GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioners, renewable energies are not a panacea for reducing emissions of CO2 nor for resolving the energy dependency of third countries, but they can increasingly contribute to alleviating these problems, as long as they become competitive. I would therefore firstly like to congratulate the Commission on this report, as well as the Council, in particular the Swedish presidency, and the rapporteur, Mrs Rothe, on the effort they have made to find the necessary common ground so that in the end this directive can see the light and, furthermore, that it may do so in a way which is reasonably satisfactory for the majority, although it is true that not all the ambitious objectives which Parliament intended on first reading have been taken up. This directive for the promotion of renewable energy is a bet on our future and an investment in the environment. That is why it is important to offer a legal framework to those who have already taken that gamble and are investing in this respect. Specifically, it is very important to negotiate sufficient transitional periods for current aid to maintain investor confidence. It is important to give priority to electricity from renewable energy sources in terms of access to the electricity network and that they are not discriminated against in the imposition of transport or distribution tariffs, especially in the peripheral regions. In order to justify the need for this directive, we must bear in mind, on the one hand, the differing degree of competitiveness still existing between renewable energy sources and conventional sources and, on the other, the external costs obviated by this type of technology. I therefore believe that we must welcome them and, like Mrs Rothe, I would also like to ask this House to approve the compromise amendments which have been reached after so much effort.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, America is afraid. It has been afraid since 11 September. It has waged war on every continent. It has little experience of war on its own soil; the last time was in the 1860s. Therefore it is afraid, and when a country or a continent is afraid, it can make stupid mistakes. America should listen to old Europe, this wise old lady, covered in blood and tears, the old lady that America itself came to save from dictatorship fifty years ago. Let America listen to her! This old lady would say: choose security through international law, bow to the decisions of the UN, agree to another UN meeting, which we must demand, for another resolution. We know the Americans are the strongest. We are forced to take note of it. That is no reason to be unilateral. That is no reason to stand firm on your own national interests alone. It must be said that our fellow citizens can detect a strong smell of oil in this matter. Some will say that this is untrue, but they can smell it and they know that three quarters of oil stocks are there, that America needs them, that tomorrow China will need them; they know that these stocks, these resources, must be made available for the development of our countries, certainly, but also the southern countries. These are world stocks for everyone, and first of all also for those countries. Lastly, a final word to young Europe, our Europe, this young girl that we are creating. This will be her hour of truth and we must harmonise the positions of her four Member States and one candidate country that are on the Security Council. What took place on Monday is not enough. We should be able to coordinate our position to decide together what we are going to do with our two rights of veto in the Security Council, anticipating what might be our future. In any case, there is no clear reason to give up, whether with regard to the meeting or the right of veto.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, we have reached our second reading, a milestone on the long, hard road towards liberalising port services, and I think that we should all start by thanking and congratulating our rapporteur, Mr Jarzembowski, on a job well done. Having said which, I realise that as soon as I sit down, a number of my honourable friends will no doubt stand up to oppose liberalisation or at least make comments intended to severely restrict the liberalisation of port services. What I have to say to all these honourable Members, whose opinion I do of course respect, is that I fail to understand how we can be in favour of liberalising the railways, in favour of liberalising air transport, in favour of liberalising telecommunications, and against liberalising port services. We cannot have one sauce for the goose and one for the gander. I, for one, find it incomprehensible. Secondly, I should like to say to everyone – and to the port workers protesting today – that, in my personal opinion, they stand to benefit from the liberalisation of port services in the medium to long term, because it will create new jobs. We have nothing against these people. On the contrary, we recognise that their work helps foster economic growth; but they should not hamper further liberalisation and, by extension, further growth in the European economy. The European Parliament, at least the majority in committee, has so far stood by a number of firm principles, one of these firm principles being our espousal of the liberalisation of services, not as an end in itself, but as a means to economic growth. And because we stand by this principle, Commissioner, we adopted an amendment, which the rapporteur referred to and which is designed to prevent discriminatory treatment by port authorities, so that the ports of the European Union can compete with each other. In doing so, we did of course listen very carefully to what the industry and interested parties had to say. That is why we stand by our position on pilotage, where idiosyncrasies, different approaches and safety factors have to be taken into account. It is why we take a different view from the Council, a more amicable view if you like, of workers’ demands and the question of self-handlers. Our focus is on proper staff training, which is why I think that port workers’ current demands on the question of self-handling are somewhat exaggerated. This being our position, and in the light of the position taken by the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism when it voted for the report, I think this is the right approach if we and the Council are to push through legislation which is acceptable to all sides as quickly as possible.

Political group: PPE-DE
We are still waiting! The specific measures in force for the outermost regions are inadequate and only cover the fields of agriculture and fisheries – a much more modest framework than the one established ten years ago when the POSEI programmes were launched and one which squanders the possibilities opened up by Article 299(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, and this is both incomprehensible and unacceptable. Even in the fields that the measures do cover, their overall financial provisions have remained the same, and so, in relative terms, they are worth less today than when the measures were launched. In agriculture, some small improvements have been made to the framework of measures, and in fisheries, aid has been extended for the disposal of certain products, as is now being proposed once again, for a further year. What is needed are permanent schemes, periodically adapted and supported by sufficient overall financial provisions, not only in agriculture and fisheries but also in energy, the environment, communications, the new technologies and support for small and medium-sized enterprises.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, a key role of this Parliament is to put the spotlight of parliamentary scrutiny on the dim recesses of the Commission and the even dimmer nooks and crannies of the Council of Ministers. Our credentials for doing so will be immeasurably enhanced if our own house is in order, and I therefore congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Maij-Weggen, on her very open approach to this issue. We must ourselves be as open as possible. I would like to draw attention to two particular issues from my perspective as vice-chairman of the Committee on Petitions. I support the report when it says that petitions should only be made publicly available with the consent of the petitioners. For most petitioners that is no problem, since they want as much publicity as possible, but there are occasions when they need confidentiality. For instance, if I may cite the Lloyds of London petitions, one of the so-called Names was told that if he complained to Parliament or the Commission, then any financial compensation being paid to him by Lloyds could be withdrawn – a very serious threat indeed. I cite that as an example in the public domain, but there are others. That we have to push for more transparency with other institutions remains clear. Again to quote the example of the Lloyds petitions, the Commission last December announced that it was considering infringement proceedings against the British Government. The British Government responded to the Commission's letter of intent on 30 April, the very last day available, but still the Commission and the British Government refused to allow Parliament or the petitioners to know their response. I condemn that secrecy on the part of the British Government and the Commission, and I want them to be absolutely transparent, which is why we must shame them into transparency by being open ourselves.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it looks very much as if the Kyoto Protocol will not necessarily enter into force. Nevertheless, under international law the Kyoto Protocol will be binding on its signatories for several years. During this time it cannot be altered, meaning the Kyoto process will remain much too static. Climate change, however, is a real threat, and for that reason the action taken to resist it should be seen as tough and dynamic. One way is to analyse the EU’s former policies, which in most sectors have already successfully made economic growth independent of any increase in emissions. This has come about when the actions have decentralised, forming a variety of effective policies that create a dynamic, and even positive side effects for the environment and society. These should now be strengthened and applied to other sectors. Above all, this should now be applied globally. The Bonn conference will be the first step. The United Nations environment programmes should be granted the authority they need and resistance to climate change should be split up into areas of action to promote energy efficiency, the use of renewable energy and clean technology. This would also create the dynamic needed for change to take place. Such an approach would also give the United States of America and Russia a new opportunity to be involved and participate in action to reduce greenhouse gases. Within the framework of the UN clear global structures should be created for the carbon economy and a price for carbon dioxide established, while at the same time there is vigorous promotion of market-based incentives to cut emissions. Similarly, the incredible rate at which emissions are increasing in China and India must be cut within the framework of the UN. Keeping to the Kyoto targets is vital, but it should be possible to quickly acknowledge the adverse effects of the Kyoto process and control them. Otherwise the agreement will go against the aims of sustainable development. The EU has shown great courage as a pioneer, but one also has to have courage to admit one’s mistakes, if any have been made. With Kyoto it would seem that the biggest mistake concerns carbon leakage, which threatens to come into existence, when production switches to countries unaffected by the Kyoto targets. ‘The polluter pays’ principle is thus changing to the ‘the polluter is paid’ practice. Furthermore, with renewable energy sources there is a danger of slogans going to our heads and of us not being very realistic. The investment in research into the promotion of renewables is already excessive, and Parliament is again prepared to increase its minimum share. Most renewables still come from large hydroelectric power stations, and people are not ready to add more. You cannot push on a cord; you have to pull it, as the Finnish saying goes. Investment in research will not help any more, but global demand would. That is why we must do our best at Bonn to draw people’s attention to the issue of global demand.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, before we begin our discussion, as an Italian MEP – and I believe I also speak on behalf of all Italian MEPs – I should like to condemn the position taken yesterday by the German Chancellor, who interfered in Italian internal affairs, when he threatened that Europe would intervene if any neo-fascists became members of the government. Fortunately, the Italian Government and the President of the Republic intervened, and today the Italian Ambassador to Germany will also speak on the subject, to call on the German Chancellor not to interfere in Italian internal affairs, in so far as there are no neo-fascist candidates for government office. We would like to thank the President of the Republic, as well as the Government and all the politicians who spoke and we too, in this House, would also call on the German Chancellor not to intervene in Italian internal affairs.

Political group: PPE-DE
I share the Commissioner’s view that these questions are important, that a lot remains to be done and that we ourselves must also modernise our social security systems and link the questions concerning enlargement of the Union to this process. I have a follow-up question which can partly be linked to what the Commissioner said just now in his answer and which concerns the role of the social partners in the labour market in, among other things, preventing social dumping. The question is this: is it true that the Commission is demanding of the applicant countries that they should establish some form of social dialogue, for example through the three-party cooperation which we have in the present Member States? Are demands of this kind now being made of the applicant countries as part of the accession process?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, in this document by Mr Coelho rules are laid down regarding the crossing of the external borders of the European Union. We should remember, then, that in a very few years the borders will be extended: the borders of Europe will be moved much further east. We therefore need right now, not in 2004, to bring in tighter regulations on access, on crossing the forthcoming borders, which are not the current ones, and to increase the possibilities of really, actually moving around within our fifteen Member States. In conclusion: tougher restrictions on the external borders and greater access across the former borders, which are the internal borders of the fifteen and soon the twenty-three European Union Member States.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would just like to reply to Mr Schultz. He makes two points. The first point is a political point about Mrs Fontaine's attitude contained in her speech at Lisbon. There she made a speech attacking capitalism in very clear terms. (The President cut off the speaker)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, in my group’s opinion, the European Union today faces a political and ethical challenge which is without precedent since the creation of the Union. The European Union has certainly previously known situations where there were people in a Member State government whose ideas and actions were in contradiction to the guiding values of the Union. However, with Haider and his men, we would see the extreme right, openly racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic, promoted to the rank of co-ruler of our Community. Going along with such a prospect would be tantamount to testifying, albeit unwillingly, to the respectability of a political force which is not respectable. It would mean making the unacceptable commonplace on the scale of Europe as a whole, it would mean making nonsense of the European institutions’ solemn proclamations on the fundamental values which unite us and which we demand, rightly so, of applicants for membership. This is why we support the spirit of the statement made by the presidency and the 14 Member States, as well as that of the President of the European Parliament, insofar as, unlike the lacklustre and ambiguous statement made by the Commission, it aims to make people get the measure of the danger and to provoke a response. Of course, there can be no question of casting opprobrium upon the people of Austria. Any action which can be taken must, in our opinion, serve the twofold function of proscribing Haider without, however, isolating Austrian society. (Applause) Democrats in this country now need our support more than ever. The great joining of forces in protest in Vienna on 12 November last year must now undergo developments suited to the new situation. We must have dialogue with them and join forces with them, stand at their side in order to offer the people of Austria some alternative prospects. Finally, we must ask ourselves: how did we come to be in this position? Certainly, in the first instance, as far as Austrian political leaders are concerned, it is a matter of answering this existential question for the future of democracy, starting with those who have just taken the inordinate risk of giving the extreme right a boost. But, beyond that, no one, including the European Union, can, in our opinion, be exempted from asking themselves what grounds there are for permitting an unscrupulous demagogue to exploit the frustrations and fears generated by policies in which too many sectors of the population are disregarded. This debate is now before us, but each and every one of us, male and female, is going to assume their responsibilities without delay. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL
The Council and the Commission exerted considerable pressure on Parliament to consider their proposal as set in stone. However, eight amendments have been tabled by members of five different groups, which in fact proves that the basic text is insufficient. Those who signed these amendments, supported by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, particularly want, in order to be technically fair, the broadcasting or ‘must carry’ obligations to also apply to satellite, the conditional access systems and to businesses providing access to digital television. In order to safeguard legal consistency, we demand that the conditional access systems and the other associated facilities are also included in Paragraph 2, which is the purpose of Amendment No 26, the only amendment tabled by our group. We would like to stress to the Minister that we, like everyone here, welcome the speech on reducing the digital divide, but we would also like Parliament to be permitted, now and again, to have the power of co-decision.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have asked to speak in this debate firstly in order to express my personal gratitude and that of my group to Mr Poos for his wonderful report. It really is a piece of work carried out with knowledge of the subject, not only because he is a veteran of the Council, but because I witnessed perfectly, ten years ago when we were preparing the Treaty of Maastricht, how Mr Poos, then a member of the Council with the government of Mr Santer, along with Mr Santer, showed the same attitude of openness, cooperation and solidarity towards Parliament which he is now proposing in his report. The result was the Treaty of Maastricht, which gave us codecision. I believe that we must salute his coherent and serious political track record. With regard to codecision, we are not just dealing with a reform of the Council as such, but we are an interested party in the matter. Codecision has allowed us to develop a shared culture in which the Council, for the first time, has been opening up to Parliament. We must consolidate this. There is a very important step proposed by the Poos report, which is that the Council, in legislative session, should act publicly. If there is an insufficient number of Ministers, they could apply the rule applied by Parliament: that votes should be nominal, and if members are not present, they should not be paid allowances. These are therefore measures which can be applied straight away and which do not have to await the reform. From this point of view, I believe that Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck, whose path has taken the opposite course, having moved on from Parliament to the Council, can introduce a degree of freshness into the work of the Council. I hope she can cooperate with us. A final observation, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen: we are on the eve of the Convention; we have fought for it in Parliament and we believe that we also have to cooperate positively in the process of reforming our institutions, which are interdependent on each other, in a way which means that we cannot reform one without taking account of the others. In conclusion, I believe that we have to teach by example. We are awaiting the Council meeting on the 30 October, from which we want a unanimous position from the Council with regard to the Belgian proposal on taxation, in order to bring about the statute of Members once and for all; we also believe that the package of anti-terrorist measures is a great opportunity to demonstrate to our co-citizens that we are united. And lastly, the President-in-Office of the Council will allow me to point out that we would like her, with a view to Laeken, between the White Paper on Governance and the Mandelkern report, which is with the Council, to present us with a coherent proposal which is not based on a reduction of Parliament’s legislative powers. That would also help the reform.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, our committee views these issues very differently and, to start, I will speak from the point of view of research. We see it as a very positive sign that, in her own conclusions, the rapporteur has taken account of our committee’s proposal that the Cohesion Fund countries should broaden the research infrastructure by locating universities and colleges in such a way that they would serve those who live in undeveloped regions better than now and make it easier for educated people to remain in their home districts. This will be possible with action on the part of governments, and such decentralisation of higher education will be an unquestionably useful policy in evening out development. Another matter we would like to address, specifically from the point of view of industrial policy, is that we would have liked the Commission to pay more attention to the effects of services, electronic commerce and the growing use of the Internet, when they were planning the coordination of Structural Funds and Cohesion Funds. Poverty and wealth used to depend more on means of livelihood. The rich areas were those where there were jobs in industry, but today those areas might have become a burden, and they may well be poor, meaning we also have to invest in new sectors of industry such as electronic production, as I might call it, and the production of services, because they are the industries of the future. In my opinion the committee drafting the report has not taken sufficient account of this, so on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, I would draw the Commission’s attention to this issue. Finally, as the committee representing energy, we would have liked the issue of support for renewable energy resources from Cohesion and Regional Development funds to have been emphasised still more, thus, through a process of coordination, increasing the use of renewables so that the scant funding resources in the energy programme might have been compensated by means of these more substantial sums.

Political group: GUE-NGL