GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I can advise you how to vote on each of the four amendments. As rapporteur, I have no choice but to oppose these amendments because each of them has also been discussed and subsequently rejected within the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. As such, I would suggest voting against the amendments.

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, the reason I ask this question is simply because my fellow Members in the European Parliament have been working for 15 years for renewable energy to be taken into account. The Commission is beginning to incorporate it, but renewable energy is apparently continuing to be viewed as a back-up supply rather than as the energy of the future. The facts are clear, and the view is expressed that funding is not sufficient, especially compared with levels of investment made in the past for other forms of energy. On the other hand, nuclear energy and nuclear-based electricity, which does not produce any greenhouse gas, were widely promoted as part of the fight against the greenhouse effect, and it was basically asserted that nuclear energy could be seen as an alternative to combat the greenhouse effect. Therefore, this is why we asked the question, to see if the Commission is still on the same wavelength, in wishing to continue to develop renewable energy in both the European Union, and elsewhere in the world, and not just as a backup energy source.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Although I understand the need to apply the precautionary principle so as to reduce the risks inherent in contact by chromium with the skin of civil construction and cement industry workers, it is my view that this proposal for a directive does not provide the best assurance of this. First of all because sufficient account has not been taken of the results of the previous regulation (2001/60 EC). Secondly, because it is not based on harmonised methods for determining chromium levels, which could consequently lead to distortions of competition and to reducing safeguards for workers. Thirdly, because it establishes an unacceptable derogation for unbagged cement. We know that a lack of objectivity in applying the precautionary principle has led to countless cases of non-compliance. My fear is that this will also happen with this regulation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, unfortunately, the situation in Chechnya really has not improved, despite the efforts to persuade Russia to adopt a rational course. We have repeatedly stressed that the fight against terrorism is an entirely justified, indeed necessary, fight. However, in the case of Chechnya – and this applies to similar situations in the context of Iraq and other regions as well – we have always stressed that bombs, military aggression and military measures are unsuitable as a means of resolving the issue of terrorism. For this reason, we also need to make it very clear to Russia that we are profoundly disappointed that Russia – which is and should be a partner of the European Union – has failed to pursue a rational policy aimed at combating the causes of terrorism as well as terrorism itself. We are deeply disappointed that people are being forced to return to this unsafe country and that even the expellees are being forcibly repatriated. We believe that every option must be exhausted to achieve a peaceful solution here. One such option could be the referendum if it takes place under objective conditions. The people themselves should have a chance to express their views, and I believe that it would do Putin's and indeed Russia's reputation good if Russia could revert to, or basically establish for the first time, a rational and peaceful policy on Chechnya. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we should regard this directive as a contribution to a coherent and holistic energy policy in Europe. What this means is that it is concerned with better protection for the environment, with greater security of supply and also with coherence in the internal market in energy. I want, briefly, to highlight the point about security of supply. We are too dependent upon oil imports, and cogeneration makes it a very simple matter, in a very short space of time, to do without oil for domestic heating, and is much simpler than the electricity market as a way of becoming independent of oil. The market, the internal market, is blind if we do not give it something to aim for, if we do not install guard rails. What we did for renewable energies, we must also do for cogeneration. It is in this respect that I regard the Commission proposal as somewhat feeble, and I am glad that tomorrow, there will, I think, be a majority in this House for reiterating the 18% objective and underlining the contribution cogeneration can make to our entering the hydrogen era. We cannot have President Prodi gathering together a high-level group of experts and then fail to incorporate into law the first regulatory framework that really enables us to create a market for fuel cells, with a growing European demand for them as its result. I am glad that Mr Rübig and other Members see this point so clearly. Let me turn to the definitions. Definitions might be thought to be technical in nature, but, in fact, politics lurks behind the technology. Annex II is about determining which current in a cogeneration plant is actually cogenerated electricity. This definition is independent of climate zones. There can be only one definition, and it must apply throughout Europe. If such is not the case, we are opening the way to distortions of competition in the European internal market. The amendments that Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca intends to bring in tomorrow do not help in this respect and should be voted out. Annex III defines the energy efficiency of cogeneration plants. This is where there is a clear difference between, for example, Greece and the Netherlands, because many Greeks still heat their homes inefficiently with coal, whilst the Dutch have highly efficient gas heating. Such differences of climate can be compensated for only after an indefinite period of time and with a fully-functioning internal market, so we should allow ourselves some time for this. In any case, Annex III has to build on Annex II. The only electricity that this directive must consider is that which has undoubtedly been derived from cogeneration. If it fails to do so, the result will be legal uncertainty and an open door for subsidies, some of which are inefficient, while others amount to something like fraud. If we fail to lay down unambiguous definitions, we will be helping those who are in fact less well-disposed to cogeneration in Europe. I believe that what we all want this directive to do is to get cogeneration taken more seriously in future, and to get people investing in this technology, especially in Eastern Europe.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the European Commission has now woken up to the fact that the aid and assistance granted to Russia is being abused. However, it has been abused for ten years now, and this is how the basic structures of Russian society have been destroyed. Aid has been both used wrongly and granted wrongly. We in the European Union have granted it in the wrong way. Corruption is a fine word for what has happened. The whole of the upper stratum of society is party to this corruption. In this we cannot trust the president, his family, the government ministers, or even the central bank. It is unbelievable that the central bank has recycled the aid granted it by the IMF through companies that merely exist on paper on the tax evaders’ isle of Jersey. We just speak of corruption, but we do not say directly that this is a matter of criminal activity. The reason for this criminal activity has also been the aid granted by the West. The West has given aid for the wrong reasons. A typical example is the relief aid granted to Russia last winter in the form of food aid. It was meant to help Russia to escape a winter of starvation and survive the sub-zero temperatures at the beginning of the year. But this aid has not yet reached its destination. We gave Russia relief aid in the form of food to cover the time of the winter frosts, and that food is still on its way to Russia. That food is being sold in Russian shops, and thus the price of Russian agricultural produce and food is being caused to tumble, and farmers’ hopes of practising their own food production are being dashed. Above all, we must say, from the point of view of the taxpayers in the EU, that if we wanted to give Russia’s social sector aid equal to the cost of a pension we should have given it money, not food. Food aid was an agricultural policy, which cost us taxpayers a lot more than if a corresponding amount of social aid had been given in the form of money. With this in mind, the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament should look in the mirror and recognise their own mistakes. Aid has been used wrongly, but it has definitely been given wrongly.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I wish to raise a point of order concerning something Mrs Plooij-van Gorsel said the other day. It came to my notice yesterday that the problem of the drivers had been considerably eased by the addition of many people coming back from their holidays from the Brussels-based group. Parliament ought to thank them for their support in making sure that we had a smooth transition back to normal transport here in Strasbourg. Might I suggest that, if the French are unable to continue to support us, we consider moving, if not to Brussels then to Luxembourg, where there is a large hemicycle and where I am sure they would look after us extremely well.

Political group: PPE-DE
Noise policy is a very new thing in an industrialised society that moves ahead simply by means of a great deal of technology and a lot of noise, and, as for the question as to whether noise policy is a subsidiarity issue, one is in two minds when answering it. Mr Davies and Mr Blokland, if I were from your countries of origin, I too would adduce the argument from subsidiarity, but, my dear Mr Blokland, I know only two airports in the Netherlands whose flight paths, however, are located above my constituency. All this is relative, and so I believe that we here must talk about whether we can find an air corridor to serve as a model for the compilation of fundamental criteria, and I believe that our views on noise maps are by no means so divergent. I advocate comparable rules of measurement within the European Union as a matter of principle, and I also believe it to be self-evident that the action plans we arrive at on the basis of these measurements must be drawn up by the member countries, which must also implement and supervise them. I take a great interest in the question, at what actual point such a regulatory mechanism takes effect, and here the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has without any doubt gone too far. One could get the idea from reading the Committee on the Environment's text that, in future, every country lane will have to have its own noise map. The wording is doubtless much too vague, and what the Council proposes is quite simply boring. If you are only to draw up such a noise map when the figure of six million cars per annum is reached, then I suggest you abandon the whole operation. So, in my view, a good mean value would be a good solution. As far as the measurement of noise from railway lines is concerned, it would have been good if we could have had another parameter for this, as noise from railways is perceived differently to that from motorways or airports. Unfortunately, that idea foundered at the committee stage, something which I particularly regret. I wish to contradict Mrs Ria Oomen, whom I otherwise greatly respect, by saying that I think it almost courageous to state the belief that politicians like us, who concern ourselves with the environment, can decide in an environmental directive whether military pilots fly or not. Quite apart from the present situation, this Parliament does not have the right to regulate the times of practice flights by the French or the British. I believe that military aviation should have no place in this directive and nor will it find its way into it. In other respects, I believe this debate to have been basically necessary. I wish we could take this document to the Conciliation Committee; then, Mr de Roo, we would get away from your rather exaggerated demands and arrive at realistic ones that would get us somewhere in the overall scheme of things.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it would appear a simple matter to give a response regarding the events in the Mediterranean if Minister Moscovici were to succeed in interpreting the desires of Mr Brok and to explain the situation which is giving us great cause for concern in the Mediterranean. We welcome with great satisfaction the news that the Commission intends to reinvigorate the Barcelona Process. However, we feel that the events taking place in this area bordering on the European Union are extremely important and that we need the undertakings and proposals outlined by Commissioner Patten just now to be more effectively implemented than has been the case in recent years. We consider the peace process to be vital for the development of the Partnership in the Mediterranean, but we see before our eyes all the difficulties which have prevented the completion of the Peace and Stability Charter. So we need fresh, maybe more tangible proposals making it possible to complete the Stability Pact, before the end of this year, or during the first six months of next year at the latest. Then there is the whole area of the association agreements, trade issues and the Med programme. It is true that some agreements have been concluded but many, too many questions remain unresolved or at best still open: the lengths of time involved, the time frames for ratifying the agreements, the many difficulties which have arisen because of the inflexible nature of the negotiating mandate conferred by the Council upon the Commission, not to mention the bureaucratic difficulties which we have encountered over recent years. In our opinion, the initiatives supporting the improvement of the management of the Med programme are important and can contribute vastly to the progress of the economic and financial partnership. This considerable progress will allow us to achieve substantial results for the Mediterranean area, results which will contribute to bringing about economic stability, the liberalisation and privatisation process and structural adaptations necessary for investments and, last but not least, decentralised cooperation and a common management policy for migration flows and employment, policies which will allow the European Union to accomplish fresh development in the future in the southern areas of its territories. One final observation on the subject of the budgetary issues: we need to ask the Commission whether the current budgetary provision for human resources is in actual fact sufficient to reinvigorate the Barcelona Process, since there is no mention in the general budget of reviewing the financial resources. I will not go into the details of the appropriations because they were the result of a heated discussion in committee. Therefore, should the financial provisions intended for the regions in question be changed, as the European Parliament has requested, how will the Commission adapt its interventions?

Political group: PPE-DE
The Queiró report defends a Europe that is totally at odds with the values I uphold. It ‘insists on the need for the EU to endow itself with military capabilities, so as to ensure the credibility of its foreign and defence policy objectives’, affirming that ‘if this project is to be successful, Member States must make a commitment to military expenditure over a period of time’. It ‘expresses its conviction that NATO remains not only a fundamental guarantee for the stability and security of the Euro-Atlantic area, but also an essential framework for developing joint operations’. It defends ‘the development of a European defence equipment industry which is competitive and viable’ and concludes that it is essential that ‘Community support programmes be set up to review defence equipment’. All of this is a vibrant plea for European militarism, defending the interests of arms dealers. I, myself, refuse to accept military competition, irrespective of the ‘bloc’ in question. I want to promote peace in the world, which leads to better living conditions. Those who justify the increase in defence expenditure are doing nothing to meet social needs; their key concern is the interests of their shareholders. That is why I voted against this report. - Lagendijk report (A5-0397/2003)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, we are about to give an opinion on an extremely important text, which deals with the question of combating the growth of networks of smugglers who exploit men, women and children in the form of trafficking in human beings. The aim is therefore to issue a short-term residence permit to the victims of these networks who cooperate with the courts or the police. A measure of this kind has been in force in Belgium, the Netherlands and in Italy and has had a very positive effect. The report by Mrs Sörensen, whom I would like to thank in particular, makes reference to the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Non-governmental organisations must play a greater role in assisting the victims of trafficking in human beings and we have strengthened the rights of victims by enabling them to submit an asylum application. It would be unfair to refuse them this right due to the fact that they often only have false identity papers. Let us note that it is essential that the Member States be required to protect the anonymity of victims of trafficking by only organising trials held in camera. We are therefore on the verge of making great progress in Europe in combating trafficking in human beings. I would, however, draw your attention to Amendments Nos 7 and 27 which refuse the holders of a residence permit the right of access to the labour market, vocational training and education. This right was laid down in Article 12 of the Commission’s proposal. Deleting this provision would completely distort the directive. Victims who have no way out of their situation would have great difficulty in cooperating with the police authorities and would easily fall back into the hands of mafia-like networks. This initiative will make victims stronger and will help them to cut ties with their illegal past as soon as they have severed relations with the criminal network. Let us reiterate that the Member States are still free to make the issue of permits conditional upon victims’ participation in a rehabilitation programme aimed to encourage their integration in the host country or their return to the country of origin. We owe aid and assistance to the victims. This is how to ensure they remain law-abiding men and women.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we voted in favour of this proposal solely so that the people of Yugoslavia, who have paid dearly for the crimes committed by its dictator, Milosevic, by suffering the NATO bombings and the subsequent boycott imposed on them, do not keep paying. However, we reaffirm that it should be up to the powers responsible for destroying the bridges and, consequently, obstructing the Danube, to pay the costs. - Agreement between the European Union and Cyprus (C5-0324/2000)

Political group: GUE-NGL
We Swedish Social Democrats welcome many of the measures proposed by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development in order to improve the situation for young farmers. We nonetheless believe that the EU’s agricultural subsidy ought to be reduced considerably and are therefore opposed to the demands for an increase in the agricultural subsidy, presented in paragraphs 7, 11 and 14 of Mr Parish’s report.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to start by joining in the gratitude expressed to Mr Parish. I think this is a very constructive own-initiative report. There is a rather nice saying that the future belongs to the young, but we can turn this around when we talk of European farming and say that, without young farmers, there is no future. The future of the countryside, and especially the future of young farmers in Europe, does not look good. The numbers alone should set our alarm bells ringing. The number of farms in the EU has fallen constantly over recent years. Of course, we welcome the structural change but, at the same time, the extent of the change does give us cause for concern. The biggest decrease has been in the number of farmers under the age of 35. Thank God that young people from farms have the same career prospects as their peer groups and siblings. The tradition of handing farms down from one generation to the next is disappearing. The question of what becomes of the older generation left on the farm is often still unanswered. Unfortunately, farms standing empty have become a familiar sight – even in my country, which I would never have imagined possible. How many young people want to have to keep making excuses because they are farmers? Young farmers want fair prices for their products. It is not because of the subsidies that they choose to be farmers. The Parish report may help to improve the overall image of young farmers. The public pays scant attention to the services of farming. I should like to take this opportunity to thank you, Commissioner Fischler, for repeatedly highlighting the multi-functional task which farming fulfils. But apparently bad news makes better news. At the moment, you can read about the current BSE crisis blow by blow. But no one bothers to mention, for example, that consumer associations in my country have been wantonly campaigning for food at rock bottom prices for years now. Of course I disapprove of the criminal machinations of the feedingstuffs industry, the lack of controls by the authorities and so forth, but it is all this together which has resulted in the chaos in which more and more members of the profession find themselves. If you belong to this profession, if you are a farmer, then you will easily understand why young people ask, do I really need this? With the current BSE situation, it is quite out of order to pillory our farmers and young farmers. We have set standards. So-called ‘good professional practice’ has been continually developed by our excellently trained young farmers. Essential services in the production of foodstuffs and raw materials, the development, further development and preservation of the countryside and the protection of the natural bases for life are all areas in which Europe will need farmers and young farmers in the future. I should like to close by saying that these young farmers do not just need reliable policies; they also need good wives and strong families. Only this sort of environment can give them the strength they need to perform their important function in society.

Political group: PPE-DE