GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Minister, Commissioner, I should like to welcome, as my colleague, Elmar Brok has just done, the progress that has been made in European defence and political unity. I would like to remind you that during the tragedy in Bosnia it was said that Europe died in Sarajevo. It is my opinion that, in political and military terms, it had not even been born when that tragedy erupted. Europe awoke when the crisis in Kosovo arose. Europe spoke with one voice, as you have just said, Commissioner Patten. It made its voice heard, it stated the limits of what was tolerable and in the end took military action, all other political, economic and diplomatic pressure having failed. If, however, our American friends had not then joined the combat on our side, Europe would not have been able to act effectively. It is this awareness of our dependence on the Americans – and that is not to blame the Americans in any way – which has brought about this sea change in European public opinion. This is not to blame the Americans for having gone into Kosovo with us, because I must remind you that, until they became involved in Bosnia-Herzegovina, people said that it was because there was no oil in Bosnia, whereas there was oil in Kuwait. Well, our American friends did join us in that war, but without them we would not have been able to perform that task as efficiently as we did. Let us not harbour any illusions. The determination created as a result of that crisis, shared by more than two-thirds of public opinion in the Fifteen Member States of the Union, will not achieve results straightaway. It will take time – time and money. It will take time because, as you all know, it takes at least ten to fifteen years to develop an arms programme. In the meantime, it is quite clear that everything that has been done and all the decisions that have been taken, particularly in the area of our relationship with NATO, are quite satisfactory. It will require money, and I welcome the courage of our rapporteur, Mrs Lalumière, and join her in saying that we cannot achieve any more with the money that we have spent to date.

Political group: PPE-DE
Many people in Europe take vitamins and mineral supplements. It is therefore appropriate, as part of European consumer policy, to avoid any abuse of these substances and to ensure that the products offered to consumers are of high quality. This recommendation meets these aspirations, in particular by proposing an adequate European legal framework which does not hinder the free movement of these products, while guaranteeing increased health protection for the consumer and accurate and appropriate information on the products available. One of the factors which is crucial to the safety of these products is the maximum quantity of minerals which they contain. That is why setting maximum limits for the quantities of vitamins and minerals authorised in food supplements is important for ensuring that they are taken in moderation. This is because scientific opinions show that absorbing excessive quantities of certain vitamins and minerals may have undesirable or harmful effects. In addition, the list of these substances should not be set in stone because other products with nutritional or physiological effects could be incorporated into the provisions. On the basis of the experience it gains in this field, I should like the Commission to present to the European Parliament and the Council additional proposals, accompanied by appropriate legal measures, on other nutriments and substances which can have comparable effects to food supplements.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we can accept the changes in substance, despite the restricted emphasis on some details. At the same time, however, I want more generally to draw attention to the methods that have been used, which this time have been scandalous. Human rights must not be allowed to become hostage to short-sighted and often media-led day-to-day politics. Thus, their implementation requires political choices to be made and it will also have a political impact. They have intrinsic value. Human rights work calls for an overall view of the situation and the systematic, sustained and consistent prioritisation of problems, both in thematic and geographical terms, that is based on its own system of logistics. We welcome this report’s overview of human rights work at the present time. At the same time, however, we need to look to the future. Unless we can improve the way we coordinate the EU’s internal and external human rights monitoring processes and put them on a par with one another, unless we are able to engage in more vigorous post-monitoring activity and disregard irrelevant political motives and hidden agendas, we will be leaving a sad legacy to the next Parliament. Only if we can put our own house in order can we in any credible way demand that Member States and the Council give up their attitude to trade policy and other narrow views on what they might gain from a situation, and create a consistent and lasting policy. In this sense human rights begins at home and that is mainly what the issue is now.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, from the point of view of the Budget, it is certainly to be welcomed, and in equal degree indispensable, that the Community Research Framework Programme is to be given more concrete form. The sum of EUR 17.5 billion approved by the Council was, in any case, up for debate, which means that it was available for distribution. However, I had to resign from the position of spokeswoman for the Committee on Budgets which had been entrusted to me; this was not out of any refusal to do the job, but rather because the committee had resolved not to take up a position this evening, as we are dealing here with new methods of integration and coordination, which are not to be assessed ex ante. I would nonetheless like to make use of this time, as practical experience has brought to my attention something I regard as crucial. I refer, Mr Busquin, to the Commission's negotiation of contracts with small and medium-sized enterprises with regard to proposals eligible for support under the Framework Programme. How is it that projects with what I regard as excellent content are doomed to failure because the applicants cannot stand up to the Commission's assessment procedure? An assessment procedure, which, in my view short-sightedly, insists on profit margins and liquidity, utterly disregarding the firms' capacity for innovation and willingness to make investments. An assessment procedure that faces SMEs in particular with safeguards that constitute high obstacles, and, in the final analysis, an assessment procedure that is humiliating and has a demotivating effect on firms working in an essentially innovative way and with less emphasis on profit, which should therefore actually be favoured partners in the Framework Programme. Cofinancing requires that we ensure that private traders do not misuse Community funds or misdirect investment of them. That much is clear, but such an audit needs decision-making parameters that are more accurate and more responsive to individual cases, or else innovation and initiative will be systematically ruled out rather than supported, and we will end up, as we did with the European Structural Fund, with an accumulation of funds and wasted resources.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, after what in particular Mr Coelho– our Chairman and committee coordinator last year – has just said, there is little to add. I would just like to point out that, last year, the Italian Socialist Party delegation abstained in the vote on the Smith report because the report did not place sufficient emphasis on the fact that the indiscriminate interception of communications by Echelon are contrary to any human rights legislation. Indeed, interception is not subject to any restrictions, it is not authorised by a legal decision and the objectives are not stated. It is like casting a net and waiting for someone to say the word ‘bomb’ or ‘attack’. Since then, we have not expressed an opinion. After 11 September, of course, all this was forgotten, and people said to each other: ‘You see how necessary the secret service is!’ It is necessary, but the objection could have been raised that, considering its failure to prevent terrorism thus far, it might not be very effective. In any case, before us today is a report which reveals that not a great deal has been done to comply with the requests, the 44 recommendations we had made. I, for one, feel that it is essential for the Commission’s report to be published so that the citizens receive some information. It is also essential to insist that legislation respecting the Charter of Fundamental Rights – both that devised by the Convention and that we adopted before Nice – be introduced in all the countries of the Union. This should be a condition for membership of the Union. Of course, the problem then arises of democratic control of the secret services in the various States, which is, in effect, largely non-existent. Lastly, I would point out – without wishing to cause offence – that the United Kingdom is still a Member of Echelon and I believe continues to work together with the United States, in other words with the people masterminding all the anti-terrorist activities, who are explicitly violating human rights – consider Guantanamo, the bombings and such like. How can we be sure that these so-called allies of ours are not violating human rights through intercepting communications too?

Political group: PSE
Global warming and extreme weather conditions are increasingly caused by industry, agriculture and transport. Despite this, the governments of the richest countries with the highest emission levels of fossil combustion products have failed to bring about a drastic reduction in these emission levels. The rapporteur is right to point out that the European Commission’s original proposal is inadequate. Kyoto’s guiding principle was that the rich countries would keep their own atmosphere clean, although they were allowed, up to a point, to add the emission which they were helping reduce elsewhere to their own table of results. The Member States themselves will need to drastically reduce their emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases by focusing on renewable energy, public transport and reducing traffic levels. The boom in the cheap transport of goods by road mainly leads to the polluting industry being relocated from the richer to the poorer countries. Nuclear energy is not an alternative because that too adds to global warming, emits greenhouse gases and leaves other waste products behind which hardly degrade. I fear that the forthcoming climate conference will be exploited as an opportunity to moderate the previously agreed commitment to reduce emission levels by 5.2% in the rich countries. The trading of emission rights may be interesting as an experiment, but it is not a viable solution. - Moreira Da Silva Report (A5-0271/2000)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, the Commission’s proposal for a new COM for fishery and aquaculture products does not meet the needs and specific requirements of the sector in the various Member States. Nor does it take account of the potential that still exists, which is all the more incomprehensible, as the Commission itself admits that the European Union imports 60% of its consumption of fishery products. There is, of course, an obvious lack of ambition which is quite visible in the proposed budgetary reduction that has been proposed: with less than EUR 20 million per year, we cannot expect the fisheries sector in the European Union to be able to develop. Furthermore, this COM does not guarantee fishermen’s incomes, nor does it take into account the fact that in some countries such as Portugal, where small-scale coastal fishing, which supplies consumers with fresh fish caught in their own waters, predominates, producers’ organisations are very weak, which means that they cannot be given such heavy responsibilities without considering the necessary financial resources. Finally, as the report by Mrs Fraga Estévez states, it is not acceptable to change the system that has been laid down for exchanges with third countries because of the implications that this may have for European production.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I support the supplementary budget and recognise the need for it. I support the idea of the 70/30 ratio, as we have had in the past. I want to point out that there are people in this Parliament who think that, because we reduce the European budget and force the Member States to take up the cost, we are saving the European taxpayers from something. Nothing could be further from the truth. The question is whether the money is paid through the European Union or through the national governments. In any case, the crisis is here and it will cost the European taxpayers. It is not the appropriate strategy for the Members of this House to recommend that we should pass our responsibilities on to the national governments. I would also like to underline the fact again that in this European Union we seem to think, when we introduce a supplementary budget of this size, that it is a major burden on the taxpayers of Europe. It is actually a relatively small amount. The budget of the European Union is a little over 1%. Now the Member States which fight hardest and most vociferously against increasing that budget are the ones that take 47-50% and spend it themselves. So the European Union takes 1%, of which in the past, agriculture took 80%. Today agriculture takes about 40%, so as a percentage of GNP the budget of the European Union takes a lot less from the European tax-payers than it did 15 to 20 years ago. The other point I should like to make is that so many people, by connecting these outbreaks of disease with the common agricultural policy, tend to somehow blame the CAP for the problem. The truth is that the European consumer never had cheaper food and never had safer food. The evidence for that is in the longevity and the health of people. Even in the poorest regions of this Union and in the poorest cities and towns we do not see hungry children any more because this Union has guaranteed and supplied cheap food of a high quality. We should remember that. So what are the solutions to the problem? I would have preferred to hear the Commissioner plan for what consumption will be for the next three or four years and take immediate measures to reduce production. I do not agree with my Irish colleague, Mr Hyland, that it is in anybody’s interest to produce something for destruction.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it was quite remarkable how the Commission and Parliament were able to reach a tidy compromise under the providential leadership of the rapporteur, Mr Moreira da Silva. I think it is also an expression of European identity, because climate policy has a good name in Europe. May it continue to do so. When it comes to emissions trading, we must be careful not to confuse two things. Trading in emissions does not save one tonne of CO2; that is only saved by investment. But emissions trading encourages investment, that is to say it triggers a search for the cheapest way of cutting CO2. It is also sensible from an economic point of view and industry and many government leaders, many of whom still find emissions trading strange, need to see that. Secondly, Mr Seppänen – and, to some extent, Mr Lange as well – have rightly pointed out that a few questions are still unanswered. For example, are emissions rights securities? How are they treated? These are questions for which an answer will probably have to be found in the future, at either national or European level. As regards cost factors for undertakings, Mr Lange is quite right to say that undertakings’ balance sheets will probably look different in future than they do today, especially if CO2 costs more than it does today. Today it costs EUR 5 to EUR 6 a tonne. Once it costs EUR 20 to 30 a tonne, the picture will be quite different and will naturally have effects on energy policy. Let us hope that these will be the ones we are looking for, namely cuts in CO2.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should first of all like to congratulate Mr Bourlanges. Needless to say, the proposal we are discussing at the moment has become inevitable after the events of a number of years ago. It is necessary for us to further regulate the task of the executive bodies so as to avoid the mistakes of the past. What will be the specific task of those bodies? We totally agree with Mr Bourlanges that that still needs to be regulated. One thing is certain: they will need to carry out a specific administrative task for a certain limited time. What are the salient points for the liberal group? Firstly, the Commission will always remain responsible for what happens. It would be unacceptable if certain tasks were to be delegated to another executive agency on a discretionary basis. Secondly, the percentage of the number of officials in such a body will need to be determined on a case-by-case basis. We are opposed to putting a percentage figure on it, for we cannot possibly put a figure on it at the moment. That will clearly depend on the tasks of the agency. Concerning the discharge of agencies, the suggestion that this Parliament should look into the discharge of each agency seems unreasonable to us. If the Commission is responsible, and if it is the case that the Commission is granted discharge by Parliament, that naturally implies that we indirectly grant the agencies discharge. That is our strong view. As for the remainder of the proposals, we generally back the amendments which the rapporteur has tabled.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, first of all thank you to Commissioner Liikanen, it is a pleasure to see you here. I always think of him as the Commissioner for innovation who is friendly to SMEs, and I have certainly found him to be both of those, so we are very lucky to have him. The Lisbon European Council dream for the EU to be the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010 cannot be realised unless we stimulate and I mean stimulate SMEs. SMEs drive economic growth; they train people with poor skills; they identify local needs and respond by producing or processing the products required. They create employment, wealth and security for the local community. What are the hindrances, difficulties and bottlenecks facing SMEs in the EU? Why are they not growing as fast as those in the USA? Excessive red tape, high direct and indirect taxation, expensive and inadequate access to loans and grants, insufficient allowance for 'upskilling' workers and a lack of sponsored apprenticeships. Papas and Mamas in Europe in their fifties and sixties own and manage their businesses traditionally. They are reluctant to invest in new technology because, firstly, they suspect that the investment will not offer sufficient advantage. Secondly, they do not understand the scope and function of new technology in increasing productivity and expanding sales. Thirdly, they are concerned about security of supply, quality, payment and legal liability. My report has analysed the problems facing SMEs and offers a programme of action to stimulate them, so that they can compete globally. I would like Commissioner Liikanen to take very careful note of this summary, which is what I think the EU needs to do and do now. -

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, no sooner had agreement been reached with the Council, than Greenpeace, the WWF and the RSPB were denouncing it as inadequate and calling on Members to throw it out. Some Members may vote against it when the time comes, but they will probably come from amongst those who tend to put the interests of industry before those of the environment. I am not really sure whether WWF counts them amongst its friends. I took a certain malevolent delight, especially with the election approaching, in our Green rapporteur having been denounced by Greenpeace for his work, but personally I congratulate him. He has done a great job in keeping all sides of this House together. Of course the agreement is weak, but we have to start somewhere. The reality is that we know there was resistance, even amongst some Member States, towards the implementation of these measures. I am glad that the EU is still trying to lead the world on the whole issue of climate change. However, the real issue is, firstly, that we have to get some sort of agreement up and running and, secondly, that we have to move forward. I am concerned about what will happen if the Kyoto Protocol does not come into force. That is the key question that the Commissioner is seeking to address this week with colleagues. Can we persuade Russia – the crucial element in the equation – to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol and bring it into force? I do not like having to give in to ransom demands. However, for once, it might be a price worth paying.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, the rapporteur, Mr Valdivielso, has just informed our group that the amendments are not yet all available in translation. I do not know when they will be available, but if it were to be before tomorrow then – in accordance with our agenda – the vote would have to be taken as early as tomorrow at noon! This is simply impossible because we need to discuss this in our groups. Hence our request: if the groups still have sufficient time for discussion then the vote could be taken at the end of the week. But if this is not guaranteed then it will just have to be taken at the mini-session in Brussels. In any case, we insist, or at least we ask – as we have, of course, already decided – that the debate take place now without delay. After all, the Commissioner is here!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as a people’s representative I believe it is important for us to stand by what we have signed. Of course it is not particularly pleasant in terms of our parliamentary activities to have to withdraw something suddenly. But the members of our group have different views on the subject of illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings. That is why we have withdrawn our signature. I ask you to take note of that. (Parliament adopted the joint resolution) *** President. – In view of the time, voting time will be suspended now and resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Political group: Verts-ALE