GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I would like to congratulate Mrs Myller on her sterling report on national emission ceilings. There are four polluting substances involved. For two of the substances, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, an adequate solution can be found in Mrs Oomen-Ruijten’s report on large combustion plants. The problem of ammonia must be solved at local and national level. As for volatile organic compounds, we are, in actual fact, still missing part of the legislation. There are now rules which apply to volatile organic compounds which are released when filling up with fuel, as well as for substances of this kind used in industry. However, for volatile organic compounds in households, which, after all, account for one third of all emissions, such rules do not yet exist. That is why I am asking the European Commission when it will at long last come up with an EU directive on paints. We must move towards water-based paints, and it is time that rules were drafted to that effect. The Gothenburg Protocol has been signed by 36 countries, and is subject to the right of veto. The common position is hardly more ambitious than the Gothenburg Protocol. The right of veto on environmental legislation has been abolished within Europe. It would be disgraceful if the European Union were unable to prescribe environmental standards which are substantially stricter than the Gothenburg Protocol. Tomorrow, Parliament has the opportunity to prevent this disgrace. I hope that 314 or more of my fellow MEPs will be voting for Mrs Myller’s excellent report.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Many people – almost everyone, I think – immediately associates terrorism and the fight against terrorism with images of extreme violence like those we recently witnessed in Bali. Regrettably, this association with violence is justified where terrorism is concerned, but it is not justified, and should not be, when it comes to the fight against terrorism. I am pleased that Parliament has managed to reach consensus about a predominantly non-violent fight against terrorism. Let me mention a few elements: terrorism is not a natural phenomenon but also has economic and social roots, and that is precisely where the EU's programmes could provide value-added. As Commissioner Patten mentioned a moment ago, the most effective strategy for fighting terrorism is conflict prevention. Military action can only be legitimised by and via the United Nations. These are all elements which my group very much applauds because they are the key elements of the non-violent fight against terrorism. Add to this the concern about the US's unilateralism and the rejection of so-called pre-emptive strikes, the strong emphasis on the protection of fundamental civil rights and the recognition of the need to lay down minimum standards in the field of criminal law, and I think it is right to say that what is being presented in this resolution is a balanced inventory of causes and possible actions. As far as I am concerned, this is a European view of terrorism, not necessarily compared to an American view of terrorism, but as a basis for an even-handed dialogue on terrorism between equals. What we do have to ensure, though, is that this balanced, paper vision is not imbued with a practice that remains governed by oppression and military means. I am convinced that only if the practice becomes as balanced as and is like this paper resolution, will we manage to fight terrorism successfully without creating new causes of terrorism. Finally, reference is made in the resolution to Galileo, an intelligence, information and navigation system which the European Union is setting up. I have also re-read the debate on Galileo. In it, it is stated repeatedly that Galileo is, in principle, a civil system that is not, or should not be, used to collect military information, and my impression is that certainly the first generation of Galileo is absolutely unsuitable for collecting information of any nature whatsoever that could prove useful in the fight against terrorism. It is therefore somewhat beyond me, in all honesty, why Parliament is so keen to include this reference to Galileo. In my view, this mention is either premature, because Galileo as it currently stands cannot serve any purpose whatsoever, or the European Parliament has been misinformed in the past. Surely, Galileo is a so-called dual-use system, and these are two arguments why, in my view, the reference to Galileo in this terrorism resolution should be deleted.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, I would like to make reference to the general speech by our group’s Chairman and seize on a few, perhaps just small, details. Although we have to keep an impartial view of all applicant countries, this must not mean that the various decisions they made prior to accession negotiations or their special circumstances arising from their natural resources or history should be completely ignored. I am mainly alluding to the situation regarding Estonia, which is close to Finland. It is unreasonable that the Union is demanding that the country’s bituminous shale-based production of electric energy, which is unable to compete in a freely competitive market, should swiftly become the object of free competition, while, at the same time, France, and to some extent Germany also, are still, after fifty years, obstructing the liberalisation of their own energy markets. Fortunately for it, Estonia is still not even part of the European electrical network. The other special feature of Estonia concerns its milk quotas, which the Union wishes to fix at a basic level equal to that of the start of the last decade, when Estonia – rightly or wrongly – decreased its production. Thus, present volumes of production – very important for Estonia’s countryside, which is still dependent on agriculture – will not fit within the framework of the quota. It is these sorts of decisions that will, however, determine the attitude of the farming population and the people of East Estonia to EU membership in the referendum. The question of Kaliningrad always comes up as a key issue in any talk about enlargement, the northern dimension and our relationship with Russia. I am a very strong supporter of Russian cooperation, but I am very pleased to hear Commissioner Verheugen remind us that Kaliningrad is a part of Russia, and that there can be no special negotiations on it with regard to enlargement. Russia is also mainly responsible for proposals on cooperation and participation in financing. Neither is Kaliningrad – and this is something I want to stress – a crucial element in the problems and opportunities of the northern dimension, which lie elsewhere. They are in Murmansk, in the St Petersburg region: close to the Finnish border.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too would like to join in the expressions of gratitude to you, Madam Vice-President, for the idea for the Single Sky was yours. You succeeded in getting it through the high-level group and in laying to rest many misgivings at national level, and, although Mr Schmitt is right to criticise what has emerged from the conciliation procedure, we do all agree that the system has undergone fundamental change. It formerly consisted of cooperation under Eurocontrol, but under Eurocontrol alone. The Member States were sovereign, there was no Community law, and each and every state could escape scrutiny by insisting on its own sovereignty. With this legislation, we now have a Community law that nobody can evade, one that can be adopted and amended by a majority, and the Commission’s role as guardian and administrator of Community law means that no Member State can admit that it is doing something not quite right in its own airspace control and safety measures, while asserting that it is no business whatever of the Commission’s. On the contrary, there is a manifest sharing of responsibility, and the Commission is at the heart of the implementation of the new law. I see this as a very great step forward, and one that is very much to be welcomed. As a result, I believe, we will be able to reduce waiting times in the air and at airports, and this will be to the benefit of passengers and airlines. We will be more successful on the environmental front, as every aircraft that spends too much time in parking orbit has a disastrous effect on our environment, and we will make progress in terms of safety, for fragmented technology and cooperation will be a thing of the past. Of course, I have to tell my and post-communist friends that their belief that air navigation services must be provided by the public sector is one that I cannot go along with. If, though, we look back over recent years, let us ask ourselves where it was that service was always provided according to the book? Where was it that aircraft were hanging in the air? The country that always occurs to my mind is one whose air navigation services are staffed by State officials, who do not necessarily make for better and more effective use of airspace. This, Commissioner, is something we need to discuss together as and when the opportunity arises. Following this legislative act, I believe, we will need – perhaps in two or three years’ time – a new initiative to introduce competition among air navigation services, where, as much as anywhere else, competition is required if performance is to be improved.

Political group: PPE-DE
The overall aim of EU policy on development cooperation should be to combat poverty and to eradicate it once and for all. In order to combat poverty effectively – in addition to combating neo-liberalism – equal opportunities between men and women must be established, and women must also play a more active role in the field of politics. At the 4th World Conference on Women, which took place in Beijing in 1995, a clear agenda was drawn up, aimed at promoting equal rights between men and women, for the first time. This led the EU to draw up Council Regulation (EC) No 2836/98 on integrating gender issues in development cooperation. In 2001, an action programme on the mainstreaming of gender equality was adopted in Community development cooperation, which expires in 2006. Regulation (EC) No 2836/98 is the legal base for budget heading B7-6220 (21.02.06) on Integrating Gender issues in Development Cooperation. Having expired on 31 December 2003, it must be replaced by the proposal before us. As joint legislator, Parliament must state that the Commission was very late in tabling the proposal for a new regulation. The Commission accepted the overwhelming majority of Parliament’s amendments, but ... (Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I also subscribe to those questions which my colleagues have put to the Council and to the Commission. In particular, I would like to ask that this committee for interinstitutional cooperation finally be established, in order that genuine transparency can be brought into effect as required by this Regulation. I also share the view of Mr Cashman that Parliament cannot approve the secretaries-general carrying on discussions of these matters in the name of the politicians, since transparency is, as a basic question of democracy, a highly political matter. Now we must also look at what will be our future challenges once (hopefully) all these open questions with regard to this Regulation are resolved. This has been an important first step, but we still have lots of new challenges. I would like to mention some of these. In my opinion, what threatens to become an even larger problem is the matter which Mr Watson, Chairman of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedom and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, mentioned in a seminar yesterday: this anti-terrorist activity and the questions of the third pillar are leading towards an intolerable situation, since the Council continues to enact these anti-terrorism laws behind tightly closed doors, and the Parliament has virtually zero influence in these matters. In my opinion we must meet this challenge; questions of the third pillar must be properly brought within the sphere of public access to documents. Otherwise, there will be no democratic responsibility of any kind as far as these matters are concerned. Secondly, I wish to mention a problem which relates to the protection of personal data. In my view we have a genuine problem here as well. Certainly we must protect personal data, but we cannot approve a situation where (for example) the names and personal details of representatives of industry who are taking part in Commission negotiations can be kept secret in the name of data protection. No, this idea is erroneous; and in these matters we must be careful to operate on the side of transparency, and so we certainly have our work cut out for us.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, Commissioner, as Mr Moreira da Silva stated, on 4 March the Kyoto Protocol will be submitted for ratification to the Environment Council. I am convinced that the Spanish Presidency is determined to overcome any last-minute difficulties that could arise and that the result will be satisfactory. This will mean that the European Union is taking another step forwards in leading the struggle against climate change. We have seen once again this evening that the United States is widely criticised for not sharing the level of commitment the Protocol demands. This puts all EU Member States, and this is particularly true if we are able to get the United States to sit around the negotiating table, in a position of urgent need to fulfil each and every one of the provisions laid down in the Protocol, unless we want to suffer total ridicule and have our reputation in international politics tarnished. Nevertheless, although achieving the Kyoto objectives will not be easy, it is possible. This is demonstrated by the data in Mr Moreira da Silva’s resolution. We must become a society that is poor in carbon and rich in the use of cleaner technologies, taking full advantage of energy efficiency. We know that the role of the market is crucial to achieving these objectives, but we are still hesitant when it comes to implementing specific measures, above all when we give in to those short-sighted sentiments that still perceive the Kyoto Protocol as an attack on competition and employment when it should be seen, because it can now be seen, that the opposite is the case. We must act on demand at Community level on aspects such as the internalisation of costs, emissions trading and the exchange of certain policies such as transport, energy or agriculture. With regard to demand, we must focus on training and motivating some European consumers who are still very apathetic and uninformed in this regard. I believe that the rapporteur has tabled a proposal that is committed to sustainable development, which is clear and precise in stating exactly where we need to act. For this reason it deserves, and I think already has, this Parliament’s gratitude and total support. Thank you, Mr Moreira da Silva.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I had requested the floor to condemn these intolerable actions and to express my solidarity with my fellow Members from the Group of the European People’s Party , and I wanted to make the proposal that you yourself have made. I support it on behalf of my group. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am obliged to Mr Busquin, who knows that I have for a number of years had a particular interest in Galileo, which has become very dear to me. Yet I am constantly being asked what Europe is really looking for in space, and why Europe should spend money on space when there are other problems on Earth that are so pressing and in need of high levels of funding. So, although I do not expect this issue to meet with either rejoicing or unqualified approval, my firm conviction, which I know to be shared by many of my fellow-MEPs, is that space is of strategic importance for Europe and for the European economy. Thanks to new technologies, it provides new opportunities. It provides jobs for our engineers and prospects for the future. Europe must not be satisfied with technological achievements that are less than first-class, and Europe is capable of them. It is a matter of fact rather than a secret that space policy is one of the core issues for the twenty-first century. Our everyday lives are already being shaped by the most varied applications made possible by space and the satellites we have put into it, behind which lies technological know-how that needs to be nurtured. We, in Europe, have valuable resources, by which I mean not only engineers and technicians, but also research establishments and enterprises. These give rise to innovations, but, as I keep being told, and as I have heard this afternoon, researchers and brainpower go where more is on offer, not only financially, but also in terms of technology. That, Commissioner Busquin, is why I believe there to be an urgent need for real efforts to be made towards a coherent European space policy, as you have so aptly described it. Europe must become aware of where it stands and of what opportunities it has. No longer must we make declarations; now is the time for us to at last take action. Europe must also be willing to invest, and, while there is no doubt that this can sometimes be a painful business, the space sector is not only highly cost-intensive, but also highly competitive. Let us then take up this challenge! Without decisiveness and commitment, Europe will lose independent access to space, and will also lose out when it comes to the applications resulting from it. Commissioner Busquin, I share your view of the dangers of dependence on others, and so I welcome the Commission’s Green Paper on European space policy and Mr Bodrato’s detailed and stimulating report. Europe needs a political signal to begin a new chapter in space travel, and I hope that we will, by a clear resolution tomorrow, help to give European space travel the right impetus!

Political group: PPE-DE
I would like to echo the positive opinion expressed by my group regarding Mr Brok's report, and emphasise the political priority which must be given to the European Union's decision to enlarge, a priority which cannot be conditioned or diluted by any reasons other than the rigorous assessment of whether the candidate countries fulfil the criteria laid down by the Community acquis. In addition to this, I would like to stress three points. Firstly, enlargement cannot be separated from a coherent policy of openness and attentiveness on the part of the European Union towards the east and the south. Cooperation and friendship with the former USSR nations and the Mediterranean must progress alongside the enlargement process. Secondly, enlargement inevitably involves revision of the European Union's financial perspectives, which were conceived and established before the prospect of enlargement was even on the horizon. A larger Europe with more tasks and responsibilities will require fresh, increased financial resources. The urgent need therefore arises to revise the financial perspectives and to increase the financial allocations for pre-accession operations. Thirdly, the implications of enlargement for the Union's regional policy cannot be overlooked. The policy of cohesion is, at present, necessary and will continue to be so with regard to a large number of regions which are currently classified as Objective 1 areas and which are to be removed from this category after enlargement. We must henceforth seek out new types of measures and new tools to benefit all the areas which are lacking in infrastructures and service networks such as, for example, the south of Italy.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to deal only with the subject of internal security, because this security is very valuable to us, to the citizens of the European Union just as much as to the European Union as an economic location. One of our objectives with enlargement must be to gain more security by having a common strategy, a common policy in fighting against corruption, international crime, illegal immigration, and the like. All the candidate countries have made tremendous efforts in the preparation process to bring internal security up to a high standard. The European Union has been actively helping them in this with various programmes. The Commission makes an annual review of the progress made. Some have made a great deal of progress, while others sadly still have ground to make up. Without naming any countries, I should like to draw attention to some of these shortcomings. At one point in this report we read that increased efforts are needed to fight corruption and economic crime, which continue to give cause for serious concern. Or that there are still deficits in the approximation of laws in the area of money laundering or the protection of financial interests. Further on it says that particular attention needs to be paid to combating drugs and smuggling, fraud, corruption and organised crime, or that efforts to combat organised crime must be stepped up. These are quite specific points that show where individual candidate countries still have to make enormous efforts. As the candidate countries are represented here today, I call on you all to do everything to remedy the shortcomings that still exist and to ensure that the enlarged Union remains a union of security. I am sure that, with all the support you are receiving, you really will be able to work off these deficits and reach the objectives. That would be in the interests of us all.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, this issue does not just concern Spain. For instance, yesterday I got a call from a road haulier from the top of whose lorry immigrants had cut a way in through the cover during the crossing. The British border authorities then arrested these immigrants and the haulier had to pay a fine, although he was unaware immigrants were on board. I therefore put the following supplementary question: what is the Council Presidency thinking of doing to get to grips with this type of activity?

Political group: PPE-DE