GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the EU must of course be part of the international fight against terrorism, and the conclusions from last week’s European Council also show this. The conclusions offer a clearer analysis of the issues surrounding the guarantees of legal certainty and the democratic control that is to safeguard the measures concerned. It is high time that the EU took seriously the balance between, on the one hand, combating terrorism and other crime and, on the other hand, preserving fundamental rights. The new terrorism tsar should work in tandem with a privacy tsar. If the political will existed, it should be possible right now – before the Constitution has entered into force – to guarantee democratic scrutiny. The EU must not gamble away respect for privacy and private life. Europe is a forerunner in this area, and Article 29 of the committee’s objections gives rise to great concern. The objective is, of course, a global solution that has to provide people with the same high level of legal certainty. The fight against terrorism is much more difficult and needs to be tackled in a much greater variety of ways. This solution will not do away with all forms of terrorism, but it looks sometimes as though people believe it will. Finally, I wish to point out the following. It is an extremely unsatisfactory situation we are in. Commissioner Bolkestein has just shown this through his speech. Even before Parliament adopts a position on the issue, the Council has gone and stated that it intends to accept the American demands, leading one to wonder why, in such a situation, Parliament has to have an opinion at all. Irrespective of how the voting goes on this issue, I would call upon the Commission tirelessly to go on striving for better protection of legal certainty, as well as for protection against terrorism in many forms other than just the present one.

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, I also emphasised in the various questions that the Commission acted appropriately on this matter. My concerns merely lie in the fact that the toll has been postponed indefinitely and that this working group, which you have already put in place, has also helped us to show that shortcomings have arisen and that this has also led to discrimination between various Member States. My question is, therefore, whether the working group will be able to continue its work in this transitional phase. If it will not, will the Commission open infringement proceedings? I think that it is clear that the toll system in principle is not being called into question, rather that, amongst other things, the control apparatus, which will be used to collect this toll for Germany, is a system that, firstly, has shown technical shortcomings and, secondly, will not be available to all businesses. That is enough, as far as I am concerned, to continue this investigation, that is to say, the monitoring.

Political group: PPE-DE
President, this Friday, 5 December 2003, the parliamentary members of the Convention will meet up again to consider the progress of the Intergovernmental Conference, to speak with Mr Frattini and Mr Giscard d’Estaing, and to make joint proposals to the IGC. The main thrust of our deliberations will be to support the work of the Italian presidency in defending the work of the Convention, but I fully agree with Mr Hänsch that we will fight the notion of rendezvous clauses on key elements of the package. Procrastination will not make tricky decisions simpler to solve: the time to act decisively is now. Nor will we approve proposals to inflate the size and distort the shape of the Commission - or indeed this Parliament - to avoid concessions to the self-esteem of Member States. Such ploys do not contribute to the efficiency and effectiveness of those authorities, and to ignore the settled will of this Parliament is certain to jeopardise the prospects of the new settlement being brought into force. It will sour the political atmosphere and wound the democratic legitimacy of the Union. The Presidents of the Council and of the Commission should be absolutely clear that the IGC cannot take our consent for granted. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, I should like first of all to express my support for the report by Mrs Redondo Jiménez. It is true that forests play an essential role, because they have a multifunctional role, and as president of a regional national park I am particularly sensitive to the various measures concerning the preservation of natural spaces, and in particular forests. They are essential to us, amongst other things in order to prevent climate change. However, we should not regard forest areas solely as the lungs of Europe. They are not just green spaces; they are also a not inconsiderable source of economic, social and tourism activity. At Community level, it is essential to compare the various experiments being carried out in Member States in order to promote the exchange of information and create an effective benchmarking system. We must never lose sight of the fact that it is at the most local level that this part of our heritage is managed best and will continue to be managed best. This is why the monitoring of forests should not be the sole responsibility of the European Union. The principle of subsidiarity is vital, and what is involved here is almost a range of responsibilities shared between the Union and the Member States, the Union and local governments. and the Union and local operators represented within the European Advisory Committee on Forestry and Cork and the Standing Forestry Committee. It is for the Union, in conjunction with the Member States, to determine the broad outlines of the measures and the main objectives, and to make provision for adequate financial resources to enable those objectives to be achieved. The Council has a responsibility to take on here. The Commission is proposing that repair measures following forest fires should be reinforced. I totally agree with this important step, but I would also ask that research into the causes of such fires should be reinforced. Repair should not be the sole objective of long-term management. As part of the move to preserve our forest areas, public awareness is important, because the forests belong first and foremost to the public, and it is up to us, as Members of the European Parliament, to represent that public. That is why I believe that forests should definitely come within the scope of the codecision procedure.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, firstly, I should like to congratulate the rapporteurs for the budget, Göran Färm and Per Stenmarck, for their excellent work, as well as Terence Wynn, Chairman of the Committee on Budgets, for his leadership on that committee. I also want to thank Denmark’s chairmen in the Council for their cooperation, which was excellent, and Commissioner Michaele Schreyer for her excellent input. Next year’s European Union budget is a disciplined budget. The increase in expenditure is below inflation, at just 1.9%. This represents an outstanding gesture of support by the European Parliament to help Member States balance their national budgets. It also demonstrates responsibility on the part of the EU, while Member States try to meet the requirements of its Stability and Growth Pact. The Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party supports this aim, although it partly undermines the EU’s long-term attempt to balance its economy, as the EU’s biggest budget worry this time is outstanding commitments. At present these stand at EUR 103 billion, which is to say, more than the entire budget for one year. There has been an increase in arrears of EUR 17 billion since the start of the year, with no limit to this in sight. The situation is at its most wretched in the area of structural operations, where outstanding commitments have grown over the year by EUR 13 billion. The most difficult situation, relatively speaking, however, is in the area of pre-accession aid, where EUR 8.5 billion in outstanding commitments has accrued in three years, with just under EUR 2 billion being paid out in actual aid. What is most vexing is that there would have been funds available for payment in respect of these commitments, but they were not used. Consequently, the situation betrays administrative inefficiency, with the Commission and the Member States as the guilty parties. That is why Commission reform is extremely important. At the moment the Commission is very conservative and shirks its responsibilities. We should also simplify legal instruments and procedures, as was agreed in conciliation with the Council in the summer. Enlargement is the hallmark of next year’s budget. This budget is the last to be drafted for an EU consisting of 15 Member States. Parliament safeguarded the posts needed in the Commission for enlargement by amassing resources partly out of this year’s budget. In this way we were able to meet next year’s expenditure in advance and fit administrative expenditure into the tight framework in place for heading 5. My group supports this. Otherwise, we could say of the budget’s content that the EU’s functions are adequately financed. Agricultural expenditure is under control, so there is no need for significant reforms for budgetary reasons. External actions were able to be partly financed in advance out of this year’s budget, and there was no need to look again at Parliament’s priorities. In addition to other actions, we were able to improve the financing of the Northern Dimension a little, which has to be considered a good thing.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, it can sometimes be confusing in this House but if somebody does not do something with that clock over there, which has been out of order for at least two months, we will get even more confused! Could somebody please either get it going or turn it off? (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I would first like to congratulate Mr Beazley on his excellent speech. Mr Prodi, I would like to thank you for making it clear here today that you will not be bringing forward any proposals to amend the constitutional position unless you have the consent of the European Parliament and without a clear vote by Parliament as a directly elected body. That is more than we have been told so far, and I am delighted about that. At the same time I would like to thank you for trying to clear up any misunderstandings. However, there are some things I am still not clear about. I hope that you will be able to deal with those in your reply as well. You said that fewer proposals would be emanating from the Commission. There can be no objection to that, as long as you can tell us how this new vacuum is to be filled, because you know – just as my fellow Members and I do – that the Treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice stipulated very clearly the legislative role of the European Parliament and the roles of the Commission and the Council. If you are now telling us that the Commission will be making fewer proposals, one of the implications of that is that you will be presenting framework proposals. If that is what you intend, Mr Prodi, then you will have to ensure that there is a call-back mechanism and a comitology reform. This is not just a drawback of the present system, as you just suggested, but rather an absolute necessity in the context of the ideas or proposals that you have for the future. No one in this House wants framework proposals, but if you want them, then you must make sure they go hand in hand with proper democratic measures that do not adversely affect Parliament's rights. You say that you want more modern measures such as voluntary commitments; no one in this House wants that. However, if you still want that, you will have to protect democratic rights within the European Union and ensure that there is an Interinstitutional Agreement that leaves the rights of Parliament, the Council and the Commission intact. You also said that the White Paper opens up the way for an interinstitutional debate. It certainly does that. But I would ask you, Mr Prodi, to state clearly before us that you do not intend to go back on the Treaties of Maastricht, Nice and Amsterdam, and that you share the views of the majority of the Members of this House about what I have said. Not a single piece of legislation should go through without the European Parliament being involved. There should not be any voluntary agreements and there should not be any framework agreements unless democracy is protected. (Applause) IN THE CHAIR: MR FRIEDRICHVice-President

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I welcome the Swedish Presidency’s arrival. I hope that they have taken positive steps with regard to the Statute for Members, as we are on the edge of our seats. I would first of all like to congratulate Mr Gasòliba i Böhm on his sterling report. He has succeeded in listing our ambitions one by one in a readily understood manner. It is our wish to become the world’s most competitive and most dynamic knowledge-based economy, according to our leaders in Lisbon. Upon which they went home, and everything carried on as before. We are still having to put up with stifling bureaucracy. Attempts to liberalise and introduce simpler rules for small and medium-sized businesses never come to anything on account of short-sighted national interests. I sometimes dream about this, but I always wake up screaming. In order to streamline legislation, we should not only scrutinise our activities here, but also examine how a directive emerges from the national transposition processes. A simple and clear-cut customs act suddenly appears to be backed by legislation which fills three thick volumes. Moreover, I am of the opinion that the fiche d'impact should be given the kiss of life. It should not amount to pure guesswork but to an actual business test. A test of how a certain piece of legislation will be received in industry. The problem Europe has – and I trust I can be so outspoken after eleven years in this Parliament – is that I am always duly impressed with the rhetoric, but never by the action that follows. I would like to quote the liberalisation of the postal services as a case in point. Not only Parliament, but also the Council, which had explicitly welcomed the liberalisation in Lisbon with open arms, have taken a step back rather than forward. If we compare this situation in Europe with that in the United States, we are still in complete deadlock in certain areas. It is not yet the case – not by a long chalk – that Europe can lead the world economy now that US leadership has temporarily lapsed. Europe’s core countries, France, Germany and Italy, have enjoyed the benefits of the cheap euro to the full, and have not made any structural changes to their labour markets and their economies.

Political group: PPE-DE
This report emphasises the need to make systematic use of gender budgeting, with a view to incorporating the gender perspective into Community and national budgetary procedures. I was persuaded to vote in its favour. In the context of budgetary policy, gender budgeting implies that revenue and expenditure for all programmes and projects should be assessed and restructured so as to ensure that women’s priorities and requirements should be taken into account, the eventual goal being to achieve equality between men and women. A campaign must be launched to raise awareness among the general public, governments and national parliaments. Particularly important is the production of a guide describing the tools and methods for introducing the gender perspective into public budgets. Lastly, I agree with the idea of setting up a European network of organisations and experts active in the field of gender budgeting, to be linked into the network of parliamentary committees for equal opportunities. This will allow the development and dissemination of good methods and practices.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, first of all I should like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Hautala, for her thorough work and for her willingness to take into account all the contributions and suggestions that all the political groups made on such a delicate matter. The last speech showed how intense the discussion within the Committee on Women’s Rights was, because it is quite true that the 1976 directive played a remarkable role, but 25 years have passed and both social behaviour and the role of women have changed. Behind us we have numerous decisions of the Court of Justice but, most importantly, we have the Treaty of Amsterdam which, from the legal standpoint, gives us the opportunity to consolidate and make more effective the legal instruments which, as we are quite aware, are instruments, but vital instruments for implementing active policies and for putting the principle of equal opportunities into practice, even as regards access to employment. The temptation to try to use this amendment to the directive to tackle many of the problems facing women has been great – in this respect Mrs Lulling is right – but I believe that the result of our labours is, from a legal standpoint, absolutely consistent with the proposals and objectives of the draft amendment that the Commission presented to us. I believe the definitions of ‘direct discrimination’ and ‘indirect discrimination’ which we have taken from the Commission proposal and improved upon are such as to make the use of this instrument clear at a legal level. The inclusion of harassment and sexual harassment as elements of discrimination is, without a shadow of a doubt, equally clear, as is also the clarification that the right to maternity, like the right to paternity, cannot be used as an instrument for enforcing discrimination. The possibility of putting into practice positive actions like, indeed, the possibility given to us by Article 141(4) of the Treaty, is, I believe, an equally clear instrument, so that the directive – which I hope will be operational by the end of this year and will be an instrument at the service of all the Member States, all women, all organisations – may truly become one more instrument added to those that the European Union has for all these years placed at the service of so many Member States. Somebody raised the point that the European Union might interfere more than it should do under the principle of subsidiarity. Well, in my opinion, not even this could ever be used as an excuse by anybody, because the legal instruments that can be adopted are specified here and in some cases there are obligations associated with them and in others opportunities, depending on the laws of the Member States. But I believe and hope that, today, the House will, by a large majority, approve Mrs Hautala’s proposal, which has the consensus of the overwhelming majority of the Committee on Women’s Rights, because I feel that this, too, will be a step forwards in making one of the basic principles of our Community – the principle of equal opportunities – become a reality.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I do not think that proposal is such a good one because, if I am properly informed, the Council will not be attending on Wednesday. I would prefer it if we could hold the debate on Ethiopia when the Council is present.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Socialist Group is going to vote in favour and I agree with everything Mrs Redondo has said. However, I would like to say that I consider it a failure that the financial contribution of the Regulation on the protection of Community forests against fire is being reduced from EUR 70 million to EUR 49.4 million, and that in the case of the Regulation on atmospheric pollution it is being reduced from EUR 40 million to 35.4 million. This is a significant reduction and it is little compensation that our amendment referring to the Mediterranean forest has been accepted, given its importance in the southern countries and, in particular, in the regions affected by desertification. If there is no genuine political will to increase, rather than reduce, the budgetary contribution, then these are mere words. Experts from France, Italy, Greece, Spain, Morocco and Tunisia last week spent a day at the University of Valencia, and in their conclusions they highlighted that 40% – almost half – the territory of the Mediterranean area is under threat of desertification, which, furthermore, may be aggravated by fires, erosion, pests and climate change; that the average amount of burnt land increases each year by three thousand hectares, and that in order to combat this problem they will submit – they said, the poor dreamers – these conclusions to the FAO and the European Union, since, they said, prevention policies are needed. That is to say, investment. Atmospheric pollution, together with other problems, also needs to be solved through investment. In this respect we have the problem of the Kyoto Summit. I hope, at least, that you accept Mrs Redondo’s proposal and that in future regulations you rectify this bad policy of reducing something which is initially considered correct politically, but which is then not adequately invested in.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it is my strong belief – and it has already been expressed by a number of fellow MEPs – that the Water Framework Directive is one of the most crucial pieces of environmental legislation which Parliament has adopted in the last few years. However, in order to meet the objective of sound water quality, the Framework Directive is not sufficient, and there is, therefore, a Commission proposal before us to draft a list of priority substances. Allow me to begin by saying that I welcome the Commission proposal and Mrs Breyer’s report with open arms. The list will be a good, first step on the road to the excellent quality of our water. I therefore share Mrs Breyer’s view that, if we want to live up to the obligation under the Directive, we may not, or cannot, make concessions on socio-economic grounds. Neither can we, or should we, allow ourselves to be guided by the fact that certain hazardous substances naturally occur in European water. I should like to make some observations with regard to three substances. I do so as a Dutch person, someone who also wants to be mindful of the fact that our surface water, from the Maas, for example, has to be turned into drinking water at the same time. There are three substances which I would highlight and would like to see included amongst the priority substances to be assessed: namely dyron, isoprothyron and symosyne. In fact, a recent study of European drinking water and water treatment plants has shown that, due to pollution of drinking water sources by pesticides, the concentration levels of these substances in our water are far too high in Europe, and that puts enormous pressure on the supply of drinking water. In my country, it is often the case that wells or springs, or the storage facility in the Biesbosch, have to be closed down. I hope that the Commission is willing to adopt the amendments that we have tabled in this respect, and I also make an urgent appeal to the Council to do the same.

Political group: PPE-DE