GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I would like to refer to the closing words of the draftsman of the opinion, Mr Bösch. I believe he is right, that this is an issue that was difficult to incorporate into our Rules of Procedure and that, in the end, it has been resolved satisfactorily. Of course, there were perhaps other possibilities, but in this Parliament there was, above all, one concern: to fulfil the objectives which we had set. That is to say, fight fraud, corruption and any illegal activity which harms our Community. But we are a political Assembly and politicians – as we know well – are subject to all kinds of influences. We have tried to prevent a healthy, specific political objective from being misinterpreted and misused. That discussion which we held in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs on the means by which any possible illegal activity could be brought to the knowledge of OLAF, I believe has led us to a suitable means, because a political body must have a filter which can examine whether this information is well-founded or not and whether or not it contravenes the immunity and inviolability of Members. Therefore, Mr President, I believe that the amendments which we have introduced in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs fulfil the objective of reconciling the decision of the three institutions with the characteristics of our own decision. Please allow me to congratulate two people in particular. One is the President of the Committee on Budgetary Control, Mrs Theato, who is in a way the mother of OLAF and of all these regulations. The other, who I consider to be the father of the current regulation, is Mr Napolitano, who has shown great moderation, intelligence and, above all, courage, in the quest for this difficult solution.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to try to put a different perspective to this. As you know, on Monday an unmanned spacecraft went into orbit around a peanut-shaped asteroid called Eros which is not very far from earth. Photographs show us that there is no life on the asteroid, but much further out in our galaxy, the Milky Way, there are about 300 billion stars, many with planets. Beyond the Milky Way there are 300 billion other galaxies with countless stars and planets. It is probable, therefore, that there is a lot of life out there, and much of it much more advanced than we are. Bearing in mind that the first television programmes from earth are now 50 light years out into space way beyond the nearest stars, I invite you to imagine with me what life out there in the stars thinks of us as they look at us. What do they see? They see a beautiful planet, teeming with life, but they see its atmosphere being polluted and warming up. They see forests being cut down and deserts spreading. Of the living creatures, they can see many animals that are treated cruelly, rare ones becoming extinct for ever. How do they see the currently dominant species – that is us? Well, they see the planet's resources being unevenly spread. They see land being fought over, medicine for disease but not in the parts of the world where it is most wanted, books for schools – but not at all in the least-developed areas of our world, 50% of the world's population never making a telephone call in their whole life. What do they see about the relationships between human beings? They see us killing each other. They see us restricting each other's liberties. They see a never-ending series of local wars. They see some of our children drafted into the army as soldiers, or treated as prostitutes or slaves. They see unequal treatment of men and women, of people of different ages, of minorities, of people of different coloured skins, of races, of beliefs, of immigrants, even neighbours. We all know the picture. The UN Convention on Human Rights 50 years ago was an attempt to correct this. We should salute it – and I think we do. Only in Europe are human rights enforceable in law. Here in the European Parliament some of the Members do not want the Charter of Rights, which is being discussed at the moment, to become enforceable in law. I say: shame on them! Human rights should be enforceable in law in every country of the world. That is the goal which we have to work towards. Much, as Commissioner Patten said, remains to be done. Finally, if you asked me: What if there is no life out there among the stars, what if we are alone? – which is an equally awe-inspiring thought – I would say: Do not you think we have a responsibility too to make our children behave properly, before letting them go out to populate other planets?

Political group: PPE-DE
I wish to congratulate Mr Napolitano, the chairman of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs for his excellent report. It enshrines a new mode of operation for Community institutions based on the maximum possible transparency. It is also a guarantee made to the citizens of Europe of our wish to learn the lessons from the crises which shook the European Commission at the start of the year. Following the resignation of the European Commission, the three institutions, the European Parliament, the European Commission and the Council signed an interinstitutional agreement intended to specify the procedures for the implementation of the administrative inquiries of the European anti-fraud unit (OLAF). These new details must be integrated into our internal Rules of Procedure. It goes without saying that we can do nothing but rejoice at the introduction of greater transparency within the European Parliament. The decision establishes an obligation to pass on information upon any EP official or agent who “becomes aware of evidence which gives rise to a presumption of the existence of possible cases of fraud, corruption or any other illegal activity detrimental to the interests of the Communities.” For their part, any Members of Parliament who learn of similar situations must inform the EP President of these or, if they think it useful, must inform OLAF directly. This means a firm commitment to no longer “tolerating” practices which people knew were irregular but which had become customary. I will add one qualification, however. This obligation must respect the confidentiality criteria specified either in the legislative texts or in the EP Rules of Procedure (particularly facts which members of parliamentary inquiry committees become aware of). I am, furthermore, very pleased to see that it has been decided to add a clause stipulating the protection of officials who observe the requirement to pass on information: they must not in any case be subjected to unfair treatment or discrimination. Just remember how the official who uncovered the scandal was treated! I sincerely hope that we have gone beyond statements of intent and that we are talking about deep-seated change in the way in which each of our institutions operates. – Recommendation for second reading of the Graça Moura report (A5-0026/1999)

Political group: PSE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. – Mr President, I would like to congratulate and indeed thank Massimo Carraro very much for an excellent report. It gets to the heart of the matter. It is very well analysed and I would also like to thank him on behalf of colleagues on my committee for being very open to us. We worked very closely together and I hope he feels that our committee added value to his own efforts. I wanted to focus on a number of key issues from the point of view of the Legal Affairs Committee. This whole issue of governance of what is becoming a crucial international resource is something that is of particular importance. We are at a very important transitional stage where the European Union needs to play a crucial balancing role in moving the system of Internet governance from one that has been traditionally dominated by interests in the United States to becoming a truly global organisation. The United States Government has played an important and benign role because the initial Internet developers and technologists came from a United States background. This report quite rightly draws attention to the very crucial role that the European Union has to play in achieving this transition. The other important issue is the role of public authorities. Clearly there is an important role for public authorities but it must not become overbearing. International governance of the Internet owes its success so far to the fact that it is not based on complex international treaties. It has been the responsibility of a series of groups of experts. It is very much governed by the individuals and users who are operating the system. We should leave it that way but of course monitor it and make sure it works for the benefit of all the citizens that use it. Alongside that, the other crucial issue for the Legal Affairs Committee is the question of domain name registrations. This whole area is evolving very rapidly and with the development of the Internet, simple commodities like names, text, strings and characters have become very valuable. There needs to be a body of governance which is based on competition law, to make sure that allocation is carried out in a free way and ensure that world international copyright laws protect the legitimate rights of citizens who own those names to overcome the problem which has been picturesquely described as cyber-squatting. In conclusion, I would say that this is a very important report in an area which will become increasingly important to all of us. Those of us that use the Internet everyday take the basic plumbing behind it for granted. But we should not do that. We have to take a real interest in a commodity – a utility – that is going to be increasingly vital to all of us.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I will begin with the controversial issue in this directive. It should clearly cover financial journalists, and Article 1 of the directive does just that. If journalists profit from the dissemination of information, they will fall within the scope of the directive and they can and will be prosecuted. The controversial question is different. Should journalists be subject to new regulations that may be established by the Commission and financial regulators, as currently proposed under Article 6(10)? Currently, Member States must ensure there is appropriate regulation so that persons who disseminate research or other information, i.e. news organisations, take reasonable care that such information is fairly presented. Commissioner Bolkestein would have us believe that it only concerns journalists if they recommend shares. That is not what the directive says. It actually gives the Commission and financial regulators a role in determining whether information is fairly presented. You do not need much imagination to see how this provision could undermine press freedom. It is extraordinary to suggest that the financial regulators, the most criticised public institutions in most Member States – they always get the blame when banks fail – should help determine whether information has been fairly presented. This is why the Group has retabled an amendment we tabled in committee seeking to exclude bona fide journalists from this regulatory provision, not from the whole scope of the directive, and to do so without opening up any loophole that would allow financial analysts to parade themselves as journalists. Do we really want today to set such an extraordinary precedent? Do we really want to introduce the first ever European regulation of the press? Do we want to ignore the objections of news organisations like Handelsblatt, Reuters, Agence France Press and the Financial Times, all of which live by their high reputations? Do we really want to take this terrible first step of regulating the press without a proper discussion of the potential consequences? I urge you to back the Group amendment and reject this ill-thought-through attempt to introduce media regulation by the back door.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, e-Europe is a really important programme for everyone en route from the industrial society to the information society. I would therefore like to congratulate the Portuguese presidency on its decision to make this issue the focus of the special summit. I should like to congratulate the Commission on its proposal and the rapporteur on her report and I should like to explain why I have praised you and why I should like to take you all at your word. The focal point of the report and the prime objective of the Commission’s proposal make it clear that we need to achieve equal opportunities for, and equal participation of, all citizens in the information society. According to the text, e-Europe should, first and foremost, show each citizen, each household, each school, each company and each administration the way to the digital age and the Internet. This goal, in my view, does not justify the concerns raised here about a possible division in society between the haves and have-nots as far as access to information is concerned. I have highlighted this objective because I believe that it illustrates to particularly good effect how the citizens stand to benefit from European Union intervention in the information society, but, of course, only if we keep our word and fulfil the promises which we have made them. If we really do ensure by the end of 2002 that all schools – and this is in the programme – have high-speed access to the Internet and to multimedia resources in the classroom, if we really do ensure that by 2003 every citizen, rich or poor, has comprehensively guaranteed access to our health system and if we really do promptly take the action urgently needed in order to promote our SMEs, i.e. hedge the joint risks for venture capital in the Community. That is a task for the Council, Parliament and the Commission. I wish us all a great deal of success in the interests of our citizens. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I shall start in English because I must address my congratulations to my British Conservative colleagues for their steadfastness in fighting the euro to the last penny of Japanese investment in their economy or any other investment in their economy. I shall continue in Greek. (EL) Our meeting today is certainly a landmark. We have had so little to rejoice about as regards the building of Europe, so the fact that we are coming to the end of a successful year as regards the euro is something we should applaud. I believe that both Mr Duisenberg and Mr Lamfalussy and their colleagues deserve all our gratitude for everything they have achieved in this matter. Of course, in all democratically-held debates such as this, we are bound to hear at least some critical remarks – but that does not, in any way, suggest that we do not acknowledge the tremendous contribution the European Central Bank has made to European affairs. Mr President, since we are discussing the annual report, it would be a good idea to focus our attention on a number of long-term issues. The first is the ECB’s insistence on the two-pillar strategy for ensuring monetary stability. While using a “broad-based assessment of the outlook for price developments”, as the Bank calls it, which is basically an “inflation forecast”, seems perfectly logical, using the M3 money supply has neither practical nor theoretical support. From what I have seen, I believe Mr Titmeier has also criticised this. It is an important issue since there may be some disparity between the two criteria and it would be tragic to curb the development of Europe for the sake of an indicator of somewhat dubious quality. Even if monetary policy is as advantageous as you say it is, Mr Duisenberg, and we have no proof of this yet, monetary ‘over-stability’ could prove to be extremely detrimental. The second point concerns the independence of the Central Bank, which the political leaders of Europe have given their assurances of – and rightly so. However, independence from the political leadership is not enough; the European Central Bank must convince us that it can guarantee its independence from the capital markets. The central banks are often tempted to keep up with the markets; to wit, they are often tempted to adhere to the interest rates which the markets fix indirectly when they set the prices of securities. But the markets have short-term horizons, the markets have a mass mentality and are exceptionally prone to speculative bubbles which can be particularly disastrous at times. The European Central Bank has not yet said anything to us about that. We only hear a deafening silence from your report. And so, you will have to make a concerted effort to convince us that, in additional to political independence, you have also gained independence from the capital markets so that we can support you in absolute confidence.

Political group: PSE
Can I start by wishing the Commissioner a very happy St David’s Day. Thank you for the presentation. It is important that the Commission never loses sight of the fact that the reform process will be a complete waste of time unless it reconnects with the European public. That really has to be the sharp focus the whole time. It has to give a service to them and certainly the recommendations on cutting down on payment delays I am sure will be very welcome, but the other major complaint we get from the people we represent is paperwork. Excessive paperwork. Is there a reference to cutting down paperwork and bureaucracy for applicants to European funding whilst ensuring financial control? That is a clear complaint that we get. That needs to be addressed. The other question I would like to ask is on the audit progress committee. This, of course, is welcome, but it is essential it include a reference to the monitoring of recommendations that come from the European Parliament within our discharge procedure. Will you be adding that into your audit progress committee’s work? Finally, the Socialist Group agrees with activity-based budgeting and with responsibilisation and you will be judged, as Mr Prodi says, by your actions, not your words.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party thinks that MEDIA Plus is an extremely commendable and important programme which can help strengthen cultural and linguistic diversity within the EU. European film production is an important part of the EU’s cultural and media policy, and the considers that it is important to support the European film industry which is exposed to a very great deal of competition, especially from the American film industry. A special effort must be made on behalf of the European film industry, and that is something the supports. On one important point, however, we shall be voting against the rapporteur’s recommendation, and that is the budget for the programme. We are opposed to increasing the amounts proposed by the Commission, as recommended by the rapporteur. It is the European Parliament’s and the EU’s task to establish the correct framework and conditions for a cultural policy of this kind, but it is not a proper part of our remit to spend an exorbitant amount of taxpayers’ money on cultural policy. We therefore think that the Commission’s proposal for a total overall budget of EUR 400 million over the five years is both realistic and appropriate. It is similarly with certain reservations that we shall be voting tomorrow in favour of the proposals to set up a European Guarantee Fund and to broaden the financing options through cooperation with the European Investment Bank. If we are still voting in favour of the proposals, it is because they do not automatically mean more expense for European taxpayers. Unlike previous media programmes, the MEDIA Plus programme also involves the radio industry and, because we really cannot find any good, sensible reason for this, we have a reservation regarding this area, too. The media programmes were previously administered by the Commission in cooperation with the Media Committee as the advisory committee. The rapporteur wishes to change the status of the Media Committee from that of an advisory to that of a competent body, but this is something for which we have never obtained a really good explanation. I fear that this change will make it still a little more difficult to administer the MEDIA Plus programme, so it is also with a reservation that we shall be voting in favour of the proposals tomorrow. In spite of all these reservations, I think we have an extremely good program before us to enable us to strengthen the European film industry. We should very much like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Hieronymi, for the impressive work she has done.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, despite the limited speaking time that I have, I do not wish to miss the opportunity to give some deserved praise to the two rapporteurs. They have taken up the challenge of winning over a broad majority of Members, given a project, which, at the outset, seemed to be impossible to defend. Nice was the summit of interests, not to mention the summit of national egoism. In reality, no major European project, no exciting inspiration could come out of an agenda which was confined to the leftovers from Amsterdam. The post-Nice process now gives us the opportunity to reassert the importance of politics. Before we start another rush-job on the institutions, let us clearly establish why we want more of Europe, to protect and consolidate our fundamental values and our social model, in order to give more weight to the European Union, and occasionally to give it more balance, in international politics, to say loudly and clearly that internal and external solidarity must take precedence over any prevailing egoism. We do not need any new institutions. Let us strengthen the existing institutional triangle. First and foremost, let us find a better way to involve citizens in the preparation of the future of the Union. The new method of the convention that our two rapporteurs have been hoping and praying for gives us the opportunity to do this. Some new inspiration, some groundswell, must reinvigorate the old method of intergovernmental negotiation. In order to unveil this new round of European integration, let us allow our imagination to run free, and let us begin by saying ‘yes’ to the convention.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to put forward the proposal of the Industry Committee which was adopted by 40 votes to 4 and which deals with target values in particular. There is absolutely no doubt that in tightening up or adopting the ozone directive we must find a reasonable compromise between the justifiable demand for improved air quality and the possibility for European economy and society to reasonably adapt in particularly polluted regions. For this reason, unlike the Environment Committee which has responsibility in this matter, we have not taken on board the proposals of the Commission wholesale, but have modified them. I know that the experts at the Commission will vigorously oppose this, but we think that we can propose a compromise given that the guide value of 180 μg/m3 is not disputed, nor indeed the critical value of 240, only the target value. We would like to propose for this a 30-year programme which, although based on the WHO value of 120 μg/m3, provides for a phased reduction in the number of days on which this value may be exceeded: 40 days in 2010, 20 days in 2020 (which is the Commission’s target for 2010) and no days in 2030. This is a concern in particular for the warmer regions of Europe, namely coastal regions, which have to cope with a particularly high external ozone penetration. I think we have put forward a reasonable compromise here. In any case, we are prepared to compromise with the Commission, particularly as we assume that only this type of compromise will also find approval in the Council. For this reason we are venturing to re-introduce this proposal on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party, even though it was marginally defeated in the Environment Committee. We hope that you will consent to it.

Political group: PPE-DE