GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the two excellent reports before us are abundant proof of the need for thorough institutional reform integrating the Union’s responsibilities in matters of judicial, criminal and police cooperation, which currently fall under the third pillar, into the Community framework. This European Parliament has been calling repeatedly for this and I hope the Convention on the future of Europe itself and, therefore, the Intergovernmental Conference on reform of the Treaties, will put forward such a proposal. Only thus will it be possible to avoid future counterproductive disputes and institutional conflict, and, most importantly, will we be able to act effectively to protect the citizens of the EU. Quite clearly, some of these rights – such as the right to a high level of environmental protection and the improvement of the quality of the environment, which is enshrined in Article 37 of the Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, are not being adequately safeguarded by the Member States for lack of effective Community intervention. None of the Member States has ratified the 1998 Council of Europe Convention on the protection of the environment through criminal law. Even the many Community directives on the environment fail to provide sufficient protection because of failure to apply them and frequent failure to comply with them encouraged by the lack of effective penalties. The Commission’s proposal for a directive requiring the Member States to introduce penalties therefore deserves our full support with the incorporation of the useful amendments advocated in the Oomen-Ruijten report. Although the Commission, Parliament and the Council Legal Service itself have, on several occasions, stressed that the protection of the environment is a fundamental Community objective pursuant to Articles 3 and 6 of the Community Treaty, that the proper legal basis for the protection of the environment through criminal law is Article 175 of the Treaty and that Community law prevails over Union law, the Council is attempting to adopt a framework decision on the same subject that does not just integrate the proposal for a directive but interferes with it, limiting its field of application and scope and making the issue no longer subject to the procedure of codecision with the European Parliament. The Di Lello Finuoli report quite rightly states that this framework decision must be consistent with the directive, must wait for it to be promulgated and must refer to it, without repeating points already covered by the directive but, where necessary, incorporating them. I hope that Parliament will adopt both reports and I call upon all the Members to reflect on the need to avoid similar damaging disputes in the future and to achieve full communitisation of the third pillar.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the new WTO round perfectly illustrates our criticism of the way in which this body is organised. This is supposedly a development round, but the European ministers for cooperation and development are not taking part in the forthcoming meeting. Furthermore, the Committee on Development and Cooperation has not been able to deliver an opinion on the Désir report. Fortunately, the report asks pertinent questions, and it has our support. This is supposed to be a development round, but the 49 LDCs are opposed to it and rightly so. Liberalisation, which is supposed to lead to development, growth and prosperity, has only made their situation worse. The WTO perpetuates the imbalance in world trade and the establishment of rules that are unfavourable to the developing countries. Furthermore, it has ended the preferential system instituted by the Lomé Convention. Similarly, the Cotonou Agreement urges the ACP countries to abide by the GATS or the agreement on Trips but the UNDP, itself, states that the liberalisation of services will only benefit multinational companies. The GATS is basically the IMA by the back door. It is a tool for dismantling democracy. Mr Lamy, if negotiations must take place, then they must focus on a root and branch reform of the WTO. It is the development of the least advanced countries that must benefit rather than the development of multinational companies’ profits.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, we have of course made some decisions about the electricity part that mean we now have to be careful not to contradict the gas part too much. That is why I would like to speak at three different stages: first now about the block vote, then later on about Amendment No 162 and then once again on amendments Nos 149 and 184. These are not comments on the substance, but rather comments about the adjustments. I would like at this point to comment on the first block: we have just rejected the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party's Amendment No 173 in a roll-call vote. The problem that we have here is that in committee we did not make a decision on this subject as regards electricity, but we did in the case of gas. The has now tried, in parallel, to do the same thing for electricity as we have already done for gas. We rejected that. However, we now have Amendment No 147, which belongs to this block, and which covers exactly the same substantive point that we rejected in the case of electricity. We are bringing forward something for gas that we do not want to bring forward in the case of electricity – the progress of market opening, as proposed by the committee. However, we still want to defer the opening of the gas market somewhat as compared with electricity. We are now creating an inconsistency around precisely this point. That means that by analogy we should be opposing Amendment No 147, but I simply do not know how we do that procedurally speaking, because in the voting list that is included in the block. That is why you, Mr President, have to decide now whether we should take Amendment No 147 out and vote on it separately; in that case, by analogy with the vote just taken, it would also have to be rejected. I hope that was confusing enough for you! (Laughter)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, I would firstly like to congratulate Mrs Lienemann on the report she has carried out, and also the Commission – why not? – because this report, this position, generally improves on the texts in force. Furthermore, it contains more acceptable systematics and is clearer and more transparent. I would also like to congratulate the services of the Commission, since the evaluation, control and monitoring of the LIFE programme provide a reasonable guarantee with regard to the selection and execution of projects. However, I would like to insist on certain points. Firstly, its continuity, which, in principle, I am not questioning. Secondly, the financial contributions. Sadly, only 7.2% of the projects requested receive funds. Of the EUR 1 919 million requested, only EUR 784 million have been granted. Now the financial statement shows only EUR 613 million to cover more countries and competences. Parliament has proposed EUR 850 million, but the document repeats the initial proposal of EUR 613 million. Commissioner, our environmental commitments are increasing in all areas, while the only financial instrument exclusively dedicated to the environment is decreasing. Is this not a contradiction? Let us not demand from others what we are not prepared to give ourselves? Why do we all go on about the environment and are then not prepared to pay for it amongst all of us, but rather expect the usual people, the ones who live there all year, to pay for it and maintain it? Commissioner, we must be consistent. The cost of maintaining the environment, which we all enjoy, must be met by all of us, and the LIFE programme is the only financial instrument aimed exclusively at the environment and whose projects have generally been effective.

Political group: PPE-DE
In Strasbourg, the European Parliament debated the report tabled by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy on waste electrical and electronic equipment. The proposed directive specifies that the responsibility for electrical and electronic waste, which is approximately 16 kg per capita in each of the 15 EU Member States, an amount which, according to forecasts, is set to double over the next 12 years, lies either with the manufacturer or the original importer. Luxembourg, due to the specific nature of its position, has hardly any producers in the true sense but, in the main, has importers. Product distribution is often organised in such a way that a general importer is responsible for the area of Belgium and Luxembourg. This importer is usually based in Belgium and not in Luxembourg. If Belgium has to place responsibility upon a single general importer, Luxembourg will have to place responsibility upon the countless businesses which receive product deliveries from this general importer. Furthermore, parallel imports of products outside these established distribution channels are reaching a much higher level in Luxembourg than in other countries. It follows that, in Luxembourg, commercial enterprises upon whom responsibility is placed are generally small businesses and are, in any case, smaller than their equivalents in other countries. This characteristic, specific to Luxembourg, means that particular attention must be paid to simplifying the administration involved in managing recycling and recovery funding systems that are to be implemented. In some areas, it is preferable, therefore, that the directive should give enough freedom to Member States for them to be able to implement appropriate solutions. Companies, especially in built-up areas, do not usually have the facilities to store vast amounts of waste. The requirement for businesses to collect waste must, therefore, not be mandatory – it should remain voluntary. If companies cannot collect waste, other systems, such as recycling sites, for example, must be made available to consumers. The cost of collecting waste, if it were mandatory, would be too high for many businesses. The directive also deals with the financing of electrical and electronic products which will already be on the market before the directive comes into force, the manufacturers of some of which no longer exist. Some appliances, such as refrigerators or televisions for example, have an average life cycle of 20 years. The directive must give Member States a choice of the means to implement in order to finance recycling of these appliances. It will, therefore, be possible to agree with the Member State some incentives for consumers, such as free collection of waste that is currently stored on their premises. These incentives have been provided in countries which already have free collection systems. (Speech cut short pursuant to Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: PPE-DE
Overall, the amendments adopted by the ITRE Committee on 23rd April do not improve on the Commission's text. The amendments have produced an extremely complicated proposal which would be even more harmful to the generally large industrial CHP plants which are the main UK interest, than the Commission's original proposal. These amendments taken as a whole are based on the assumption that all cogeneration ‘with an efficiency level of at least 80% always leads to substantial energy savings in comparison to the separate generation of energy and heat and may therefore be regarded as efficient.’ It is not true that an efficiency of 80% will guarantee substantial energy savings is disputable. Schemes with the same overall efficiency do not necessarily save the most fuel and displace the most CO2 emissions. It is important to value electrical efficiency more than heat efficiency and the report as tabled does not do this. Overall, the approach is too academic and takes little account of the practical difficulties of implementing the approach at industrial sites – some of which can be extremely complex. Adoption of the proposal would seriously damage the prospects for cogeneration in the UK. (Abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1)of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, Commissioner, as you know, many of my fellow Members are critical of the Nice Treaty. My group – and I personally – are also deeply concerned about the future of the Union, because numerous issues which determine the daily concerns and needs of the people are still unresolved or have only been tackled half-heartedly. More importantly, we are still a long way from a social Europe. Nice – I am convinced and many of my fellow Members obviously share this view – has weakened the Community. In the final analysis, the governments simply fought to maintain their national right of veto. More democracy, greater transparency, a greater ability to act and take decisions – all were left out of the Treaty, which is why the follow-up to Nice must tackle a programme of ambitious and truly far-reaching reform with a twofold purpose. First, it must not reverse the progress already made towards integration. I specifically share the concern expressed by Commissioner Barnier in this regard. Secondly, we need reforms which make the Union truly viable for the future. In my view, this means introducing a quasi-constitutional process, as a result of which a unified Europe is established by the will of its people. It means holding a broad, public, open debate. But it also means, in my view, that the Intergovernmental Conference is no longer the right method for taking Europe forward. We need a different method. As a member of the convention working on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, having experienced its success first hand, I expressly recommend the convention method as the right way for us to work together and take Europe forward.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Thank you, Mr President. I have listened with interest to the debate today. I have listened with interest to the things which Mr Prodi has said in the past about how we can reach a solution to the crisis with food safety within Europe. One conclusion comes immediately to my mind which I do not hear Mr Prodi addressing, and that is the implementation and enforcing of existing legislation. Forget about creating new agencies, forget about new rules; why are you not looking much more seriously at implementing and enforcing the existing legislation? If you had done that, then we should not have had a dioxin crisis in Belgium. Mr Prodi really has to think about that and perhaps produce proposals for that before Christmas. Central to the solutions that he is proposing is the food agency. We have to remember, Mr Prodi, that when this Parliament has looked at this problem of a food agency in the past, we have not been absolutely sure about whether this is the right way forward. However we, like you, are prepared to listen and consider it. But I have to say to you that we will have to ask you some very hard questions before we can be satisfied that you are moving in the right direction. The first question will be whether it is a food and drug agency or a food safety agency that you are proposing? The second will be how much power you will devolve from the Commission to this new agency, and perhaps to some of the existing agencies, so that they can do their job better and assist the food agency in solving the problems regarding food in Europe? How will you ensure the accountability of these new agencies? Would you consider, for example, hearings held here in the European Parliament to choose the directors of those agencies? There are many issues that we want to hear from you about, Mr Prodi. We would like to hear from you today about them. We definitely want to see them in your White Paper. Finally, Mr President, I would say that there is already a confusion in the minds of parliamentarians about who is responsible inside the Commission for key elements of this problem. We have Mr Byrne responsible for some issues and Mrs Wallström responsible for others, particularly as regards GMOs. You must resolve those issues inside the Commission before you take steps towards creating a food agency. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
There are at least two good reasons in principle, if not more, for the French delegation from the Union for Europe of the Nations Group to vote against this report. The first reason concerns the perspective on which it is based: the planned accession of Turkey to the European Union. Turkey is heir to a great civilisation. However, as it is culturally different from a Judaeo-Christian and humanist Europe, geographically situated (95%) in Asia Minor and does not belong to the Indo-European family, I do not think there is any reason for Turkey to join the Union. Yes to cooperation with the EU, no to membership! The second reason is the European Union’s obligation to respect the national sovereignty of third countries. It is perfectly clear that this extreme report constitutes blatant interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign State. By what right, however, and based on what moral standards can the European Union judge and at times condemn Turkey? Who are we to stigmatise, for example, the disproportionate role of the army, which ‘slows down Turkey’s development towards a democratic and pluralist system’? This report, which is contemptuous towards the Turkish people, is very bad for Europe as a whole.

Political group: PPE-DE
The call to eliminate the use, production, storage and transfer of anti-personnel landmines is right and appropriate. We are particularly concerned to note the existence of vast mined areas, which claim thousands of victims – mostly children – and which prevent people from returning to their homes, from cultivating their land and from starting their lives afresh following military conflict. This situation must stop. We must mobilise, as swiftly and effectively as possible, the resources required to clear mined areas, to help with the social and economic rehabilitation of victims and to destroy stockpiles of anti-personnel mines. It is similarly shocking that the United States – the country leading the arms race and the one that undertakes the highest number of military interventions – has announced that it will not sign up to the Ottawa Convention on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines, and that it has decided to retain its 8.8 million so-called ‘intelligent’ anti-personnel mines (equipped with self-destruction mechanisms). The USA has also said that it will only stop using ‘conventional’ anti-personnel and anti-vehicle mines after 2010, or, put another way, four years after the previously agreed deadline.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I would like to thank the Commissioner, who spoke succinctly yet unequivocally on the issue. The problem is that SMEs, as well as large enterprises of course, are being asked to shoulder the burden in order to benefit from the introduction of the euro. But the question is whether the SMEs can bear this burden without appropriate support. If they cannot, although they may reap benefits later on, the result will be that they may close down, as we were told during a seminar that was held in Brussels three months ago. This must be addressed, as we are talking of millions of SMEs throughout Europe. Since the Commissioner doubts whether sufficient progress has been made in respect of information and preparation, I would also like to ask whether he has any statistics on what percentage of the changeover has been completed in SMEs – let us stick with them – in the different countries, and I would especially like to ask if he has any details on Greece.

Political group: PPE-DE
Does the Commissioner agree that early next year is before the end of March?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, first I wish to thank the rapporteur, Mrs De Sarnez, for her exhaustive survey of the Erasmus World programme and for her excellent cooperation, although we did not succeed in reaching consensus on quite everything. What is most important, however, is that the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport has managed to deal with the Commission proposal swiftly. I also hope that consensus can be quickly reached with the Council so that the programme can be got fully under way from the start of next year. There is a clear need to make Europe a more attractive place and to strengthen the identity of European higher education. At present, the majority of international exchange students go to the United States of America. That country has a long tradition of receiving foreign students, in the form, for example, of Fulbright scholarships. Each year over half a million young people from other countries study in the United States. In Europe, the corresponding figure for the number of students from countries outside the Community is around 400 000. More than three quarters of them come to the United Kingdom, France or Germany: to the three big Member States. The opportunities offered by European universities are thus hardly being taken up at all at the present time. The same goes for the added value that could be achieved through university networking. The Erasmus Mundus Masters Course programme aims to rectify all these failings by establishing a European Union Masters degree for students from third countries in partnership with three European higher education institutions. In the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport we pay a great deal of attention to linguistic diversity in Europe. It is perhaps for that reason that the majority on the committee wanted to add the paragraph to Article 4 stating that the purpose of the programme is the ‘promotion of language skills, in particular by the use of two languages spoken in the countries in which the institutions involved in the Erasmus Mundus Masters Course are located’. I fear the worst, in that such a stringent rule will go against the basic aims of the programme. Erasmus Mundus is not a language programme: its purpose is to enhance the attractiveness of European higher education. Let us for example consider the case of a degree course in biotechnology under the Masters programme, to be undertaken in partnership with higher education institutions in Finland, Latvia and Estonia. I am sure a requirement to study the language of these countries would do little to enhance the attractiveness of the programme in the minds of young people interested in biotechnology. This is not a problem that just concerns the northern fringe of Europe, but just as much Portugal and Greece, for example. I certainly hope that this requirement, so precisely defined as it is, will be deleted in the vote in plenary.

Political group: PSE