GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, it is a positive move that the General Affairs Council signalled collectively that the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and Russia should automatically extend to cover the new Member States. There is no reason to have separate negotiations on that. If there are problems in economic and trade relations between the enlarged Union and Russia they can then be discussed separately between the Union and Russia. Russia is the EU’s most important neighbour. It is in the interests of both the Union and Russia that relations between them develop favourably in all areas of life. Furthermore, we must be able to discuss sensitive issues such as human rights. We must ensure that the Union is consistent in its policy on Russia and that in Russia they understand that the EU cannot be split politically. From the beginning of May, the Baltic countries that join the EU will form just as solid a part of the Union as the old Member States. Their condition for membership was fulfilment of the Copenhagen criteria regarding such matters as human rights and the rights of minorities. These conditions have been met. Moreover, Russia is committed to compliance with human rights as a member of the Organisation for Cooperation and Security in Europe and the Council of Europe. It is very important that there are assurances that the work of the OCSE in Chechnya can proceed. Strategic cooperation based on common values has been spoken of with regard to relations between the EU and Russia. Perhaps such grand-sounding aims should move a step closer to something a bit more concrete. There are good grounds for that, too, as the EU will account for 55% of Russia’s foreign trade. The EU needs oil and natural gas so there is a need for cooperation on energy to be developed. The environment must play a part in that, whether it is a matter of energy production or its transportation. One of the areas of cooperation mentioned at the St Petersburg Summit was research, education and culture. I am a firm supporter of more exchange programmes for researchers, teachers and students and cooperation between educational institutions. If we are to build sustainable cooperation our citizens will need to network with one another. Here too we will have to provide young people with the right facilities and opportunities. They cannot bear the burden of a divided world.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, the Chernobyl disaster would have been thought impossible before it happened, even under a dictatorship. Of course, I believe that this sort of thing could never happen in a British, French or German nuclear power station. But we are surrounded by nuclear power stations using obsolete Russian technology. I need only think of Bohunice, Kozlodoui or Ignalina. These power stations cannot be upgraded, even with the very best western technology. In Austria no one – not one party – is in favour of using nuclear energy. We have learned to accept that we cannot force others to follow our example. But what we can do is warn them about dangerous nuclear power stations, about nuclear power stations which would be unable to obtain an operating licence anywhere in the European Union. When someone builds a house, the neighbours are asked if the tree in the garden is too tall and is blocking out too much light. When someone builds a nuclear power station which would not be able to obtain a license anywhere in the European Union, suddenly it is a question of national sovereignty and everyone is insulted if you question safety standards or ask for information. In Austria – and I think that I really can speak for everyone – we have taken great pains for a long time to call for uniform standards which apply in all the European countries. Commissioner, the same thing has been put to you twice today already. I know full well that we cannot compare French technology, for example, with British technology and that the French industry may wish to guard its secrets. But we must have a minimum consensus. We must be able to say if an old or a new nuclear power station built in a candidate country – and I am thinking quite specifically of Temelin here – is safe. I have to say that, if a nuclear power station would be unable to obtain an operating licence anywhere in the European Union, then I am against it, I do not want any nuclear power stations in any candidate country which do not meet our standards, irrespective of which country has issued them. We harmonise so much in the European Union – our common values, thank God. We shall soon have a common currency – wonderful. We also hear talk of standard shapes for cucumbers. So why no minimum consensus here? I have tried to achieve a minimum consensus in my group. I believe that Mr Mombaur or Mr Chichester will be tabling an oral amendment tomorrow. I call on you, if you are still here and can hear me, to vote in favour of this oral amendment. Commissioner, it is precisely because we are surrounded by dangerous nuclear power stations that I say to you: there is no border at which the danger stops – and I am thinking here of the candidate countries, I am thinking of nuclear power stations which cannot be upgraded and I am thinking of new nuclear power stations which may be built. It must be possible for us to say that we demand British, French or German standards. If we cannot, then what I want to know is why we bother about the shape of cucumbers.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this a bit simpler than just now. It is just about correcting something. The intention of Amendment No 162, a joint amendment, is to bring what we agreed for electricity in line with what we are now agreeing on for gas. It is word for word what we agreed earlier on for electricity. But because of the way the voting list works, that means that we first have to vote against the committee's amendment and then vote for Amendment No 162. However, a mistake has crept in along the way. This is exactly what we agreed for electricity on Article 8(5). Amendment No 162 now also reads 'Article 8(5)'. However, for gas it is not Article 8(5) but Article 7a(1), and so of course that needs to be inserted there from the Minutes; this is just a technical adjustment. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, in spite of their good points, both the Commission’s Fiscalis 2007 programme and the report by my esteemed fellow Member, Mr García-Margallo y Marfil, seem to be lacking something. I think that the report, and the programme, have forgotten the fiscal competences of certain regions that the Lamassoure report, as you will recall, terms ‘regions with legislative competences’ and ‘constitutional regions’. In fact, these are often nations that are already highly restricted by their own legal framework. This is the case of my country, Catalonia. With regard to taxes, situations can obviously differ. Thus, the Basque Autonomous Communities possess real power. The Catalan Autonomous Communities, meanwhile, do not have as much. In any case, all these political bodies would like to be able to establish direct links with the Commission. They would also like to be able to participate in Council meetings when their competences are at stake. The amendment we have tabled is along these lines.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I would like first of all to highlight the excellent cooperation which exists between Commissioner Busquin and the European Parliament, by means of the committee which I chair, on issues of research. I would also like to take this opportunity to communicate to you the double concern of the scientific community, which is practically unanimous, in relation to two questions. The first is that the scientific community unreservedly supports the idea of a common area of research. However, on the other hand, it has serious doubts that the effect of synergy and added value at a European level may be lost by means of a concentration of the different research projects; that is to say, the smaller the nucleus, the more concentrated those projects are, the more difficult it is for these synergies to be produced at a European level. The second question relates to the instruments. The three instruments planned: the networks of excellence, on the one hand, the integrated projects and the recourse to Article 169. The scientific community is concerned about the fact that these three instruments are new and that they are the only ones being used. It fears that others which were being used will be lost despite the fact that the scientific community had become accustomed to them. It also fears that a whole series of research teams which had been created could be lost, all of a sudden, as a result of the exclusive application of these three instruments. I would therefore like the Commissioner to respond to this double concern.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner, I must say that I have not, unfortunately, read either the book No Logo or the special edition of The Economist entitled Pro Logo in The Economist. Clearly, however, we have embarked upon a very interesting discussion of trade marks and their significance in terms of dividing up world markets. Those of us who want to see a form of globalisation that is of benefit to all parties look forward to an international exhaustion of trade mark rights in accordance with the original Mayer report. The same applies if one is in favour of an effective competition policy, as mentioned by the rapporteur, for European exhaustion as it is at present enables markets to be divided up, providing benefits to manufacturers but not to consumers. Different studies can produce different results. The Commission takes a relatively negative view of international exhaustion in its study. On the other hand, we also have the experience referred to by the previous speaker whereby there are quite a few countries in which goods became more expensive after Community exhaustion had been introduced, for example Germany, Sweden and Great Britain. I am also sorry that this matter could not have been taken further during the Swedish Presidency which, I know, accorded it a high priority. I therefore hope that we shall now, in fact, produce a report on this subject. I also hope that the Commissioner can tell us what opportunities there are for addressing the issue in the context of the WTO in which a new round of talks is about to start. I also think it is important not to confuse this issue with that of pirate manufacturing, which is a completely different matter. There are new ways of checking the authenticity of goods by means of genuine and detailed identification, facilitating a completely new form of supervision. I therefore hope that the Commission is able to support the endeavours representing the main approach taken by Parliament today, as well as by the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, I, for my part, would also like to express my sincere thanks to the rapporteur and the Commission for preparing this matter for debate. The proposals have an aim worthy of support: environmental diversity is something that is important to all of us. I would, however, like to raise two matters in this parliamentary report. Firstly, in item eight the matter of forests is raised, mentioning the desire to see a bureaucratic, centralised monitoring system for the EU based on certification for forests and all living organisms in them. The use of forests in the Member States would be controlled by the EU by means of action plans. At this point we must remember that forestry matters in the EU are covered by the principle of subsidiarity and there is no cause to extend Brussels’ control in these matters unless there are special reasons for doing so. Furthermore, all those engaged in forestry matters agree that certification should work on a voluntary basis, and on no account should it be managed by the EU. Secondly, in item 44 it is proposed that all support payments for agricultural production should be replaced with environment-based aid. We have to remember, however, the situation regarding world trade which we have today. If production aid were not paid there would no longer be any agriculture on the present scale in the EU in the future. How would things stand regarding biodiversity then? In certain regions of the EU, production aid is, relatively speaking, even more important than in central Europe. For example, in my country the major problems are not really connected with the state of the environment or biodiversity, but the fact that production must in general be supported, production costs being as high as they are. For farmers it is a waste of time to talk about additional environmental action, as all production in our country is in practice organic. I propose that point 44 should be deleted from the text. The same goes for the last part of item 42, where agri-environmental action would be solely geared towards protecting endangered species. No self-respecting EU institution should record something like this in the resolutions.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, two golden rules have emerged from Mr Berlusconi’s speech: continuity in foreign policy and security, and a call for judgment based on the facts. The approach of negotiation announced by Mr Berlusconi is the approach of wisdom and true hard work, the approach that Europe needs in everyone’s interests. The facts speak for themselves: Europe is at an historic turning-point, it is about to give itself a constitution, but the draft presented has received general acceptance which for the time being, however, has glossed over the objections of several governments, and these objections will surface at the Intergovernmental Conference. Negotiation will be the only means of reaching a positive conclusion. In foreign policy there are four objectives: the Middle East peace process; restoring the transatlantic relationship, which has been damaged by the Iraqi crisis; launching new operations in the Balkans run by European forces under the European flag; and lastly the dialogue with the southern Mediterranean countries, which is one of the strong points in the line of action of the European Commission, under the excellent leadership of Romano Prodi. In these cases too, the negotiation you have indicated, Mr President-in-Office, will be decisive. Since your first appearance in this House, you needed to clarify not only the priorities of the Italian Presidency but also the methods it intended to use, and you have done so clearly, coherently and with a sense of true democracy, especially when you announced greater involvement for the European Parliament. Finally, we appreciate the commitment to boost the Union’s economy and define the future of the common agricultural policy, and highlight your spirit of collaboration on thorny problems like immigration and the security policy. I should like to end by expressing my pride as an Italian Member of this Parliament – a feeling that any other European Member would feel in these circumstances – at taking part in a founding action of the European Union, a Union which is today led by two Italian representatives, Silvio Berlusconi and Romano Prodi. We are certain they will not disappoint us but will, instead, prove worthy of Italy’s history and the creation of the Community. Mr Berlusconi, your Presidency will be successful, despite the Italian and European malcontents who rant and rail today, and you will have the full support of the Christian Democrat group in this Parliament. I wish you success, as this will be the success of Europe!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am sorry Mrs Fontaine had to leave, so perhaps you would pass on my remarks to her. As the House will know, I spent a great deal of time studying the reform process on behalf of the House last year and continued to follow it through the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. I understand exactly the points that Mrs Fontaine made but, I ask you, on behalf of all Members of this House, to keep us better informed of the process. This was the point that I raised back in September when I asked the presidency to give us the same level of information about the progress of the reforms as we are receiving from the Commission. Mr Kinnock has given us a comprehensive timetable about the progress of the reform discussions. This House, these Members, have no information whatsoever from the Bureau about the reform process. I ask you to be much more transparent and to give us a progress report on these reforms.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the report under discussion refers to an issue of huge strategic, political and economic importance. Indeed, the production of and trade in arms secures huge excess profits for multinational big business which, with privatisation, now controls these sectors. However, quite apart from the profits, by supplying arms, producer countries also safeguard political control of purchasing countries, both through the rake-off paid by the arms industries to the governments of these countries and through control of their equipment. Thus, all means are being used to promote the creation of conditions of demand and consumption of arms, by fomenting tension, armed clashes and massacres of or infighting among peoples. The demand and consumption of these products also concerns the producer countries. In fact, as we know, our governments are constantly strengthening both the repressive mechanisms used against the burgeoning demonstrations by our peoples against the anti-grass roots policy and conflict prevention, crisis management and the fight against terrorism, in other words military intervention the world over. All this, which is expressed through the constant militarisation of the European Union, in ever closer cooperation with ΝΑΤΟ, calls for huge quantities of arms. That is why Mr Solana proposes increasing the military forces. These developments, of course, are fraught with huge dangers for the peoples of the European Union and for mankind as a whole within the framework of intra-imperialist rivalry. However, they satisfy the speculative appetites of the political-military-industrial network which, especially after September 11, now has absolute control over US policy and is also strengthening its influence in the countries of the European Union. The report being debated, however good the rapporteur's intentions may be, does not refer to these questions, or rather it conceals them. Like all the previous reports, it formulates wishes and proposals which will never be applied. That is why what is needed is not codes of conduct, compliance with which depends on the good will of the Member States, but the introduction of mandatory rules and controls and the gradual reduction in the production, movement and use of arms, pending their definitive prohibition. We need to convert war industries into peace industries. These are the demands of the movement for peace. We support them, which is why we shall not vote for the report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, it was late when I made my last speech, it is even later now so I shall be try to be even briefer. But education is important and we must make sure it gets the attention it deserves. Often education attracts fine words. What it does not always get is the action to match those words. We all know the EU has very limited responsibilities as regards education, but there are some places where the European Union can give added value. Quality evaluation is one of those. When I went into town earlier on this evening I saw young people in the city of Strasbourg looking at leaflets up on a wall. What they were looking at were their baccalaureate results. So we think nothing about evaluating youngsters. What we need to do is evaluate the schools and to make sure that the schools are doing well. Since the schools are preparing young people for an education in the single market of Europe, we must make sure that the schools across Europe are all doing their work to prepare people for the single market those young people are going to work in. In some parts of the Union – and I am quite willing to cite the United Kingdom – we are not doing as well as we could. There are very many bright youngsters who do very well in the schools, but 20% of young people leave British schools without any qualifications at all. We cannot afford to allow that to continue to happen. There have been estimates that in the next two years we will require half a million extra people in IT jobs. Where are those young people going to come from? We have to make sure that the schools can deliver them and I am quite sure that what is contained in this report is one of the ways that we can help raise the standards in schools. In English we say “two heads are better than one”. I am quite prepared to believe that 15 heads, or 15 sets of data across the Union, will help us achieve better quality in the schools. I would just say to the Council – and I hope there is somebody from the Council listening to this – I know we can have confidence in the Commissioner, but let us say to the Council that their fine words at Lisbon were great but they should now deliver on them. I am therefore very sorry that the great efforts that the rapporteur made to get full agreement were not actually rewarded. So do not be too surprised if this Parliament backs the rapporteur and tries to push the Council to live up to the fine words they were so ready to utter.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr van Hulten’s report was very broadly endorsed in the Committee on Budgetary Control. No doubt the same will happen during the vote here in plenary. So, my compliments to Mr van Hulten, but may I also ask the Commission to interpret this endorsement correctly. By it we are showing that we continue to support the reforms it has embarked on. We want these reforms. They must lead to greater transparency and efficiency in the handling of the taxpayers’ money and help improve the control systems. We need these reforms so that we can manage substantially to speed up the payments to the legitimate recipients of aid and at long last reduce the number of budgeting errors the Court of Auditors criticises every year. Setting up an independent – and I emphasise the word independent – audit service is a step in the right direction and responds to Parliament’s requests in its January resolution on the reform of the Commission. However, we want this audit to complement rather than replace the traditional financial control. That is another thing this House decided in January and confirmed again in the 1998 discharge. Unlike the internal audit, the traditional form of financial control checks budgetary processes even before agreements are signed and payments made. These ex ante controls are essential because, unlike their national colleagues, the Commission officials have wide discretionary powers in many areas of financial decision-making. Independent counter-checks are essential in order to avoid errors. If in future these audits are conducted decentrally and in a targeted manner for risk areas, we will also manage to prevent the controls from being too unwieldy. It is essential for the financial controllers to remain independent, which means they must not come under the same directors-general they are checking. In short, the controllers must not be under the orders of those whom they are checking! Parliament has repeatedly made that clear too. Unfortunately, we are still waiting in vain for a signal from the Commission in this respect. I would ask the Commission to take the necessary steps together with Parliament! That is in the Commission’s interest too.

Political group: PPE-DE