GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to start by congratulating Mrs Sommer on her very thorough and in-depth work, although I admit that I would have preferred a report that stuck closer to what the Commission had proposed. I believe that the Commission proposal was – or is – bolder and more forward-looking, albeit somewhat more risky. Unfortunately, I have to add, the Commission’s staff have perhaps been insufficiently energetic or enthusiastic in pleading the technical merits of this proposal. We can certainly live with what Mrs Sommer has put together and the Committee have adopted, but I would like to point out that it would actually do the European’s image some good if it were to move towards the most modern technology, not just because the technology is the most up-to-date, but because it is highly flexible. Advocates of a toll system, at any rate, know how important tolls can be in regulating traffic flow and diverting traffic from overstretched or environmentally vulnerable areas to other routes. They know that a high degree of flexibility is needed, one that can be achieved only by means of satellite technology, which requires less in the way of infrastructure than if a toll system uses microwave technology. I will concede that the bad experiences that the Germans are currently having have not been much help in achieving acceptance of this principle. That is one reason why Mrs Sommer, who may indeed have been more in favour of such a system, could not plead its cause, as she always had one eye on the press reports from Germany and could not go any further. I will address my concluding remarks to the Commission, which will perhaps report to one of the forthcoming meetings of the Committee on Regional Policy Transport and Tourism on what is happening about Galileo and the satellite system. I started by describing the Commission proposal as bolder but rather more risky – the latter insofar as we are dependent on a satellite system, Galileo in particular. It appears to me that there will be major problems with using the satellite-based system in Europe, for I hear that the Americans are bringing certain pressure to bear – we are having separate and specific talks with them – concerning the American influence on the system, which is being made somewhat less precise, and can, if it comes to that, even be switched off. I do not know whether the Commissioner wants to say something about this at the end of this debate or whether she will be able, when next the opportunity arises, to report to the committee on the actual state of play in this area.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr Stenmarck has drawn up a very rational and balanced estimate of Parliament’s estimated revenue and expenditure for the next financial year and my sincerest thanks go to him for that. The report also serves as a good basis for later discussion of the budget in the autumn. The 2003 budget is likely to be the last before EU enlargement. For that reason the rapporteur has set aside considerable sums of money for the new Member State’s admission to the EU. The rapporteur is proposing that EUR 32 million is needed for enlargement immediately and a further EUR 51 million for a special reserve. When we also take into consideration the 6 million euros reserved for observers and the extension of property reserve of 15 million euros it is my group’s opinion that sufficient funds have indeed been set aside for preparations for enlargement. The language issue is one of the hardest matters to deal with. Nearly every new Member State will also bring its own language to the European Union. For democracy to function properly it is vital that every EU citizen can stand as a candidate for election to the European Parliament without being required to be fluent in a foreign language. This places special demands on the European Parliament with regard to interpreting. All of us must be able to take part in the debate in our own mother tongue. On the other hand, it is virtually impossible to arrange for the smaller languages to be interpreted just through one interpreter. For example, Finnish is interpreted first into English, say, and only then into Greek. In my opinion, we should establish the practice of interpreting as many languages as possible, including the smaller ones, into the most important languages, that is to say, English, French and German. In this way Members could listen to the original speech in these languages as interpreted by just the one interpreter. Another crucial problem is the support of Parliament’s core activities. It is incomprehensible that the committees should be short of staff to carry out preparatory work at the same time as legislation work has increased. It is important to give more support to this basic work. Parliament must be capable of high standards in its treatment of matters, as, otherwise, the Commission and the Council will become too overbearing and above all because the quality of legislation will otherwise suffer.

Political group: ELDR
The rules presently applying in the EU form an incoherent patchwork. They have emerged over the course of fifty years via treaties, ordinances and directives, with the Court of Justice having to act as arbiter. It is unclear to the citizens of Europe who is responsible for those rules, how far-reaching they are and how they can be changed. In the EU, ordinance is the name for direct legislation at the most centralised level, while the same term is used in the Netherlands for rules established by municipalities and provinces within the scope allowed by national legislation. The word ‘directive’ creates the impression that these are non-binding recommendations, hence well-meaning advice. In reality national parliaments are forced to establish corresponding legislation within two years, so that the essence of the decision to be taken there has already been established before public discussion of its desirability can get under way. Anyone wanting a European superstate with lots of centralised legislation will be given an excellent overview by the rapporteur, Mr Bourlanges of the relation between constitution, ordinary legislation, programme legislation, framework legislation, organic legislation and financial legislation. I do not support his intentions, but I do support his clarity. He quite rightly wants executive measures of the European Commission to be submitted for the approval of this Parliament if we register an objection within three months.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Denmark and Mr Haarder have today received well deserved praise. I agree with that praise. However, I am less satisfied with the EU’s refugee and immigration policy. The proposals are more often than not about control and repression. The global perspective is easily lost. What is required? Well, that poverty in the world be combated and that we obtain more aid, more trade and more democracy. Mr Haarder is well aware of this. We need a humane asylum policy based on respect and human dignity. All human beings are entitled to seek asylum within the EU. Not all will have reasons for requiring protection that enable them to stay, but all must be dealt with under the rule of law and under decent conditions, as well as having, for example, access to the labour market. The fact that the EU is opening the door to immigrant labour should ease the pressure on asylum policy and, at the same time, give us an opportunity to cope with the increasing population problems. The fact that the EU needs a common asylum policy is shown by the Danish example. When Denmark tightens up its policy, the refugees come to Sweden. A humanitarian EU must be able to do better. That requires codecision making in this Chamber, something of which Mr Haarder is more aware than anyone else.

Political group: ELDR
May I welcome the Commissioner to Parliament today on behalf of all of us. We all appreciate the importance of your task in the competition department of the Commission. It is perhaps the most important task of the Commission to maintain free competition and make the market work across the European Union. In the telecoms context it is vital to ensure that consumers get all the benefits the free market can offer them, particularly the low-cost Internet access. The way to deliver that low-cost Internet access, vitally important for the creation of a European E-economy to the people of Europe, is through liberalisation and free competition. We used to regulate the telecom sector through national regulators, but these will wither away in future because we are moving towards a single, global regulator, namely the market. The market is the most effective regulator, providing the best protection for consumers and giving consumers more power than any number of Commission consultation groups. In future we shall want to give the competition mergers department, more work, because the market should play an even bigger role in telecoms than it does at the moment. We want to see an end to the advantages inherited by some of the old state monopolies. I hope you will apply competition law and merger law toughly, but always ensure that you look at each merger on its own merits. Just because it may produce a big player or a big corporation it is not necessarily wrong for the market or anti-competitive. We have to remember that Europe probably will need some large corporations if it is to reap the benefits of the Internet revolution.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, yesterday evening – the evening of Valentine's Day – some friends and I were looking for a restaurant, but we could not find a free table anywhere. Doubtless, they were all occupied by lovers celebrating Valentine's Day. I still had to prepare my explanation of vote on the Plooij-van Gorsel report. I closed my eyes for a second and saw a vision: I saw the Commissioner for Research, Mr Busquin, and the rapporteur, Mrs Plooij-van Gorsel, having dinner together and talking animatedly about research in Europe. It being Valentine's Day, I said to myself: 'I wonder whether European research will even make it possible to find one's soul mate, which is what is generally hoped for on Saint Valentine's Day'. Therefore, with this in mind, I voted for the report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Given the successive food crises we have experienced, the 25% rule on the labelling of foodstuffs should be abolished and consumers suffering from allergies should be given full information on the foodstuffs they buy. Similarly, I believe the derogations on preparations of sauces and mustards constituting less than 5% of the finished product should be discontinued. Certain exceptions, however, should be retained, such as the role of the expert committees responsible for the various drinks. These committees must continue to lay down the rules on labelling. Certain alcoholic drinks, such as wine, must obey specific rules on labelling. Additives and technological adjuvants whose presence cannot be proved in the finished product should not be labelled. I welcome the fact that the scientific criteria for inclusion in the list of ingredients in Annex III are fully taken into consideration and that this list is revised and updated biennially. We consider the implementation of the directive to be important. That is why we are excluding prior assessment by the Food Authority of the scientific criteria that determine the inclusion of the ingredients in the Annex. - Report Figueiredo (A5-0158/2002)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, my group welcomes the fact that this debate is taking place this evening because this is the first time that we have been able to have an annual policy strategy debate this early in the process of the budget for 2003. The fact that the Council – although it might not be listening – is actually present in this debate is an important sign that the three institutions should indeed be working coherently together. My first point is that we are looking at a significant change in the process of doing things where, firstly, we have a definition of Commission policy priorities, secondly we are trying to ensure the right match between tasks and measures for 2003 and, thirdly, that we welcome this idea of having a strengthened institutional dialogue so that we can ensure that the budget is actually collectively decided. Of course, that debate starts here and now in March 2002. So, are the priorities the right ones? It is still very early in the day to know that but the fact is that we have been able to find: enlargement, stability and security, and the sustainable inclusive economy. It is very difficult to find a subject which does not fall under those three but, in the light of the way in which this has been prepared, we in this House and our committees will find the right way in debates to put forward where we think the priorities lie. There will surely be debates, for example, on enlargement. Can the Commission, as it says, complete the linguistic and administrative preparations for enlargement during 2003? Can it continue to implement the reform of the Commission so it will be entirely modernised by the end of 2004? These are questions that we are clearly going to have to raise and the same applies to stability and security. The wish is expressed to set up the European Food Safety Agency and get it operational. As far as I know this decision has not yet been taken and, therefore, we need to be clear about what we are trying to do in these debates. Clearly, in the sustainable inclusive economy there are a whole range of different issues in terms of having the human and financial resources available. This raises the point of your 500 non-permanent posts, which we are going to have to examine in detail. To conclude, this debate is something which is to be welcomed. This document sets out a number of clear targets to be achieved in which we, in Parliament and the Council, will have to participate. Hopefully we will be able to end the year with the better matching of budget and legislative procedures which we have been asking for. I would conclude by noting that there is one major point on the availability of financial resources. It clearly says in the document that payments will be restricted, not just for the repayment of outstanding commitments but that payments should be contained elsewhere in the budget so as to make sure we do not go over the ceilings required. Therefore, 2003 will be an exceptionally difficult year but we have started early enough to find the right kind of solutions.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I congratulate all the draftsmen of the reports that we are discussing today, specifically Mr Sacrédeus and Mrs Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou, although I shall use this speaking time in the joint debate on the subsidy package to discuss Mrs Rühle’s report and the creation of a Community action programme to promote active European citizenship. I congratulate Mrs Rühle on her work, and we broadly support her proposals. I thank her for the willingness she demonstrated in the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, to accept the amendments that I tabled, together with Messrs Hernández Mollar and Marcelino Oreja. I agree with the rapporteur when she insists that the fact that the programme’s main ambition centres on reducing the democratic deficit must be clarified and emphasised. Some reports that this Parliament has adopted clearly underline the need to strengthen and enhance the idea of European citizenship which, to judge by the levels of participation in the elections to this Parliament, needs to be promoted as a matter of urgency. I also agree with the need to give greater visibility to the obligation for transparency. Organisations that receive funds must clearly state that they have done so and also quote the amounts, both in the publications that they promote and on the websites that they own or contribute to. We must also call for the results of these programmes to be disseminated: the use of European taxpayers’ money must be counterbalanced by an evaluation of the practical benefits of the actions receiving funds. I also add my voice to that of the rapporteur and that of the previous speaker Mr Ojeda Sanz, when they call for bureaucratic procedures to be simplified. These must be reduced to the absolute minimum. Commissioner, the Commission must ensure that payments are made on time. Unjustifiable delays in transferring grants often compromise the effectiveness of the actions, damage the European Union’s image and create difficulties for the organisations which, in good faith, work together with us on disseminating this ideal. This programme is about strengthening the bonds of European citizenship, boosting civic and democratic participation and raising awareness of the European ideal and the workings of its institutions. There is no doubting the need to promote active citizenship, both by supporting organisations working in this field and by promoting actions with this aim. This is, therefore, an attempt to bring the citizens of the European Union closer, involving them in a direct or indirect dialogue with the Union and its institutions. I also agree with the need to adopt exceptional and provisional measures to ensure the funding and implementation of actions in 2004. For all of these reasons, taking into account the amendments that we tabled, we will vote in favour of this report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on behalf of my group, I should like to express our almost total approval both of the Commission's choice of legislative instrument, a directive, and of the content of the proposal. The issue under consideration has already been analysed by international organisations: principles and rules have already been set in place for incisive action, aimed at preventing the very frequent accidents and the casualties sadly recorded, as both the rapporteur and Mr Stenmarck said. However, these provisions are not binding, as the Commission has reminded us, and this is the point. This is why we must intervene at European level with legislation which is based on the provisions and makes them binding for all the Member States. When drawing up European legislation to complement international legislation, the Commission rightly consults all the interested parties, particularly the authorities of the port State, and focuses duly on the prevention of accidents during the delicate operations of handling the cargoes and the issue of repairs. The amendments adopted in Committee take the right approach, stressing certain points: firstly the obligation, rather than the capacity of the competent authorities, to block the loading and unloading operations whenever the safety of the ships is endangered. Furthermore, in the event of damage which is serious enough to jeopardise the safety and seaworthiness of the ship, it is now clear that the decision on whether or not repair is necessary is to be taken by the port State control authorities. However, with regard to the crew and, in particular, the huge problems arising from the low level of training of the crew even today, I propose, on behalf of my group, that the amendment tabled by Mr Simpson and Mr Fava should be altered to replace the word 'qualification' with the word 'experience'. Lastly, it is important that this legislation enters into force as soon as possible and that the Member States make every endeavour to ensure that it is implemented effectively. Indeed, even though there is European or international legislation in this area, the Member States fail to apply it properly. We therefore support the Commission's call for the Member States to apply these provisions as of 1 January 2003.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, when we visited Washington last week with this Parliament’s delegation, and stayed a few days longer than originally planned, not only myself but also our American colleagues became increasingly aware of a common interest. I witnessed among the Americans, and certainly in their administration, more restraint than we generally give them credit for over here, or than we can infer from the sometimes unfortunately chosen words of the President. Some of our American colleagues quite clearly said that the time for fine words is over. I believe that they are right. This is not only true of the relationship we have with them, but also of the action this Parliament intends to take. If we want to talk about punishing terrorists, then we have, in fact, already missed the boat. I hope that we can also talk about deterrence from time to time. This would involve cooperation among police forces, examining magistrates and intelligence services. Commissioner, I hope that your proposals will be dealt with as soon as possible, as I am sure they will be. Then it will become clear who in this House is for or against cooperation, who truly wants to make headway and who does not. President-in-Office of the Council, I hope that at your meetings behind closed doors, it will also be clear to us who is for and against, who wants to carry on and who does not, so that we can draw our own conclusions and make our own judgments. We are still in shock at the moment and are still sharing in the grief of our American friends, but who will recall this debate in one or two years’ time? I hope that we will still be very much alert and that we will be able to remember what was said here today.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I want to associate myself this morning with those people who have spoken in this debate and expressed some desire to challenge an atmosphere of complacency about the current state of the European economy. I share the view expressed earlier by Mrs McNally that you can look to the United States and see that there has been investment in research. That is one of the reasons why the United States is doing better than Europe. But we must also emphasise that one of the other reasons why the United States continues to do so much better than Europe is because Europe has not yet properly addressed the issue of structural reform and market liberalisation. I refer to the remarks made earlier by Mr Lipietz for the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. I am very pleased to engage in a debate with him over the next four years on this issue of market liberalisation. The fact is that we have not yet seen the agreed market liberalisation within Europe applied in some Member States, not least his own. I have a shared concern about the jobs of workers. I would be very pleased to bring Mr Lipietz to speak to workers in the United Kingdom who may lose their jobs as a result of decisions made by a French owner of energy companies in the UK, when British companies are not allowed to gain access to the French market because the French have not applied agreed European policy. That is a structural reform we must drive through. It is not just in that area. We see that the wealthiest states within the European Union continue to be the states that apply the strongest amount of state aid. That is robbing the jobs of some of the poorer states who are represented here. That is also one of the reasons why I do not share the view expressed by Mr von Wogau in relation to competition policy. My concern, where decentralisation is concerned, is that there should not be a repatriation of competition policy.

Political group: PPE-DE