GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I also wish to congratulate Mrs Lalumière on producing a report which is a fine balance of the arguments and interests involved. It is a remarkable achievement. I also wish to congratulate the Council on being able to establish at the last summit the principle of the headline goals. It is important to realise the significance of these headline goals because for once, instead of spending years discussing institutions, the European Union has put results before means. That, as we are already seeing, will drive forward the agenda very rapidly. If we are to succeed in our ambitions at a price we can afford, we have to ensure that we get better value for money out of defence and, in particular, defence industries. We need a strong, competitive European defence industry. Notwithstanding the takeovers and mergers in the private sector, there is still far too much fragmentation in this area. We still rely heavily on intergovernmental activity. The Western European Union Armaments Group, for example, moves very slowly on the basis of consensus. Even the six EU Member States which two years ago signed a letter of intent on cooperation have still not agreed a framework agreement to implement that letter of intent. We clearly need more urgency in this area and we need a single, coherent framework within which the defence industry can cooperate. That is why I am disappointed to hear what the presidency said about the intention to continue with the work of the Western European Armaments Group. I believe the pillar structure of the EU provides us with the best opportunity for a framework within which industry can operate. Pillar II can provide the common positions on things like arms exports, and we could be working towards a European armaments agency which brings together OCCAR and the Western European Armaments Organisation. The Commission has a crucial role in this. The last Commission drove forward the agenda on restructuring the defence industries: there were two communications. This Commission has been completely silent on this issue. It is as if it is running scared from confronting the implications of its role as the guardian of the Treaties. We have to ensure that the single market applies to defence industries as far as possible, and that Article 296 only applies in those areas specified in the Treaty. I would urge Commissioner Patten to follow in the footsteps of Commissioners Bangemann and van den Broek to drive forward the Commission's responsibility in delivering an effective and competitive European armaments industry in order to back up the measures we are taking in the political field.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I believe that both the Commissioner and the representative of the Council are perfectly aware of the threats hanging over the planet because year after year this Parliament has warned them of these threats. The increase in temperature by two degrees – as other Members have said – which is expected between now and 2010, if no measures are taken, the rise in sea levels, the disappearance of small islands and many of the catastrophes of the last two years which, according to the experts, are related to climate change, are facts which should oblige us to adopt immediate and concrete measures. The resolution adopted by the Committee on the Environment moves in this direction, as do the amendments which were presented and approved unanimously. Amongst these – and we are happy that Commissioner Wallström has pointed this out – is the clear criticism of the pressure exerted by the nuclear industry on Bonn so that nuclear energy may be used in the strategy to reduce CO2 emissions. It seems to us that industry brings with it risks, as the Commissioner has said, in terms of safety and the subsequent use or recycling of waste. These risks are unacceptable to us. For this reason, in the Committee on the Environment, we still propose renewable sources of energy and the adoption of clear measures with regard to transport; not only in road transport which is the form of transport which produces most CO2 emissions, but also in air transport which also produces many emissions and which, until now, has not been controlled as it should be. We also agree with the Council that we should build bridges with developing countries, but building bridges with these countries means two things: not trying to do deals with them with regard to the buying and selling of quotas and not cutting development and aid funds so that they can adopt measures which will lead in the direction which we are proposing. In one of the amendments we also propose that countries draw up clear and concrete plans for reductions in the different sectors – transport, agriculture, etc. – because if no plans or concrete measures exist, then we will still be here talking about the same things far beyond 2000.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Of course, I would like to thank the previous speaker. I have the impression that, in this impromptu debate which you are organising, Mr President, we are mixing everything up. First there is the transport issue, which actually comes under the heading of the rules which the European Union has provided itself with in the context of the liberalisation of air transport, which prohibits equalisations and the servicing of lines that are not necessarily, immediately and permanently profitable according to the criteria of the law of the market. Then there is the issue of where Parliament should sit, and I do not believe that the best method of dealing with that issue is to do so during a debate such as the present one, which has been initiated by someone who, sometimes, does not seem to know which of his hats he is wearing. I condemn this method of proceeding, and I only wish that, in this House, we were capable of mobilising our forces with the same determination and the same willingness on subjects of obvious interest to our citizens, for example tax harmonisation or the defining of minimum social conditions.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mrs Evans’ document concerns the movement of pet animals. The report appears to represent progress for the free movement of pet animals in Europe too. Indeed, the report lists dogs, cats, ornamental tropical fish, amphibia, reptiles, birds and mammals. Yes, you did hear me say ornamental tropical fish, amongst other things. As you know, Mr President, I have a direct line to the fish. The sardines in the sea complained: ‘We too have free movement, but only to end up in restaurant kitchens, to be thrown straight into the frying pan, while ornamental tropical fish can just enjoy themselves swimming round tanks thanks to your directive. Why is it that you at the European Parliament do not do something to allow us too to become pensioner fish at last rather than persisting in wanting to fry us for your dinner?’

Political group: PPE-DE
With regard to paragraph 27, I agree with the Socialist and s that we should replace the words 'high capital' with 'appropriate capital' and take out the last few words: 'as has happened during the various crises, including in the case of the LTCM crisis.' (Parliament agreed to the oral amendment being tabled) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Joint motion for a resolution(1) on EU aid to Iran following the earthquake (Parliament adopted the joint resolution) EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE - Randzio-Plath report (A5-0001/2004)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am afraid the best has not been saved for last, as the saying goes, for I have to inform Mr Schultz – this being the world cup season – that a thundering own-goal has been scored. In other words, he asked a question on the issue of Mr Dell’Utri’s immunity and then answered it himself. I remember the vote held on the matter in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. The committee adopted the decision to request further information from the Spanish judiciary on the case. Now, then, it is not the European Parliament or the Committee on Legal Affairs which is holding back but the Spanish judiciary, which, in all probability, no longer knowing which way to turn, not knowing how exactly to respond to the European Parliament’s request, is playing for time. There may, however, be another reason: if we consider that the investigation was very thorough, it would appear that the magistrate dealing with the case has realised that he has very little or no evidence with which to proceed. What we have here, then, are delaying tactics, a delaying strategy, in which the Spanish judiciary is continuing to pad out an indefinite investigation with the intention of keeping the matter open and never resolving it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, I want sincerely to thank Mr Belder for his report and his splendid contribution. We can all see that, instead of a uniform framework for budgetary aid, the EU has a variety of such frameworks. It is a question of macro-economic aid for the Balkans and Eastern Europe and of structural adjustment aid for non-Member States in the Mediterranean region. We are also concerned here with general financial aid to developing countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific region, as well as with the special aid to the Palestinian Authority and with the new regulation for EU cooperation with Asiatic and Latin American countries. We in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy find it regrettable that, as was shown by the Court of Auditors in its special report for January 2002, it has not been possible even in the area of macro-economic aid to devise a clear and consistent formulation of the various contributions. I would therefore venture to state that the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy welcomes Mr Belder’s proposal that the Genval criteria be introduced, making it possible for the European Parliament and the national parliaments to exercise effective scrutiny of the forms of aid. This macro-economic aid must therefore only be given on an exceptional basis. It must fulfil necessary political pre-conditions and relate to countries in clear geographical proximity. It must supplement other funding, be subject to conditions and comply with the principle of financial discipline. It is difficult to see any valid reason for retaining the present system of EU budgetary aid to non-member States, which is opaque and, in all likelihood, unnecessarily demanding in terms of resources. Reform is sought in this area. In conclusion, I want to say that no macro-economic aid should really ever be given by the EU and that such aid must never degenerate into a reward to the recipient country’s government for conducting bad economic policy.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too would like to thank Mrs Hoff for her excellent report. I think that it is much better than the first report, it is significantly better than the Commission document, and I very much hope that this report will go down in the history of this House, because it goes a great deal further and the cooperation involved in its preparation was outstanding. I would like to thank the rapporteur for largely accepting my amendments. There is of course a danger of us constantly hearing the same eloquent but trite speeches about how important cooperation is, and about how special Kaliningrad's situation is. However, for the people of Kaliningrad there is a genuine fear, a fear based on reality, that the situation will deteriorate as regards transit arrangements, freedom of movement and cooperation between NGOs, leading to greater poverty and escalating unemployment. That is why we need new approaches to the instruments available, new approaches to minor border traffic, new approaches to economic cooperation, new approaches to transnational cooperation and above all – and, Commissioner, I would like to appeal you once more about this – new approaches to the use of financial instruments. A joint action plan also needs a joint fund.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I reiterate my support for Mrs Read’s proposed amendment to the Council common position for adopting a European Parliament and Council decision on the multi-annual programme (2003-2005) for the monitoring of eEurope, dissemination of good practices and the improvement of network and information security (MODINIS). She wishes to ensure a minimum sum of EUR 21 million for this programme. It is in Parliament’s interest to have valid initiatives with at least the resources they need to achieve their objectives. Despite the budget restrictions to which we are subject, we have to guarantee the efficiency and effectiveness of the measures we want to implement. - Report Villiers (A5-0287/2003)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, firstly I too would like to wish you a speedy recovery from your cold. I would also like to thank you for your earlier comments that nuclear power stations must be treated politically and economically, that we cannot expect them to be taken out of operation overnight and that we need an exit plan and time to implement it. I think that Bohunice had sufficient time. I must remind you of the Hermes Agreement under which Bohunice was to be removed from the network by the year 2000 at the latest. In the light of this, I was extremely surprised by your laudatory acceptance of the new shutdown dates for Bohunice in 2006 and 2008. I shall now come to my question, Commissioner. A study by the Vienna Institute for Risk Research has been available since the summer. Although it has become somewhat dusty sitting in the drawer of the Minister for Consumer Protection, Mrs Prammer, thanks to good cooperation with the environmental non-governmental organisations we became aware of this study and since last Thursday have had the opportunity to examine its contents in detail. We need not discuss the safety defects in Bohunice, although perhaps I may raise just three of the most important points: as before, there is no replacement for the missing reinforced concrete and no pressure suppression system or other safety systems; the upgrading is inadequate seismologically; and the reactor pressure container is so brittle that the possibility of bursting cannot be excluded. Now for something funny: in 1995 the UJD, the Slovak Nuclear Supervisory Authority, stopped issuing the standard multiannual operating licence and has been issuing provisional one-year extensions in order to compel the operators to carry out the necessary upgrading. In vain it would seem! The currently valid safety certificate for Bohunice expires in the year 2000. In Austria, we say that from the year 2000, Bohunice will be spotless! This study was submitted to the Slovak government at the beginning of September, but not to you, Commissioner. This sort of neglect is not unique to Austrian politics; it also exists within the EU. At the same time, however, Mrs Prammer’s office assures me that she did inform you of the unresolved safety issues relating to Bohunice V1. So I ask you, Commissioner: were you aware of this study? If you were, the behaviour of the Commission is scandalous! If you were not, I would urge you to reconsider the facts. If you still do not have the documents, I have brought them with me from Vienna. You yourself have said, if I may quote you, that the final words have not yet been spoken. Perhaps the Commission could also exchange words with the Slovak Nuclear Supervisory Authority. We demand earlier and binding shutdown dates for Bohunice as well as clear assistance with the exit plan.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I agree with those who have said that public health protection is the most important objective, but that research also needs to be promoted. By means of the research incentives envisaged we will not only be making industry more competitive and thus safeguarding around 500 000 jobs in Europe, we will also be promoting the development of new medicinal products. The proposal for a regulation and the two directives before us do, however, at the same time demand that the pharmaceutical industry, in view of the almost ideal framework conditions – data exclusivity standards are nowhere else as high as in Europe – should demonstrate its capacity for innovation. Patients need innovative new medical products and not analogous products that burden our health systems without providing any extra benefit for patients. I believe that as the consultation procedure moves forward, Parliament should not lose sight of the triple objective of improving health protection, enhancing productivity and safeguarding jobs.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, allow me to observe that the military forces in Iraq, which you referred to at the beginning, are in fact occupying forces. To my point now. According to our information, the Romanian judiciary has deleted the Labour Party, which has 110 000 members and was represented in parliament until recently, from the list of recognised political parties in its country. The decision to delete it is downright illegal, in that it violates Law 14 of 2003 on the operation of political parties. It was taken following acute pressure exerted by the Romanian Government on the judiciary and following intervention in the internal affairs of the Labour Party on the part of the governing Social Democratic Party. The Communist Party of Greece condemns the illegal and unacceptable action by the Romanian authorities, which is obviously intended to muzzle any opinion which defends fundamental rights and promotes visions. We cannot but correlate this illegal action with the installation of American military bases in Romania and with the imminent integration of this country into the European Union.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, on behalf of my Group, I would also like to congratulate the Irish presidency on its approach and on the method it is taking, which I believe is the right one. However, my Group is of the strong view that if, through no fault of its own, the Irish presidency does not begin to produce results within a reasonable period of time, it will not be possible for our Parliament to continue with ‘business as usual’. It will become increasingly difficult for us and for many Member States in the Council to act as if this is an issue that can be set to one side for many months and years. A solution has to be found quickly for reasons that my colleagues have already outlined. May I also ask the presidency how it intends to find a compromise on the difficult issue of the voting system in the Council? The overall majority wants the double majority system, yet one or two countries are holding out against it. How does the presidency intend to bring these countries on board? What kind of adjustment mechanism or declaration is likely to be used to make this voting system acceptable to these countries?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to take this opportunity, in the presence of the Presidency-in-Office, which says it is going to study this issue again, to say that the excuse of conserving a resource such as hake, without sufficient or confirmed scientific reports, is at the origin of the discrimination against the Spanish fleet, which we are discussing here. The Commission has told us in the Committee on Fisheries that this discrimination is for social reasons in favour of Great Britain and France, and that that is the reason for the exception. Madam President, my question is why does the Commission, and in this case the Council, by a majority and for social reasons, not defend Spain, and specifically a region such as Galicia, which is an Objective One region and is therefore more needy, and whose fishermen traditionally fished in those waters which are now common. These fishermen, for social reasons, do not sleep at home, owing to the enormous distance they have to travel. If the reasons are social, I would ask you please to take account of the protection of Spanish fishermen.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Ireland’s ratification, on Sunday last, of the Treaty of Nice is to be welcomed with open arms since their approval will enable the Union to prepare itself for its historic enlargement, welcoming the countries of Central and Eastern Europe as well as Cyprus and Malta. The Danish Presidency of the Union recently indicated that, if necessary, it would prolong the summit which is due to take place in Brussels on 24 and 25 October, so that it could complete all the items on a particularly demanding agenda, as President Prodi reiterated earlier. On Monday last, Commissioner Verheugen expressed regret that France is not adopting a more flexible attitude regarding the possibility of reducing direct aid to farmers, before deciding on the amount of aid to make available to the farmers of the future new members, and he considered that the sudden increase in agricultural expenditure would make the CAP a logical area where money could be saved. With respect, I would like to say to the Commissioner that I find this view particularly unbalanced. President Jacques Chirac yesterday called for a solution to be found that is acceptable to everyone for financing the enlargement of the European Union, and for this to be done at the end of a working meeting with the President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Rasmussen. The French Government believes all planned expenditure in the EU budget must be examined and a limit on this expenditure must be imposed. By undertaking a thorough review of the financial commitments of all the Member States and by ensuring they are fairly balanced, we will succeed in finding a solution acceptable to all, so that enlargement can be carried out under the best possible circumstances. I am sure that France is very willing and will shoulder its part of the effort that is required in finding a fair solution as soon as possible. This could not be achieved, however, by sacrificing a sector of our population, in this case, farmers and the rural community. The financial contribution that is justifiably anticipated must be divided equally between all the Member States of the European Union.

Political group: PPE-DE