas. This is a very big issue, and I am proud and happy that Parliament has supported this report. But we need to follow up with constant attention and vigilance to the issue, and we need to put pressure on regions and governments to do something about it."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-13-Speech-2-268-000 | "A Uachtaráin, vótáil mé i bhfabhar na tuarascála seo agus bhí sé suimiúil a bheith ag éisteacht leis an Uasal Tamburrano nuair a bhí sé ag caint. Mhol sé a bhean chéile agus is dócha gur féidir a rá gur féidir linn tionchar na mban a fheiscint sna moltaí seo mar tá siad praiticiúil.
Ar dtús nuair a fhéachaimid ar an tseanscéim a bhí againn, A, A+, agus A++, chuir sé meascán mearaí ar chustaiméirí. Chonaic na mná, go háirithe mná céile, é sin agus tá athrú tagtha anois. Tá scéim i bhfad níos ciallmhaire againn, grád ag dul ó A go G agus dathanna éagsúla ag gabháil leo freisin, a chabhraíonn leis na custaiméirí a n-aigne a dhéanamh suas, a gcuid astaíochtaí a laghdú agus airgead a shábháil dóibh féin i ndeireadh na dála. Dá bhrí sin, is scéim phraiticiúil chiallmhar é seo agus molaim gach duine a bhí páirteach ann."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-13-Speech-2-309-000 | "Mr President, international partners should be, and can be, reassured that research, development and innovation in the United Kingdom will continue at the same pace, if not faster, post Brexit. The European Union programme Horizon 2020 does not focus on wealth creation from innovation: it is all about support for researchers, and that is a serious flaw in the programme.
By contrast, Singapore and China, for example, undertake regular and rapid updates of focused R&D to further their commercial and global advantage. If the European Union is absolutely serious, then, instead of the self-congratulation that we heard in the report, this Parliament should be asking the Commission to focus on a new initiative, and on putting a focused team structure in place to galvanise research, exploration and exploitation."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-13-Speech-2-417-000 | "Madam President, eurozone leaders remain mired in denial. It is true that, by its miserable standards, the common currency is having a less disastrous year, transforming itself from a snail to a tortoise in terms of growth, but a fortnight ago Mr Dombrovskis claimed that, after its inception, the euro quickly became a symbol of prosperity for our citizens. Tell that to Italians, whose economy is not much bigger than it was at the turn of the century! Tell it to Greeks, whose death rates have soared amid the collapse of the healthcare system!
Mr Dombrovskis says recovery is firmly under way, after having incorrectly anticipated it for several years, but this so-called eurozone recovery is akin to a drunk managing to stagger three consecutive paces in a straight line. We know it is going to lurch face first into a brick wall at any moment, because this is a flawed political construct. To trap Greece and other southern economies in the same currency as Germany is simply folly. These economies need their own currencies that can depreciate to protect their activity levels in the face of Germany’s superior productivity path. They do not have Germany’s scale, brands, R&D budgets, communications infrastructure, technical education system, export networks, harmonious industrial relations or work ethic. Even their climates dictate a daily pause in activity. But instead of navigating back toward sensible economics, the EU keeps using the ideology of integration as its lodestar.
Even Romania and Bulgaria are expected to join the euro, lining them up for the same fate as has been visited upon Greece. Unless the people of Germany are willing to fund giant and permanent transfer payments to the weaker parts, which they are not, there is no long-term case for expanding or deepening the eurozone. Do not deepen it: dump it."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-13-Speech-2-427-000 | "Madam President, in typical Commission fashion, a European unemployment insurance scheme is dangled like a carrot to gain public support, while the trade-off is the harmonisation of labour relations and anti-worker reforms. As for the proposed investment scheme, it is contradictory nonsense to create a scheme to protect investment during downturns while insisting on keeping the Fiscal Compact strait-jacket in place.
These measures will not solve the eurozone structural problems, and they demand a trade-off in rights, democracy and popular sovereignty. I do not oppose transfers to correct imbalances but I will oppose them if they are conditional. Social rights cannot be dependent on economic performance or a state’s adherence to fiscal rules. Rights are rights.
We will not fall for the trap of surrendering more ground on democratic rights in exchange for crumbs off the table. What we ultimately need is a real public investment plan to stimulate growth. We need effective sanctions against current-account surpluses, investment to be excluded from the fiscal rules, and rejection of the Fiscal Compact being enshrined in the Treaties at the end of this year."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-13-Speech-2-447-000 | "Madam President, I heard earlier that, apparently, the symbol had become a symbol of prosperity. You can try and dream that up and say it is true, but it is not true. It is a symbol of incompetence; it is a symbol of bad planning. In fairness, you have admitted that there was bad planning, that you did not have the right architecture in place, and it was not very well organised.
Imagine you went out in the morning and bought a car, but when you went out to drive it you discovered when the dark came that there were no lights, and when you tried to put your foot on the brakes, it would not stop and crashed into the ditch. You have admitted that you caused the problem, but when that happens – when you go for something, when you promise something – if it goes wrong, you get compensation for what happened.
In Ireland, we got hit the tune of EUR 60 billion because you had no brakes or no lights on this vehicle. We are currently picking the glass out of our face. EUR 6 billion in the last two years we have borrowed and burned. Symbol of prosperity? Cop on, get real!"@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-13-Speech-2-449-000 | "Madam President, the title of this discussion is a reflection paper on the deepening of EMU by 2025, and I would like to compliment Commissioner Moscovici and Vice-President Dombrovskis for coming here and making their presentations and taking the views of Parliament on board. I am quite sure they will reflect on what has been said and eventually come up with good, practical proposals. One of the nicest headlines I have seen in the last couple of weeks was one which said: ‘Eurozone economy grows more than expected’ – 1.9%, in fact – and I was here in the last mandate when everybody was forecasting the demise of the euro and the European Union. Now that measures have been taken to get things on a proper footing and things are beginning to grow again, it is only right that we should reflect and see how we can keep this growing without impinging on national sovereignty. I think this is a good discussion and we can get good progress in due course."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-13-Speech-2-451-000 | "Madam President, I would like to thank the Vice-President and the Commissioner for the presentation. The more integrated the eurozone is economically, the stronger the EU will be. However, with the UK looking to develop a new relationship with the EU it is really critical that we have clarity in how capital markets union (CMU) becomes a reality for the EU-27. Given the important role the UK is playing in terms of market finance and given the importance of the euro as a global currency, how does this reconcile with calls to localise CCPs out of the UK?
Secondly, with the CMU mid-term review, one of the focuses is on greening of the CMU. This is really welcome and positive, but more needs to be done, for example on the investment side. How do we ensure, Commissioner and Vice-President, that greening of the EU economy finance becomes mainstream?"@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-13-Speech-2-452-000 | "First off, congratulations on Labour’s great result. I would like to ask you this question: do you regret Britain not joining Economic and Monetary Union? If it had joined, Jeremy Corbyn would not have been able to make the wonderful promises that he did to put money into the economy and borrow forward into the future. You would not have been allowed to do that. You would not have had a choice in the election if you had joined EMU. Are you sorry you did not join it, or are you glad?"@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-13-Speech-2-453-000 | "Thank you for the congratulations and indeed we are very pleased with the result. We hope that this will lead to a different kind of relationship between the EU and the UK and that is what we are looking to do. Of course we had our reasons in terms of whether we could join the eurozone or not. The timing was not right for us and I am not going to go into what would have been the consequences had we joined or not. I think it was absolutely the right decision at the time for the UK not to join, but we wish the eurozone every success because our economy depends on the eurozone being successful."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-13-Speech-2-472-000 | "Mr President, the deadline for the re—approval of the use of glyphosate in the EU is rapidly approaching, and soon a decision must be made on this very important issue. Although I agree that the release of recent confidential documents disclosed to the public in the US are reason for concern, we take the position that glyphosate is one of the few herbicides that our farmers have at their disposal, and compared to earlier products is safer. Glyphosate is the world’s most widely used herbicide, and such products are also used in public and private gardens, as well as in agriculture. However, as much as I would like to see herbicides phased out completely, realistically this is not possible, especially in the UK where we have a very mild, damp climate which is conducive to weed growth. Until an alternative product is found, I believe that we cannot remove a necessary tool from the arsenal of farmers who cultivate vast areas of land. I would, however, like to see Member States give more encouragement and financial help to those farmers that wish to farm organically."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-13-Speech-2-474-000 | "Mr President, decisions involve choice and choice involves consequences, but the issue that I believe we are facing this afternoon is one of public confidence in the decisions that the European Union takes. Two of the issues that I have with what the Commissioner opened with is how can he stand there and make the points he did when the European Union expert body, the European Union Chemicals Agency, this year said it should not be classified as a carcinogen; the WHO conclusion: ‘potentially’ hazardous to human health – not conclusively hazardous to health. We have lots of products out there that are ‘potentially’ hazardous, but we do not ban those. We have to draw a line somewhere in terms of being reasonable.
Some of my colleagues have already highlighted – and others will, I am sure – the issues, the consequences, that will come of banning this particular product, and none of them are very positive for our farmers and for our agricultural business. I have read quite widely issues about protecting wildlife. If the decision to ban this is to protect the environment, I am for it – but not based on the flawed information we have heard."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-13-Speech-2-478-000 | "Mr President, I would like to say to the Commissioner that we are asking farmers to meet the challenge of climate change and to provide a growing world population with a reliable food supply. Only productive, competitive agriculture can do that, and the key is safe technology. So the message is absolutely clear: public health is not negotiable, but farmers need every tool in the box. This debate about glyphosate is going to be the first of many future technologies, and those debates have got to bring clarity, otherwise scientists are not going to invest in technology. It has got to bring consistency, otherwise farmers cannot plan their future. And it has got to bring confidence that the food we eat is safe. Any debate in the future about technology like glyphosate has to be balanced and has to be proportionate, and that means, Commissioner, the debate has to be about proven science – not about emotion."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-13-Speech-2-492-000 | "Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for his very detailed opening to this debate. I think we owe it to you, Commissioner, to read the detail and study it because there was quite a lot of information in this. I think it is also important to point out, because there seems to be some confusion about what glyphosate is, that it is a weed killer, not a pesticide and I think that is an important point.
Secondly, to those who say we can do without it – hands up those in this Chamber who will go out and weed the fields. Because there are very few of you who will do it. I used to do it as a child, and that is long, long time ago. I think we need to be mindful of the possibilities or the options for farmers who need it. I am looking in the gallery here and when I go into a garden centre anywhere in Europe, I see wall-to-wall glyphosate products because gardeners across Europe use this product.
This is a debate that is worth having. Monsanto, I think, is on trial here and I am happy for Monsanto to be on trial, as is GM technology, but I do think we need to be careful about the other issues and Agencies that are on trial here: the Food Safety Agency and the Chemicals Agency. We do have to have trust in these Agencies. I would be deeply troubled if this Chamber became the authorisation place for any product, but I do believe that this Chamber should be where we debate these issues. And that is why I welcome the debate but I am concerned about some of the comments that have been made.
This is an important part of the technology, as has been said, that farmers use. If I believed that there was a problem, I would call for a ban as well. However, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is out of step with all of the other Agencies that have looked at this product and we need to acknowledge that. So perhaps Commissioner, when we analyse the information you have given us and follow up, as many of us will, with some questions, there will be greater clarity on this issue. However, I think many of us come to this debate with closed minds; mine is slightly open, to science."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-13-Speech-2-497-000 | "Mr President, for 40 years, we have been using this material in Britain very successfully. The British authorities were quite happy to pass it for safety under the risk-based assessment. The EU likes to use the hazard-based assessment – but of course anything can be a hazard, such as the salt and pepper we put on our food; it is the degree that counts. The Canadian authorities have crawled all over glyphosate and they cannot find anything wrong with it. And, of course, over these 40 years we have had canaries in the mine – these are the sprayer operators who handle the concentrated material. There would be queues in doctors’ surgeries if there was a problem, but there are not queues in doctors’ surgeries. The Health and Safety Executive in Britain, which looks at accidents on farms, sees far more problems with falling from heights, getting tangled in machinery, drowning in slurry or drowning in grain – exposure to pesticides is way down their list. The World Health Organization says this material is no more carcinogenic than sitting in front of a log fire, cutting human hair, working night shifts, being exposed to dry cleaning fluid or drinking the Argentinian drink ‘mate’. The WHO says that this material is far less carcinogenic than drinking coffee, drinking alcohol or eating processed meat. We are being very silly here.
The burden of proof is obviously on the manufacturers, and they have always got in mind the thalidomide scandal. It now costs EUR 200 million and nine years to get a material through this process – only a large company can afford to do it. The green lobby are determined to kill agriculture."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-13-Speech-2-502-000 | "Mr President, I have listened to this debate. I heard Miriam Dalli outline the case against glyphosate and I listened to the Commissioner very carefully when he answered. I think that on balance the Commissioner is correct. Because if one reputable agency said glyphosate was safe, then you would be inclined to say: this is an independent agency saying it is safe, so you should go along with it. But when two agencies say it is safe, then I think to actually go against them, and especially to ask for a ban, does not make much sense to me.
I have spoken to many farmers, horticulturists, etc. about this, and they are deeply concerned. Before you talk about any ban, you should have an impact assessment on what the effects are going to be. Are we going to allow the weeds to destroy the village farmers’ crops? The same for the horticulturists, the same for our gardens when glyphosate has been used for many decades and, to all intents and purposes, seems to be safe.
We have, of course, to take public concerns into consideration. We have to allay people’s fears. But we can do so in a practical and logical manner. As the Commissioner pointed out, it is not just European agencies, agencies around the world have said similarly. So I think that this is an overreaction. We certainly have to be careful, we certainly have to be prudent and we have to allay, as I said, people’s fears.
But in relation to Monsanto, they do not own the rights any more. They produce it, there is a company in Ireland that produces it and sells it, and they have been doing it for many years. Are we going to suddenly say: ‘sorry folks, fold up the tent, your business is gone’? That is not the way to go ahead."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-13-Speech-2-517-000 | "Mr President, I have listened very intently to this debate, and I just want to say that of course we all want a healthy countryside and a good environment for us all to live in; so do our farmers.
No one in this House has a monopoly on virtue in this particular matter. Our farmers are responsible farmers. I represent the East of England, which is a major agricultural sector in the United Kingdom. Our responsible farmers rely on good scientific, evidence—based information for what they are doing. From what I have heard from the Commission this afternoon, that is exactly what we have. I hope that the Commission will bring an end to all the uncertainty on this, and confirm once and for all the authorisation for glyphosate.
It has been very clear: we are hearing repetitions of the same sort of scaremongering, the same things. Listen again to what the Commissioner had to say, look more closely at what he said to us all. So let us put an end to all this nonsense, and let us give certainty to our farmers – our responsible farmers."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-13-Speech-2-527-000 | "Mr President, when discussing the Democratic Republic of the Congo in this Chamber six months ago, there was some hope that the deal brokered by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference would pave the way for elections by the end of this year, ending the political stalemate, and President Kabila’s 16 year—long rule.
Today, no progress has been made in implementing the terms of that agreement and the general security situation has actually worsened. This is particularly the case in the Kasai province, where security forces and members of the Kamuina Nsapu militia continue to clash regularly. Reports suggest that in the last five months, 500 people have been killed in the fighting and a further 1.3 million people have fled the area.
In North Kivu province, meanwhile, concerns remain about the activities of rebel groups including the March 23rd Movement and the Islamist militia known as Allied Democratic Forces. The latter has been accused by the government of being responsible for an attack on a prison just a couple of days ago – an attack in which 11 people were killed and over 900 prisoners escaped.
As similar security threats manifest themselves across the country, the urgency for President Kabila to go and to have fresh elections to be called becomes ever more necessary. Certainly, his justification that the country cannot afford elections is frankly ridiculous."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-13-Speech-2-543-000 | "Mr President, I welcome the fact that the EU has imposed sanctions against many of those responsible for violence in the DRC, but the rest of the world, as we have heard, is standing by while mass grave after mass grave is being uncovered in Kasai.
Just three questions. Firstly, three million people are displaced in the DRC, half a million children are at risk of malnutrition, where is the global outrage? The UN is struggling to raise 60 million in emergency funds. How can we ensure that funding targets are met and humanitarian access is secured?
Secondly, accountability. We do need to assist in gathering evidence and building cases to bring those responsible for murdering civilians to justice.
Thirdly, addressing the root causes is crucial, not just in Kasai, but the entire DRC is mired in crisis. President Kabila, as we have heard, is part of the problem and we need serious international pressure to kick—start the electoral process.
I urge you to put this on the agenda of the Foreign Affairs Council on the 19th and deliver a strategy to tackle the crisis, together with our international partners. Failing this, destabilisation of the entire Central African region will force its way up the agenda in a matter of mere months."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-13-Speech-2-562-000 | "Madam President, apologies for missing my slot.
Two years since the conflict began, Yemen is suffering from an extreme humanitarian crisis. Two million people have been displaced, and over half of the country’s population lacks access to safe drinking water or sufficient food supplies. Last month, as has been mentioned, saw the outbreak of a cholera epidemic which has already affected upwards of 100 000 people and claimed the lives of another 800. With humanitarian assistance already struggling to reach those in need, there is continued concern that the Houthi—held port of Hodeidah may be the target of an attack on the Saudi-led coalition. Given that approximately 75% of Yemen’s food supplies enter the country via this port, the devastating consequences of its destruction cannot be underestimated. The campaign continues to be marked by the disproportionate level of civilian casualties and very poor targeting of Saudi ordinance in their air campaign. The growing footprint of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) in parts of Yemen is also of grave concern, as are reports that suggest that the Saudi coalition has coordinated its attacks against the Houthis alongside AQAP. This is particularly worrying given the new US Administration’s continued hints that it may seek to play a more decisive role in supporting the Saudi-led coalition."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-13-Speech-2-566-000 | "Madam President, the fact that we are only now having this debate is a shameful indictment of the foreign policy values of this place. Not only is a humanitarian crisis a disaster for the people of Yemen, but also the wider region. The inability to act decisively brings instability to the rest of the world. With the Saleh Houthi regime refusing to negotiate with the UN special envoy, we are no nearer a solution to the crisis; thus, we can expect more bombings and suffering.
One ray of hope is the rise of the Southern Movement. It is possible that we can encourage peace and stability in the south by working with them towards a federal solution, even – as I’ve been saying for the past three years – if it threatens the integrity of the Yemeni state, which in my opinion is already a busted flush. We must listen to the south Yemenis’ peaceful call for a say in their future. Surely it is better than sitting back and continuing to let Yemen be a battleground for wider Saudi and Iranian interests."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-13-Speech-2-590-000 | "Madam President, freedom of expression and public discourse has always been, and always will be, the enemy of the status quo of the state – whatever that state may be. We see attempts in repressive regimes to clamp down upon that, but even in free western civilised nations we now start to see efforts by the state to clamp down on freedom. And whilst in the past that freedom of discourse might have been in the pub or in a public area, now, of course, it moves to the internet. The very concept of social media being clamped down on by the state – often using fear as the excuse – is completely against all concept of freedom, and I address this as well to the British Government, who have spoken very much about trying to clamp down on these things, using fear of terror as a reason. The one thing I will say, though, is that the idea of guidelines imposed from the European state upon freedom of expression on social media is in itself something of a contradiction. Free the airwaves, free social media, let’s all speak as we wish."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-13-Speech-2-667-000 | "Mr President, along with four other Members, I have just returned from the Election Observation Mission in Kosovo, where we heard from many reliable sources about significant interference and provocation from Belgrade, including intimidation of candidates and voters during the campaign period, leading in some cases to violence, including inter-ethnic conflict between different Serbian interests. The organisation of buses and trains from Serbia to Kosovo bearing nationalistic slogans in January and carrying likely bought voters last weekend, is also to be deplored.
Outside of the political arena, I witnessed the deep yearning, commitment and action of many Balkan young people who simply want to live side by side in peace, and whose vision shames the old order. Whilst old warlords and vested interests, both Serbs and Albanians, continue to prevaricate, slowing down the accession process, young people of all ethnicities crossed the Mitrovica bridge as part of the Musicians without Borders Rock School."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-14-Speech-3-017-000 | "Mr President, the agenda for this Summit highlights some of the big challenges ahead: security, migration and asylum, Turkey, as well – as others have said – as some discussions on the Brexit negotiations. Topics we have discussed before and no doubt topics that we will discuss again; but each time we have to ask ourselves: are we any closer to solutions and real action?
If you will allow me, let me start with the British general election. An election in which the Conservative party lost seats but not enough to lose power, and where the opposition gained seats but not enough to gain power and ended up 56 seats behind, and just as in any other country, for example the Netherlands at the moment, the largest party will seek to form a government with support from a smaller party. But the UK Government expects to begin negotiations later this month, for we have kept you waiting long enough.
Just as in this Parliament, the largest party will need to build wider coalitions in order to pass legislation. Now if that means addressing concerns over civil liberties while drafting new laws to tackle the threat of terrorism, to my mind a wider coalition is not necessarily a bad thing.
Can I also take this opportunity to thank colleagues from across the political spectrum for their messages of condolences and solidarity after the recent terrorist attacks in both Manchester and my home city of London. We may be divided on our politics but we are united in not wanting to allow the terrorists to win.
I hope the Council will understand the importance of tackling terrorism at different levels. At the international level: military cooperation without undermining NATO, better data sharing between national law enforcement agencies; at the national level: upholding the rule of law, our shared values and the security of our citizens, as well as making sure that any shared intelligence is actually acted upon; and at a local community level: encouraging local projects to tackle radicalisation at its roots.
But security is just one of the issues facing us. The migration crisis continues as does the EU-Turkey deal, and the ECR believes that the EU should focus on a new relationship based not on the false promise of membership, but on an honest relationship based on cooperation. Because while the deal with Turkey appears to be holding for now, the Council must seek consensus from all Member States to effectively tackle the migrant crisis, in case that agreement breaks down, by getting the basics right – processing asylum applications quickly and efficiently, returning those who do not qualify to their country of origin, agreeing clear criteria for qualification, based on the Geneva Convention – and by not continuing to pursue a struggling relocation scheme without the full support of all Member States.
Our discussions on the challenges will continue way beyond this Summit and future ones, but how many times do we have to discuss them before our voters see real progress? While others will call for new rules, the ECR Group calls for the EU to make what we already have work better. While others will call for more agencies, the ECR Group calls for more action and while others will call for further political integration, the ECR Group calls for political cooperation for a reformed EU which does less, but does it better."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-14-Speech-3-021-000 | "Mr President, I know that a lot of the people here are very pleased with the result of the UK general election and view it as a victory for the EU. Let me give you a sense of perspective: in the 2015 general election, just 13% of voters voted for parties – namely UKIP, which was the only one – that wanted to leave the European Union. Last Thursday, over 85% of British voters voted for parties on a manifesto not just of leaving the European Union, but of leaving the single market as well. In fact, on the morning of the general election, 70% of the British public – whichever way they had voted in the referendum – simply wanted the government to get on and complete and conclude Brexit.
I know that Theresa’s terrible campaign has cast a bit of doubt on this, and I saw that Emmanuel Macron yesterday – a call echoed by Mr Verhofstadt this morning – said that there is still time for the United Kingdom to change its mind; that it does not have to leave. Let me tell you that the only certainty in this mess is that we will be leaving. But that has not stopped a parade of former prime ministers and of former European Commissioners from lining up and attempting to get the British Government to backslide on its commitments. There is now a big push, a big drive, for us to opt for a Norway-style option, and I have to confess that your chief negotiator, Mr Barnier, is right: it took Theresa May nine months to trigger Article 50, and by the time the talks start it will be nearly four months since it was triggered, so I do accept that we go into this, as a British Government, with a British Prime Minister in a very weak position. And she is caught in a bit of a pincer movement, because the political class would like us to stay in the customs union and to stay in the single market, but the people have made it perfectly clear they want us to leave both of those things. And I would say this: that unless Theresa May – and it is difficult for her, because she never really believed in Brexit – stands up at the summit next week, in those negotiations, and makes it absolutely clear that she is not giving an inch – that we are leaving the single market – then her own party will get rid of her, and then yet more time will be lost in the Article 50 process."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-14-Speech-3-028-000 | "Mr President, I have just noticed something and wondered if everybody else had noticed the same thing: that all the leaders today are speaking in English. They do not normally speak in English. This is extremely strange, and I thought my good friend President Jean Claude Juncker here had said that English was no longer the language of the European Parliament. Is there something I have missed here, ladies and gentlemen?"@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-14-Speech-3-033-000 | "Mr President, today in this Chamber the political elites are gloating and cheering. They have overseen the resistance parties failing to take power in Austria and France, UKIP decimated and a Conservative Brexit government weakened. Political elitism is a doctrine of servitude, but its forces are strong, determined and well financed and it is attacking and destroying its enemies one by one.
They infiltrated UKIP; they isolated, ignored and removed true conservative party Brexiteers; they attacked and removed the voices of resistance from our radio and TV stations. They attack and abuse the President who was elected in the United States of America, yet celebrate the globalist placeman they installed in France. Those who love freedom: patriots, Democrats, Brexiteers, must say no more. We must regroup and return fire. We must fight for a true Brexit, not a fake Brexit."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-14-Speech-3-043-000 | "Mr President, at next week’s Council there will be a new Irish face around the table – and a new face of Ireland, perhaps. Today, the taoiseach Enda Kenny hands over that office to Leo Varadkar, and I take this opportunity to wish our new taoiseach, our new party leader, well in his work ahead, and also to acknowledge the great work of Enda Kenny as leader of our country in very difficult times.
Yesterday there were tributes paid to him, and the most remarkable comments were the simplest and nicest ones – about his sunny disposition, his optimism in dark times, and how that is so needed in politics today. That disposition was undented by six years in office, as I say, in very difficult times. He spoke about the honour that he had of leading our country, and I hope that our new leader will carry that same optimistic disposition and work for a united Europe.
His last call was to Theresa May to warn her about a Brexit that would damage the Good Friday Agreement. We should honour his words, his commitment to peace and his commitment to Europe. I salute his work, and I wish our new leader every success."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-14-Speech-3-046-000 | "Mr President, since the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, the response from the EU has been ‘more Europe’. It has announced its intention to speed up the Capital Markets Union. It has increased the size of the Juncker fund by a staggering EUR 185 billion and announced the formation of a common defence fund. There are also suggestions that EU funding in the future will be contingent upon national acceptance of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and that non-eurozone members will have to adopt the single currency.
This is staggering authoritarianism and control-freakery in terms of a political system. It is all very well suggesting that the so-called populist parties across Europe are now in demise; I would suggest and ask the EU to very, very seriously consider whether some of the announcements that they have made and the demands that are now being placed on Member States will actually be counterproductive to what they want to do in terms of stopping populism."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-14-Speech-3-064-000 | "Mr President, I would like to thank very much President Heine for coming here today and for her clear leadership and inspiration to the High Ambition Group.
For those of us who have struggled perhaps a little bit with how to address Donald Trump, what tone to adopt towards him – after all, he is a legitimately elected world leader – he has now solved my problem, because I am very happy to publicly and loudly say that this, and his action, is reckless. It is myopic and it is totally irresponsible.
It is made even more contemptible by the fact that we now know that he has decided that climate change is real. He has stopped his denying of it. He says it is real and indeed his ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, has confirmed that for us. So that makes his decision even more contemptible. He is not even pretending any more that he does not believe in climate change.
We can also see that he has a complete misunderstanding of the Paris Agreement and what the US’s obligations are under that Agreement. He seems to think that it will be giving US industry an extremely unfair position and totally ignoring the fact that actually it gives the US a huge amount of flexibility in how they deal with making sure that they stand up for their obligations.
And given the modest commitments that the US is being asked to make – let us face it, for many people what the US is being asked under Paris is actually still way underperforming Europe and many of the Member States in Europe – it seems even more the case that ‘the Donald’ should be asked exactly where he gets his information and his advice from, because with higher per capita emissions than the world average, the US has a moral duty to significantly reduce its emissions and ensure that global average temperatures remain below 2 degrees C.
Maybe we should say that the next human-caused climate disasters should be called Hurricane Donald, Super Drought Pruitt, or Tropical Cycle Bannon, because that is going to be his legacy."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-14-Speech-3-065-000 | "Mr President, President Trump is not the only threat to our global environment and the beautiful island states such as yours, President Heine, and thank you for coming to talk to us. Climate change sceptics in the UK also threaten European global protection. The British elections delivered a disastrous result for our Prime Minister, and Ms May battles on – she has appointed a new Environment Secretary, Mr Michael Gove. Gove has a shocking record. When he was Education Secretary, Gove wanted to get climate change off the school curriculums. He voted to sell off all of England’s publicly-owned and protected forests and woodlands. He has voted 12 times against measures to prevent climate change, including opposing limits on greenhouse gas emissions. He supports fracking and he supports drilling in national parks. He has opposed refitting homes to stop carbon loss. To quote a past colleague of this House, Caroline Lucas, who is now an MP: ‘Michael Gove is an environmental disaster waiting to happen’. During the Brexit referendum campaign, Gove stated that he had enough of experts. Well, frankly, the experts and the public have had enough of him, too, just as they have had of President Trump.
Colleagues, please be tough during the Brexit negotiations when it comes to the environment, as you will be with Mr Trump. Climate deniers like Gove need to know they have international treaty commitments that they cannot evade. He will try to slip and slide on environmental agreements. So, given the election results last week, it remains to be seen whether the UK will actually leave the EU. But if we do, the UK, just like the US, must fulfil its international environmental obligations. Environmental challenges do not stop at borders. Our environment, our planet, is interlinked, especially when it comes to the most vulnerable states on the planet. We must work together to protect it in the UK, in the US, and of course driven here by the European Union."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-14-Speech-3-078-000 | "Madam President, may I, from this Hemicycle, send congratulations to President Trump for his wisdom and courage in pulling America out of the climate agreement in Paris and resisting the pressure from the green lobby, of which we have heard so much today. In fact, he has given America a huge competitive advantage in terms of industry and exports, which will be damaging to Europe if we cling to the outmoded climate passion that we have heard in this Hemicycle.
Some colleagues will be familiar with the peer-reviewed paper published recently by Danish statistician Bjørn Lomborg, in which he estimates the cost of Paris at USD 100 billion by the end of the century, when the impact on climate will be 0.17 °C. In other words, an eye—watering amount of money for virtually no return. This is pure virtue signalling and gesture politics; we should be ashamed of ourselves."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-14-Speech-3-079-000 | "Madam President, last month colleagues from across six nations this side of the House wrote to President Trump, urging him to pull out of the Paris climate agreement – and he did. He is putting American jobs first. He is fighting against global interests; he is protecting the nation state; he is trying to protect his citizens from terror. He is a president that has the guts to stand up to the global elites and their green hobbies. He puts American people first, instead of virtue signalling with other people’s money.
Trump’s policies, like Brexit, have really challenged the status quo in this place, and that is why you are all so frustrated now. So good luck, President Trump. I wish you well, along with Steve Bannon, your chief strategist. You are winning, and we are winning, despite the rhetoric that goes on – and despite Ms May really messing up. But I am sure all my colleagues across this House would like to join me in wishing President Trump a very happy birthday."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-14-Speech-3-102-000 | "The debate is closed."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-14-Speech-3-134-000 | "Mr President, I am in favour of the Paris Agreement. I cannot help noticing the sudden change in tone, though, of its other supporters. A year ago, they were telling us that it was a bare minimum, that it was inadequate, and suddenly, the moment Donald Trump pulled out, it became central to the survival of human civilization. But we will leave that to one side. It seems to me sensible to have countries working voluntarily on this kind of issue.
What is not sensible is to defend it – as so many in this House have been doing – as an economic project, the idea that it is all about creating green jobs and so on. To see what is wrong with that argument, consider Frédéric Bastiat’s example of the broken glass. If somebody went round smashing windows, that would – on exactly the same argument – create lots of jobs, because there would be lots of jobs needed for glaziers, people to drive the new glass, people to install them and all the rest of it; but of course we can all see that we would still be worse off. If we are prepared to pay an economic price, fine – that is a perfectly valid convincing argument. But for heaven’s sake, let us not insult people’s intelligence by claiming that this is somehow going to boost global growth."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-14-Speech-3-135-000 | "Mr President, what we are talking about is the contribution that agriculture, transport and construction have to make to climate change. The issue is how much of a contribution can be made, particularly by agriculture, because the Council conclusions of 2014 recognise the low mitigation potential of the sector and, indeed, the Paris Agreement talks about the food security issue and the vulnerability of agriculture to the adverse impacts of climate change.
I was concerned about the targets that Ireland, in particular, would have to reach under this agreement, but I supported the report because of the overall thrust of its direction: that all sectors have to contribute. I count on the negotiations to take out the most difficult aspects of this from an Irish point of view, so that we can keep forging ahead with a sustainable food supply chain, supplying our EU customers and global customers."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-14-Speech-3-136-000 | "Mr President, it is important that we meet the Paris objectives, particularly in light of the statements recently by President Trump, and I do not think anybody disputes our commitment under the Paris Agreement to binding annual greenhouse gas emissions and how we are going to reduce those. As a member of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, I was involved on behalf of the PPE in preparing our input into today’s important vote. But I think we should take note of the different positions that Member States have, the different structures of their economies and their varying capacity to meet those targets. I therefore supported amendments, that unfortunately were not accepted, seeking to ensure we have a more flexible and less punitive approach towards the greenhouse gas emissions reductions, and I acknowledge the many difficulties that many countries face after the financial crisis. The agricultural sector is particularly sensitive for Ireland and we have raised this objection today, but overall I support the report and its implementation as we aim to meet our Paris climate change objectives."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-14-Speech-3-139-000 | "Mr President, like my colleagues, I am totally in favour of the Paris Agreement and EU targets for 2030. However, we have a huge difficulty with the 2020 target setting, which was implemented here in Parliament. For that reason, I tabled a split vote on that. It means that rather than starting on actual emissions, we had to start with a target which was not reachable, was not practical and which will now probably cost the Irish taxpayer EUR 1 billion to purchase compliance. We are starting a non-compliance method.
This is not fair to us, and we have to make a stand on it and ensure that this is rectified in due course. It was only in the last minute, I think, that somehow the rapporteurs etc. got this point where Ireland and other countries are concerned. Starting in a non-compliant way, like we are, is like starting a 100 metres race where one person has to start 20 metres behind. It makes no sense, it is not fair, and it has to be amended. That is our biggest issue; we want that message to get across; we are totally in favour of reaching the 2020 targets otherwise."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-14-Speech-3-140-000 | "Mr President, it was a very difficult decision for me to abstain on this report and not to support it, because it contains many good proposals on the reduction of greenhouse gases. However, what has happened here is that we have let the best become the enemy of the good, in particular by setting a starting date of 2018 and not 2020, as proposed by the European Commission. The starting point is critical, and pushing it back to 2018 could, as my colleague Seán Kelly has said, ensure an additional liability of EUR 1 billion for Ireland, and I simply could not support that proposal, because it is a bad proposal. I think what we have done here is to run counter to the Paris Agreement and the October 2014 Agreement, which recognised the low mitigation potential of agriculture and that food production and food security are important elements in any proposal on climate change. I hope that in the negotiations the start date will be moved back to 2020 and we can get a good overall outcome."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-14-Speech-3-238-000 | "Mr President, I supported the report on the need for an EU—wide strategy to end and prevent a gender pension gap against the background that we have of an ageing population and the gap that already exists in the labour market and wages between men and women. Women do need more financial security, particularly in their later years.
As we know, there is a wage gap of about 15% – or 14%, depending on the country – which manifests itself in terms of pension payments of 34%. So it needs to be addressed, and I am encouraged that the report manages to respect that there is a subsidiarity issue here but outlines a number of recommendations that need to be acted on. We need to look at statistical tools to clearly determine the reasons for the gap, focus on inequalities and the ability to make pension contributions and, of course, look at opportunities to create labour market conditions that are favourable for women to participate at work, also encouraging the Member States to look at repercussions and the way in which their pension systems are organised.
All in all, I think it is a balanced report, putting forward the need to ensure that we do have an EU strategy to address the gender pay gap."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-14-Speech-3-241-000 | "Mr President, I, too, was happy to support this report on the gender pension gap. In particular, I support the call for the Commission to include pension reforms in the country-specific recommendations, and these reforms should include measures that relate to women’s participation in the workforce: work—life balance and the care of children and dependants, because that will help to reduce the gender pension gap. The Commission’s own proposals on work-life balance, which include a directive on carers’ leave, on parental leave, and also on flexibility in the workplace, will help to ensure work-life balance, and that in turn will help to narrow the gender pay gap and the gender pension gap, which stand at approximately 14% and 34% respectively in Ireland. Crucially, I also support the need for measures to ensure that women’s pay and entitlements, including pensions, are in line with the principle of equal pay for equal work or work of equal value for men and women. That taken with the work-life balance, I think will help to make significant inroads into the gender pension gap."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-14-Speech-3-445-000 | "Mr President, Brexit was a wake-up call. The EU must reform to survive. We need a social EU based on democracy, human rights and national progressive sovereignty; but I have concerns that the powers that be are not listening. Instead we hear much talk of a multi-speed Europe, deeper integration, austerity and an EU army, and I believe that is a mistake. The last thing we need, I believe, is more integration with EU funds skewed towards military research. People do want more participation, more solidarity and more democracy, not guns and corporate bail-outs. The north of Ireland voted against Brexit, but our democratic vote has been ignored despite an international agreement, a Good Friday agreement that is lodged at the United Nations and which must be protected in all of its parts.
Sinn Féin believe that Ireland, north and south, belongs in Europe, but we want a Europe of equals, a Europe that will cherish all the children of the nation equally, and where no one will be ignored. You could do yourself a great service, if many people here have not already done so, by reading and perhaps adopting the Irish Proclamation."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-14-Speech-3-446-000 | "Mr President, I would like to say to the Commissioner that you talk about a refoundation in Europe based on values anchored in effective democratic institutions which will promote a prosperous economy and a fair society. We, in the UK, will continue our journey to independence which will give us all of these. The vision of the EU is precisely the opposite. It is a vision based on opportunism, corporatism and neo-colonialism. It is anchored in institutions which are profoundly anti-democratic and which have delivered poverty, hopelessness and division in many of your constituent nations. One only has to look at the utter destruction wrought upon the economies of southern Europe. Do you think that the damage caused, such as 48% youth unemployment in Greece can be repaired by a Euro rail ticket? This is so blatantly insane. It is comparable to using a sticking plaster on a bullet wound. The only way the nations of the EU can achieve stability, growth and fairness is to follow the UK out of the European Union."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-14-Speech-3-484-000 | "Mr President, until the end of June, Malta holds the incumbent Presidency of the Council of the European Union. For many politicians, it seems to be a good moment to attack this small republic. This debate is linked to the Panama Papers committee working on tax avoidance, tax evasion and money laundering. The Maltese financial services sector has come under increasing pressure from abroad, especially after the reappointment of Keith Schembri and Konrad Mizzi in the Maltese Government – both of them appear in the Panama papers. Nevertheless, it is not the European Parliament that should interfere in the investigation of a sovereign nation state. Many MEPs in this House are exploiting this debate to push forward their agenda to ban economic competition between countries. By using outdated buzz words like ‘fair tax competition’ and talking about a ‘level playing field’, these EU federalists are trying to cover up their real aspirations – creating a big supranational taxation union. This debate shows to the people of the UK why it is so important for Britain to leave the EU by way of a hard Brexit, which means no membership of the single market, no membership of a political union, and no membership of this socialist taxation union."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-14-Speech-3-498-000 | "Mr President, the Panama Papers have given rise to many scandals and corruption, and it is quite right that we create laws to prevent such waste and deal with those scandals. So why doesn’t the Commission deal with the biggest scandals of all: the waste of the European Union of the taxpayers of Europe? Take, for example, the Parliament building in Brussels, built in 1993 for EUR 1 billion, and now we are told today that it’s potentially about to fall down and needs rebuilding for EUR 393 billion. Or the new Wilfried Martens building built for EUR 125 million – 15% more than ordinary buildings of the type would have been built. The European house of history: EUR 60 million. The parliamentary building: EUR 422 million. And now we have our own MEPs’ cocktail bar for EUR 1.9 million as well – there is the scandal, ladies and gentlemen. Thank goodness we in Britain are going to leave the European Union, so that we don’t have to deal with those costs and waste anymore."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-14-Speech-3-546-000 | "Madam President, the lack of awareness of EFSI is a problem. I know this very well from my constituency in Wales. It is a particular issue in the cultural sector, a sector which makes an increasing contribution to the economy. This report recognises that sectors such as social infrastructure, health and education are under-represented, receiving only 4% of approved EFSI financing. Culture and education represent a tiny percentage of that 4%.
I am pleased that the Commission has already announced that it is frontloading the Creative Europe Guarantee Facility through EFSI. But concern was expressed in the Committee on Culture and Education that funding had been diverted away from the Horizon 2020 budget and, despite being assured that the money would still reach the university sector through EFSI, this has not happened. So that must be put right and the funding restored."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-14-Speech-3-547-000 | "Mme President, today in Ireland a new Irish taoiseach was elected, Leo Varadka, and I want to wish him every success. One of the key issues he has highlighted for Ireland is this investment gap, which is so evident across many Member States but especially in Member States that have gone through a financial crisis – a gap of about 20% in Ireland. I want to agree with Commissioner Moscovici when he said very clearly that EFSI must be a success for every Member State in every part of our European Union, and we must do much more to promote the opportunities that EFSI can advance in economies right the way across the European Union.
In Ireland, because of this investment gap, we need to do much more in drawing down funds and lending opportunities from EFSI. Last year about EUR 800 million was lent by the EIB to Ireland, but only a small percentage of that was in EFSI. I believe the Irish government should set a very clear target of being able to get lending opportunities of over EUR 5 billion over the course of the EFSI plan for new lending opportunities in Ireland, and I also think we should look again at how we use the pillar banks to obtain lending opportunities to small businesses, especially in Ireland. The key aspect of EFSI, its genius, is the idea that we can underscore and underwrite the risk factor that frequently does not allow investment to go into new business and to new lending opportunities. That is what makes EFSIs so useful, and that’s what we need to continue to support for jobs, investment and growth."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-14-Speech-3-551-000 | "A Uachtaráin, cé go gcuirim fáilte roimh infheistíocht chun fostaíocht a chruthú, táim buartha go bhfuil an baol ann go mbeidh EFSI 2 chomh lochtach leis an gcéad cheann. Anois agus sinn ag lorg geallúint ar tuairim is 10 mbilliún breise as an mbuiséad, cé hiad na daoine is mó a bhainfidh buntáiste as so? Cinnte tá na focail chearta á n-usáid: infheistíocht níos mó i dtíortha go bhfuil geárchéim eacnamaíochta acu, an plean a bheith trédhearcach, díriú ar na gnéithe sóisialta. Ach an bhfuil an baol ann nach bhfuil iontu ach focail? Cá bhfuil an luach sóisialta? Bhí deis againn difríocht a dhéanamh anso ach tá ag teip orainn an difríocht sin a dhéanamh. Ag sodar i ndiaidh na hinfheistíochta príobháidí, ag freastal ar thíortha go bhfuil na hacmhainní acu chun an ciste a riaradh agus gan ach 4% don chiste ag dul i dtreo gnéithe sóisialta.
Má táimid dáiríre i dtaobh aghaidh a thabhairt ar fhadbanna dífhostaíochta, éagothromaíocht shóisialta, géarchéimeanna tithíochta agus aire a thabhairt don ghlúin óg, caithfear treo nua ar fad a chur i bhfeidhm. Ní féidir bheith ag díriú ar son an mhionlaigh amháin, beidh buiséad laghdaithe againn gan dabht tar éis Brexit agus an baol ann nach mbeidh sé inbhuanaithe. Tugadh gealltanas sa chéad EFSI go mbeadh infhestíocht ar fáil do chomharchumainn shóisialta; bhí sé seo mar aidhm agus do theip glan air. Níl sé seo sásúil. Ní haon ionadh is dócha nach bhfuil aon mhuinín ag an pobal insan Eoraip seo ná i gcóras na mbanc. Brabús do na bodairí móra agus an tsochaí ag díol go daor as.
Mar sin, cathain a bheidh Eoraip shóisialta á cruthú againn? Is é an nualiobrálachas atá i réim go soléir anso agus táim anois ag glaoch ar thacaíocht do na comharchumainn shóisialta sin arís."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-14-Speech-3-597-000 | "A Uachtaráin, mar thoradh ar Bhreatamach, is léir go bhfuil tréimhse neamhchinnteachta maidir leis an ngeilleagar i ngach Ballstát os ár gcomhair amach.
Tá sé ríthabhachtach dúinn ar fad a chinntiú go bhfuil cobhsaíocht neartaithe maidir leis an ngeilleagar go háirithe sa mheántéarma. Cé nach mbeinnse ná mo pháirtí sásta, bearta eacnamíochta cosantach a chur chun cinn, tá sé tábhachtach go mbeadh grinnscrúdú fairsing deánta ar aon mholadh chun infheistíocht eachtrach a chur i gcrích. Caithfidh sé bheith mar aidhm na hinfheistíochtaí seo a bheith réadúil le buntaistí tugtha don earnáil phoiblí agus nach mbeadh stát coigríche ábalta a straitéisí cosantacha a chur i bhfeidhm anseo.
Caithfidh tionscail straitéiseacha, cumhacht an eolais agus leibhéil oideachais fhorbartha fanacht faoi smacht na mBallstát. Caithfidh siad fanacht faoi smacht na mBallstát tríd an earnáil straitéiseach atá ann faoi láthair chun cinntiú a dhéanamh ar fhorbairt teicneolaíochta, fás inár ngeilleagair agus, mar thoradh air sin, níos mó poist mhaithe a chruthú."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-14-Speech-3-618-000 | "Madam President, I would agree with much of what our colleague there has just said: that if we look at the UK, for example – and this is supposed to be one of the world’s strongest economies at the moment – we have 30% of children classified as poor, and two-thirds of them are in working households. So there’s something to be said about the wage level which is not actually allowing families to live and children to be properly cared for.
So when we’re looking at the Commission’s recommendation and the Council’s buy-in, we know that they recognised – as Parliament does; we see it in our development aid policies – that those first thousand days of life are critical. And yet we look at some of the measures we take, and the Fundamental Rights Agency has reported more than once that the link between national child poverty rates, the country—specific recommendations formulated and the measures suggested in the national reform programmes are not always clear. So can we join up our thinking to make sure we have the effect that we want?"@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-14-Speech-3-622-000 | "Madam President, according to statistics released in March 2017, child poverty in the UK has risen by over 400 000 since the Conservatives took power. Twenty-nine per cent of children in my own constituency of the East Midlands live under these conditions. The situation is similar throughout Europe, and indeed is even worse in many places.
What are we doing? How can any child in Europe be left behind so badly? For all the hot air of politicians throughout this continent and all the failed policies, we continue to fail our young people. It is simply not good enough. GDP growth and statistics mean nothing if children have nothing on the dinner table. We cannot go on like this, and we must ensure real change before we fail an entire generation."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-14-Speech-3-624-000 | "Madam President, the Commission has already acknowledged that austerity has increased inequalities, social injustice and poverty in Europe. Children are among the most impacted and remain the group at the highest risk of poverty and social exclusion. We need, therefore, to have decisive political action so as not to exclude a great part of the next generation.
As a member of the Intergroup on Children’s Rights, I am proud that my political group is pushing hard for the creation of a child guarantee, in line with the Investing in Children Recommendations, ensuring that every child in Europe at risk of poverty – including refugees – has access to free healthcare, free education, free childcare, decent housing and adequate nutrition.
Children must also play a role in decision—making that concerns them, and the Children’s Commission on Poverty in the UK involves young people investigating peer poverty and making concrete policy recommendations at all levels. The NUJ and the Church Action on Poverty have also worked with young people to produce excellent guidelines, which will end the demonisation of the poor by the right—wing media."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-14-Speech-3-634-000 | "Madam President, the European Union is all about peace and prosperity, and we have thankfully had peace on the continent for 60 years now. Prosperity has come in fits and starts: the recession obviously meant that an awful lot of people went below the poverty threshold. It is very sad for that to happen, especially in relation to young people.
As has been pointed out, the consequences of child poverty is that a child does not get the opportunity to reach their potential. All of us here have had the opportunity to reach our potential; many, many children in Europe, and indeed across the world, do not have that opportunity. So it is incumbent on us – and it is good that we are debating this tonight – to ensure that we can do whatever we can to give them that opportunity. Maybe, in 30 years’ time, when we have another display out here on Erasmus, many of the children who are in poverty now might be lifted out of it and benefit from the Erasmus programme as well."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-14-Speech-3-653-000 | "Madam President, the rapporteur has tried very hard, but for us the platform report is far too restrictive, so we have tabled an alternative motion giving our more open, flexible vision.
Let us remember that the aim of the Digital Single Market is to help European companies to scale up in the same way that American companies do: an innovation—friendly environment. For that, there cannot be a one—size—fits—all approach to the sharing economy – especially for platforms. No two platforms are the same. You would not regulate banks and gardening centres in the same way, so why are we doing that with platforms?
Platforms are disruptive, but that is good. They offer new flexible employment options and better choice for consumers. The sharing economy matches unmet demand with unused resources; it is an economist’s dream. We want European platforms, but consumers do not care where the platform comes from. They want a good service, and the sharing economy empowers consumers in a way that has never been seen before. It also empowers workers. If platforms lose trust, they lose business and they lose their workers, so we need to be very careful in how we go forward with this. We have got a huge opportunity to shape a new vision, and we should get on with it and not restrict it."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-14-Speech-3-674-000 | "Madam President, on the day when we see the end of roaming, it is good to be discussing the digital economy and the next steps forward to make Europe the world leader into the future in this whole area. Having been involved as a rapporteur for the Data Protection Regulation, I am slightly worried that we might go too far and not get the balance right. I am just looking at some of the proposals in the Privacy Directive, and I think they are gold—plating some of the balanced proposals we had in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The same goes for platforms: we have got to get this right so that the economy can grow and so that consumers are protected, and all the other things mentioned by colleagues, like paying tax, B2B, etc., all have to be done properly, because the Digital Single Market is our way forward in Europe. If we can get it right, maybe the United Kingdom might want to stay, or at least come back in again."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-14-Speech-3-684-000 | "The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 15 June 2017."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-14-Speech-3-688-000 | "The next item is the debate on the Commission statement on the taxation of ports ()."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-14-Speech-3-701-000 | "Madam President, I come from the island of Ireland, and we have many great ports in my own constituency. We have ports like Rosslare, Waterford, Cork and Shannon Foynes, which is one of the most naturally deep-water ports in the world. Our ports have a huge role to play as our economy develops into the future, and also indeed in even tackling climate change, where you should utilise them more to carry cargo and get it off the roads.
I think the Commissioner has some worries about taxation and some ports across Europe. I was pleased to hear him say that the information he has gathered so far is confidential – that is the way it should be. It is very important that this will be broadened, that there will be discussion with the Member States involved and that all ports across Europe may be looked at so that we establish a level playing field and that one does not feel discriminated against the other – that is a very important issue. Gathering all the information across Europe and then making it available would be the best way to progress."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-14-Speech-3-707-000 | "The debate is closed."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-14-Speech-3-709-000 | "The next item is the debate on the Commission statement on statute and funding of European political parties and foundations ()."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-14-Speech-3-716-000 | "Madam President, when you state subsidise something, you encourage more of it. Farmers set aside land more regularly, because the European Union pays them to do so. We pay child benefit because it is socially desirable to encourage people to have children. This debate concerns European political parties. You will, I am sure, recall the old joke suggesting that the word ‘politics’ derives from the Greek ‘poly’, meaning ‘many’, and ‘ticks’, meaning ‘blood sucking insects’. The irony of an MEP saying this is not lost on me, but we are subsidising politicians.
European political parties do not appear on ballot papers; they do not form governments; they do not even correspond to the political groups in this place. They exist because we subsidise them. If we actually needed them, they would exist without subsidy. Let us save the taxpayers’ money and find out whether or not we really need them, shall we?"@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-14-Speech-3-725-000 | "The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 15 June 2017."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-15-Speech-4-017-000 | "Madam President, all the talk here has been about what the EU can and should do to enable growth, employment and innovation in Europe. I have an idea that to all of you might seem strange and against all precedent, but will, I think, work. Do nothing. In fact, stop what you are doing now. Roll it back. Let our nation-states do what they think is best for their peoples. Every nation is different, every nation has different strengths, circumstances and psyches. Your overarching one-size-fits-all strategies simply do not work and will only cause more hardship across our continent. Stop trying to harmonise everything. All your big plans do is give influence to the tens of thousands of lobbyists and their paymasters in tax-eating mega businesses and NGOs which infest your corridors of power and restrict innovation.
Let nations set their own tax rates. Let them do what they think best. Let national governments and their peoples again have the freedom they need to innovate and to create employment. This incessant desire to do something is actually a drag on innovation and employment. Do not follow the five-year plan mentality of social cooperative-style ideology. You cannot legislate yourselves into prosperity. Step back. Stop piling administrative burdens onto businesses and governments and let people work in their own enlightened economic self-interest. Innovation happens only when people have the freedom to innovate. Forcing people into your perception of what they should do is not only morally wrong: it is counterproductive. Resist the prescriptive urge. That is the only path to prosperity.
This constant desire to do something, anything, merely brings into existence a boa constrictor that chokes life and spirit from free peoples. Resist it. Let small businesses breathe. Take your fingers off your legislative trigger and burn some of the red tape you have already created. We will all be much happier for it."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-15-Speech-4-032-000 | "Madam President, I listened to Mr Reul’s answer to the question by Mr Bütikofer and I think it made sense, because there is a tendency – especially in this mandate – for Parliament, whenever the Commission makes a proposal, to have to change it, be it good or bad. We have to go either above or below what the Commission says. Sometimes this does not make sense, and I think we have to look at it, especially if we want to grow industry in Europe, to do what is practical, and not to be overburdening them with all sorts of regulations, etc., that are unnecessary.
The second point I would make is that talent is vital as well. Recently, BorgWarner in the town where I live, close to Tralee in Ireland, expanded. They said that the reason they did so was that the local institute of technology (IT) was producing the talent they needed. We have to support the ITs in particular, in order to bring the talent that is needed for the industries of the future."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-15-Speech-4-043-000 | "Madam President, the alleged abduction of Azerbaijani citizen Afgan Mukhtarli on Georgian soil is an extremely concerning and serious case, particularly given his background as a journalist who has fled there in search of a safe haven from persecution by the Azerbaijani authorities. Allegations that the Georgian security services may have in some way been complicit with these events is also of deep concern, and I welcome the calls in the resolution today for a full investigation of these claims.
Investigative journalism that seeks to uncover corruption and abuses of justice is vital in all countries, but especially so in countries such as Azerbaijan, which are marked by distinct deficiencies in the democratic processes and the rule of law. Incidents such as this undermine the efforts to encourage journalists such as Mukhtarli to continue their work in freedom, and to believe that sanctuary can be found if necessary. I hope, as investigations into the affair proceed, that we will at the very least see the release of Mukhtarli, and that all charges filed by the Azerbaijani authorities against him in this regard are dropped."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-15-Speech-4-068-000 | "Madam President, the disregard for the fundamental right of freedom of expression demonstrated by the Azerbaijani Government, as evidenced in the case of Afgan Mukhtarli, is an issue of great concern to both my colleagues and me in the European Parliament, as is evidenced by this resolution and the speeches made by colleagues here this morning. Afgan Mukhtarli’s abduction and imprisonment is a clear violation of international law, and it is crucial that the Azerbaijani Government be held accountable. The alleged involvement of Georgian officials in this case must also be scrutinised in terms of respect for fundamental rights and the integrity of government, especially as he fled there and finished up in Baku. That was some safe haven in Tbilisi. Looking forward, the safeguarding of freedom of the press and freedom of expression should be prioritised as a central facet to the future of EU—Azerbaijani relations.
Dá bhrí sin, a Uachtaráin, caithfimid gach iarracht a dhéanamh chun an sprioc sin a bhaint amach agus brú níos mó a chur ar rialtas na hAsarbaiseáine chun Mukhtarli a ligean saor láithreach bonn agus más féidir sin a dhéanamh, beidh jab maith déanta againn."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-15-Speech-4-083-000 | "Mr President, in 2014 the EU allowed Pakistan access to GSP+, an exceptional tool to help kick-start the economy, and which, crucially, encourages progress on improving human rights. It has proved its value in many countries, but I question whether this is the case in Pakistan. A Parliament delegation visited Pakistan in April and, from our meetings with government officials and civil society, it became glaringly clear that a lack of the rule of law permeates Pakistani society, and human rights are violated instead of advanced. In March 2017, military courts that can try civilians were reinstated for two more years. The basic rights of foreigners brought to trial are trampled on, with no access to consular rights. People who work for NGOs face harassment, arrest or, worse, death. How many people are on death row under the vague blasphemy laws? We do not know, because there is no transparency. Anyone going about their business can be accused of blasphemy and then lynched by mobs. Those who belong to vulnerable groups like the Ahmadis live their lives in fear, with no democratic rights, yet the government fails to protect them. It is high time to see real progress on human rights and the strengthening of the civil judiciary in Pakistan. If not, GSP+ has to be reviewed."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-15-Speech-4-084-000 | "Mr President, our non-legislative and non—binding resolutions quite often lead to complaints from third countries of factual inaccuracies. Today, I intend to concentrate only on one aspect of what is in the resolution and do not in any way seek to take away from some of the very accurate comments that have been made by colleagues, whilst recognising that there are various inaccuracies as well.
Any consideration by an independent and informed eye of this resolution actually betrays an acceptance that external and externally sponsored internal actors in Pakistan are facilitating the terrorist targeting of innocent civilians. The people of Pakistan have carried a very heavy burden on behalf of the international community for a very long time – sometimes on very weak shoulders. But it remains the case that our EU policy to support Pakistan and the people of Pakistan in facing the challenges of terrorism remains the right approach."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-15-Speech-4-086-000 | "When a certain mind-set of individuals attack, maim and kill European citizens in Paris we all say that is wrong, but I say this to you, colleagues: when that mind-set of individuals attack us, they attack us for our values, and it is that same mind-set that then attacks innocent children in Peshawar. If we have the right to stand by our values, we must also stand by those innocent children when they are attacked."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-15-Speech-4-091-000 | "Mr President, the urgent resolution on Pakistan is regrettable, misguided and misleading. I stand against abuse of human rights, wherever it may arise, but such grave allegations as these should be based on fact, not fantasy. The despicable crimes detailed are just that: crimes, against the law of the land. They are repugnant to the majority of Pakistani people and condemned by the government.
To suggest that the State is behind them, has condoned them or turns a blind eye to them is simply not true. And this Parliament will demean itself if it supports the resolution. Interestingly, the text makes no mention of the delegation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET) to Pakistan last April, when we were welcome to raise any thorny issue we chose in the presence of senior government authorities, opposition parties, NGOs, think tanks and civilians, unlike similar trips to India.
Pakistan relies on our help to deliver on human rights and the rule of law, as a genuine ally and economic partner of the EU and the West. This resolution sends the wrong signals altogether."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-15-Speech-4-093-000 | "I am against the death penalty. But if you mention the death penalty, how many times have you criticised one of the biggest proponents of the death penalty: the United States of America?"@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-15-Speech-4-113-000 | "Mr President, Indonesia and the EU do enjoy very good relations, and, as the trade rapporteur, I am working to strengthen our trade and economic relations with Indonesia. However, it is important – as Mr Lenaers said – that friends speak openly and honestly to each other. The jailing of the Governor of Jakarta for blasphemy, the public flogging of two homosexual men and the other negative developments taking place in Indonesia seriously undermine our relationship.
I urge the Indonesian Government to review its blasphemy law, which puts religious minorities under threat and encourages persecution. I also urge it to review the application of Sharia law, which I think is being abused even under its own terms and is certainly being used by certain sections of society to discriminate against LGBTI persons. That has no place in a modern democracy. Indonesia should act to keep itself a safe country and to keep good relations with the Western world, including the European Union."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-15-Speech-4-134-000 | "Mr Gollnisch has raised a point of order, and then I will give you the floor, bear with me."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-15-Speech-4-136-000 | "Please, colleagues, may I have order? Mr Gollnisch, I will close your microphone now and I will respond. Mr Gollnisch, please listen to the Chair.
Mr Gollnisch is referring to our first vote, which we will get to presently. I will reply to your concerns. Mr Ehler, you have a point as well. Please raise it now."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-15-Speech-4-138-000 | "Thank you, Mr Ehler. We all support your kind and important remarks.
I refer now to the question about immunity and I will read the rules. Rule 9(6) provides that the Member concerned is given the opportunity to be heard by the committee responsible and the Member concerned – and we will vote shortly – was invited twice to appear before the committee, but did not accept either of those invitations."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-15-Speech-4-141-000 | "The next item is the vote."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-15-Speech-4-146-000 | "The proposal is to postpone the vote. Would anyone like to speak against the proposal?"@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-15-Speech-4-147-000 | "No, just to confirm that the ECR Group will endorse and support the position of the EPP in asking for a delay in the vote, as suggested by Commissioner Hahn."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-15-Speech-4-148-000 | "I am asking whether there is anyone in the Chamber who wishes to speak against. You have the floor."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-15-Speech-4-160-000 | "That concludes the vote."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-15-Speech-4-179-000 | "Mr President, it is always about the money, is it not. How much time we spend in this Chamber talking about transfers of cash! We never think about the debilitating effect it can have on individuals, on whole professions, consultants and contractors, and the people who have learned how to make a living out of the Brussels institution, even on whole nations who are encouraged to look beyond their borders for every rise in life.
We have evolved a whole special vocabulary to talk about how we keep the money going round. For example, the word ‘greed’ is always used for somebody who has a claim on somebody else’s money. It is never used for somebody who wants to keep his own resources. The word ‘solidarity’ is used when we European politicians arrange a transfer.
I would make one warning, one note of caution. If you vote for politicians who have promised to give you somebody else’s money, do not complain when they take your money to spend on somebody else, or indeed to spend on themselves."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-15-Speech-4-204-000 | "Mr President, the collaborative economy in areas such as travel and leisure has had a large potential to enhance the everyday lives of citizens and to create quality jobs. But it must be regulated responsibly to protect from exploitation workers and consumers involved in or relying upon these new business models. Equally, it is essential to ensure that taxation and other public policy priorities are regulated by this and are dealt with properly in the collaborative economy.
The text of this report reflects these concerns and I was pleased to vote for it."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-06-15-Speech-4-234-000 | "I voted in favour of this report in the light of the hard work that the rapporteurs, Ms Virkkunen and Mr Juvin, have done to evaluate the issues central to the consolidation of online platforms and a digital single market in the European Union.
I welcome the report’s thorough appraisal of innovative opportunities and regulatory challenges in this sphere. Essentially, the report also evaluates the digital transformation of Europe in terms of the collaborative economy and the transparent processing of data across digital platforms. By identifying the means of responding to these challenges we can bolster the digital single market and the competitiveness of our markets for the future. I wish to note the vital contributions of my colleagues in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy towards the finalisation of this report. I am pleased to voice my support, and I am expecting SMEs and citizens to benefit as we create a digital single market."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-03-Speech-1-064-000 | "Mr President, we are here discussing the spending of EU funds, and money which rightfully belongs to the taxpayer, to be given to Moldova in what is known as macro-financial assistance. I see plenty of politics here, and plenty of expectations being placed on Moldova in return for the cash, but let us be honest here: Moldova ranks at a miserable 127th place in Transparency International’s measure of corruption, lower down than Pakistan and Communist Cuba.
The explanatory statement that comes with this report says that the free trade agreement between the European Union and Moldova has contributed to the process of economic recovery. Well, that is what free trade does! If only the European Union actually focused on breaking down barriers to trade rather than creating them, perhaps it would be less of a negative force throughout the world.
The Economic Freedom Index places Moldova worse than countries like Rwanda and Swaziland when it comes to being attractive to trade and investment. The solution, here again, is not to give Moldova more money: the solution is for Moldova to become more competitive. Is giving so much money to a country so notorious for official corruption and economic poor performance really a good use of taxpayers’ money? For all our fine words, this is in essence foreign aid being given by taxpayers, so, surely to goodness, it should meet a common-sense definition of what foreign aid is for."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-03-Speech-1-097-000 | "Mr President, this report calls for the harmonisation of European standards, an unnecessary proposal which I cannot support.
The UK already has a high standard of products which are recognised across the world as being trustworthy and high quality. This is a tradition that existed long before we joined the European Union or it was created. Creating a European standard puts this reputation at risk, as not all Member States are yet able to produce products and services at the same high standard. Indeed, even testing centres for EU standards cannot yet guarantee that products produced under this proposal are all of the same quality. This is dangerous and it could serve to drive down standards and create an atmosphere of mistrust. It is a good job that we in the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union before irresponsible European law can have a detrimental effect on our economy."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-03-Speech-1-129-000 | "Madam President, last March the ECDPC and the WHO released data showing that new TB cases and deaths in the 53 countries of the WHO European region declined each year by 4.3% and 8.5% respectively between 2011 and 2015. However, this decline was not mirrored in vulnerable groups for TB infection, such as people living with HIV, prisoners and migrants, where new TB—HIV co—infections increased by 40% over the same period. Of greater concern is that this increase coincides with persistently high rates of drug-resistant TB, which threatens progress towards eliminating TB by 2030. Similarly, the incidence of viral hepatitis was also rising in vulnerable groups.
In my opinion, national governments should rapidly implement screening programmes in order to identify those people in need of treatment."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-03-Speech-1-149-000 | "A Uachtaráin, is dóigh liom dá gcuirfeá ceist ar shaoránaigh na hEorpa go ndéarfadh an chuid is mó díobh nach bhfuil HIV, TB agus HCV san Eoraip a thuilleadh. Ach ón méid atá cloiste againn, ní hamháin go bhfuil siad ann ach faraor tá na galair seo ag dul i méid – agus is trua sin.
Rud atá an-soiléir ná go dtéann sé lámh le lámh le bochtannas. Ós rud é go bhfuil geilleagar na hEorpa ag fás ar deireadh buíochas le Dia, ba chóir dúinn gach iarracht a dhéanamh teacht ar straitéis chun daoine a ardú as bochtannas agus chun cabhrú leo má bhíonn galar dá leithéid seo acu; go mbeadh siad in ann leigheas a fháil air agus drugaí a fháil ar chostas réasúnta. Is léir go bhfuil costas na ndrugaí ina fhadhb an-mhór agus dá bhrí sin caithfimid dul i ngleic leis an bhfadhb seo."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-03-Speech-1-180-000 | "Mr President, I would like to thank the colleagues who worked on this report. The EU must adopt a strong approach on this issue, especially at a time of deteriorating human-rights conditions and increasing conflicts around the world. Of the many pressing issues covered in this report, I would like to highlight the role of women and girls in conflict. Women must play a leading role in conflict prevention and reconciliation and we must never forget the role of victims and survivors in peace building. Their testimonies are hugely important.
I meet and work with women survivors of sexual violence in the Western Balkans, especially in Kosovo – women who have suffered abuse through the conflict there and who, years later, are still waiting for recognition, support and justice. Kosovo’s leaders must live up to their commitments and finally provide that support on the ground. As with so many women around the world who have survived war crimes and seen their rights and their bodies violated, these women’s voices must be heard for true peace and justice."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-03-Speech-1-211-000 | "Mr President, there is no question that today’s leaders and decision-makers have let down the younger generation. Young people today face continuous precarious employment as a way of life. The EU must take a lead in establishing workers’ rights in the new emerging gig economy, with online platforms providing temporary uncertain work to millions. The internet age has opened up many new opportunities for a dynamic, vibrant economy, but we must not compromise on people’s rights to decent work – and that includes people with disabilities.
I hope that the EU follows through on ensuring high-quality employment for young people and marginalised people and I will continue to fight for British youth to enjoy the benefits of those programmes too."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-03-Speech-1-236-000 | "Mr President, the cell door slammed shut behind him. He remained leaning against the bolted metal door for a few seconds before pacing across the cell – 10 paces in all. He still couldn’t really believe it. What had the judge said? ‘You must pay for your criminal actions: take him down’. What had he done? He had gone fishing. Just a bit of fun. The catch was unimportant. What was the technical term? ‘Common fisheries policy prohibited recreational angling catch’. How was he to know that he was only allowed to catch two bass, that the third – he hadn’t asked it to bite, it just had, and it made him a criminal. How did you get banged up for going fishing? The world was truly absurd.
This could be a short story by Kafka; in its implications, this report is both frightening and absurd. You are thinking of the stuff of dystopian nightmares and not fit for the real world and a tyranny to ordinary people and ordinary fishermen throughout Europe."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-03-Speech-1-247-000 | "Mr President, British citizens living in EU countries and EU citizens living in the UK have been suffering acute anxiety since last year’s referendum in the UK. EU citizenship rights are under serious threat, despite being enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. Theresa May’s offer to give residency to some EU nationals if they jump through hoops and pay for the privilege is neither fair nor generous. Indeed, it is an insult to people who have lived and worked in the UK for years. And what of the million or so who will not meet the five-year residency rule, many of whom are Eastern European and Roma, told to go home by emboldened racists? The Tory Government, under Theresa May’s shambolic leadership, is responsible for dividing our communities and whipping up xenophobia. A year on from the referendum and we are still no closer to a clear answer on the future of citizens living on both sides of the Channel. This is simply unacceptable."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-04-Speech-2-034-000 | "Madam President, thank you. Prime Minister Muscat, several times in your remarks this morning you spoke of the small size of Malta. You even praised the President of Estonia’s phrase that Europe is made up of small nations and states that have not yet realised they are small. Those remarks send out a message that being small is something that cannot stand up in the rest of the world. May I remind you that, in the top 40 countries of the world, Singapore, Hong Kong, Israel and Switzerland are countries that are small but have larger GDPs than most of the nations represented in this House?
The United Kingdom, my country, has the fifth largest in the world.
On your flag is the George Cross, something your nation won for standing up against the aggression of a larger entity. Your remarks are a shame on those people who believe that size does not matter, that only with the bravery, the spirit, the heart and the goodwill of people in staying strong and true to proper values, can they stand forward and move on in the world. You should not think that being small makes you insignificant, as you suggest."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-04-Speech-2-047-000 | "Mr President, I am interested in all the talk about ‘small’ because I come from a small country. We have held the presidency a number of times in our involvement in the European Union since 1973, and I think our last presidency was deemed very successful. It does prove that small countries can have very successful presidencies if they take it seriously, put in the resources and utilise the back-up that is available.
I think Malta did that very effectively and they are to be complimented on their dedication and on their practicality. One thing that happened during their presidency – they cannot claim full credit for it but it will always be recorded as happening during their presidency – was the end of roaming charges. They got it over the line, made sure it happened, and it is for the benefit of all Europeans.
It just shows that, whether a country is small or big, once we put our resources together and work together we can be successful for all Europeans. Malta is a perfect example and well done to them."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-04-Speech-2-060-000 | "The next item is the report by Hugues Bayet and Evelyn Regner, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Committee on Legal Affairs, on the Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2013/34/EU as regards disclosure of income tax information by certain undertakings and branches (– C8—0146/2016 –) ()."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-04-Speech-2-086-000 | "Madam President, the title of this debate and the Commission’s proposals sound quite innocuous – Disclosure of income tax information by certain undertakings – and is aimed at multinational companies with a high turnover. But it raises more questions than it answers. What, for example, does it tell us about the Commission’s future intentions?
We know the Commission wants big companies to supply it with information on their EU and non-EU operations for publication in an EU register. The list is modest in length, although no doubt it will cost companies a great deal of time and money to prepare the figures and also to have them audited, as the proposal requires. But it is a list that betrays a much wider ambition.
When the Commission asks companies not just about tax they pay in different Member States, but also to disclose the nature of activities in third countries – the number of employees in each location, the related net turnover and accumulated earnings – we can deduce that the EU aims to not only harmonise corporation taxes, but also to introduce taxes based on wealth, capital and turnover, rather than profits, and to challenge existing tax residency and transfer pricing rules.
When multinational corporations realise this, some of them will ask themselves why they should bother investing time, effort, and capital in the EU rather than somewhere else. Some will rightly conclude that markets are growing much faster elsewhere in the world and that bigger profits can be made without endangering themselves to the avarice of an EU Commission running out of other people’s money, which is shortly about to have a budget crisis when its second largest net contributor, the United Kingdom, leaves. There are only so many eggs you can get out of a golden Google!"@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-04-Speech-2-088-000 | "Madam President, everyone wants the corporates to pay more tax and be more transparent in their activities. In Ireland’s case the total take from corporation tax has doubled in the past three years, now representing 15% of the total tax take, as against the OECD average of 10%. The international tax agenda under the OECD’s Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) process is working, and actions taken by the EU have reduced the opportunities for aggressive tax planning by large corporates.
Ireland supports country-by-country tax reporting by multinationals. Since 2015 there is an objective for companies to report to Irish Revenue their tax profit and turnover figures on a country-by-country basis, although this information is not out in the public. I believe the public have a right to know: a right to know what business activity a company is involved with, its number of employees, its turnover, and its profits before and after tax.
It is good that this information is to be publicly disclosed, but it needs to be done in a sensible way. We must not give other regions of the world an advantage over the European Union. This is a globalised economy that does not play by the same rules. Our response must not be to make our businesses – businesses that employ millions and millions of Europeans – more disadvantaged. That is not transparency.
There is much agreement across this Parliament on the measures to be taken. There is still some disagreement on the question of the safety clause. I believe that the outcome from the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs in agreeing to a safety clause that requires national and Commission agreement and oversight is a better starting point, and I would encourage all Members of this House to support and back that."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-04-Speech-2-094-000 | "Madam President, public country—by—country reporting is the single most important action that we can take to lift the veil on profit shifting by multinationals which results, as we know, in EUR 500 billion in tax being lost each year. So we need to get it right. Limiting the proposal to companies with a turnover of more than EUR 750 million excludes 85% of multinationals; it should apply to those making more than EUR 40 million. We need to demand that companies report the full breakdown of their figures in each country – not only in EU states and countries on a future EU tax blacklist, which we know will be a very limited list. It is appalling, I have to say, that conservative groups in this House have introduced a so—called ‘safeguard clause’ on this global breakdown. This is a loophole you could drive a truck through. And make no mistake, its purpose is to continue to allow profit shifting to tax havens to go unhindered. The only people with anything to fear from tax transparency are tax cheats and their cheerleaders, so why – the question needs to be asked – are you helping them?"@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-04-Speech-2-113-000 | "Madam President, the principle that everybody should pay their fair share of tax is undeniable and applies to individuals as well as big corporations. But we have seen in the past that big corporations will use every loophole to avoid paying tax so it is up to us, as legislators, to close those loopholes and that has been done at OECD level and within the European Union.
This is a global problem and, speaking as a member of the PANA Committee, we can see that it needs a global response. One area we have to be careful about is having legislation that would disadvantage companies with headquarters within the European Union as opposed to those outside the European Union. I think that is something we have to be careful about. Country—by—country reporting is important – as Mr Karas and others have said – but I think that we have to look at the bigger picture as well. The only way to tackle this is a bit like with climate change: a global agreement with the same rules applying across the globe."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-04-Speech-2-118-000 | "The debate is closed.
The vote will take place shortly."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-04-Speech-2-214-000 | "Madam President, the glory of European civilisation has always been found in its diversity, its variety and its pluralism. Unusually among the great civilisations of the world, this continent never became centralised as a single empire, but remained rather a diverse plurality of competing states.
Let me make a little reference to something said by the great liberal German economist Wilhelm Röpke in 1952 as he saw the European project get underway. He said ‘in antiquity, Strabo spoke of the “many shapes” of Europe; [...] Montesquieu was to speak of Europe as a “nation de nations”; [...] decentralisation is of the essence of the spirit of Europe; [...] to attempt to weld Europe into one block is a betrayal of Europe and the European patrimony, and a betrayal made all the worse for being carried out in Europe’s name.’"@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-04-Speech-2-263-000 | "Madam President, the fishing community is one that has faced growing pressures from a multitude of factors in recent years, including pollution, climate change and overfishing, which make it increasingly difficult for fishermen to earn a reliable income. Due to the diversification of the fishing industry to include other activities, such as fisheries—related tourism, communities that rely on their fishing industry will hopefully be revitalised and incomes will be stabilised.
Coming from a country like Ireland, where fisheries have always played a vital role in coastal communities – and indeed the wider economy – I am pleased to support this proposal, which will re-energise the fishing industry at a Europe-wide level and, hopefully, create jobs. In view of the decision at the weekend by the United Kingdom Government to withdraw from the London Fisheries Convention and, inter alia, the common fisheries policy, the fishing industry certainly needs new markets and new measures."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-04-Speech-2-363-000 | "Madam President, the Greens have long been pushing for public country-by-country reporting and we are really pleased to see it making headway with this Commission proposal for public disclosure, supported and strengthened today by Parliament. I am pleased that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs supported disaggregated financial information from all countries inside and outside the EU, making tax transparency a truly useful tool, but I am sorry that certain parties in this House have sought to introduce loopholes allowing for no public disclosure in cases where information is considered commercially sensitive, something that it is impossible to define accurately.
We also need a much lower threshold than the current EUR 750 million turnover, which will mean that only 6 000 of the biggest companies need to report their information. I am sorry to say that while my colleagues on the right may claim to be parties of business, by undermining tax transparency in this way they are really ensuring that small businesses cannot compete fairly with the largest global corporations."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-04-Speech-2-439-000 | "Madam President, for too long consumers buying a fridge or a hoover or a washing machine have been faced with the fact that the goods are just not made to last the way that they used to be, and when they break they are easier to replace with a new product than to repair. If we want to address climate change and be more sustainable as a society, we need to tackle this use-and-dispose culture which runs counter to our commitments to the environment.
Today’s vote on product life cycles go some way to highlighting the problem and suggesting solutions such as ambitious design models, creating durable goods, finding easier ways to repair rather than replace, and supporting fair-usage-based sales models. If we can achieve a more sustainable base system for the sale of consumer goods across the EU we can start to realise the circular economy, creating new business models and supporting EU innovation and start-ups whilst protecting our environment. This must surely be a win-win for consumers and the environment."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-04-Speech-2-441-000 | "Madam President, I voted in favour of this proposal, which will support consumer rights through the improvement of product lifespan and by increasing the reparability of products through guarantees and increasing the accessibility of spare parts. Consumers must be protected from the growing trend of planned obsolescence, something that has become particularly prevalent in the software industry, and they should be assured of a reasonable product lifespan. By establishing minimum resistance criteria, this proposal will lead to longer-lasting products and will benefit both consumers and companies. In voting for this proposal, we are protecting the rights of the consumer and supporting the development of a functioning economy. Our message is: repair rather than replace, old is often better than new, and save rather than lose.
Well done to you on your chairing of today’s session, and have a good time in the future."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-04-Speech-2-443-000 | "Madam President, I welcome this report. It is particularly important that it aims to strengthen consumer protection, especially in relation to those products which are reasonably expected to last for a significant period of time. This is particularly important in the context of ongoing discussions on contract-law rights for consumers. It is important that we pursue greater value for money for reliable and durable products and that we benefit companies and the wider society by reducing waste.
It is also positive that this report reflects the need for minimum criteria on issues such as reparability and the ability to upgrade easily, especially when it comes to software. I was pleased to see that the amendments I put forward regarding battery technology issues and improving battery technology were included, and that the report calls for consumer safety to be protected, arguably in relation not only to general issues but also to spare parts."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-04-Speech-2-567-000 | "Mr President, the European Union will only thrive if we take reform seriously. We face many social and environmental difficulties, as has been outlined by Commissioner Timmermans, but I want to focus on the enormous economic challenges we face: competitiveness, the loss of jobs to overseas employers, low growth rates, eurozone stagnation. These have led to unemployment levels in parts of Europe that are far too high and poor wage growth that has led to stagnant household incomes for far too long.
So as the Commission designs its work programme for 2018, the foremost objective must be to address Europe’s economic weaknesses by pursuing measures that unleash and encourage the creative capacities of our entrepreneurs and businesses, especially SMEs. This will deliver benefits for the whole community. If we can get that right, so many of our other political, social and environmental problems will be easier to overcome. If we are economically weak, we will be dominated by others who may not share our democratic traditions or political principles, but if we are economically strong, we will be in a position to defend our values and promote our common interests in what will be a very difficult century ahead.
To help set an agenda of renewal, we have been pleased to work with the EPP and ALDE Groups on a joint motion. Of course, our Groups have very different political visions for Europe – there are many areas where we do not agree. But what we have in common is a desire to address Europe’s shared problems in a practical way, with a programme of constructive reform. So we have come together on the specific issue of the 2018 work programme to help set a strong and positive agenda for reform on key issues which would deliver tangible benefits to all our citizens, and I commend it to you."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-04-Speech-2-613-000 | "Madam President, listening to Ms Mogherini and Mr Katainen you would imagine we are starting from scratch on defence. We have very fine, capable armed forces right across Europe. We have a well-tried defence alliance, NATO, which binds the United States to European security and in which, with two very minor exceptions, all the EU Member States are fully involved as members.
So why does the European Union want to create autonomous defence structures? We all know it is about European political integration. That is what it is about. Listening to Ms Mogherini you would imagine that an EU army has already been created, although everyone denies that they want an EU army. So you need to make up your minds, Commissioners. Do you want it or don’t you want it?
What is the latest justification? Well, we used to hear a lot about the comprehensive approach. Interestingly, in this reflection paper on European defence, the words ‘comprehensive approach’ are not mentioned once. Instead we get a new justification and it is all about figures. It is all about the numbers of tanks and aircraft and things being produced across Europe, and invidiously comparing these with the capability of the United States. For example, it says the United States has just one type of main battle tank while the European Union has 17. This, of course, is complete nonsense. Realistically, there are two main battle tanks in Europe – the German Leopard II and the British Challenger II. The same with fighter aircraft: the US has six main types in service, and, according to this, the European Union countries have 20. This is complete nonsense. Basically there are two main fighter aircraft in service in the main European Air Forces – Tornado and Euro Fighter. Some also have the American F-16, of course, and the French went their own way with Rafael and the Mirage 2000 series.
These arguments just do not stand up to scrutiny, and why are you doing this, Commissioners? We all know you should come clean: it is all about political integration."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-04-Speech-2-619-000 | "Madam President, I think that after this I am going to have to report to the doctor because I think I am having a hallucination. I must be having a fantasy because I am sure I saw Ms Mogherini saying that there was going to be EU defence spending and EU armed forces and battle groups.
Now, during the referendum campaign in the UK the Remain side told us this was fantasy. No such thing! It couldn’t possibly be true. They couldn’t have been lying, so I must be dreaming you Ms Mogherini. It is quite a bizarre dream I am having.
The reality is: this money that is being squandered on this crazy political project, which will make no difference to anybody except losing money from the taxpayers, should be within the nation states, and they should be spending it on the one thing that actually does keep our nation safe – that is NATO. I suggest that each and every one of these nation states gets up to their 2% minimum spending, or maybe a bit more to make up for all the money that they have not put in over the years, and we will have a really serious defence plan through NATO, rather than this political fantasy."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-04-Speech-2-635-000 | "Madam President, stretched defence budgets in Europe and an isolationist President Trump in America, who is ambivalent about NATO, and soaring populations across some of the poorest parts of the world without jobs to match, have led to political instability in many countries ,whilst a rising China and an assertive Russia are unwinding the post-1991 international consensus.
Therefore, moves towards a European defence fund, a European defence industrial development programme, in addition to exploring the viability of permanent structured cooperation and the funding of EU battle groups via the Athena mechanism are all interesting developments in this direction. These are sensible measures aimed at improving European collective security, and strengthening the role of the EU Member States that they can play together in association and within NATO.
I am pleased that the UK Government has announced it will not be making any moves to block these plans as an exciting EU Member State. And I hope that as Brexit negotiations progress, creative ways will be found for the UK to stay as plugged-in as possible into the common foreign and security policy and the common security and defence policy."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-04-Speech-2-638-000 | "Madam President, another new shiny building, stuffed full of six-figure salary functions. Ms Mogherini, where is your army coming from? All military personnel joined their forces to serve their nation-state, not the EU. Will you recruit from the millions of unemployed young people the EU has created? Perhaps it is your idea of a job-creation scheme.
You oppose the nation-states erecting external borders, but you cannot control the millions of marauding migrants invading our continent. Yet you propose this military force. It’s just grandstanding. The EU shouldn’t be allowed to lead a group of boy scouts, let alone army tanks.
The enemy is ISIS. What are you doing to tackle this? Instead of an EU army we should be lifting Russian sanctions and working with them and the US to defeat ISIS. Ms Mogherini, this is a very dangerous proposal, led by you, a low-grade socialist, promoted beyond your capabilities."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-04-Speech-2-639-000 | "Madam President, René Magritte, the famous Belgian surrealist painter, used to paint pictures of pipes, and he would then say ‘this is not a pipe’. The EU has actually copied Magritte. Firstly, they said that the EU created peace in Europe, when in fact it was NATO. And secondly, they say they don’t want an EU army – in fact, what they want is a European Security and Defence Force, when everybody can see that what you want is an EU army. The European Rapid Operational Force (Eurofor) had 12 000 personnel: the size of an armed division.
EU money for extra drones and the military industrial complex will get tax deductions under proposals from this Chamber. And of course, as I see today, more and more MEPs want to have war with Russia – the new bogeyman. The idea that we have to have an army, so therefore we must have an enemy. The EU is attempting to create a new world order with a new EU army. This is what Magritte would have called surreal."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-04-Speech-2-671-000 | "Mr President, during last year’s referendum people in the United Kingdom were told that a vote to leave the European Union would bring upheaval almost from day one. So dire were the consequences, we were told, that sticking with the EU was really the only show in town.
This reflection paper on the EU’s future finances makes grim reading for taxpayers across the remaining Member States. It points to a EUR 12 billion annual shortfall as a result of the UK’s exit. Now, as before, the Commission goes down a predictable path of creating new spending priorities – spending on the European common defence policy, the challenges of migration and other ambitious plans could well add another EUR 12 to 13 billion to the deficit, making it in the region of EUR 25 billion per year.
Commissioner Hogan has confirmed a three billion black hole in the common agricultural policy budget. Just last week, Commissioner, you confirmed that other major programmes would not be immune to cuts. Inevitably, this will mean that countries like Germany, France and the Republic of Ireland will pay in more and will receive less in return. It will inevitably mean the raising of further direct taxes from citizens in order to finance these grand ambitions.
These are challenging times for all of us. We are entering a crucial phase of negotiation on the UK’s departure from the EU. Reading this report should remind this House just how important it is that we construct an agreement that is to the mutual benefit of all of our citizens, and not just the federalist ambitions of some."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-04-Speech-2-686-000 | "Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for his paper and to convey my apologies, as I listened to part of your contribution, Commissioner, because another meeting, on Brexit and the budget, beckoned. So we were linked, but not in the same room.
I have studied this paper and I am happy that you have set out scenarios that are not all pessimistic, because I was concerned – certainly as a Member of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development I was concerned – that the narrative in this debate was about taking money from the common agricultural policy and giving it to new areas or to other policy areas. I think that the idea of robbing Peter to pay Paul is unhelpful. It is very unhelpful to say to the rural parts of Europe that they must lose funds to other policy areas.
There are some interesting ideas in this paper, and some challenging ideas too around possible reforms of the common agricultural policy, including the distribution of payments, and some food for thought around how we will design a policy that meets the challenges of climate change and biodiversity and delivery. But let us not forget the income challenge in agriculture and in rural areas. It is frankly enormous, so this paper is really important.
We also need to hear from the Commission, and I think Commissioner Hogan will be delivering on the commitment on sustainable food supply chains, and on action to tackle unfair trading practices. So I think we are making progress – and thank you, Commissioner."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-04-Speech-2-688-000 | "If I understand the question, I suppose my answer would be that I agree with you. I think that, in a world where we have more demands and more policy areas that need support and we are concerned about existing areas including rural communities, then we do need more resources. But I also think we have to answer as to how money is spent. The Commissioner makes the point very strongly in this paper that we have to demonstrate added value, so it is incumbent on us here in the House to show that our policies, which we defend, do add value."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-04-Speech-2-718-000 | "A Uachtaráin, Is iad tosaíochtaí lárnacha do Bhuiséad 2018 ná cruthú fás eacnamaíochta inbhuanaithe; poist mhaithe, chobhsaí agus d’ardchaighdeán; comhtháthú socheacnamaíochta; an imirce agus ár ndualgais dhaonnúla; mar aon le aghaidh a thabhairt ar athrú aeráide.
Is ceart bunúsach é an imeascadh sóisialta i gcomthéacs an chruacháis ina bhfuil go leor inimirceach agus ní mór aghaidh a thabhairt orthu agus acmhainní mar ba chuí a chur ar fáil i mBuiséad 2018.
Mar aon leis sin, tá gá bearta sonracha a thacaíonn leis na réigiúin, go háirithe in Éirinn, tír a bheidh curtha uirthi go dona de dheasca scoir na Breataine ón Aontas Eorpach.
Theip ar an EFSI an bhearna infheistíochta a líonadh ar fud AE. Ba cheart plean infheistíochta poiblí uaillmhianach a chur i bhfeidhm ar fud fad AE chun cabhrú le hinfheistíocht straitéiseach agus struchtúrtha, a sholáthróidh ardleibhéal breisluach sa gheilleagar, san earnáil phoiblí, sa chomhshaol agus sa tsochaí go ginearálta.
Déanfadsa, agus mo comhghleacaithe i Sinn Féin, diúltú láidir d’aon iarrachtaí acmhainní a chur i dtreo míleatú AE nó do thaighde cosanta thar ceann AE. Ní hionann AE agus NATO, agus seasfaimid go láidir i gcoinne aon leathnú amach ar an gcomhghuaillíocht sa chomhthéacs Eorpach.
Ba chóir go dtabharfadh Buiséad 2018 aire do dhaoine atá faoi bhrú in ionad féiríní a thabhairt do chuideachtaí ollmhóra nó arm ollmhór a chruthú ar mhaithe le lucht an rachmais. Caithfimid a bheith réadúil mar gheall air seo agus aghaidh a thabhairt ar na daoine go bhfuil géarghá acu leis."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-04-Speech-2-720-000 | "Mr President, it will not surprise you, I’m sure, to learn there is much that I disagree with when it comes to the proposals for the 2018 budget.
Firstly, using our taxpayers’ money for projects which are broadly political in nature, whether so-called information campaigns or pre-accession funding given to third countries. And secondly, there are projects which would be better funded, better achieved, by Member States themselves. Rather than sending money across to the European Union for it to come back, it is sometimes better to simply cut out the middleman.
Thirdly, there is the waste, mismanagement and fraud within the EU budget – and we still do not really know, with EU funded projects, whether they have actually added enough value to be worth the money that has been spent on them. Fourthly, there is a failure to respect subsidiarity: doing things at EU level when there is no actual need to do so. And fifthly, of course, the waste in administration, which is so well known anyway.
There is much more that I could say on this, but what it all leads to is a budget that is perpetually too high, and it leads every year to the EU scrambling around to find ways to increase funding.
In the UK in 2010, when Labour was voted out of office, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury famously left his successor a note saying ‘There’s no more money left’, and this seems to happen here every year. If you tried to do less but better you would not find these issues coming up so often. Remember: a spending cap is meant to be a cap, not a target."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-04-Speech-2-746-000 | "Mr President, I have been watching a great new TV show based on Margaret Atwood’s novel ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’. Women are forced to do domestic chores, wear complete cover-up clothing, head dresses that act like blinkers on a horse; they cannot travel, drive, shop or even eat and drink without a man’s permission. They are entirely the property of men, with no legal identity of their own. The programme is described by its producers as ‘set in a dystopian future, a woman is forced to live as a concubine under a fundamentalist theocratic dictatorship’. We are all horrified! Can we imagine a path whereby our world could come to this? Well, no, this is fiction, right? It is not, because almost exactly these conditions exist in modern Saudi Arabia. This is not a country that we should be listening to on the UN Commission on the Status of Women. This is a country that we should be condemning, and we should condemn this appointment in the strongest possible terms."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-04-Speech-2-748-000 | "Mr President, the election of Saudi Arabia as a member of the UN Commission on the Status of Women is akin to something that you would read in a parody publication. At least three, possibly five, EU countries voted in favour of this shameful position – voted for a country where women are effectively legal minors their entire lives, where they require a male guardian’s approval to travel, to attend education, to access some health care. Shame on those Member States! A Freedom of Information request from me to the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs was refused, but it did show a flurry of email activity on the matter. Ireland is like the others who chose to hide behind the excuse of the secret ballots. But then, in Ireland, women’s rights and dirty secrets are nothing new. But what possible justification could there be for EU Member States to endorse the world’s leading oppressor of women now as a promoter of gender equality? In one word: trade!"@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-04-Speech-2-760-000 | "Mr President, we can all agree that Saudi Arabia being elected to the UN body that is supposed to promote and defend women’s rights is both preposterous and absurd. But whenever something like this happens on the international stage we get a chorus of right-wing nationalists bashing the UN and international cooperation, when in fact the opposite is what we need. Unfortunate situations like Saudi Arabia’s election come about because governments do not assume their responsibilities on human rights and gender equality, and choose to follow narrow national interests.
That applies, unfortunately, also to some EU Member States. The UN, similar to our European Union, cannot function effectively without the political will of governments. So, instead of simply bashing the UN, let us ask ourselves if we have done enough to promote women’s rights and gender equality in the world and in the Middle East. Have our own governments stepped up to the plate to promote these values at home and abroad, and how can we strengthen international collaboration and cooperation?"@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-04-Speech-2-822-000 | "Madam President, culture is a political issue. It is also a political tool, and I am glad the Commission has officially recognised that meaningful cultural relations – supported by the EU, based on diversity, equality and with reciprocal partnerships and locally-based initiatives – can help address stereotypes, extremism and populism, foster intercultural dialogue, peace-making, capacity-building and community development, and promote more harmonious and cohesive societies, both in the EU and in third countries.
Cultural institutions and artists from all disciplines have a key role to play, and such a strategy must be founded on people-to-people contacts and civil society involvement. In an increasingly complex and dangerous world characterised by an unprecedented migrant crisis and the rise of violent extremism – which includes the destruction of cultural heritage and the annihilation of minorities’ cultures as well as an increasing polarisation of international relations – deeper understanding and a willingness to work together is what we need."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-04-Speech-2-829-000 | "Madam President, it is 23.00, and my heart goes out to Mr Juncker in whatever fine-dining establishment he happens to find himself at this precise moment.
Instead of seeking to impose European cultural values on other countries, Europe’s nations should concentrate on protecting those values at home. it is good that gender equality, human rights, democracy, freedom of expression and the rule of law are listed as key values under pillar one of the EU strategy. But the sad fact is that these values are under increasing pressure within European countries.
A major cause of this, especially in respect of gender equality, is the importing of hundreds of thousands of young men from countries that do not respect those values. Not for the first time the EU’s ambition drastically exceeds its ability to deliver. Let us look to protect the key and precious features of our own culture instead of automatically believing that more diversity must always be welcome, no matter how much strain that diversity is already placing on our countries.
The best contribution Europe can make to the world in cultural terms is to carry on being a great example of tolerant, free and peaceful societies, where ideas are respected and where superior values prevail. Far more than a strategy for international cultural relations, we need a strategy for European cultural protection."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-04-Speech-2-851-000 | "Madam President, usually I defend my country’s privileged position as a Permanent Member of the UN Security Council, but tonight, a year after the UK’s sensible decision to leave the European Union, and with Article 50 negotiations finally under way, I turn my attention across the Channel. So, my French friends and neighbours – I can say that, can’t I? – will surely come to expect similar increased pressure over the retention of their own permanent UN Security Council seat.
France must not subjugate its international and security interests in the name of the EU collective. Since the Brexit vote, and in the rush for ever closer Union, the EU has demonstrated its inability to adapt in its rush for greater powers in relation to defence and security matters.
Through our joint efforts and sacrifice, the United Kingdom and France have greatly contributed to the maintenance of international security. Although this partnership has not always been perfect, it is strong and it must continue as such after Brexit. On this basis I would urge my French counterparts to abandon their support of the EU project, and instead throw their full weight behind this bilateral partnership, and fully commit to NATO.
If they do not do so, I fear it will be to the detriment of security for Europe and La Francophonie and internationally."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-05-Speech-3-025-000 | "Mr President, the G20 meeting gives the EU an opportunity to speak to the major economies of the world and to find out what their perception of the post-Brexit landscape will be.
I strongly suspect that the EU – and particularly the host nation Germany – is in for an unpleasant surprise. The non-EU countries will be eyeing up how to grab a bigger slice of the lucrative market of exports to the UK from you if the EU pursues its active economic self-harm by trying to exclude the UK from fair access to the single market.
The European Union’s decision in declaring a post-Brexit economic war on the UK won’t act as a deterrent to other would-be leavers. Your huge trade surplus with the UK will crumble and other non-EU G20 nations will be licking their lips at the prospect of trading with, and exporting to, the UK.
The revitalised, liberalised United Kingdom will be seen as a key trading partner by these nations, and we will see cars made in Detroit, rather than Stuttgart, on British roads. For your own economic wellbeing, I urge the EU negotiators to look into the hungry eyes of your fellow G20 nations and reflect upon the damage your present course will have on your precious project. Thank you."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-05-Speech-3-045-000 | "Mr President, my thanks to Mr Timmermans. As we approach the G20 Summit, we do so with our world facing huge challenges that threaten the common values and ideals that we share. In the United Kingdom, in London, in Manchester, in cities across Europe, Brussels, Paris and Berlin, terrorist attacks have brought death and destruction. The events in the Korean peninsula are a stark and vivid reminder of darker days we thought were in the past. The migration crisis continues. In the past ten days alone, an estimated 10 000 migrants have arrived in Italy from Libya, and yet we continue with the same bit-part solution that we have always had.
On all of these issues, a coordinated approach is required right across the G20 to bring about meaningful and lasting results – strong and united leadership based upon shared ideas of freedom, democracy and tolerance."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-05-Speech-3-053-000 | "Mr President, the G20 will actually revolve around Presidents Trump and Putin, not you. These two men working together can defeat ISIS. These two men understand the threat of migration and culture, jobs and identity. And migrants – no, no, no! What don’t you understand? We have got to secure our borders. Our cultures and identities are under threat and you are incapable of dealing with it. Presidents Trump and Putin actually get this. They understand the nation state and putting up walls and barriers.
We need to arrest and deport the migrants and tow them back to Libya. The Paris climate change agreement is a bad business deal, and Trump gets that because he is a businessman and he is right. And you are obsessed with the gender agenda. Please, we women do not need special treatment. I am not special needs, I take it most of you are not special needs. Stop singling us out. And get real to the threats we face: it is migrants, ISIS and security. You do not have the solutions. The nation state is the way forward, as we are showing in Brexit and the Visegrad countries. Your speeches this morning have confirmed that the death knell of the EU is ringing, so get used to it and go back to your nation states."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-05-Speech-3-055-000 | "Mr President, good morning everyone in the Chamber and thank you, Mr Timmermans, for the lack of tantrums that we saw yesterday from Mr Juncker, entertaining as it was.
I have two observations to make, and they are serious ones. We have heard this morning the usual calls for open markets, improved trade agreements and religiously enshrining and making sure delivery of consumer protectionism and such. But just remember please, everyone attending the G20, that when we talk about the impact in terms of job losses, falling wages and decreasing lifestyles and living standards, that’s what voters measure G20 meetings by, and we need to be a little bit more flexible in terms of that approach and the timing to achieve the objectives. But the other clear message for me that I would love the G20 to address is the existing European Union monetary policy, which clearly favours one major Member State and penalises so many others. We have young people out there who want jobs – want to work – and they have to leave their countries because of the EU monetary policy. So please can we send some very clear messages and change tack."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-05-Speech-3-090-000 | "The next item is the debate on the Council and Commission statements on the presentation of the programme of activities of the Estonian Presidency ().
I give a very warm welcome to the Prime Minister of Estonia, Mr Ratas, who is now President-in-Office of the Council."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-05-Speech-3-093-000 | "President Ratas, thank you for a very comprehensive and ambitious programme that we in Parliament certainly look forward to working on with you, and if I may say, the fine choice of poet that you quoted. And I remember – if I may be indulged – he also said, ‘There is no such thing as innocent bystanding’, and perhaps we might remember that."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-05-Speech-3-120-000 | "A Uachtaráin, táim ag labhairt inniu ar son Martina Anderson, comhghleacaí nach féidir a bheith inár dteannta ar maidin.
Tá an Eastóin, cosúil le hÉirinn, tar éis fulaingt mar thoradh ar ghníomhaíochtaí a gcomharsan mór. Ní gá dúinn ach féachaint ar an stair maidir le hionsaí míleata agus slí bheatha ag ár gcomharsan féin. In Éirinn, táimid ag tabhairt aghaidh anois ar éiginnteacht de bharr ár gcomharsana móra atá tar éis vóta a chaitheamh ar an AE a fhágaint. Glacadh an vóta gan aon aird a thabhairt don phróiseas síochána in Éirinn nó gan aon aird ar an éiginnteacht shóisialta agus eacnamaíochta atá anois ag cnagadh ar dhoras mhuintir na hÉireann.
Tá athruithe móra le feiscint san Eoraip le linn ár saol, agus anois arís, tá athrú mór eile ag druidim inár dtreo. I 1991, bhí an AE ábalta tacú le tíortha beaga, cosúil le bhur gceann, a bhí ag fulaingt de bharr fadhbanna le bhur gcomharsana móra.
Ní mór don AE anois tacú le mo thír leis na deacrachtaí atá againn lenár gcomharsana móra. Ní mór don AE céim chun tosaigh a thógaint agus tacaíocht a thabhairt don chuid is mó de na daoine sa Tuaisceart atá ag iarraidh fanacht san Aontas Eorpach agus ní mór don AE tacú le stádas faoi leith d’Éirinn."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-05-Speech-3-123-000 | "Mr Szanyi, I know you wish to ask a question but I am going to make a ruling that we will not have blue cards because of our time constraints, so thank you for your understanding."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-05-Speech-3-152-000 | "Madam President, I would like to welcome the Prime Minister to the Chamber. As Prime Minister of a small country – a country similar in size to Ireland – I wish you luck.
As a young Prime Minister who hopefully has a long life ahead of him, you will be looking at a long life ahead in the EU no doubt. Within that context, I have a question to ask you about the White Paper on the future of Europe. We were told on 1 March by Jean—Claude Juncker that we would have a series of ‘Future of Europe’ debates in cities and regions around Europe. I have asked Donald Tusk about these debates. He didn’t answer me. I asked Commissioner Hogan about these debates. He told me that maybe he could organise them himself. I have asked Jean-Claude Juncker about them. If I stood on a cat’s tail, I would have got a more logical answer. Can you tell me, Prime Minister, when and where these debates are going to take place or is it the case at this stage – as is said around Ireland – that it isn’t the White Paper on the future of Europe, it is the invisible paper on the future of Europe."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-05-Speech-3-161-000 | "Thank you, Prime Minister Ratas, and you have our good wishes and support.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place shortly."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-05-Speech-3-195-000 | "Madam President, I rise from my seat to point out that Amendments 19 and 20 to this report refer to the ‘North of Ireland’. I am a Member from the north of Ireland and there is no such entity as ‘the North of Ireland’. It is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and if Northern Ireland is referred to it should be referred to as Northern Ireland. So please, Parliament’s administration, take that on board. This is the second time I have had to point this out in this House, so please, do not require me to do it again."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-05-Speech-3-216-000 | "Madam President
says Sir Thomas Moore: death is the only way to get rid of a tyrant, and so it proved in the case of Fidel Castro, who survived, by some counts, more than 40 assassination attempts, including an exploding cigar and a poisoned wetsuit. But that has changed the dynamic on the sultry island of Cuba. I was for a long time in this Chamber sceptical of political engagement in the way that we were doing it in this House, refusing in particular to give full weight to the opposition groups. Now, on the other hand, we are in a position of disruptive change. Cuba is in an unfrozen moment, and any disruption tends to be bad for a dictatorship. The thing that will eventually bring about the democratisation of that island and freedom is now economic engagement from the rest of the world. Investment and the rule of law, private property and all the things that bring civil freedoms in their wake.
The United States has changed its policy in a welcome way. We should follow."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-05-Speech-3-339-000 | "Madam President, this is by far Parliament’s most critical report on Turkey that I have ever seen and it is wholly deserved. Far from dismantling the Turkish deep state and the pursuit of democracy, Erdogan has instead replaced one authoritarian regime with another.
After years of increasing his power base, he has now fully cemented his, and the AK Party’s, dominant role across the whole of the Turkish state. Having purged public institutions and silenced the media under the pretext of responding to the attempted coup last year, the referendum this year has now confirmed constitutional changes that ensure that President Erdogan is soon to assume his much—coveted sultanesque role.
Turkey, as a NATO state and EU candidate country, however, is too important and too close to Europe to simply ignore. Difficult choices now lie ahead of us as to how to adapt the EU’s relationship with Turkey in the future, but we should take care to ensure that those choices are not dictated purely by necessity, rather than by our common values. I hope, above all, to see a solution to end Turkey’s military occupation of Cyprus very soon."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-05-Speech-3-341-000 | "Thank you, Charles, for taking my blue card. This isn’t a personal dig at you, but do you understand my frustration that your party, the British Conservative Party, sits in the same pan-European group, the ACRE, as Erdogan’s AKP party? Do you think that is an extremely difficult position for your party, and would you welcome their withdrawal from it?"@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-05-Speech-3-343-000 | "Well, thank you for reminding me of that rather unfortunate fact, Mr Carver. It is extremely difficult for me, as somebody critical of AK and what it has been up to in Turkey, so I would call upon the Conservative Party leadership – I am not part of the leadership – to expel the AK Party as soon as possible."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-05-Speech-3-355-000 | "Madam President, until very recently Turkey, an important NATO ally, was firmly on the path to EU accession, and in this very Chamber speakers praised President Erdoğan’s new Turkey. However, since then, Turkey’s accession to the European Union, and indeed their commitment to NATO, now both seem questionable. Despite failing to uphold recent nature commitments, citing financial pressure, Turkey has since funded the deployment of 3 000 troops to Qatar at a time of heightened tension across the Gulf. Perhaps symbolic of this change in Turkey’s path was instruction to chisel out the poignant words of Atatürk carved into a stone WWI memorial at Gallipoli which I now quote ‘Those heroes who shed their blood and lost their lives you are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore, rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us, where they lie side by side here in this country of ours. You, the mothers who sent their sons from faraway countries, wipe away your tears your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well’. How Turkey has changed.
The desecration of this moving epitaph leads many to suggest this is a further sign of the cultural shift taking place in Ankara. It seems to me that regrettably Turkey, under Erdoğan, is turning its back on secularism.
I call on this House to acknowledge what we have long argued: Turkey is incompatible with EU membership. This report must go further and call for an end to this illusion once and for all. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk must be turning in his grave."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-05-Speech-3-432-000 | "Mr President, on behalf of Turkish nationals and minorities who live in my North-West England constituency, and also those who live oppressed in Turkey, I would like to say thank you to my colleagues for their work on this file. I would also like to draw attention to the destruction of cultural heritage in the ancient Mesopotamian town of Hasankeyf, where historical sites and artefacts are being destroyed and removed to make way for a new dam. This is a Kurdish-majority and, historically, an Armenian area along the Tigris River.
The Dutch company Bresser is helping the Turkish government remove and relocate historic monuments and take apart ancient tombs on a site whose history goes back 12 000 years. This must stop, and we must let Bresser and the Turkish authorities know that. I ask the High Representative and the Commission to call out to the Turkish authorities on this and make a clear statement that the destruction and removal must end."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-05-Speech-3-458-000 | "Mr President, many people have talked about this being a first for the Parliament because three committees worked on a codecision file for the first time. So congratulations to our three co—rapporteurs. Not only have they delivered, but they have delivered in record time: in just four months. Special thanks also go to Marlene Bonnici, the Ambassador from Malta, who pushed this through, and our staff, who worked very hard. They know who they are and they deserve our special thanks.
But we don’t need it to be speedy just for institutional reasons to get it done under a certain Presidency. We need it because we promised this kind of thing in Addis Ababa two years ago. We promised that aid would be one part of the picture for funding development, and that we would also have private sector leverage and more tax revenues going in to help fund.
I want to make this link with Addis Ababa to remind people that this is not an instrument to tackle migration except in as much as the instrument is to tackle poverty at its roots, create jobs and bring investment. It is not about managing flows into Europe. Most of the money comes from the European Development Fund, so it is right that the fund should focus on the least developed countries and fragile states. When the plans come forward, I hope we will see the funding in those domains. It is also timely because we have the G20 this weekend, the high-level political forum in a couple of weeks in New York and we’ve got the Africa summit coming up.
A lot of people are talking about a Marshall Plan for Africa. I am not very good at maths, but I worked out that Germany got USD 15 billion of aid in today’s money in the late 1940s; about EUR 267 per person. If we do the same thing in Sub-Saharan Africa, that is about USD 66 billion today. So the European Fund for Sustainable Development can be part of the beginning of a new plan for Africa. It is part of the picture. We need to make sure it is spent properly and that it leaves in the aid that we have promised."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-05-Speech-3-460-000 | "Mr President, the European Fund for Sustainable Development (EFSD) is the flagship policy of the EU’s external investment plan, launched last year in response partly to the migration crisis. High population growth across Africa without the employment opportunities to match is a growing problem, likely to be made worse by the effects of climate change as time goes on. Fragile states with weak public institutions, limited track records in the rule of law, and challenges to democracies are particularly affected and are naturally a deterrent to the necessary private investment required to generate jobs.
The EFSD and the EFSD Guarantee are seeking to try and plug that gap by the European Union and aims at aiding and leveraging investment from private business and institutions. It is projected that EUR 3.5 billion of EU investment could generate as much as EUR 88 billion of total investment. The EFSD will also seek to provide technical assistance to governments in the region in order to mobilise further investment. It is something that I fully support."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-05-Speech-3-466-000 | "Mr President, the disinterested observer can immediately see several problems with the EU’s plans for the EFSD. Firstly, these funds appear to be nothing more or less than a means of using taxpayers’ money to expand the EU’s regional hegemony. The two regional platforms, one for Africa and one for what is ominously termed the ‘EU Neighborhood’, offer for the purported recipients nothing more than serfdom. The funds come with strings attached, which means there will be strategic boards imposed upon the clients, with Commission and EIB representation. This means, as always with EU largesse, that those who are supposed to benefit have their hands tied and are reduced in their own nations to the role of supplicant. This is surely wrong from the start.
The second major issue one can immediately spot is that citizens’ money is expected to leverage private investments, essentially throwing taxpayers’ money down a well. Please stop treating other people’s money with such contempt."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-05-Speech-3-506-000 | "Mr President, let me begin by thanking the shadow rapporteurs in the other groups for their excellent work and cooperation throughout this process. And may I please also pay particular tribute to Emily Stewart in my office whose work on this has been exemplary and without whom I would not be able to be standing here and present this report to this House?
I’m also extremely grateful to the committees that put their input into this report, namely the Development Committee, the Agriculture Committee and the Cultural Committee. But I am very disappointed that there were not more committees contributing to this process, because we have had many MEPs put forward their expertise, but we need a full breadth of committees involved in this process, because a key ask of this report is that the Commission use all of its departments and instil the UN sustainable development goals throughout all of the Commission’s departments. And unless we practise that in this Parliament, it will be difficult to act as the exemplar for others.
Imagine if you will, a world where no child is born into hunger, where no child is born into poverty, where access to health care and clean water – some of the things you might take for granted – are available to everyone, where well-paid jobs, decent jobs, don’t come at the expense of the environment, and where we all act together as stewards, not owners, of this planet, and that we can forward it to the next generation.
This doesn’t just have to be a pipe dream, and it certainly doesn’t have to be the preserve of one group in this House. This goal is something we as humans must all own and make a reality. The goals defined through the UN’s 17 sustainable development goals will achieve this if we put the necessary measures into practice. I am very grateful to the Commission for its initial assessment of progress, again but I have to be perfectly honest, it is not enough to look at existing work and then backfit it into the 17 UN sustainable development goals.
We have to be honest with ourselves, not just about the scale of our ambition, but the scale of the task at hand. When we conduct our trade, when we develop shared energy networks, when we draw up financing rules, when we draw up strategies for transportation, when we evaluate education, when we drive forward change at a local, city, regional, national and European level we must always ask ourselves: ‘are we doing enough and is what we are doing delivering the UN’s sustainable development goals?’
We and our generation are running out of excuses, and we don’t have the excuse of previous generations of ignorance. We know how our actions today will affect the world around us tomorrow. There is a school group up there! Hello, it is your future we’re discussing today, and the decisions that we take in this place and across all of the EU’s institutions will have ramifications.
It is great news that Vice-President Timmermans will chair the multi-stakeholder forum, but it is essential that the Commission use this forum properly to learn from other actors, to share best practice and to report back to this Parliament. We didn’t get everything through that we wanted to in this report and I’m sure we will hear from others about some of the compromises that don’t go far enough, and that is a fair criticism. But we must use this infrastructure to have a proper discussion; a proper discussion across all layers of government and hold the Commission to account on its promises, but also have the Commission report to us.
I ask each and every group in this House to have somebody on their Bureau responsible for delivering this, because the world needs leadership. Mr Commissioner, when you go to the UN in New York, we want you to take the views of this House forward, because it is time for the EU to step up and show that leadership."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-05-Speech-3-512-000 | "A Uachtaráin, maidir leis an tuarascáil seo atá faoi bhráid an Choiste um Chultúr agus um Oideachas, ba mhaith liom an bhéim is mó a chuir ar SDG 4, cursaí oideachais agus nascacht tuaithe. Ní hamháin go gcaithfimid forbairt inbhuanaithe a dhéanamh inár gcathracha, ach tá sé tábhachtach dúinn tagairt agus freastal ar ár gcónaitheoirí tuaithe chomh maith. Sin an chúis gur chuireas béim ar mo thuairim ar iompar poiblí mar aon le gnéithe eile.
Tá sé tabhachtach go ndéanfar tagairt faoi leith dóibh siúd nach bhfuil na hacmhainní acu i dtaobh forbairt oideachais agus cultúir. Tá neart cumais ag ár ndream óg agus tá sé tábhachtach maoiniú a chur ar fáil dóibh go háirithe san earnáil chruthaíoch. Is cearta sibhialta atá i gceist i dtaobh ábhair oideachais agus cultúir a chur ar fáil go forleathan. Failtím go mbeidh monatóireacht á déanamh air seo mar a luaigh an Coimisnéir níos luaithe.
Má táimid chun a bheith dáiríre faoi fhorbairt inbhuanaithe a chur i bhfeidhm, caithfear a chinnitiú go mbainfidh gach saoránach leas as an bhforbairt a déantar."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-05-Speech-3-538-000 | "Mr President, what is happening the week after next in New York is an extremely important meeting – the High-Level Political Forum – because it is a chance for the European Union to show leadership in multilateral governance at a time when others, the US in particular, are moving backwards on this. I think we need to do more, though, to have more influence in New York, and the first thing is we need to do a lot more to coordinate our positions.
The Commissioner said that they are working on an implementation plan on the SDGs, but Seb Dance is right. It is not enough for the Commission to make a list of what it is already doing institutionally. We need to push our Member States to do more, we need to be collecting data from our Member States, finding out if they – as well as the EU institutions – are meeting their targets, and then we need to be pushing to make sure the EU does deliver on the 2030 Agenda, a little bit in the same way as we do on the climate change targets. We have the effort-sharing and we monitor that, and the Commission publishes data and we push that forward. Otherwise, I do not think we will implement the SDGs.
We need to get other donors on the development side to work with us as well. The EU is doing a lot but we need other non-traditional donors to work with us. And finally, we need accountability. You said that you would come back and report to us on a regular basis, but we need to know what you are measuring – are you establishing base lines on statistics, and will you give us regular updates on how that is progressing?"@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-05-Speech-3-560-000 | "Mr President, culture is an important driver for behavioural change through the creation of new lifestyles and sustainable development paradigms. This approach must be community based or locally rooted and it implies finding a local understanding of sustainable development. But it could also be global and virtual.
Proper recognition must be given to the mediating and facilitating role of culture, which helps us find a balance between the competing needs of the economic, social and environmental goals of sustainability. Culture is therefore a driver for sustainable growth and innovation, urban regeneration and rural and regional sustainable development, as well as for social cohesion and individual and collective well-being.
It is crucial to maintain a global perspective and not to deal with these various aspects in silos. With determination and creativity we can make our cities, towns and villages more liveable, more sustainable and more inclusive, and promote innovative economic models which are fairer, cooperative and put people and the planet first."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-05-Speech-3-582-000 | "Mr President, thank you very much to everybody took part in this debate, and particular thanks to you, Commissioner Vella, because it is very clear that you have listened to what the report is saying and what we are suggesting, and I am very heartened to hear a number of initiatives that you outlined in the response that you gave, including, of course, regular reporting to this place on the progress vis-à-vis the 2030 Agenda and the reference indicator framework which we very much look forward to in terms of seeing how that will be implemented.
Again, I welcome very much your commitment to the side events and the participation at the UN high-level event in New York, because this of course is the opportunity for this place to take forward our ideas and to showcase to the world how we can work collectively. A number of issues did come up in the debate regarding how we go forward. Ms Wiśniewska from the ECR was right: we cannot be prescriptive in telling citizens how they behave and what they eat. That is not the role of this place. However, Mr Eck was also correct in saying we cannot shirk our responsibilities. We cannot pretend that things are not as they are. It is the case that current production methods in meat consumption, for example, are driving us towards an unsustainable future, but that doesn’t mean we can’t collectively find the solutions. Already across this Chamber we’ve heard ideas in this place. There are ideas that will be shared in the multi-stakeholder framework. It is only through this dialogue, through this process of conversation, that we will get to a stage where industry and businesses and citizens and NGOs and all of us can work together for that sustainable future. Because I meant what I said at the start: this isn’t something that is owned by the left or the right one political group, it is owned by all of us, and it is all of our responsibility to deliver it. And I think together we can do it."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-05-Speech-3-592-000 | "Ms Sander, are you aware that, on 27 April 2017, a majority of your Group voted for a single seat by 96 votes to 80. And, Mr President, why is Ms Sander speaking first when she does not even represent the majority of the EPP Group?"@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-05-Speech-3-604-000 | "Mr President, very briefly, I want to ask you: what is your policy on blue cards for this debate? Are you going to allow one or two blue cards after every speaker, and how much time have you allocated to the debate?"@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-05-Speech-3-606-000 | "Mr President, Strasbourg is an historic city. It is beautiful, it is clean, it is safe and, in 1957, it was a symbol of peace and reconciliation. But now, 70 years later, it is a symbol of all that is wrong with the EU. We have two Parliaments, one in Strasbourg and one in Brussels, and the endless travelling circus that we perform means that we are held in contempt by our citizens. Having two Parliament buildings wastes EUR 114 million a year. We emit 19 000 tons of carbon dioxide unnecessarily, and we waste thousands of hours of time of officials, our staff and Members. This Parliament has the power to propose an amendment to the Treaties. I think we should do so. I think it is disgraceful that the EPP and the Socialist Group both put up French speakers who do not represent their Groups. A majority of every Group in this House wants one seat."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-05-Speech-3-610-000 | "I have campaigned on this subject for eight years, and I shall continue as a full Member of this Parliament for as long as the United Kingdom pays its membership fee. If you want to suggest that we stop paying our fee now, then I will relinquish my right to vote, but I will wait to hear from you."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-05-Speech-3-621-000 | "Mr President, Ms Lunacek and my old friend Ashley Fox have explained in considerable detail why the two-seat situation for the Parliament is totally indefensible. It is hugely wasteful. It wastes resources; it wastes vast quantities of time including, colleagues, our time. It wastes money, and if you care about it, it wastes CO2 emissions. But I have to tell you, Mr President, that I personally rather like it, and I’ll tell you why I like it, because it serves as a perfect metaphor for the hubris and futility of the European project. It is something that nobody can explain, nobody can justify, and yet nobody can change, and there are many, many policies of the European Union of which you can say the same. I think of the common fisheries policy, I think of the Emissions Trading Scheme. The list goes on.
I have been able to use this metaphor again and again in speeches up and down Britain in order to explain to ordinary people who are not very familiar with the European project the complete absurdity of it, and they catch it straight away. Ms Lunacek said companies would never do this. She is right. I say to people: are you in business? Would you move your business from London to Edinburgh for a week and then back again, and then to Edinburgh for one week every month? Of course they would not, and they see the absurdity of it.
Mr President, I am shortly to retire, and this is, I believe, the last speech I shall make in this Chamber as a Member of the European Parliament. I would therefore like to crave your indulgence to leave one final message. We need a quick, a clean Brexit and we need a fair and comprehensive trade deal. We need that not just for Britain but even more for Europe, and if you fail to deliver it, then you will find that you will be punished by the workers of Stuttgart and Munich and many other European citizens. I leave that thought with you."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-05-Speech-3-656-000 | "Mr President, I fully support the European Union abandoning the current situation of two European Parliament locations. I fully support realising the saving of the millions currently wasted stupidly and inefficiently every year by transferring the EU parliamentary machine between Brussels and Strasbourg.
But let’s be realistic. The EU is now resorting to the usual fudge and non-credible position, and proposing re-siting two London-based agencies here in Strasbourg, ignoring the fact that Strasbourg is a totally inappropriate location for either, so there will not be any buildings sold, there will not be any operational costs eliminated. In fact, the European Union will stay here, and any cost or efficiency savings will never actually be achieved.
It is a real shame, isn’t it, that the European Union learns nothing, and allows politics to override sensible decision-making, which would mean closing its presence in one of the two cities for good. And I would say to a lot of people who keep on citing the war: stop living in the past and get real."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-05-Speech-3-693-000 | "Mr President, it is obvious that having two seats for the European Parliament is both illogical and unsustainable. Could you imagine if every school in Europe met in one location for three weeks of the month and then went off a couple of hundred miles away for one week every month? People do not understand this, and it needs to change.
I would ask my good French colleagues to look at the situation and, if they are sincere about a single seat, let us decide on a single seat first and then decide whether that seat is Brussels or Strasbourg. I would also appeal to the French, who played such an honourable and central part in the COP 21 climate summit in Paris. How can they be so proud of that and, at the same time, condone and wish to continue a situation where 19 000 tons of CO2 are emitted every year unnecessarily? It is time for change."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-05-Speech-3-791-000 | "Madam President, this is a tragedy of enormous proportions, which I think drew the sympathy of all Europeans and, indeed, people worldwide.
It is only when you know somebody involved that it really comes home to you. The day before the tragedy in Portugal I met people on the European Union Interreg programme in my home town of Killarney, and the following day I heard that the entire family of one of the ladies on that programme had been wiped out. So obviously it is rather chilling to be aware of that, and it is so important as well that the European Union should show solidarity with these people, and indeed those who suffer from all types of tragedies, especially when caused by climate change. That is something we are trying to deal with.
Mr van Nistelrooij’s point about the Solidarity Fund both to help in the immediate aftermath and also to help with prevention in the future, especially in relation to forest fires, is very important."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-05-Speech-3-811-000 | "Madam President, fair taxation is at the core of our agenda on jobs and growth. That means closing loopholes exploited by large companies to avoid paying their fair share, but also ensuring that we address anomalies like double taxation, which disproportionately affect small— and medium—sized companies who often end up footing the bill twice when they are doing business cross-border. For many SMEs this uncertainty keeps them from taking the leap towards supplying their goods and services across borders. This is where the European Union has tremendous added value.
The directive being voted on tomorrow will speed up procedures to settle tax disputes, reduce compliance costs and administrative burdens. We have managed to halve the timescale to align the process with the annual business and investment cycle. The next step, of course, is to ensure we fully implement a common consolidated corporate tax base that will prevent double taxation being charged in the first place.
Let this be a strong message to those who doubt the EU’s key role in cutting red tape and making cross—border business a possibility for all. My congratulations to the rapporteur, Michael Theurer, on achieving this goal."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-05-Speech-3-819-000 | "Madam President, it’s a funny old world, isn’t it? On the one hand, we have people who pay little or no tax and, on the other hand, we are talking tonight about people who are subject to double taxation. Thankfully, both the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs – and colleagues here like Mr Theurer – and the Commission are beginning to come to grips with it. That is the way it should be.
We passed legislation yesterday on tax avoidance and country—by—country reporting, which will help to close the loopholes allowing big multinationals to escape paying most of the tax they should have paid – and that is good. But, equally importantly, people should not be paying more tax than they are due to pay. It is rather extreme that there is EUR 10.5 billion in dispute at the moment and 900 cases, but I think we are beginning to move in the right direction on this. The Commission has come forward with a proposal which everybody accepts is good. That should be promoted because it shows that the European Union is trying to be fair to everybody, and rightly so. So well done, Commissioner."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-05-Speech-3-835-000 | "Madam President, as we have heard, this case was referred to the Court more than three years ago, which means a trade deal that we negotiated over years and initialled has been in the deep freeze for that time period.
Apart from the damage that has done to us as trade negotiators, my fear about this is that it is not actually going to bring any more clarity to the situation than we had before the court case. I am afraid that nothing the Commissioner has said tonight has given me hope that this would be different. The logical consequence of the court ruling should be to leave investment out of the Singapore Free Trade Agreement and proceed as quickly as possible with a goods-only agreement. That could be ratified very speedily and it would also take a toxic matter out of the agreement.
I hope that the Council, which should have been part of this debate tonight, will actually agree with this and take the matter forward but, as the committee Chair has said, this goes beyond the Singapore Free Trade Agreement. The Commission has done this, and I pleased to hear that. The Lisbon Treaty makes it very clear that this House, which is legitimately elected by the EU citizens, is the only Parliament entitled to ratify EU—only free trade deals.
In future, the Council should not artificially add to the mandate for free trade agreements in order to maintain mixity. Secondly, as Mr Fjellner has said, by not doing this, we can avoid the potential scenario of any one of 43 national and regional parliaments holding our trade agreements hostage.
The Court has given us a unique opportunity to put new impetus into our trade agreements. I think a majority in this House is willing to grasp that nettle. I am not yet convinced that the Commission is, and I am very worried that we have had radio silence from the European Council on this matter.
The Council should be prepared to act and give trade policy a chance."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-05-Speech-3-843-000 | "Madam President, as a member of the ASEAN delegation and rapporteur for the EPP on the Singapore Agreement, I obviously have a keen interest in this topic. I must say, like other speakers, I was a bit disappointed a few years ago when this was referred to the ECJ because I thought it was a bit unfair on the people of Singapore, but thankfully it has worked out quite well, and indeed great credit is due to the Singaporean authorities for their patience in this regard.
Two weeks ago I had the pleasure of meeting their Trade Minister here, also their Ambassador to the European Union, and last weekend in Dublin I met the Ambassador to Ireland. They are very enthusiastic about this, they are very understanding of the European Union’s position, but now we look forward to the implementation of the agreement.
That is the first thing the Commission will have to do, to try and get this implemented as soon as possible. They have got their clarity now regarding ISDS. Indeed the Commission is working on a new framework for that and I agree completely with the last speaker, Ms Hautala, that if the Member States are to be involved in future, they are involved at the early stages, as soon as possible, and not to be allowed to hold up agreements as we have seen in the past, especially in relation to CETA.
So this is actually a good result, provided the Commission has the courage to take the result in their hands and do what they are being given the competence to do and make trade work for European citizens."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-06-Speech-4-019-000 | "Mr President, it is the right of everyone to fully participate in culture. Yet people who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print disabled continue to face many barriers in accessing books and other print material which is protected by copyright and related rights. The Marrakech Treaty, which allows for copyright exceptions to facilitate the creation of accessible versions of books and other copyrighted works for visually impaired people, was a landmark move to enable visually impaired people to access books with the same ease as sighted readers.
The Marrakech Treaty was adopted in 2013, but the EU has delayed ratifying it, despite its obvious and much-needed benefits for visually impaired people. Whilst working on this subject, I consulted with a cross section of stakeholders – disability experts, NGOs working on disability issues and representatives from the author and publisher fields – and all were largely in agreement with each other and stressed the importance of the speedy ratification of the Treaty. Culture is a human right and equal access to culture is paramount. I would like to thank Luigi Morgano for his help and hard work on this subject."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-06-Speech-4-047-000 | "Mr President, over the past few years Norwegian whalers have hunted more whales than Iceland and Japan combined. In 2016 alone, 591 minke whales were killed, and for 2017 the quota has been set for 990 whales. Yet in Norway, as was previously said, the domestic demand for whale meat has fallen to the point that unwanted whale meat is now being sent to fur farms to be used as feed. What a doubly grotesque state of affairs that is.
This decline in demand should not come as any surprise, given the very high levels of toxic contaminants found in whale products, including PCBs, hormone-disrupting chemicals and mercury. Sadly, as large mammals, whales are greatly at risk from persistent organic pollutants because of bio-accumulation in the food chain. In fact, the Japanese Government itself has rejected imports of Norwegian whale meat after tests revealed pesticide levels double the amount Japan permits in imports, making the meat unfit for human consumption, so that it simply has to be destroyed.
Despite this, Norway has sharply increased its exports to Japan. However, as there is no direct shipping route to Asia, EU ports offer a convenient stopping off point for the ships.
In the European Union our legislation could not be any clearer: all cetacean species are strictly protected and any incidental capture, killing or sale by EU Members is prohibited. Under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), international trade in whale products is also specifically prohibited.
It simply beggars belief that the EU is assisting another country that holds the polar opposite views and values on this issue to transport whale meat via its ports. This clearly goes against our conservation laws designed to protect these magnificent creatures.
I would like the Commission to give Parliament all the data available on these exports, to use its influence in CITES and in the International Whaling Commission to encourage Norway to end its cruel and unnecessary practice of whaling. If this does not result in the desired outcome, I call on the Commission to recommend a ban on whale-meat transiting through EU ports, as an exceptional measure."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-06-Speech-4-066-000 | "Mr President, the cases of Liu Xiaobo and Lee Ming—che are very concerning, but sadly unsurprising and, in fact, predictable, given the severe lack of freedom of speech and expression that we are now all too familiar with in the People’s Republic of China. They form part of a systematic crackdown on civil society and opposition to the one-party politics of the PRC. Therefore I echo the calls in the resolution of this House to see the release of both the individuals in question and hope that Xiaobo and his wife will be given permission to leave the country, if desired, in view of Xiaobo’s ongoing serious medical needs.
Meanwhile, the situation in Tibet, the plight of the Falun Gong in Hong Kong, the fate of democracy in the two systems, one country policy, and the issues of media and internet freedom are all areas of major concern to the European Union. China is a global power that we are unable to ignore, but this should not mean that we shy away from highlighting areas of concern where we see them, nor deny the importance that we place upon fundamental and universal human rights."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-06-Speech-4-074-000 | "Madam President, this debate concerning Chinese provocations of citizens of both their own state and Taiwan is well timed. As it is the 20th anniversary of the takeover/handover of Hong Kong to the Chinese, I would like to focus my speech on Chinese actions there. One country, two systems was supposed to guarantee the Hong Kong way of life for 50 years, but already Chinese authorities are exerting undue influence on the political, legal and social life of Hong Kong. China must respect the terms of the Sino-British Joint Declaration as a legally binding document lodged with the United Nations. It must respect human rights and release its political prisoners. Similarly, the British Government must do more to uphold our end of the bargain and guarantee the freedoms Hong Kong enjoys under the existing terms of the agreement."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-06-Speech-4-094-000 | "Madam President, given the brutal regime of President Afwerki in Eritrea and his role in ruining that country’s prospects, following its independence from Ethiopia in 1991, we often focus on the wider diplomatic picture. But today we are focusing on two individuals, Abune Antonios and Dawit Isaak.
Antonios, the Patriarch of the Eritrean Orthodox Church, has been under house arrest for the past decade. Isaak, a naturalised Swede and a journalist, has been in jail for more than 15 years and has not been seen since 2005. Jailed for his reporting of the corruption and injustices of the Afwerki regime, his case is emblematic of the totalitarian dictatorship that we now see in Eritrea, a regime that sees thousands of young men fleeing conscription and the brutalities of daily life. With 416 000 Eritrean refugees worldwide, this makes it the ninth largest country of origin for refugees, a staggering figure for a country with a population of only 6 million people.
Therefore I now call on Parliament and the Commission to consider consultation under Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement. I actually called for this almost 18 years ago for the first time and I am calling for it again."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-06-Speech-4-107-000 | "A Uachtaráin, is í an Eiritré an tír is measa ar domhan ó thaobh cearta daonna de agus tá sé ag éirí níos measa de réir na bliana. Tá gach saghas éagóir ar siúl ann, go háirithe le mná agus leanaí agus ní nach ionadh go bhfuil daoine ag teitheadh ón dtír. Tá 400,000 duine tar éis an tír a fhágáil. Freisin, maidir le Dawit Isaak, gabhadh é in 2001. An bhfuil sé beo? Níl a fhios againn, ach tá sé de dhualgas ar an rialtas insint dá chlann agus do chuile dhuine mar gheall air. Freisin mar gheall ar an Patrarc Antonios. Tá sé i bpríosún ó 2007 in áit anaithnid agus deirtear nach bhfuil cóir leighis ar fáil aige.
Dá bhrí sin is dóigh liom gur cheart dúinne gan aon airgead a thabhairt don Eiritré. Táimid ag tabhairt €200 milliún dóibh agus is dóigh liom gur cheart cosc a chur air sin go dtí go bhfaighimid freagra ar na ceisteanna seo."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-06-Speech-4-111-000 | "Madam President, the issue of human-rights violations in Eritrea is a serious issue, but it is no more serious than the situation in a whole host of countries in Africa that we continue to support. I think it is very important that, in this motion, we once again send a clear message to the Eritrean Government in relation to those human-rights violations.
Unlike other colleagues, I still believe that engagement with Eritrea is important. It is a country caught in a time warp. It is a country that needs to understand the obligations under international law that we, as EU citizens, demand. That is why I went to Eritrea last year. I suspect that I am the only member of this assembly speaking here today who has actually been to Eritrea in the past 12 months. I would ask other colleagues to do the same because it is only through engagement that we can actually change policy in Eritrea. It is only through reaching out that we can change policy in Eritrea.
I want to put on the record that the EU funds that have come through the development budget have made a big difference to the lives of ordinary people – ordinary Eritreans – in terms of solar power, electricity connectivity, building capacity within the judicial system and in other systems of government. It is important that we remain committed to funding Eritrea and that we have a more balanced approach in this whole debate."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-06-Speech-4-122-000 | "Madam President, the re-election of President Nkurunziza in 2015 was highly controversial, given the questions surrounding the legitimacy of his eligibility for a third term, and in fact Article 96 consultation was invoked. The boycott of that election by the opposition and his subsequent re-election has provoked increasing tension. Recent speculation that Nkurunziza is seeking to amend the law so as to allow him to run again in 2020 for a fourth term is concerning. Meanwhile, the resulting human rights situation is also very worrying. Nkurunziza’s party’s youth wing and quasi-militia, the Imbonerakure, is held responsible for the intimidation, rape, attack and forced disappearances of a number of opposition figures and supporters.
Given the fragility and conflict in Burundi’s neighbouring states, finding a way through the impasse is vital. There are reports of an increasingly ethnic dimension – between Hutus and Tutsis – to the violence, and this has the potential to significantly worsen and protract the problem. Therefore we must all now seek action before the situation reaches that terrible point."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-06-Speech-4-128-000 | "Madam President, I must say that I am deeply concerned to learn of the growing conflict in Burundi following the unconstitutional re—election of President Pierre Nkurunziza in 2015 and his intention to be re-elected again in 2020 and probably ad infinitum.
The deplorable human-rights situation and the authorities’ continued violation of fundamental rights are totally unacceptable. I therefore strongly support calls for the Burundian authorities to address these violations and to conduct an independent inquiry so that the perpetrators can be held accountable. Furthermore, Burundi must revoke its move to withdraw from the International Criminal Court and must extend full support to the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights so as to ensure fundamental rights for all its citizens, because the abuses of fundamental rights – the murder, rape, abduction, etcetera – in Burundi are absolutely chronic and must be stopped."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-06-Speech-4-129-000 | "Madam President, in 2015, in Burundi, I witnessed at first hand Government troops blowing up a radio antenna in order to stop independent radio stations broadcasting, I met families who had been burnt out of their houses because they were of the wrong ethnicity, and I saw political rallies brutally broken up by government-backed militia.
When I raised all of these issues at the recent meeting of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP) in Malta, the Burundian representative admitted – what else could he do, I had seen it with my own eyes – that all of these events had happened, but said that things were much better now in the country.
Well, I am afraid things are not much better in the country, and what we hear from the international community and the international organisations based in Burundi is that, in fact, things are getting worse. This is a time for us to intensify our sanctions on Burundi, to make sure we keep the pressure up on the current Burundian Government, and to ask the East African Community to act to defend their neighbour’s citizens."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-06-Speech-4-131-000 | "Madam President, this report highlights worrying developments in Burundi, one of Africa’s poorest countries. Since 2015, 1 200 people have been killed and between 400 and 900 have disappeared. The use of torture has been widespread. More than 10 000 people have been detained without trial and nearly half a million have fled to neighbouring countries. Burundi has plunged into crisis. With reports of ethnic cleansing in the military, the world and all global institutions must be ready to intervene and prevent another genocide. There cannot be a repeat of Rwanda.
Too often the West has been ready to intervene when the cause has not warranted it – the disaster in Libya being one example – but when there is a call on our resources, too many also look the other way. A strong message from all quarters must go out across the world that the rights to life, liberty and political expression are unbreakable. And all those who believe in that message must have the force, in every sense of the word, to back it up."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-06-Speech-4-146-000 | "Mr President, yesterday afternoon we had a lively debate, under Rule 153, on the subject of a single seat for this Parliament. Unfortunately, under that rule, it was not possible to have a resolution, but it was the clear will of this House that we bring forward a report to propose a treaty change. So, as Mr Weber and Mr Pittella are in their seats, could they please take note of the view of this House and, when the matter comes to the Conference of Presidents, could they please authorise that report?"@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-06-Speech-4-167-000 | "Mr President, it is a point of order. It is about the way that you are conducting the vote. What I am getting through my headphones is ‘for, against, abstain, for, against, abstain, for, against, abstain’. It is impossible to vote if we are going at that speed."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-06-Speech-4-173-000 | "Mr President, the other day, during the visit of the Maltese Prime Minister, President Juncker said that this Parliament was ridiculous, or pointless or a farce, or something to that effect. The obscene speed at which these votes are being conducted most certainly gives weight to President Juncker’s view."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-06-Speech-4-181-000 | "Mr President, in retrospect, the European Union’s approach to Turkey has not worked out terribly well. We could, at the outset, have said ‘Membership is not on the agenda: let’s find a different way of working together’, or we could have embraced them, but what we did instead was to hold out a promise of membership which we had absolutely no intention of fulfilling. Understandably, a sense of rejection contributed to some political breakdown in that country.
Of course, I am not saying it was all the fault of the European Union. That would be absurd. It is mainly about internal dynamics within Turkey. But I wonder whether we might not be wiser now to try to find a more sustainable and permanent deal, whereby we recognise Turkey as a strategic partner and ally, and recognise the value of a free market with Turkey, but drop the idea of political integration. And if we could set up such a status successfully for a state as important and as large as Turkey, perhaps it could become the model for relations with other nearby neighbouring countries."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-06-Speech-4-218-000 | "Mr President, I am happy that today we are one step closer to ratifying the Marrakesh Treaty. EU action on facilitating access to published works for people who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print disabled has been long overdue.
However, despite many of the good points contained in Parliament’s report, I strongly condemn the introduction of compensation schemes for publishers. Not only could this provision violate Article 21 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities but there has been no proof of economic loss to be compensated for, and governments have never demonstrated that any damage is done to publishers by accessibly formatted works. This provision is in direct contradiction with the ‘right to read’ objectives of the Marrakesh Treaty and should be addressed, during the transposition phase, in EU Member State legislation.
Nonetheless, I hope EU Member States can give the treaty their approval so that it can finally be ratified this coming autumn."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-06-Speech-4-277-000 | "Mr President, the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) influence virtually every aspect of the EU’s work. The global 2030 Agenda represents a commitment to achieving sustainable development by 2030 worldwide – a commitment that must be shared by all countries.
The aims of this agenda are to work towards human dignity, stability, a healthy planet, fair and resilient societies and prosperous economies. The EU shares these goals and therefore I voted in favour of this motion. By embedding the targets of the SDGs in the framework of EU policies, the EU will ensure that adherence to the aims of the SDGs is a key part of future policy initiatives. In doing so, we are ensuring that the EU will successfully deliver on the 2030 Agenda.
Finally, Mr President, may I compliment you on the efficient and calm manner in which you chaired today’s session, contrary to what was said by one or two speakers. They were a tiny minority. The round of applause said it all."@en |
| lp_eu:2017-07-06-Speech-4-338-000 | "Mr President, with regard to the Brazilian beef scandal I listened very carefully to the Commissioner and I would summarise my reaction in two words: sincere, but naive. Sincerely he wants to ensure there are guarantees from the Brazilian authorities, but naively so because those beef barons, as Mr Eck pointed out, are never going to change, we have seen that. And we should be doing the same as the US and China: banning Brazilian beef and other products from coming into Europe instead of going along and looking for guarantees which we will never be able to ensure are there.
Secondly, it amazes me that at this time we are also going ahead with a Mercosur deal and we know that the main reason for the Mercosur deal for these countries is to send meat into Europe at a time when the CAP budget is under enormous pressure. There will be an 11 billion deficit because of the United Kingdom withdrawing. There will be a glut of products in Europe as a result, and yet we are talking about doing a Mercosur trade deal. If we do so, we should leave meat products out of it."@en |
