GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we do not, of course, have to re-invent the trans-European networks, because we have them already. Mind you, they have already lost something of their impetus, considering who has been working on them and for how long. From 1996 until today, the TENs have undoubtedly had their ups and downs. At the beginning, or as early as at the Essen Council, they were hailed as the magic remedy for the European Union and its development, until the moment came when we realised that what was expected of them was rather unrealistic. No, I think that the TENs are a very important tool for the European Union, economic cohesion, the internal market and a modern transport policy. The Commission’s White Paper again made that clear not long ago. As Europeans, we need a transport policy that is technically up-to-date – GALILEO was mentioned as a potential model – and one that is sustainable, that is to say with priority given to rail and water. We should now have been a small step further down the road if the Council had also accepted the Commission’s proposals, as Parliament has done. In 2002, Parliament attempted a small revision of the trans-European networks, to which the Council has not so far provided us with a response; instead, the Van Miert Group has gone on to do its work. So then, we do not have to re-invent the wheel. The Van Miert Group has done its work, involving high-ranking representatives from every single Member State, and its reports affirm that the Member States agree with what it has, as it were, thought out and presented. It is now, therefore, really up to the Commission to incorporate what the Van Miert Group suggested into a proposal. This would then go before Parliament and the Council and, given good will on the part of the Council, we should then have implemented relatively quickly what the Van Miert Group has thought out in terms of projects and, also, financing instruments. It is not quite clear to me why, in fact, we are now debating the issue once again. The proposals and plans are on the table. It is now just a question of their being implemented and worked on. That is why no further pressure should be placed upon available speaking time. So then, we have a proposal from the Commission, Parliament is doing its work, and then let the Council – instead of dragging its heels, if it please – very rapidly implements the proposal so that the revision of the TENs can be got rapidly under way. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I believe that the Commission's censure of Ireland is a serious breach of Ireland's democratic freedom. The freedom of an elected government to frame its own budget in accordance with its electoral commitments is fundamental to democracy. I therefore urge Ireland's Minister of Finances not to renege on his promises to increase spending, on health in particular, and to lower taxes, especially for the lower-paid. I hold no brief for tax cuts for the wealthy, nor is this a budget that would be proposed by the Green Party. Nevertheless it is a programme that has been negotiated with the social partners. Ireland has particular difficulties with inflation because of its traditional ties of trade with the UK, which remains outside the eurozone. This is an aspect of Irish inflation which has been completely ignored by the European Commission. In fact, if the European Commission had deliberately decided on a course which would alienate the UK from joining the euro, by revealing itself to be an out-of-date bureaucracy which tries to bully elected governments in ways that are completely outside its brief, it could not have done better. This is absolute political stupidity to say the least. This interference with the Irish budget is the result of the Maastricht Treaty; the Commission is even trying to get governments to agree their budgets with it in advance, which was not part of the Treaty. I therefore anticipate a resounding rejection of the Nice Treaty in the Irish referendum this Summer because of this unwarranted interference and because this is a very bad treaty, as many in this House agree. Since 1994 the cumulative increase in employment has been 39 per cent. Today the economy is close to full employment, which is a huge sea change for Ireland. Irish unit labour costs are still more than 10 per cent below the eurozone average. Therefore both wage rises and tax cuts for the low paid are on the agenda for Ireland in 2001. I believe the Commission is deliberately trying to interfere in a field beyond its competence. We must not let this happen. Over the last five years there has been a dangerous increase in inequality with the rich becoming very rich and the poor becoming ever more marginalised. We will not and cannot tolerate this continuing.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I welcome the Commission initiative on the Green Paper on entrepreneurship with particular satisfaction and congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Langen, on the detailed, cohesive work which he is presenting to us for the vote. We must clarify that, if entrepreneurship does not develop at a fast rate in the EU, we shall have to definitively forget the Lisbon objectives as of now. Only if entrepreneurship develops can the scourge of unemployment be combated and the wealth of the EU increased for the benefit, mainly, of the less well off. In order to achieve this, governments must simplify bureaucratic procedures now, create company-friendly tax systems and take pains to create a temperate business climate in which new companies will flourish and develop. Banks must stop being the oppressor of small and medium-sized enterprises and must undertake the useful role as their advisor and supporter. Finally, the social perception which the leftist ideology has been cultivating for years now, that profit is the demon and enemy of society, must be overturned immediately and definitively. It must become the common conviction that profit means recompense for the person making an effort, taking risks, working day and night, who is ambitious and capable of something better. Profit is the driving force which creates entrepreneurship and results in the advancement of individuals, peoples and states.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, the common fisheries policy has the difficult and, at times, thankless task of reconciling the interests of an activity as old as mankind with preserving fishery resources and marine ecosystems. The continual erosion of fish populations will, in the long term, threaten the survival of European fishermen and the preservation of the species. And without fish, it goes without saying, there can be no fishing. It is therefore crucial, as Commissioner Fischler suggested, that we make a clear decision to accept short-term losses in order to achieve economic and environmental benefits in the long term. The overcapacity of the Community fishing fleet, which marine scientists estimate to be 40%, a figure adopted in the March 2001 Green Paper on the future of the common fisheries policy, is one of the main causes of the excessive pressure that fishing exerts on fish stocks. It must not be forgotten, however, that other activities apart from fishing, namely tourism and various forms of pollution, also contribute to the destruction of the marine environment. For this reason, the multiannual programmes for reducing the fishing fleets are an important component of the measure that has been implemented in order to protect species that are being fished at dangerous levels. The basic aim of these programmes, which are truly complex and hard to implement, is to achieve a balance between resources and catches, not to punish fishermen. A permanent reduction of the fishing fleets is, of course, viewed with apprehension by fishermen and others in the industry. The reduction must therefore be implemented rigorously and transparently and with fairness to all those concerned. The results for 1999 are mediocre and disappointing and it is, therefore, worth emphasising the recommendations contained in Mr Busk’s report, calling on the Commission and the Member States to adopt clear and precise criteria for measuring the capacity of ships and fishing fleet categories so as to guarantee control of developments in the fishing fleets and the multiannual plan objectives. Member States must have the courage to respect the limits that have been set. Fishing must, increasingly, become an activity which is not predatory but rather one which is friendly to the sea and to marine life.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Parmalat scandal comprises a series of quite distinct crises. Firstly, there has been fraud of gargantuan proportions; secondly, there is a systemic crisis in the market place, and, thirdly, there is a very considerable social disaster in Italy, where most of those affected are living. I do not want to make any more remarks about either the fraud or the problems there may be in Italy. I would prefer to talk about its effect on the markets. We sometimes forget that one of the lessons of the twentieth century was the clear emergence of the evidence to support the view that markets are the best driver of prosperity and the best creator of jobs that we have seen in the world. It is therefore clear that the proper working of markets is essential to our collective future wellbeing. Those markets must be arranged so that criminality is difficult. However, just as it is impossible to organise the City of Strasbourg to make it impossible to be mugged, equally, it is impossible to organise the financial markets to ensure that there is no outside possibility of criminal fraud taking place. We should recognise that. Secondly, it is important that investors have confidence in the market. The claims and evidence that companies produce about themselves should be transparent, and the rules about the way in which that information is put together should be unimpugnable. I welcome Commissioner Bolkestein's remarks on his review of auditing and auditing standards. Equally, the governance of companies in the marketplace should be beyond reproach in terms of the way in which decisions are made. Again, I welcome the Commissioner's remarks in his statement. Furthermore, the claims that are made in the market and the advice that is given to possible participants in it must be such that there is no suggestion of impropriety. I must ask – and perhaps I say this as someone who is not standing in the forthcoming elections – can the same be said about the claims that the political parties are going to make in the forthcoming contest? We must not forget either that even in the case of apparent large-scale losses by banks, it may well be that in a world where private provision of pensions is going to become increasingly the norm, it is the small people who get hurt by these disasters. It is the confidence of the small investor – either directly or through pension funds – which is so important for the workings of twenty-first century capitalism. Many speakers have mentioned regulation. Regulation is the answer, but not over-regulation. That must be the lesson that we draw from this crisis.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, by honouring Kofi Annan and receiving this report on cooperation between the European Union and United Nations, the European Parliament has, today, clearly declared its support for multilateralism in international relations and indicated that we see cooperation between the European Union and the United Nations as an essential part of conflict resolution. We want to strengthen the European Union and also the United Nations, both of which have been weakened by the debate over whether and how to intervene in Iraq. Since the European Union is preparing to create its own Minister for Foreign Affairs, it should ensure that the role has plenty of substance to it. The road to a common foreign and security policy will also undoubtedly lead to greater cooperation between the EU and the UN. We are currently a global player, providing over half of all contributions to the United Nations and over 60% of total international development aid, but we should move on to become a global player capable of taking a leading role in this critical phase of the United Nations’ development and helping to shape the UN of the future. Strengthening cooperation between the EU and the UN should and can have a positive effect in developing multilateralism. It can and should also affect all activities undertaken by the two organisations: the fight against terrorism, conflict prevention, human rights, crisis management, environmental protection and weapons of mass destruction. This would clearly demonstrate the reality of cooperation, and in practical terms, would lead to the implementation of the EU’s Millennium Objectives, which were established in 2000. If we are to do this, the EU must have more influence within the United Nations. UN-specific elements can be included at all levels of the European Union, and it seems appropriate for the European Parliament to be included in the process. Precisely because the idea of the EU speaking with one voice in the United Nations Security Council still seems somewhat idealistic, multilateral instruments and commitments should be used to boost the EU’s role and profile within the United Nations. Perhaps one way to move ahead would be to produce a concrete proposal on compliance with the treaty on weapons of mass destruction and the UN Security Council’s role in ensuring it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, firstly I would like to thank the rapporteur for an excellent report. The European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) was set up under great pressure from Parliament to replace the former UCLAF. Its task obviously has to be clarified, but at the same time we must ensure that the European Union does not start to become a Community reminiscent of a police state. At this stage our group does not support point 39, which goes too far in its outline of OLAF’s future role. We still wish to keep our options open, and for that reason we have drafted Amendment No 8. This gives attention to the following: the competence of the OLAF Supervisory Committee in relation to the Director’s discretionary powers, the matter of where the secretariat is to be physically located, and the rights of the people whose actions OLAF is investigating. We should remember that it would be a very alarming situation if OLAF were to investigate an unfounded report. As points 1 and 2 imply that poor administration and fraud are due to the fact that the same Commissioner is responsible for both the budget and financial control, we cannot accept this conclusion, which oversimplifies the matter. At the same time we do not wish to belittle the determination and firmness with which the Commission has pushed for administrative reforms.

Political group: ELDR
May I take the question on the Fischler proposals for the mid-term review a little further with the Commissioner? Under your reforms you will break the link between production and subsidy. This will put the European Union in a strong position in Cancún. Do you feel that the decision the Council of Ministers arrived at, whereby some countries are going to start decoupling long before others, has actually weakened the position of the European Union?

Political group: PPE-DE
Firstly I would like to thank Mr Moreira da Silva for his clear-sighted and pertinent analyses, and for the excellent proposals he has put forward in both his reports. However, I wish to express a few reservations in the case of the early implementation of what must be called ‘a system of entitlement to pollute’. I would like to repeat that, if we have to recognise the system of trading in CO2 emission rights as one of the provisions of our international agreements which we cannot go back on, the Commission seems to forget that this mechanism is just one of the systems described as flexible by the Kyoto Protocol. As a result, this mechanism must be looked upon not as a frontline tool but, on the contrary, as an instrument complementary to other measures aimed at reducing greenhouses gases. We are fully aware that this mechanism does not encourage companies to become less polluting and to change their ways, and that, if nothing else is done, especially in the area of transport, we will certainly not achieve the objectives set by the Kyoto Protocol. The Commission Green Paper can thus be accused of putting the cart before the horse and of urging the European Union to put in place a system of advance trade in CO2 emission rights, even though it is not obliged to do so, especially vis-à-vis its commercial partners. On this point, it seems to me that there is a case for backing one of the amendments tabled by my colleagues in the Confederal Group of the – , who deem it necessary to stay the implementation of a system of entitlement to pollute until the Council and the Member States have drawn up and ratified an operational plan of measures to reduce greenhouse gases, encompassing all the sectors involved, especially transport and agriculture. What is more, the Commission remains silent on the economic and social consequences that this system cannot fail to create. But can we seriously ignore the unacceptable practices which will inevitably result from the capitalist strategies of the most polluting industries? Can we act as if we did not know that some industrial groups will merge at the cost of redundancies, and buy up non-polluting or less polluting companies with the sole purpose of recovering their right to pollute before relocating them or purely and simply closing them down? Finally, where are our environmental objectives in this sort of international stock market of pollution rights and what can be expected of a system which simply opens up a huge market of rights on behalf of countries which, like Russia, may today have room for manoeuvre, not by virtue of bringing their factories up to the required standards, but quite simply by virtue of a dramatic reduction in their industrial output. To conclude, I think that we must press for the implementation of a framework agreement of cooperation between Russia and the European Union so as to put in place ... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this has been an unending tale of woe ever since 1998, and I believe that the reason for this is the absence from any of the Council’s statements over past years of any clear indication of its position. All the letters to which reference has been made were in legalese and gave no clear indication of what the Council was prepared to accept; even today, we have heard nothing along these lines. Having heard the Council’s presentation this morning, I can, quite simply, come to no other conclusion. Having said that, the Council’s position, as it has crystallised over the past months, is dishonest and mendacious; I make no bones about saying that, and I do so with reference to one decisive point, namely the way in which the taxation issue has been handled. The Council accuses this House of taking the Statute as an opportunity to interfere in issues primary legislation, but the Council itself evidently sees nothing problematic in the way it seeks, in this Statute, to deal with such primary law issues as taxes. The question is, therefore: what do you actually want, and how, when you have it, is it meant to work? We know from the information given us by all three legal services – Parliament’s, the Council’s and the Commission’s – that what is actually proposed here is contrary to the law, yet this Parliament is nonetheless prepared to go along with it. Here and now, though, I can tell you that, in the event of this resolution being passed and of some Member State or other availing itself of this option, the matter is certain to end up in court – eventually in the European Court of Justice, which will have to hand down a ruling. With the draft resolution that has now been put on the table, I believe we have reached the limit; we can do no more. Earlier on, Mr Karas was right to say that we too, in this House, have a dignity of our own. I believe that the offer has now been made, and what we are now waiting for is a definite statement of the Council’s position by 15 January at the latest. This is also about what can be expected of our future colleagues, whose nomination processes are currently underway in the Member States. They, too, have to know under what conditions they will be working in future in this Parliament. The deadline, then, is 15 January. By then, we want to know for sure what the Council wants, and what it does not want, or else this statute will have run out of time in the life of this Parliament.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, unfortunately what Mr van den Bos is saying is not presented clearly in this joint motion for a resolution and that is why we have not signed it. As long as Khatami’s adviser on women’s affairs considers stoning to be a measure which underpins the family, we can only consider this to be truly horrible. Since our resolution of 13 December 2001, 250 people have been executed in Iran, and 75 the previous year. How can they speak about progress! It does not look as if the human rights situation is improving. I find that the motion for a resolution placed before us for our vote is not sufficiently clear. Despite the visit by a European delegation in connection with human rights, there were still five public executions on 30 September. We therefore condemn the European Council’s decision not to introduce a resolution about human rights in Iran before the next sitting of the UN Comission on Human Rights in Geneva. We want to state clearly and unambiguously that this resolution must be introduced before the next sitting. We want to say in all clarity that the European Parliament cannot assume that we can discuss cooperation agreements if there is no real improvement to the situation on human rights in Iran and that is why we have not signed. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE