GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, it is certainly to be welcomed that account was taken in Biarritz of the need for coordination in the sphere of energy policy, which is of such crucial importance to citizens, the economy, growth and prosperity. There is really no point in Member States going it alone in this respect; the fact that the Community is totally dependent on energy says it all. The package of measures proposed by the Commission with a view to increasing energy efficiency and saving energy, is therefore constructive, and likewise the investigations into cartel problems with the oil companies. It is not just the cartel of oil-producing countries we should be concentrating on though, but also that of the oil companies. We wish the French Council Presidency every success at the negotiations in Riyadh, on which occasion, as I see it, these States would do well to ensure that oil prices do not rocket any higher, if only for reasons of self-interest. Setbacks in economic growth within the European Union have repercussions for the global economy. We should also take a look at our own situation, however. It is important to take a step forward on the European energy taxation front, such progress having been blocked hitherto by the unanimity principle. With that in mind, Parliament is expecting the Nice Summit to take a step in the direction of qualified majority voting in those areas where taxation policy is disrupting the proper functioning of the internal market. Biarritz did not manage to dispel all the storm clouds attending our mission to promote the democratisation of the European Union. The Council Presidency wants to abolish the cooperation procedure and replace it with the consultation procedure. This procedure is unacceptable from a democratic and integrationist perspective. Nor is it to be tolerated with regard to Economic and Monetary Union; on the contrary! This is precisely where we must advance the cause of the codecision procedure. If the project is not yet viable, then we urge the French Council Presidency to seek progressive institutional reforms and measures which will enable Parliament to participate. At the very least, it must be possible to agree on the detail of a common position on these matters in Nice. But we say ‘no’ to replacing the cooperation procedure with the consultation procedure. That would be a retrograde step. That is why action is called for!

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Council has not made any agreement and, since it has not made any agreement, it is not possible to express concern over a non-existent agreement. What happened in the meeting was that the decision was left to the Heads of State or Government. My group is therefore opposed to this oral amendment and to a vote on it, because we believe that it responds to a political aim which we do not share. If it is necessary for twelve of us to rise, moreover, twelve of us will rise. I would ask twelve Members to rise. (Parliament adopted the resolution) EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE - Brok report (A5-0306/2003)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I wish to return to a subject I raised in the debates yesterday. In fact Vice-President Imbeni advised me to mention it again now while we are voting on Mr Brok’s report. I should like to draw my fellow Members’ attention to the fact that we are also voting on Parliament’s right to obtain the approval of Parliament’s Bureau regarding internal security measures, in connection with the agreement on secret security policy documents. There are some very problematic points in these security measures. For example, the national security services must find that Members of Parliament involved in examining secret documents are trustworthy. Mr President, as you are personally responsible for these arrangements, I should like to ask why no debate was organised in Parliament on these security measures in connection with Mr Brok’s report and how it is intended to organise this sort of check. In my opinion it is something of a scandal that we are attempting to vote on this without any kind of debate, on the quiet, as it were.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I thank the Minister for his response, but I would also like to point out that, statistically, there is now more violence in Kosovo than there was before the NATO bombing. It is worrying that the bombing has aggravated the situation, and we should recognise that it was a mistake on the part of NATO and the European Union to take such action. I agree with what the Minister very rightly said about the culpability of Belgrade, but we should also remember that the secret services of the USA, Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom have been supplying arms and money to the KLA, a mafia, which has contributed to the problems in the area. We are therefore all to blame. I would like to ask him a supplementary question in a wider context. Do you not think that it would be beneficial to lift the embargo on Serbia in order to normalise the area economically and also to benefit Kosovo as a province of Serbia?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, this request for urgent procedure is about the fact that high-protein feed or pulses are to be grown on set-aside land before this year is out. What we have here is an old demand made by Parliament finally taking effect. The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has held negotiations with the Council presidency so that this scheme can be introduced within this year. That is why my committee is supporting this request for urgent procedure. This also provides an opportunity to grant financial compensation to cattle farms hit by the beef crisis caused by BSE, without imposing any additional burden on the budget – and I stress the word additional. And these farms would nevertheless be given income aid through the channel of animal feed. That will please Commissioner Schreyer. I call on the House to vote for this request.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I have a question. We have up until now been told that we must put crosses against the names of at least seven candidates if the ballot paper is to be valid. Does this requirement to put crosses against the names of at least seven candidates now still apply?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Berend’s report is precisely in line with the strategy determined by the European Commission inasmuch as the question of increasing competitiveness is brought right to the fore. The overarching objectives of the structural funds such as job creation, boosting equality of opportunity, increasing the sustainability of employment and development, are only mentioned in passing. This attitude appears to me to be unjustified. I would also ask that a great deal more emphasis be placed on these points in the seventh periodic report. This does not mean that I do not see the need for competitiveness, particularly as I myself am an entrepreneur in an Objective 1 Region, that is in Brandenburg in the Federal Republic of Germany, and am only too aware of the problems and concerns of small and medium-sized enterprises. It is absolutely crucial that parallel temporary measures be introduced in the Objective 1 Regions, that is to say job creation measures, special programmes for supporting employment opportunities for women and initiatives to help people set up their own business. They are supported by appropriate European Union structural fund activities. Supporting only the competitiveness of companies will never be able to compensate for the envisaged cohesion between economic and social development, simply because there is no basis for a self-supporting upturn in these Objective 1 Regions. After all, the knowledge that economic development alone does not help to combat unemployment substantiates the fact than an increase of at least 3% in gross domestic product is needed to create any additional jobs at all. Concentrating to the exclusion of all else on supply and demand-orientated economic policy is not the answer. And those that do pursue such a policy must invest in expansion for the most part and, to a lesser extent, in rationalisation. It is imperative for this to go hand in hand with a demand-orientated economic policy if we are to have any chance at all of improving the social situation in these areas. The situation varies to an enormous degree throughout the regions. In other words, what is needed is a number of accompanying measures if anything at all is to be accomplished there. For example, these would be measures for vocational training, for further education, for re-integrating people who have already been excluded from the production process, for the flexibilisation of working time and working time arrangements, in order to bring about a definite improvement in the integration of personal and social aspects and perhaps also to promote employment opportunities for women again.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, as chairman of the Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities, I think that the procedure followed was absolutely right and that today’s vote should not be postponed. In other words, we should proceed to vote on the report. We therefore do not accept Mrs Kratsa's proposed postponement. (Parliament rejected the request for referral back to committee) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0365/2003) by Mr Lisi, on behalf of the European Parliament delegation to the Conciliation Committee, on the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee for a European Parliament and Council directive on amending Council Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (PE-CONS 3665/2003 – C5-0435/2003 – 2001/0257(COD))

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this debate provides us with an opportunity to consider the present state of the European economy. Although this was generally encouraging in the year 2000, and we have enjoyed high growth rates, job creation and monetary stability, many hard questions have now to be asked concerning the development of these factors. Consequently, considerable pressure will be exerted in some countries, as is already the case in the European Union as a whole, to move towards more expansionist policies. Obviously, such a move could come into conflict with the commitments given within the stability pacts relating to Member States. For this reason, we consider that certain parts of the report we are debating today are particularly apposite. These are the sections highlighting the need to maintain budgetary discipline and to avoid undertaking to reduce taxes, a promise often given in the run-up to elections, unless corresponding balancing measures are adopted. We also endorse something Mr Katiforis is constantly stressing, namely that there should also be balancing measures for productive investments. Investments of this sort will improve the productive structure of the European Union and make us much more competitive. I would like to end by highlighting the need to maintain this coordination and the agreements established in the stability programmes. I also wish to point to the need to strengthen control of economic and monetary policy. We believe this is still unduly fragmented. Obviously, the capabilities and coherence of the management will be put to the test when it is presented with greater problems in the future.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, let me say that we will not withdraw the request for a secret vote for the simple reason that in the past Members have found it difficult on this particular issue to vote according to their conscience and we want everyone to be able to vote according to their conscience on this issue.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, please allow me to make a small request. On 1 May, we saw the final defeat of Hitler and Stalin, and the victory of Walesa, Havel, Delors and Kohl. There are many, though, both in the acceding countries and in the original European Union, and in this House, who have played their part in bringing us to this moment. I would therefore ask you, Mr President, to cause to be recorded in today’s Minutes the names of the ten rapporteurs for the ten countries. I will read their names in the order of the countries’ accession: Schröder, Poos, Gahler, Queiró, Elisabeth Schroedter, Souladakis, Stenzel, Gawronski, Volcic, and Wiersma; also the three rapporteurs who have passed on their brief to others: Mrs Hoff, Mrs Carlsson and Mr Matella. I ask you to honour them by having their names recorded. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, it is not only Parliament that is divided over this issue, but also the Council. There are even divergences in the criminal law provisions in different Member States. Let me therefore ask once again: given that the Council cannot agree on this extremely important matter, and given that there is a blocking minority, can the Commission not decide to set the subject aside until the Council has reached agreement? That is my first question. My second question is whether you know why Commissioner Busquin never takes part in question time debates on this subject. It is not the first time this has happened.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I put an extremely topical and extremely precise question to the President of the Commission about his view of the relationship between freedom of expression and responsibility for cooperating loyally with the institutions. Unfortunately, I did not receive any answer to this question. It is a question which is being debated everywhere in Europe at the moment, and we should be extremely interested to hear his view. No, not this time either!

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am grateful to Commissioner Monti for this report, which, as he stressed, follows on from the work done by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Most of your speech, Commissioner, you devoted to the technical work of reviewing competitiveness and to improving it. I believe, though, that where we have to exert more influence is on the issue of what must be done to make Europe more competitive. Reading the Commission’s report on competitiveness in 2003, it is quite clear to me that the businesses that achieved high levels of production growth were those in which organisational improvements go hand in hand with investment in new technologies, and especially in information and communications technology. What this means is that we have to be quicker off the mark, more flexible, more mobile, more industrious, more willing to embrace reform, starting by becoming more European in our thinking and then becoming more open to the world. We must, then, give all the participants in the internal market a level playing field, and do away with whatever obstructs the internal market and impairs its competitiveness. We have to make the internal market an internal market; our problems with competences in the areas of fiscal policy, labour law and working times mean that it is not one. Because social systems are a matter for the Member States alone, the EU, in all these policy areas, can do no more than beg and implore them to do the necessary homework. This means that it is important that we should now recognise the connections between the quality of the internal market, the EU’s ability to compete, the fulfilment of the Lisbon targets and the achievement of growth and job creation. Underlying all of them are our social market economy and stability. I urge you to waste no time in presenting the Member States with your list of requirements, with clear figures and timescales showing how we can make Europe more competitive and what homework the Member States have to do.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I have listened with interest to what Mr Prodi said. He has some very good ideas. A lot can be achieved but clearly it has to be done step by step. And the rather eclectic list of issues he has listed – the outcome of which is not yet clear – are going in one direction. However, one thing that does not require any new legislation, as he has proposed, and which will take us on some important first steps towards sustainability is clearly and simply the implementation and enforcement of existing environmental legislation within the Union. If this is done within the next five years, we will not need any new studies or legislation and it will be a shining example to the candidate countries of what they must do to become members of the Union. Will the Commissioner tell me what he is going to do about that?

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I had the wonderful opportunity to share in celebrating the historic event of enlargement and our neighbours’ joy on Frankfurt’s Stadtbrücke. It was a once-in-a-lifetime experience, above all because the event had been preceded by a long process involving a great deal of work on both sides. The winners can celebrate, but there are losers too, and they have already been mentioned. One important group who have lost out are the Turkish Cypriots, who voted in favour of Europe. Another is made up of the people on both sides of the new external border, regions with which I am familiar in my capacity as Vice-Chairman for relations with Ukraine, Moldavia and Belarus. I am disappointed that the Commission is again rolling back its neighbourhood concept, and that it is not addressing the problems of people on the borders where they are. To the practical problems of border regions, it has geopolitical solutions, and that is the wrong way to deal with them. What bothers people, what they are afraid of, is the new Schengen border, the new frontier and the prospect of again being out in the cold. If you were to travel to these regions, that would be your experience too. For real change to happen in our neighbourhood concept, I am relying very much on the cooperation of our fellow-Members from Poland and Slovakia and our counterparts in Ukraine and the other neighbouring countries. In working with our neighbours, we need to open borders and bring regions together, facilitating retail trade and economic development, or else the interior will also die. For years, that has been our experience in Germany’s border regions, and so I urge the Commission to rethink its concept and ensure that the idea of Europe as a project for peace is communicated to the new border regions too, and the door is not shut on them, but rather that we take further what Parliament has proposed, which is an open-door policy, involving practical action to deal with people’s problems where they actually are.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union is a community founded upon law; the law and its pre-eminence are what this European Union is about. Acting in the name of Germany, the German finance minister has just trodden this law underfoot by joining with France in doing serious damage to the Stability Pact. In so doing, Germany not only broke the law but also destroyed trust, not only at home, but also among its neighbours in Europe and without doubt also in the countries seeking to join the European Union. Rules can be changed, but not by breaking them. At best, this amounts to rule by might rather than right, and hence to the antithesis of what holds the EU together. This malevolent spirit of national egoism and Franco-German high-handedness will dog Europe for a long time yet. Berlin shrank back in fear from cutting EUR 6 billion from total expenditure of EUR 1 000 billion. Such an amount is in no way crucial to the success of a recovery – not that there are any indications of one. The EU’s foundations have been tampered with, and a long-planned alliance has been forged against the European Commission. That, in essence, is the strategic position, the strategy underlying this course of action, the strategic heart of the Berlin-Paris soft-currency axis. Who, then, will blame the smaller states and the Eurosceptics if they again become more suspicious? Nor will anyone be so keen to rely again on the Commission to protect them. It was a black day for Europe when this damage was done to the Stability Pact, resulting in a crisis of confidence and a political crisis within the European Union.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I also congratulate Mr Bösch on his report. He is the acknowledged expert within the European Parliament and, to a large extent, was the architect of the new OLAF. One thing that is certain to create a stir in terms of the EU is big stories about fraud. They always get big coverage. That is quite right too because any fraud is unacceptable. The figure that is being attached to it is about 5% of the EU budget. But there are two important points to remember, which have been touched upon several times here today – and Mr Cunha has just raised them again. The Court of Auditors does not distinguish between fraud and administrative and financial irregularities; that is, administrative mistakes and people who set out to cheat the EU of money. To give you an example, a farmer may fill out a form incorrectly. That is not to say that he means to defraud. It may be that he measured his land incorrectly. And then there are the big fraudsters: the people who, for example, import cigarettes illegally, avoiding tax. There is a huge difference between these two things. We need to have them distinguished much more clearly. Let us not forget that 80% of the fraud takes place within Member States. Yesterday the Commission made a commitment to us that they want to cut irregularities by 2%. We want to know whether the Member States will follow that lead. It is clear that a lot of the problems lie there, in particular with the Structural Funds. To take up Mr Dell'Alba's point, the Socialists will be voting against a number of paragraphs in this report, not necessarily because we do not agree with them, but because it is not the right context in which to discuss these points which relate to the White Paper. Finally, I want to read out a list of shame – Member States which have not yet ratified the Convention on the Protection of the Financial Interests of the EU: Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Ireland and France. It is about time they signed up. They have had five years to do it. Let us see them ratify it.

Political group: PSE