GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Budgetary Control. – It has been a historic year in many ways, as the Commission, I am sure, would rather forget some of the more dramatic moments back in the spring, in the same way as some of us would rather forget some of the more dramatic election results of the summer! But let us not forget why the Commission was forced to resign: fraud and mismanagement, those were the main points. That is why this year's budget really had to reflect the need to tighten up procedures for budget control; and as the rapporteur for the 2000 budget, and on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control, I would like to welcome once again the establishment of the new body to fight fraud and the new OLAF posts reflected in this year's budget. The process of appointing the OLAF director is now well advanced. The Committee on Budgetary Control held hearings with the candidates and produced a shortlist of three people, and I understand that tonight there will be a meeting to try to thrash out a decision between the representatives of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. Let us not forget that the technical assistance offices were also a big problem in the forced resignation of the Commission. The Commission's strategic issues paper adopted on 10 December concluded that core public service tasks should not be outsourced and that the Commission should have at its disposal a much more flexible set of arrangements for non-core public service tasks. That is something with which I wholeheartedly agree. The Commission now performs such a wide variety of diverse functions that non-core public service tasks could be carried out in very many different ways. There is no point in having a one-size-fits-all model for carrying out such tasks. What we need to do is to reform the Staff Regulations so we can have flexibility in hiring contractual staff to service these offices.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to start, on behalf of the Communist Party of Greece and the Greek people in general, by expressing our solidarity both with the political prisoners in Turkey and with all the Turkish people who suffer under the Turkish regime. I should then like to point out that every crime has its perpetrators and its accessories. There are those who commit the crime and there are those who aid and abet. The perpetrator here is, of course, the Turkish regime which, a priori, sees every left-winger, every Communist and every Kurd as a terrorist, whom it then tries to eliminate. The accessories, however, are more serious; they are the international imperialist system, the United States, ΝΑΤΟ and the European Union, all of which have tremendous economic, strategic and political interests in Turkey and are using all possible means to support the militaristic regime in Turkey, the regime which has no qualms about opening fire, because what we had here was not in fact a case of political prisoners setting themselves on fire; it was a case of their being killed with flamethrowers. So these accessories need to be sentenced, the accessories who granted Turkey candidate status, the accessories who do nothing to help the political prisoners. We identified the problem back in August, we asked on more than two occasions for the president of the European Parliament to intervene – and nothing was done – and the last time we called for intervention was when the attack had already been carried out – and again nothing was done. I am afraid that the resolution before us is very weak, it barely even condemns the action by the Turkish regime; more importantly, it does not condemn those who are behind the Turkish regime. It would, of course, be strange if those who yesterday applauded the war criminal Javier Solana were to take a different attitude towards Turkey.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I am very pleased that the Commission is finally making a strong case for universal testing, because as the situation in France demonstrates 'he who seeks shall find'! Commissioner, I urge you to ensure that these tests are also carried out in other Member States. It is not acceptable if Germany, for example, does not introduce universal testing, but just tests in North Rhine-Westphalia, for fear of no longer having BSE-free status. That cannot, of course, be allowed to happen and I can therefore only hope that the Commission will exert the strongest pressure on those Member States that do not carry out tests because they are afraid of losing their BSE-free status. This amounts to deliberately putting consumers at risk and, as such, is unacceptable. What we need here is a wide-ranging information campaign. However, I firmly refute the Commission's suggestion that banning the use of animal meal in feedingstuffs now is panic-mongering. Quite the contrary! I think that France has set an excellent example by finally deciding to take this step. I find it bordering on the cynical, Mr Byrne, when you say that this should not happen on environmental grounds. You cannot in all seriousness expect us to eat hazardous waste just to solve the waste disposal problem! All in all, I regard it as somewhat shameful that there is so much talk here about compensating farmers and animal breeders. Perhaps we should think about the victims for a change, and all the relatives of people who have died of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, the general disappointment at the failure of the WTO negotiations in Cancún is evident, and the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party too is of the opinion that this negative outcome is a missed opportunity. Nevertheless, on behalf of the Liberals, I share your view that despite this failure, we need to make a new start in the area of multilateral negotiations in order to bring about trade liberalisation. Stubborn bilateralism is not the way forward. In addition, I endorse your ideas about reorganisation of the WTO. Clearly, the secretariat's organisation, structure and mandate in Geneva are not equipped for preparing and running negotiations effectively. The question then arises as to why the negotiations in Cancún failed. Several times in this House, the Singapore issues have been blamed for this. Apparently, the EU was even inflexible in the negotiations and this is why everything went wrong. This appears to me to be a serious misconception, and, on behalf of my group, I concur with what was said by Mr van Velzen, who also spoke highly of the work of our Commissioners. As a member of the delegation, I took umbrage at the fact that the entire week was dominated by agriculture and that knowledge about our agricultural policy is very minimal in various countries outside of Europe. Only at the eleventh hour did the negotiations about the Singapore issues and trade in services open, and the conference collapsed no less than half a day later. It is, moreover, regrettable that the developing countries were not prepared to negotiate on this, for it is precisely they that stand to benefit from a favourable investment climate, reduction in import levies and transparent legislation. In this respect, they would gain from trade facilitation. Indeed, 80% of all import levies are paid by the developing countries combined. One ray of hope that I saw in Cancún was the success of the Parliamentary Conference, which is of crucial importance in lending the WTO democratic legitimacy. We managed to make a final declaration calling for the installation of a parliamentary pillar in the WTO. This seems important to me, for we cannot leave democracy to the NGOs. They, at least some of them, once again demonstrated their dubious role in Cancún by cheering on the sidelines when the negotiations had failed. And this while the developing countries lost out! I would ask Commissioners Lamy and Fischler what their first step will be to breathe new life into the multilateral negotiations.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, no doubt in our next debate on Echelon we will once again hear a chorus of criticism of the interception system, which allegedly works too well, and thus of the USA. At the same time, however, I note that Members were basically positively disposed towards the anti-terror legislation and voted in favour of it. This does not, however, in any sense serve primarily to combat terrorist activities; above all it gives the EU greater powers to conduct investigations through, for example, the Schengen Information System II and the European arrest warrant. The effect of this qualitative and quantitative extension of the EU's powers is to introduce sweeping changes in fundamental rights, meaning in particular greater intervention by the modern civil state and a weakened right of defence for the accused, whoever they may be. The completely arbitrary definition of terrorism provides the clearest indication of all that the war on terror has little to do with combating terrorism and instead has as its primary objective the erosion of fundamental rights in the EU.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the problem we are discussing is not Mrs Berger; the problem is the Council, and the discrepancy that we experience so often, between that which is aimed for and what actually results. The Commission and the Council have set themselves and Parliament the goal of creating a coherent legal framework for electronic commerce, which is intended, over the coming years, to substantially push forward the integration of Europe's financial markets and enhance the capacity of Europe's financial services sector to compete across the world. It is my – and our – opinion that this Common Position by the Council on the proposal for a directive on the distance marketing of financial services does insufficient justice to the endeavour to create a single European internal market. The great gulf between what we ask for and what is implemented is to the detriment of all parties concerned, including, I believe, the consumers. The objective that this proposal for a directive has in view – the guaranteeing of a high level of consumer protection in order to safeguard the free movement of financial services – means that the Member States should not be given the option of implementing other – perhaps more extensive – provisions in the areas harmonised by this directive. I will give one reason why I call for this. Recognising the possibility of withdrawal from contracts with effect from the moment they are entered into is not compatible with the provision of immediate cover, which is much in demand on the part of customers in the field of non-life insurance. The regulation envisaged could have adverse effects on the services on offer to consumers. An internal market requires harmonised regulations, and the objective must not be undermined by means of regulations which differ from one country to another. We therefore ask you to adopt our amendments.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on behalf of my group, I, too, should like to add our condolences to the families who have lost loved ones in this tragedy. Our thoughts are very much with them at this particular time. As a Member who represents Scotland, I feel a particular sadness and concern too about these events. Although Scotland and Greece sit at the furthest edges of the European Union, we nevertheless share a common topography. Both our countries have many island communities around our shores and as such the people of Scotland's islands felt a particular sense of shock following the recent events in Greece. Our island communities depend on ferry services as an absolute lifeline. These ships provide transport for passengers and goods and ensure the sustainability of some of Europe's most remote and fragile communities. It is the duty of Member States to make sure that the owners and operators of ferries are aware of their responsibilities for the safe passage of people and goods. We are fortunate in Scotland not to have directly suffered the type of tragedy to hit Greece but we are only too well aware that our waters are some of the most hazardous in Europe. We have many concerns about the forthcoming tendering process which is under way. I should like to ask the Commission for some assurance that in tendering for lifeline ferry services, or indeed any ferry services, safety is given its highest priority. In the cut-throat world of tendering, all too often companies can be pushed into cost-cutting measures and I would not like to see safety measures being sacrificed. It is simply not acceptable to the northern and western isles of Scotland, nor for the potential North Sea to European mainland crossing which I hope will be established in the not-too-distant future. Our citizens deserve the best of safeguards in sea transport. The trade unions who represent the men and women who work on ferries, as well as representatives of our seaboard communities, ought to be involved in discussions at the pre-tender stage, so that they can play a role in ensuring that safe practice is not sacrificed for the sake of profit.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, Commissioner, with outstanding diligence and sometimes frightening consistency of purpose my fellow countryman Paul Rübig has again produced a report containing almost everything that is good and right. For that very reason, I hope I may be allowed to question some of it. We have been discussing why innovation is so important for the European Union. The rapporteur has given a broad answer to that question. We could of course ask him what innovation? What innovation is most in demand at the moment? Perhaps military technology so we can find Osama bin Laden quickly. Is that the kind of innovation we mean? Is it innovation in surveillance that will enable us to uncover sleepers in the future? Or do we not need to define innovation? With our European system of values, are we not concerned here with innovation in education, innovation in social learning? And how will we get there? Would it not be an innovation finally to know how much is spent on innovation? Do you know, Commissioner? I have tried to find out how much is invested in the future in a big country like the Federal Republic of Germany. We know what is spent on administration, we know what is invested in transfer payments, but when it comes to investing in the future, nobody knows. We all agree that there cannot be too much funding for investment, because that is really the only way to safeguard the future. But the question is, what kind of a future? Where are we heading? And is not the time after 11 September actually an ideal time to question much that was simply only a fixation with technology and instead to initiate research into social innovation? Has the time not now also come to free ourselves from old instruments like gross national product and bring the innovative instrument of a well being factor more into the centre? Questions on a good report. Nevertheless, once again congratulations, Paul! (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Thank you, Madam President. I would also like to thank Mr Lange for his excellent report. Traditional air pollution will in a few years’ time be a thing of the past, thanks to the majority of the European Parliament. With regard to new cars, the second generation of catalytic converters will be compulsory in 2005. A lengthy and difficult conciliation procedure was required in order to achieve this outcome. Catalytic converters in lorries will be compulsory in 2008. This was not so difficult to achieve. The Council adopted the EP’s position at first reading. Today, we are discussing new motorcycles. One could sum this up by saying that catalytic converters will be compulsory in 2006. This is a fair position. BMW have had a motorcycle equipped with a catalytic converter on the market for a long time. It is unfortunate that the environmental ministers should refuse to take this reasoning on board. Conciliation will now be inevitable. However, because of the EP’s unanimity, the Council is bound to lose out. The significance of no more ozone smog and far less acidification outweighs the short-term interest of a few manufacturers.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today we are analysing and describing the final steps on the road to the peaceful and comprehensive reordering of our continent. Never before in the course of history has a new order been achieved without war or the use of force. This development is thrown into particularly stark relief when we consider the road taken by those states that have been able to overcome what was called ‘actually-existing socialism’ and to find their way to freedom and democracy. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania deserve particular credit for having been able, along the road to freedom, to regain their independence as states. Speaking personally, I am grateful to the people, parliament and government of Latvia, who, with the European Union’s support, have created the conditions for solving an extremely complex problem, that being the progressive integration of a large Russian-speaking minority. When one bears in mind that the country’s ethnic makeup is the result, more than anything else, of decades of occupation, it was not self-evident that this would happen, nor was it so in view of constant misunderstandings and suppositions on the part of, among others, the Russian Duma. At this point, I want to extend thanks to Mr Brok, who, this morning, gave voice to clear expectation of a change in the Russian position. Like Estonia, Latvia has set itself a task with, in future, a European dimension. I am convinced that the Russian-speaking minority will be successfully integrated into Latvian society, but that will depend on these citizens giving unmistakeable demonstrations of their loyalty to the Latvian state. It is also dependent upon their unconditional acceptance of the values and principles of the European Union. Future stronger and more extensive cooperation with Russia will depend, above all, on Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania putting down deep roots in the European Union. This cooperation is a strategic challenge for the European Union as a whole and the new Member States will have an indispensable contribution to make to it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, I feel that today’s debate is appropriate for it places the debate we held yesterday in a more general context: the Middle East, the Mediterranean, Europe. I would like to thank the rapporteur for his acceptance of contributions from all the groups to this report, which I believe will be a genuinely useful contribution to the Valencia meeting, and because he has used and accorded due importance to the contributions of all the political groups. I would also like to thank the Commission for presenting an effective communication containing innovative proposals, which Parliament wishes to strengthen and promote through the Esteve report. In this regard, I would like to emphasise three points. Firstly, the Mediterranean is now the Union’s strategic priority. After enlargement, that is our political priority. We must therefore be consistent as regards both our policies and our resources. Secondly, we need to explode this myth that the partnership primarily concerns the free market. We need to make this partnership a major policy that includes the economic, social and cultural aspects and the questions of training and the parliamentary institutions. We want to enrich this partnership much more than it has been in the past. Thirdly, we need a human rights policy. We cannot oscillate between Realpolitik and threatening to suspend the agreements; there must be commitment from all the institutions, particularly the Commission, to promoting human rights in the countries of the Mediterranean region. We are concerned – myself, in particular – because the more power the Commission gives to its offices in the Mediterranean countries, the more important it will be that it is efficient and capable of resisting pressure from those regimes. Otherwise, we will be throwing our money away. Lastly, I have to say that we would like to strengthen the institutional dimension of this partnership, giving the Parliamentary Assembly a leading role, involving ourselves in the initiative too and strengthening the two institutions proposed by the Commission, namely the Bank and the Foundation.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioners, comrades, ladies and gentlemen, in the areas of environmental protection, consumer protection and health, we keep on, at European level, we keep on attempting to tackle very ambitious projects that are intended to improve the public’s quality of life in every area: environmental action programmes, action programmes in the field of public health, consumer protection strategies, strategies for the environment and health, and so on and so forth. But what about the resources that are needed if we are to be able to successfully bring these projects to fruition? This is where the Commission’s preliminary draft Budget is rather timid, characterised by willing submission to the Council’s mania for indiscriminate austerity measures. How else is one to imagine the genesis of this PDB, which the Council or – to put it a better way, the functionaries in COREPER – have tightened up? That, let me add, for a year in which the Budget is to be drawn up not for fifteen Member States, but for twenty-five, for which it must be adequate. That, though, is the Council with which we are familiar, ceremoniously signing treaties, but refusing to put its name to the budget appropriations for them. Just do not let the Commission get into the same way of doing things. We know that the ten new Member States’ institutions are in need of a great deal of reconstruction where the protection of the environment, consumer policy and health care are concerned; these are areas in which, despite the funds made available under the pre-accession strategy, they have as yet achieved nothing of any substance. Not only have we learned that from the Consumers International report, but the Court of Auditors has also enjoined us to take good note of it. Of course we want ‘greening of the budget’, consumer protection as a mainstreaming principle in all European policies, and awareness at every level of Europe, but, to do that, we need operational resources and resources in terms of personnel, and these have to be made available. That will not be done only by pithy strategies or action programmes written down on paper – which, of course, does not blush!

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the matter at hand is the measures adopted as a result of the fight against BSE. Well then, in the middle of a chat, Daisy cow says to Buttercup cow: 'Have you heard? Isn't BSE a good thing! Maybe we will not all have to end our days as beef steaks!' 'You're right,” says Buttercup to Daisy, 'but I bet that all these actions and studies of the European Union governments will just lead them to say: 'These cows live too long, they receive a pension for too long and we do not have enough money.' I bet that, when all is said and done, we will end up as steaks after all.' 'I do hope not,' replied the other cow. I also hope that this will not happen. I therefore voted for the motion.

Political group: PPE-DE