GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, we were all a little hasty because we did not want to delay the forthcoming debate on the submission of the budget needlessly. I have a genuine procedural motion. I am making a point of order as I think that the Conference of Presidents and the President of this Parliament are violating the Rules of Procedure, in particular Article 3 of Annex XIII. Yesterday, the Commission President, Mr Prodi, sent the President of this Parliament, Mr Cox, a letter setting out how the members of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the members of the Conference of Presidents should debate the documents on the current investigation into Eurostat. Mr Prodi drew up a form for this purpose in accordance with Annex 3, Article 3.2, Line 2. With one exception, that is the least strict rule, in accordance with which we will be looking at the matter behind closed doors tomorrow evening. According to the agreement between Parliament and the Commission, however, the President of Parliament and the President of the Commission have to negotiate on this. I would therefore like to ask Mr Cox and the Conference of Presidents to argue for a more favourable regulation. My second comment is that the meeting between the Conference of Presidents, the members of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the Commission President, Mr Prodi, is to take place behind closed doors next Thursday. All the people from the press in the room downstairs tell me, however, that Mr Prodi’s spokesman said that if Parliament wants this meeting to take place in public, it can be. I think that it is befitting for our dignity and is also in our interest to ask most emphatically that this meeting be held in public. I think that all citizens of Europe are entitled to this and that it would be counterproductive if it were not to happen. I would therefore like to ask you, Mr President, to put these two questions to Mr Cox very emphatically. I will be extremely grateful to you for doing so.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, you may well be surprised to hear me say that, in 25 years’ time, we will be able to derive every bit as much energy from a cubic centimetre of silicon as from a cubic centimetre of uranium, but that is the case – it surprised me, too – and it highlights the enormous potential latent in renewable energies. My second comment has to do with the Bonn conference; I would like to suggest that we in this House should also send a delegation to represent us at it, as a whole array of legislatures from around the world will be doing. It would be a disgrace for the European Parliament not to have a visible presence there in the shape of a group of MEPs with an official mandate. Thirdly, let me say that, in the resolution – to which Mrs Rothe very rightly referred – the term ‘poverty reduction’ occurs twice. I see it as extremely important that we should make the connection between climate policy, energy policy and poverty reduction. For example, the instrument for doing this – or at least one of those that are suitable – is decentralised energy supply systems using renewable energies and another instrument that we are at present discussing in this House, that is, emissions trading, what is termed the Linking Directive. We can be grateful to the Commission for having, some time ago, brought out a very interesting brochure in which it set out the means that could be employed in this way to benefit the renewable energy sector in the Mediterranean region alone. The figures quoted in it are extraordinarily high. I think this is an instrument of which we could make much more use. After all, we have to finance renewable energies, and we all know that they do not come cheap. My final observation must be that what rather worries me about renewable energies is that they are currently going through an upward phase. They are on everyone’s lips, renewable energies get good write-ups in the press, and rightly so too. Who knows, though, what will happen in a couple of years’ time, when the costs go up? Will they be just as acceptable, or will we perhaps come to the conclusion that you can have too much of a good thing, and decide cut back a bit? To do so would be extraordinarily dangerous, for it would inhibit continuity in a sector that forms part of our industrial policy. What this boils down to is that we need continuity, and the small- and medium-sized enterprises that have invested in renewable energy sources need security. (Interruption) Yes, costs are falling, but they are, nonetheless, relatively high. I am perfectly familiar with the debates in my own country about the costs of renewable energies. In Germany alone, it is estimated that they will cost us between EUR 4 billion and EUR 5 billion in a couple of years’ time. It may well indeed be that many will see this as a pain barrier through which they do not want to go. I just want to warn that continuity should be maintained rather than broken if those who invest in them today are to have security.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, politicians are often told of the old actor's advice that you should never go on stage with children or animals. I fear, Commissioner, that you and I one way or another are on a stage with animals the whole time! This, however, has been a variant on the kind of health concerns and maladies with which we are only too familiar, and on behalf of my group I want to thank Ms Evans very warmly for the skilful way in which she has negotiated the process of codecision. She very modestly says that this was straightforward. No codecision that gets to that stage is ever entirely straightforward. You need to know when to advance, when to yield a little, and when to see that there may be further room for compromise. I cannot say that I was entirely happy about the way every part of this procedure went. I was not entirely happy about the secure position of the ferrets. I have been very insecure in the presence of ferrets. I was not entirely happy about the provisions with regard to animals under three months old. One has some misgivings there about the rationale for what we have done; but equally the Commission was probably uneasy to some degree about the fact that we have extended into the codecision procedure any further consideration of the exemptions for the UK, Sweden and Ireland, which will follow after five years. In other words, a standard piece of give and take, the kind of thing that until a few years ago, until we had the present Commission and the present Parliament, was not possible. It still only works when you have skilled rapporteurs who can go through these shoals. It has added modestly to the sum total of human happiness as well. There are many people, lonely people in particular, who are very dependent on the animals with which they share their lives. If we dare to believe that animals are sentient beings, it is also the case that we have added to the sum of animal happiness as well. That certainly is the view of my dog, which is the proud owner of two human beings!

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr Paasilinna’s framework directive refers in general to all rules concerning the creation, maintenance, development and improvement of citizens’ communications networks that are integrated together, that is, they provide for the use of televisions, computers and telephones. I voted for this report with pensioners and the elderly in mind, Mr President. What have the elderly and pensioners to do with this document? Well, they are the ones who spend most time in front of the television and so, as end-users of these technological advances, they should be taken into consideration. Unfortunately, they are not taken into consideration enough in this document. - Brunetta report (A5-0434/2001)

Political group: PPE-DE
Chairman of the Committee on Budgets. – Mr President, this shows the folly of making policy on the hoof. This has never gone through any committee. There have been requests for money, which does not exist and no one has said where it is going to come from. It is an urgency which has been voted by this Parliament – so be it, but it is quite ludicrous. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
We take the current and future problems of pensions policy and social change very seriously. The Commission communication and the report by Mr Cercas undoubtedly contain important and positive proposals. The calls for better social protection for women are a case in point. However, as regards the basic problem – defending and renewing social protection systems based on solidarity – the report conflicts with the fundamental positions held by our group. We therefore cannot vote for the report. The general emphasis on solidarity is clearly at odds with the specific proposals. The majority of Members of the European Parliament fully support the shift away from statutory pensions schemes based on solidarity towards a three-pillar model of pensions provision. The report does not develop any fundamental alternatives to the pensions reform initiated by the decisions taken at the Lisbon and Stockholm European Councils, which lacked a social framework. I think it is especially tragic that by promoting the partial privatisation of pensions systems based on solidarity, European social democracy is breaking radically with its entire historical tradition. For more than a hundred years, social democracy has fought for a redistributive welfare state based on solidarity. Now it is at the forefront of the campaign to dismantle it. The emphasis on demographic arguments, such as the 'greying' of the European societies, is not convincing. Furthermore, no attempt is made to examine other options – such as the inclusion of all types of income in financing the pensions system, as in Switzerland – in terms of their viability. 'Live longer, save more, spend less!' These are the watchwords of the 'pensions reform'. The Commission and the High-Level Working Party on Social Protection are calling for new regulations to push back the current retirement age. In future, the statutory pension will no longer maintain a person's existing living standards in old age, but will merely offer basic provision. Maintaining pensions systems based on solidarity is possible even under current and future conditions as long as policies are guided by the principle of social justice rather than the self-seeking interests of banks, investment funds and insurance companies. We therefore see no reason why we should go along with the proposed change of strategy.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, since this voting session is a continuation of the lunch-time voting session, would I be correct in thinking that the few roll-call votes in which we have participated this afternoon will count as part of our daily count, and that this has direct relevance to the earlier vote on whether we had a quorum or not? Perhaps you could let me know later.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I have been studying yesterday’s Minutes and I have noted that Elmar Brok, MEP, has not mentioned that there might be grounds for his disqualification when voting on the report on digital television, although he has indicated in the register containing information on Members’ secondary occupations that he is senior vice–president in a company called ‘Media Developments Bertelsmann’. In my opinion, this matter should be discussed in Parliament.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, there are, not unnaturally, different assessments in this Parliament regarding the Treaty of Nice, but even those who are highly critical of the Treaty – and there are many – will agree in this debate on the future of Europe that the best way forward is to use the post-Nice procedures and to make the most of them to improve our Union, to rectify the shortcomings of Nice and to have a proper debate on the future of the Union. The way that this should be done – and my views are very close to those of the Commission – is to have a first-year wide-open debate – let a thousand flowers bloom – then move to a broad, deliberative body that will draft the changes that are necessary. This could be composed in the same way as the convention that produced and composed the Charter of Rights with representatives of the European Parliament and national parliaments and governments. Finally, there would be a short, sharp IGC to approve the results at the end. Obviously, we will be dealing with the four issues that were mentioned by the European Council including one issue which overlaps very much with the Commission's White Paper on governance. I would be interested to hear the Commission's views on how these two processes are going to tie in to each other, because there is a degree of overlap there. There will also be other issues that should be addressed. The future of the High Representative, the question of extending the codecision powers of Parliament to all legislative procedures, taking in those few that are now by anomaly left out. We must also look at the issue of codification of the Treaties. I would plead for a special procedure. This year, why not set up a committee of experts from the Member States and the institutions to complete the task that was started in Florence of codifying and simplifying the Treaties so that the political work next year can start on the basis of a text that is already simplified and codified? The technical work would thus be out of the way before we move on to the political work. I would advocate that way forward.

Political group: PSE
Once this funding has been decided, it would be useful to have a breakdown in the way I requested, because it is very important, considering that in some Member States embryonic stem cell research is forbidden, yet some of those countries – for example, Germany – will be the main funders of this kind of research. In the interests of openness and transparency, there should be a clear breakdown and a clear outline of how much is going where and what the results are.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, as other colleagues have done this week, I too would like to draw the attention of the House to the unusual fact that we were not allowed to make one-minute speeches on Monday. I submitted a statement in writing at that time on the issue of Mordechai Vanunu, who was released from jail in Israel yesterday after 18 years' imprisonment. He is subject to very severe, cruel and unusual restrictions on his liberty. This is not acceptable in a democracy. He is not allowed to leave the country, people watch him wherever he goes, he is not allowed to make contact with foreigners and he is not allowed to contact journalists. I ask the President to make representations to the Israeli Parliament and Government in support of this person, who served a prison sentence for showing that weapons of mass destruction were being prepared in Israel. These are precisely what the forces in Iraq have been seeking; the discrepancy between the way the two countries are treated is simply amazing. I ask you, Mr President, to bring this matter to the attention of the President of Parliament, and to ask him to contact the Israeli authorities with a view to allowing this man his liberty. He has served his sentence.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to congratulate the presidency of the Council and the presidency of the Commission, who have always promoted this initiative, on taking up the Lisbon debate. This is an extremely important debate because less than a year ago we committed ourselves to nothing less than turning Europe into the most competitive and dynamic area of stability in the world. Nothing less than that. However, the 2010 horizon is looking stormy because the reticence of some countries to carry out liberalisation programmes approved by everybody and the resistance of States such as France to losing some of the flagships of its public sector are creating a two-speed Europe, a Europe in which countries which fulfil their collective commitments see their progress threatened by suspiciously aggressive strategies from companies, which are still public, in relation to recently liberalised sectors. Ladies and gentlemen, a lot is at stake, but above all the legitimacy of the Community institutions is at stake in the eyes of the European citizens, who see the spread of a dangerous dynamic which favours the directors of powerful companies and which yields few results. That is why I think Stockholm is so important. Stockholm must mark the beginning of a thorough debate on public participation in key industrial sectors. This debate must take place within the framework of a mutual process of evaluation and learning which will contribute to improving the operation of the single market. Based on a scoreboard of objective indicators for privatisation, this debate must bring together the different attitudes to the principles of competition, freedom of establishment and free movement of capital. This debate is being demanded by the European citizens who, having accepted competition as an effective method for allocating resources, are seeing their markets subjected to inefficiencies imported from countries which are ideologically allergic to economic reform.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 provides for the payment of aid to the tomato processing industry with a view to compensating it for the difference between the raw material price on the Community market and that on the world market. This aid is granted for a global EU quota of nearly 7 million tonnes, distributed at five-yearly intervals by product group of peeled tomatoes, tomato concentrate and other products. It is also distributed at yearly intervals, by Member State, on the basis of the average minimum price over the three marketing years preceding the year of distribution. Under this Regulation, quotas were allocated for the marketing years 1997-1998 and 1998-1999. These were slightly modified in 1997 in terms of the distribution between the various product groups. Subsequently, for the next marketing year, the distribution was carried out on the basis of the quantities in compliance with the minimum price over the previous three marketing years, as specified by Article 6.4 of this Regulation. More than just amending the Regulation, the proposal adopts a Council of Ministers’ agreement. This is actually a derogation from the Regulation as Portugal did not produce the quota which it was allocated for the marketing year 1997-1998, apparently due to bad weather. It is proposed that, for calculation purposes, Portugal is allocated a supplementary amount of 83,468 tonnes for 1999-2000 and, for 2001-2002, the difference between the quota calculated on the basis of the amount actually processed in 1997-1998 and the quota resulting if that figure is replaced by 884,592 tonnes. This will have no financial repercussions for the other Member States as the Commission has made provision for an ad hoc budget to finance this supplementary amount for Portugal. However, this Council of Ministers’ agreement has caused some concern among producers in the other Member States, particularly Spain, Italy and Greece, which are very competitive in tomato processing and production. As the President is aware, there have even been demonstrations at the Ministry of Agriculture in Spain by those who feel that Portugal is being accorded an advantage. A fairer, clearer and more transparent method of contracts and allocations would be the threshold system, rather than the quota system. To a certain extent this would satisfy the producers of those countries which are more competitive. However, neither the Agriculture Committee nor this House intend to deny Portugal this supplementary amount to enable it to adapt and become increasingly competitive in its tomato production. Yet this would be a good opportunity to move from the quota system to the system of thresholds for individual Member States. This is the line taken by the amendments which I have tabled on this proposal to amend the Regulation. The first two amendments are to the recitals and state that the aid for tomato processing is important and that the quota is insufficient. The third amendment states that the Commission will submit, before the start of the next marketing year, a proposal for moving from quotas to thresholds. I hope the Commission accepts this.

Political group: PPE-DE
Some amendments that have been tabled suggest that the increase in installed nuclear energy capacity in Europe is crucial to compliance with the Kyoto Protocol. This argument is irrational and lacks objectivity. All the information available suggests that the opposite is true. The European Union already reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 4% between 1990 and 1999, and will be able to fulfil the remaining reduction quota by 2012 (4%) through low-cost measures. According to data provided by the European Commission, it is possible to comply with the Kyoto Protocol by implementing measures costing less than EUR 20 per tonne of CO2. The measures proposed by the European Commission (the European Programme for Climate Change and the Framework Directive on Emissions Trading) contain no reference to promoting nuclear energy. – Sjöstedt report (A5-0154/2003)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it seems that Africa is neglected by the UN and the rest of the world. Two tribes, the Hemas and the Lendys have been fighting in the town of Bunia in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Hundreds of people have been injured. Many people have been killed and yet, despite the presence of French troops and UN troops in DRC, they are still fighting, they are still killing and there is much trouble and displacement of the population. The key to all this, as I have said many times before in Parliament, is that until rural areas in Africa have security in terms of land, the economy, rural assets and rural development, there will always be conflict. There will be no democracy in Africa until people have something they can call their own, a stake in the local economies. We are trying to encourage democracy in these countries. Democracy cannot filter from the presidential palace down to the rural areas. It has to grow from rural areas and until we improve the economies of the rural areas, until we provide security for these people through land tenure, through police, a chamber of commerce, political representation, local schools, local hospitals – assets that they can call their own – conflict will continue. We seem to turn a blind eye to this. I have been an MEP now for four years. I have lived in Africa for many years. My family has been there for 170 years and I know what it is like in the rural areas. It is about time the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers recognise that Africa is not like the US or Europe, where democracy can be understood. You knock on any mud hut in any part of Africa and tell the inhabitant that you have come from the European Parliament. Tell him: 'here are your rights, rights for your women, rights for your children, rights for you to assemble, to worship, to have democracy in your parliament.' As I found out with Mr Goebbels and Mr Van den Bos when we went to Ethiopia, these people ask only for water, seed, peace and security. At the moment they have no stake in their economies. Any rebel leader can come along and say: 'I will give you a hundred dollars, come with me, let us go and plunder, let us go and loot, let us go and fight', and they of course fall prey to that. We see this in Uganda, we see this in Somalia, we see this in Ethiopia and Eritrea, we see it in Kenya, we see it in Central Africa.

Political group: PPE-DE