GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the promotion of the use of renewable energy sources is of particular importance for environmental reasons. The Union cannot meet its environmental targets unless the use of renewable energy sources is actively increased. The ALTENER programme is an important part of the strategy to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions. Renewable energy sources reduce the dependence on imported energy and an increase in their use will also improve competitiveness. Europe must attain a leading position in the rapidly growing area of the economy which is based on new technology for renewable energy sources. We must also remember that the use of renewable energy sources has a positive effect on regional development and employment. The ALTENER programme is a step in the right direction. Mr Langen’s amendments also received broad-based unanimous support in the committee, which is no everyday occurrence. This consensus is a good starting point for promoting the use of sources of renewable energy. As has been stated here, however, this programme alone is by no means sufficient. An increase in the long-term use of renewable energy sources still requires a lot of research, pilot studies, an exchange of results, the harmonisation of legislation, a change in attitudes, information campaigns and also private and public investment which will pay for itself, but only in the long term. The sums used to finance the ALTENER programme are paltry considering the scale of the undertaking. In future we will need to investigate how we can increase investment in the greater use of renewable energy sources. At the present time, increasing the use of renewable energy sources is mainly the responsibility of the Member States. Hopefully, this programme will encourage the Member States to act decisively in increasing the use of renewable energy sources. In the list of renewable energy sources, peat has not yet been mentioned. It is, however, at least in Finland, an important, sustainable, and slowly renewable source of energy. I hope that it can be added to the list of renewable energy sources at some point.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, first of all, I would take exception to the previous speaker who wrongly quoted Thomas Aquinas, but this is just by the by. We are now in the middle of a crisis which has been going on for eighteen weeks and a beef conflict between France and the United Kingdom which, as I have noticed, has taken on a suspect nationalist dimension. It appears that we still to this day battle out national conflicts by means of soccer and beef. Especially the latter aspect is very detrimental as this is on the back of farmers and consumers. This is simply not acceptable. The second point which becomes clear is that Member States appear to be unable to handle this sort of issue. It is completely clear why this is the case because we have one internal market, we have an open market. If we do not solve this type of conflict at Community level, then this sort of problem will emerge. When Mr Prodi made his declaration here, he said that a food safety bureau should be set up at the earliest convenience. I would like to find out from Commissioner Byrne when this will eventually happen so that we have a powerful and independent bureau in the European Union which can actually take action and which can adopt powers from national Member States. The second point which has struck me in this whole political debate is that, first of all, a solution is being sought between two key Member States and that maybe after that, the Commission will be able to have some input. I find this a dangerous tendency in EU politics. It is not acceptable that key Member States are increasingly solving problems amongst themselves. I also say this as a representative of a smaller Member State. We have opted for a common market, for a common approach and there is no room for a culture in which major Member States thrash out issues amongst themselves. In this respect, I am concerned about the Commission’s position and I would like to know where the European Commission stands and if it is actually able and prepared to take the lead in conflicts like this. Once again, however, in Europe, we live in an era in which food in Europe has probably never been safer and the consumer’s confidence in food is actually diminishing by the day, not only in France and Germany but also in other countries, because this discussion is dragging on due to a lack of political decisiveness. In this light, I would like to know exactly what the Commission is going to do about establishing a food safety bureau on a European scale which is independent and has far-reaching powers.

Political group: PPE-DE
Under Rule 19(4), may I ask you to personally intervene with the Greek authorities on behalf of my constituents Paul and Lesley Coppin of Mildenhall, and Anna Skinner of Epping, in relation to her brother Anthony Adamiak, and on behalf of the other Europeans who are currently in jail in Greece for plane spotting. We respect the independence of the judiciary in Greece and the cooperation we have thus far been given from the Greek authorities, but when these people have already been in prison for three weeks without charge and now have a further two weeks before charges are brought, I hope you will agree that there is an urgent humanitarian need for an appeal on their behalf and also a need to remind the Greek authorities of their absolute duty under the Convention on Human Rights to bring charges before defendants. Twelve people went on holiday and have ended up in jail. I ask for your intervention on behalf of the European Parliament. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President I would like to remind the Council and Commission, and indeed the House, of a resolution that we carried on 26 October in relation to better law-making. We there said that “in accordance with the subsidiarity principle and the political and national diversity of the European Union, the amendments made to the treaties should specifically include recognition of, and respect for, the political and legislative powers of the Members States’ internal political units in their executive, legislative and judicial relations with the European Union institutions.” That aspect of subsidiarity has not been heard in our debate today but it is very important. It bears also in a most important way on the question of the size of this Parliament. The nations and regions which the parties of the represent are deeply concerned that if we apply together the maximum of 700 and the current idea of digressive proportionality, the people whom we are able to represent here at the present time will effectively cease to be represented in this House. That will be a huge loss to European democracy and it will take the institutions further from the people not closer to them.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my task was to draft a horizontal report on industry, external trade, research and energy for twelve candidate countries. That was difficult enough in itself. Providing a comprehensive overview of the report in just one minute now is impossible. I therefore draw attention to the short justification provided in my report. Anyone interested should have a look at it. I should like to mention one issue which is very close to my heart, and wish to underline rather more pointedly than my colleague Willy Görlach that as I come from a region which has been part of the European Union since 1990 and has experienced a great deal of solidarity in the last twelve years, I have a very clear appreciation of the efforts made by the candidate countries, especially the Central and Eastern European countries, to become eligible for accession. What I would now ask of us all – from the European Union, especially the Council and particularly from two countries which have always been the driving force in this European Union, namely Germany and France – is to remove, as soon as possible, the obstacles which stand in the way of union with these countries and enable us, myself included, to conduct a European election campaign on both sides of the Oder and Neisse in 2004.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, preparations are under way for a war that could have devastating consequences for the population of the whole world . For my part, I firmly believe that a country must be built on the rule of law, and this applies nationally and internationally. All countries must comply with international law, including Iraq and – lest we forget – the US. All countries must comply with this legislation, and they have no right to take liberties that are not provided for in legislation that has been enacted jointly. In answer to Commissioner Patten’s question regarding the way forward, I believe the key issue is to bolster our relations with the Arab world and to get it to put pressure on Saddam Hussein. There must be a better alternative to making enemies for ourselves in the Arab world. Naturally we must demand that the weapons inspectors be allowed back unhindered. We want peace in the Middle East. We want a Palestinian State. That goes without saying. The sanctions currently in place against Iraq, and which have been in place for 12 years, have brought enormous suffering to the Iraqi people. According to the UN’s own figures, one and a half million people, including 600 000 children, have died as a direct consequence. Moreover, the country has been subject to low intensity bombing for several years. This has strengthened Saddam Hussein’s brutal dictatorship instead of weakening it. A war such as that currently being prepared will, of course, undermine world peace and security. The EU must therefore speak with one voice, and a strong one at that. It is the prerogative of the Iraqi people to establish their own democratic regime; this cannot be achieved with bombs. International law and the UN Charter must be respected, and the EU must state unequivocally that the international community has a duty to solve conflicts peacefully. 'Yes' to weapons inspectors, but 'No' to war against Iraq!

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, it is difficult not to agree with this document presented to us by the Commission, as it is full of good ideas and good intentions. The rapporteur, Mr Bowis, has drawn up a superb report, which highlights the importance of an excellent, independent food authority, which would have responsibility for risk assessment, but not for risk management or crisis management, which must be the competence of the Commission, as must legislative proposals. Both this food authority and the legislative proposals being proposed, which aim to guarantee food safety, will receive the support of this House, Commissioner. But I would like to draw attention to a fundamental issue: the best possible legislation and an excellent, scientifically unimpeachable food authority are not enough. We may have other food crises and, each time this happens, consumer safety will be endangered, as will the credibility of the institutions and the interests of the agricultural sector and the agri-foodstuffs industry. And, what is more, if crisis management is inadequate, the problem uncontrollably spreads and worsens. Food safety is not an ancillary issue: it affects public health and the stability of the food market. I therefore ask the Commission what it plans to do in order to make the objectives of the White Paper reality. Recent experience has shown that the series of crises is not due to a lack of scientific knowledge nor to a lack of ad hoc legislation. The problem has been that somebody has been dishonest and has continued to be so due to inadequate controls. Such was the case with the company that manufactured polio vaccines in the United Kingdom using bovine foetal serum, prohibited since 1999, and with the distribution via a French agri-foodstuffs distribution chain of one thousand kilos of meat from herds contaminated with BSE. All in all, Commissioner, along with the authority, the relevant Commission services must, in collaboration and coordination with the Member States, establish a system of efficient, standardised controls throughout the food chain, and the network of food laboratories in the European Union must be improved and their work coordinated with the Commission. I assure you that this is the best method, as it is preventative.

Political group: PPE-DE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. – Mr President, from the point of view of the Committee on Foreign Affairs one of our priorities has to be to ensure that our delegations in other Member States are properly looked after, in particular in relation to security. In view of deconcentration we want to ensure there is a proper infrastructure in place for our delegations. Secondly, we need to ensure that we have a proper civilian crisis management arrangement. In relation to Kosovo, we are concerned about the cuts being proposed and we need more information as to why they are necessary. If it is simply a case of how we upfronted our money, then that clearly is less of a problem. On enlargement, as Mr Färm has already indicated, capacity is a key element that we must work on in the next 12 months. I am encouraged by the commitment to greater cross-border activity, but I remain very doubtful about the way in which TACIS is currently being used. Finally, we must be aware that there is always the possibility of the need for major intervention in the Middle East, and I would love to know where the money would come from.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I was very pleased to hear the President-in-Office say that the Finnish Presidency will go ahead with negotiations with certain countries, including China, with a view to abolishing the death penalty. I would like to ask the Finnish Presidency: do you intend to begin some kind of negotiations with Turkey either to prevent the carrying out of the death sentence on Abdullah Öçalan or to abolish the death penalty in Turkey altogether?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, in connection with the question submitted on postal services, I should like to say on behalf of the that we are opposed to the inclusion of this question on the agenda for the following reason: the arrangement which the Commission promised to put in place, by which I mean the division between reserve and non-reserve activities in the same legal entity, basically concerns one Member State and the two existing directives therefore contain an authorisation in relation to postal services. No legislative procedure is therefore required. This is a question of compliance by just one Member State with existing postal arrangements. Procedure 86.3, which the honourable Members criticise, is in our view perfectly legal. We therefore consider the question to be superfluous. (Parliament rejected the request) President. – The item therefore remains on the agenda.

Political group: PPE-DE
I believe that the Spanish hydrological plan – at this stage there cannot be the slightest doubt of this – is an essential project for our country. This has, until now, been the opinion shared by almost all Spanish political groups over the years. In fact, in 1993, the Socialist government was already aware of this need and drew up a proposal which at the time it either could not or did not know how to carry forward. True, that proposal contained an appreciably larger number of infrastructures than the current project. Of course, the years have passed and the current project has to be coherent, involving much more social cohesion than those that have gone before, being much more environmentally sensitive, and undoubtedly inviting more participation. So, as it is such an important project for the joint development of the Spanish regions, I am sure that the comment, promise or statement that the Minister for the Environment has made on several occasions that this is an open document, that this is a draft, a proposal, and that the need for a consensus on it among all the regions affected is absolutely beyond doubt, my question, Commissioner, is as follows: in the framework of the closest cooperation between the Commission and the Spanish Government, and within the situations laid down in the framework directive, precisely what support can the Commission provide so that this project can progress as it should?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I make this statement on behalf of the Committee on Home Affairs and as its rapporteur. I am very glad that this House’s rapporteur, Mr Mulder, has noted that everything related to home affairs and justice policy in the European Union has a close connection with enlargement, and that he himself has already made some necessary proposals. It makes things much easier for those of us who deal with home affairs and justice policy if the rapporteur who understands us best is right alongside us. I must, secondly, extend warm thanks to Commissioner Vitorino for the excellent cooperation with his staff, which has gone outstandingly well. Although our proposals relating to the 2004 Budget were adopted unanimously, I must simply point out, now that we are debating them in plenary, that this year, we have a priority issue in the shape of our three agencies. What particularly makes our agencies in Vienna, Lisbon and the Hague very important to us is the fact that we will soon have ten new Member States, which will make more work for the agencies in the areas of combating racism, drug crime, criminal activities and terrorism. Our monitoring centres in Vienna and Lisbon, along with Eurojust in The Hague are three agencies in need of active support, and that will cost money. I take it as read that my fellow-MEPs who sit on the Committee on Budgets will join with us in seeing the need for this and in giving us their support in this House. Thank you. IN THE CHAIR: MRS LALUMIÈREVice-President

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Members of the Commission and the Council, ladies and gentlemen, the media informed us this morning that another section of the Antarctic icecap had come adrift; this is where 90% of the earth's reserves of fresh water are stored. Floods and ecological catastrophes are becoming ever more frequent; desertification is gathering pace, and it is against this background, with time running out, that we will go to Johannesburg in September. Mr Papayannakis and Mr Lannoye have produced very good reports, and if they really were implemented soon, in spirit and letter, both in Europe and in other parts of the world, they would make it possible for us to look to the future with greater confidence. But these texts are our consciences talking, and sustainable development will remain an ideal for as long as we are unable to bring sufficient pressure to bear on the world's economic and financial systems. Ten years ago in Rio, we already identified commitments together, commitments which it has not been possible to keep. Today we see that liberal economic policies have widened the gaps between countries, making the rich even richer and the poor ever poorer. And all the while, we have been generating more and more wealth. The European Union has adopted some courageous positions and it now remains for us to put them into practice and add to them. It is this model that we will be taking to Johannesburg, in the hope that as many delegations as possible will draw inspiration from it. To succeed, however, we will need more than speeches and documents. We will need tools, and these tools are political, economic and financial. The political tools will require a new form of international governance, which must incorporate sustainable development policies. The financial tools obviously include more substantial aid from rich countries, but also taxation of financial transactions so as to give developing countries the resources to improve their social and democratic standards. Today we are being asked to consider the future development of our planet. We cannot afford to delay any longer in fulfilling the promise of a world which lives in greater solidarity, when the pressure on all our societies and the lack of prospects for large numbers of people are exacerbating their fears and causing them to seek refuge in isolationism.

Political group: PSE
I would like to congratulate the rapporteur and the Commissioner on the result they achieved with this important report, which was very nearly the focus of more lobbying than any other report has been. Why was there was so much lobbying? Because the legislation stemming from this report will have an enormous impact on society, and the lobbyists must act as the mouthpiece of this self-same society. Ultimately, I myself am very satisfied with the result achieved, which struck a fair balance between the interests of the consumer, industry and the rightholders. Although I advised the to stick to the line of the common position, including the compromise amendments tabled by the rapporteur, and to reject the remaining amendments, in view of the attitudes within the group, I have taken the liberty of deviating from this line with my vote on the latter I believe that the purpose of copyright law is to protect the rightholders, and this could be done more effectively than the strategy adopted by the report. I have some concerns about the multiplicity of potential exemptions per Member State when it comes to copying rights, and about the possibility of being able to intervene in technical measures, because I feel this could disrupt the principles of the internal market. Reasonable recompense will always have to be paid in the case of exemptions imposed by the government, regardless as to who picks up the tab, because I think it is unjust that rightholders then have to offer their work for free. Regarding Amendment No 2, I believe that double payment must be avoided. The purpose of Amendment No 1 appeals to me a great deal, but the wording goes much too far for my taste in this case. Naturally it is desirable to be able to listen to, or watch, old recordings via the digital highway as well, but only with due recompense for the rightholders, and if they are demonstrably difficult to trace it is important to have a collective licence system in place which functions as a safety net. In the matter of caching, I would have thought it more desirable for this report to tie in more closely with the e-commerce directive. The digital techniques will ultimately start working in a self-regulatory way and I do not see that as a risk but as an opportunity for the further development of our society. All in all, I am very satisfied with the outcome, and I feel that it will give Europe legislation that strikes a better balance than the much vaunted American legislation.

Political group: ELDR
May I thank the Commission for an excellent initiative on our relationship with the UN. Three short simple questions: how in the Commissioner's analysis do the priorities of the United Nations differ from the priorities of the European Union in terms of the way we believe that humanitarian aid should be delivered? How will the tensions which I have personally observed be overcome – the tensions which always exist on the ground between the UN and the European Union, and how will the new approach which you intend to adopt, facilitate a better partnership and a lessening of those kind of tensions on the ground?

Political group: PSE