GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr van Velzen has again worked skilfully. He does so smoothly and shrewdly and the results just pour out. I wish to thank him for that. There are many kinds of information, and public information is one. Administrative data must obviously be free of charge to the public and it has to be obtainable from one place, or portal. As far as the business world is concerned, it will obviously pay for renewal to be possible at the point where information is created, thus getting a return on investment. This is an important area. It is estimated that public sector information is worth in the region of EUR 70 billion a year and the content industry employs about four million people in the European Union. That is a lot. This market is worth more than EUR 400 billion. Even the value of the mobile communications industry is set to rise in the near future to around EUR 20 million in terms of its content, and that is content on a relatively tiny scale. Knowledge and information are the most important factors in a democracy and an economy. The fact that we are saturated with information separates us from the less well-off. It is a security factor and an instrument of war. ‘Information poverty’ hits the same people as social poverty. Would the chance of a little charity not help? After all, information does not shrink at the point from which it is distributed to others, no matter how much of it is shared. I would furthermore like to ask the Commissioner whether this could not be one new element in our development assistance programme: the sharing of information and knowledge, because we will not have any less of it even if we share it with others.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first I would like to sincerely thank the rapporteur, Jorge Moreira da Silva, for his excellent work and for his report. Climate protection is not a marginal subject for environment freaks, it is one of the greatest challenges of our time. The dreadful storms and floods which have ravaged Europe and the rest of the world in recent months should be a wake-up call for us all. Nearly all the scientific experts are telling us that these storms and floods will dramatically increase if we do not achieve a marked reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. So climate protection also makes good economic sense. That is why it makes me angry that when climate protection and the challenges it involves are being discussed people often just say what they do not want, and not what they really do want. There is a lack of alternatives, a lack of constructive debate. A lot of people say that we do not want nuclear energy, at any cost. Others say that we definitely do not want tax measures. However, I believe that we must use every possible means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It also makes me angry that when Member States discuss national eco-taxes, although these national instruments are quite rightly criticised, few positive suggestions are made to replace them. And that is the reason why on behalf of the Group of the I have tabled an amendment calling for a European climate tax which covers all greenhouse gases and is revenue-neutral. We have a chance to correct the mistakes made at national level and to give a positive signal on behalf of Europe. The Group of the also considers that nuclear energy will be indispensable at least for the next few decades if we are to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Abandoning nuclear energy, as is planned in some Member States, who are actually going ahead with that, gives exactly the wrong signal, because nuclear power stations emit considerably less greenhouse gases than fossil fuels. Before we abandon nuclear, we have to say how we intend to reduce greenhouse gases.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, our group has chosen to support the compromise amendments tabled by the rapporteur. We should have liked to have gone further in quite a few areas and had tougher legislation, but we think it is very important for us to take a decision and for this to enter into force as quickly as possible. Proposals to enable individual Member States to retain and introduce stricter rules in this area, as quite a few Member States have already done, are particularly important to us. One of the main issues is that of the need to cease using phosphates. There are sound arguments for stopping using them immediately. We know that phosphates lead to serious eutrophication. In the marine environment, for example, they give rise to major environmental problems. We know that there are perfectly satisfactory substitutes and that countries have in practice phased out the use of phosphates. In politics, there is sometimes a conflict between what is politically possible and what is desirable. We have therefore chosen to support a compromise that is politically feasible, that is to say to phase out phosphates over three years. Ideally, they should be phased out straight away. We shall try to choose both routes. We shall vote in favour of the amendments by the Group of the to phase phosphates out immediately, but we believe that it will be the political compromise that will be adopted in the end.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I must congratulate the rapporteur and the Commission on their evaluation of the implementation of the Cohesion Fund in 1998. The report now before us reveals some very positive results. There is a clear trend towards real convergence without this having adversely affected the rigour of the budget policy. Even when measured strictly the Cohesion Fund has clearly played an important socio­economic role in infrastructures with development potential. We therefore expect a more refined evaluation by the Commission of the application of the funds. We are delighted to note the increase in employment, the absence of fraud, the greatly increased monitoring and the proper implementation of the programmes. However, certain issues must be raised. I would draw the Commissioner’s attention to the need for greater coordination of European funds with the objectives of sustainable development within the EU and real balance between the regions. These objectives require the promotion, as already mentioned, of alternative means of transport such as the railways, the sea and cabotage which will reduce congestion on the roads and stimulate the ports. These objectives also require the role played by the Cohesion Fund to be integrated into a regional development strategy which aims to establish industries in small and medium-sized towns and in the rural areas which form four-fifths of the EU. They also require integrated support from the Structural and Cohesion Funds for structures allowing technology to be distributed democratically, particularly by following the process decided in Lisbon and promoting investment leading to new businesses and jobs. Finally, these objectives also require a civil and social dialogue and the participation of research bodies subordinated to this strategy. The principle of cohesion considered in the Treaty must not come under threat during enlargement. The Cohesion Fund must be reworked bearing in mind the positive results with the new socio-economic indicators which are expected to ensure that this experience of the cohesion countries is not lost either for current beneficiaries or for future ones. I would ask the Commissioner to give his opinion in this respect.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am making this intervention because of an anticonstitutional remark that the Member of the People’s Party has just made. I must remind you that in the Spanish Constitution, my country is defined as an “autonomous region”. I therefore ask you to respect the Spanish Constitution.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, while I am going to be speaking about the Duff report, I would like to congratulate both Mr Duff and Professor MacCormick for the very substantial amount of work they have put into this. We in the Group concur with Mr Duff's approach and the analysis contained in the report's explanatory statement. As is clear, not only from the debate earlier this evening, but also from the discussion in this House and in its committees over the last weeks and months, the whole issue of immunities is arcane, incoherent and muddled. In Mr Duff's explanatory statement, it is rightly stated, although perhaps in not quite these words, that MEPs are not merely national MPs who happen to go abroad. In fact, MEPs are now something distinct from national MPs who might happen to go abroad. They are people who are similar but, nevertheless, qualitatively different. That has significant implications for the whole question of immunities and it explains why we are in the present muddle. He is absolutely right in the report to point out, as he has done in his remarks this evening, that in order to tidy this up and create something sensible and understandable to Europe's citizens, it is necessary for changes to come both from the forthcoming Convention and from recommendations to the IGC that might be accepted. In addition, provisions with regard to this ought to be contained in the forthcoming Member's Statute. If we do that, we may be able to introduce a degree of sense and coherence into our Rules which is currently missing and will remain missing to our detriment if we do not manage to do it.

Political group: PPE-DE
According to Article 1 of the Geneva Convention, refugee status applies to anyone who rightly fears being persecuted on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a certain social group or political opinions, is outside the country of his or her nationality and cannot, or because of that fear will not, seek the protection of that country. It is time that the Member States of the European Union applied that Convention in full. Yet France, in its hypocrisy, refuses to grant that status to Algerian refugees. In the same way Europe refused, at the height of the war in Kosovo, to give refugee status to Serbian deserters or to the Kosovars who were being persecuted. How many Bosnians are still mouldering in refugee camps in Turkey because the Union has refused to take them in? How many Afghan refugees are flocking to Sangatte in the hope of getting to England because they know they have no chance in the Schengen area? However, despite these reservations, because the text proposes minimum standards for receiving asylum seekers (a minimum level of assistance, such as the provision of full legal aid, at public expense, to each applicant, or justification, by the authority or by the court, of any rejection of a refugee’s application, as well as specific aid for vulnerable persons), we shall be voting in favour. - Pirker report (A5-0305/2001)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the people of Europe had every reason to be shocked by the prospect, first of all, then the confirmation that the giant statues in Bamiyan were to be destroyed. The observers concerned were quick to point out that this indignation was rather late in coming and that it could have been voiced when the Taliban took power because of the archaic and barbaric regime which they established in defiance of the most basic rights of the Afghan people. This criticism cannot be levelled at the European Parliament which has taken action several times over, the last occasion being on 30 November 2000, when it condemned the regime as forcefully as it could and set alarm bells ringing regarding the tragic humanitarian situation experienced by the entire population. Madam President-in-Office of the Council, our Parliament welcomes the common positions adopted on 22 January, and particularly those adopted on 21 February this year, but we think the time has now come to openly give all the necessary political aid to the very forces on the ground that continue to fight under Commander Massoud. I would very much welcome a clear response on this issue. Commissioner, as you know, we are also concerned about the tragic situation which, according to the Under-Secretary General responsible for humanitarian affairs at the UN, is threatening one million people in Afghanistan with famine. I also asked you about this during the previous debate in this House. May I ask you what the current situation is with regard to the aid that the European Union can give to all the populations under threat, including those of the North and the more isolated populations? Do you not think that parachuting food into these areas could and should be considered? (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I would first like to congratulate Mrs Sudre for her excellent and very successful report. At the same time I bring greetings from Mr Sánchez, who would have liked to be here at this debate, but has not been able to attend yet, owing to illness. He has always stressed the importance of this report and worked hard in its favour. The European Union must see to it that the outermost regions are involved in the Union’s development. Adapted action, which is meant to support the outermost regions, is justified as a result of the unfavourable conditions that prevail in these areas. This is especially the case when the regions in question are very dependent on just a few or even just one source of livelihood. In talks between the European Union and external countries and international organisations attention must also be given to the special sensitivity associated with certain products in remote regions. Neither may EU enlargement be allowed to cause these regions to fall outside the sphere of influence of regional and structural policy. Our group is also in favour of broadening the scope of Article 299(2) of the EC Treaty, which will strengthen the positive achievements of the POSEI programmes in remote areas. Owing to permanent unfavourable factors the special status accorded remote regions and the special assistance they should receive are justified, although differences should not be evened out by means of permanently defined versions of Internal Market rules and permanent entitlement to structural funding. In my opinion, it is very important that the outermost regions are integrated into the trans-European transport, energy and telecommunications networks. It is also necessary to look into the possibilities of new measures targeted at remote areas that would complement the policies and actions at present being implemented within the European Union’s own area. The economic development of the regions must be supported through, for example, various direct and indirect taxation solutions.

Political group: ELDR
Because there is no strong and integrated legislation on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that is able to provide guarantees for consumers and industry, the process of granting marketing authorisations at EU level has been suspended for the last three years. I welcome the legislation on the traceability and labelling of GMOs, because it makes it possible to register and monitor GMO movements on the market and the movements of food for human and animal consumption produced from them. This will help consumers to make their choices and will facilitate the process of withdrawing a product, should this be deemed necessary.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I believe that when substantial problems exist, as in the case of the Statute, we simply need to be patient because, in the end reason will prevail, awareness will emerge and everyone will act responsibly for a moment. Personally, I have to say that, in the course of my long political career, this is one of the few times when I really must express my satisfaction in plain, non-rhetorical terms. I cannot refrain from doing so and I must thank you, Mr President; with this interinstitutional agreement and this Statute, you have, discreetly and without fuss, made a significant contribution to the cause of Parliament. I believe that, if this unanimity we see really does bring results, this will be remembered as an important day. Under your guidance, Mr Rothley and I have stubbornly – I would even say pig-headedly – insisted on discussing this issue and putting forward arguments that have prevailed in the end. I believe that the Italian Presidency must take the credit, even though the Constitution has not seen the light of day – if Mr Antonione will allow me to say so, for this point which really is the most relevant. Ladies and gentlemen, we could have achieved a result even before 9 December, but this was not fully understood when I convened the committee, on 9/10 December, to force the Council to face up to its responsibilities. We still have time, though, and I believe that, if we are to attribute a fundamental significance to the date of 15 January, we must act now. Personally, I see no problem, if you agree Mr President with convening the committee now for 12 January, in that it would be, Mr Antonione, a clear, transparent and specific act by Parliament. This is the first time I have been in the European Parliament in this legislative period, but I have studied this issue throughout the long process. The first part gives autonomy, guarantees, visibility, transparency and unanimity to the rules governing the Members of the European Parliament and to Parliament as a whole. This deals with the amending of primary law. The second part is the necessary organisational section, where we have achieved a balance by way of a compromise that I think does credit to Parliament. It is true that small sacrifices have been made, but the issue now looks fairly clear and acceptable. If, as Mr Rothley has said, the words of the Italian Presidency are now clear, if the Presidency has spoken on behalf of all Member States and all the governments, I think that, on 15 January, after the prior meeting of the committee on 12 January, this major problem can genuinely be resolved and Parliament will have taken a great leap forwards.

Political group: PPE-DE
I wholeheartedly endorse Mrs Gröner's recommendation to approve the agreement reached with the Council on European youth action programmes. The previous youth programmes, Youth for Europe and the European Voluntary Service, will be grouped together in a general medium-term programme which will run from 2000 until 2006, as the European Parliament has demanded. A longer-term programme will ensure young people have the opportunity to benefit from such schemes for a guaranteed time. Every participant will also have full access to health services and social security, therefore allowing as many of our young people as possible to become involved. Although the funding of these programmes of EUR 520m is well below our original demand of EUR 980m which is necessary for new Member States after enlargement, there will be a possibility of increasing this figure, following extra demands on the budget by enlargement. These programmes will certainly benefit our young people and give them invaluable opportunities to learn about themselves, about others and about Europe. Not only is this crucial for their personal development, but in a fiercely competitive world it will vastly improve their chances on the job market. Increasing our young people's skills has always been one of our priorities and we must continue to support this aim. Our young people are Europe's future. We must encourage them to learn about others and about the European Union, as well as developing their own values, ideas and skills. It is important that they are able to participate in voluntary work abroad, school exchanges and learning languages. Funding for these types of programmes are a fundamental step towards this objective of opening the eyes and minds of our young people and preparing them to be part of a flexible, skilled workforce.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, irrespective of the vote we have each cast regarding this report, I feel that clarification is necessary, for there are very many – maybe not all but certainly very many – Members who are burdened by this fact of having three seats and particularly by the way our work is carried out alternately in Brussels and Strasbourg. There are problems of huge administrative costs, there are staffing costs which must not be underestimated, the level of organisation has fallen, which means disorganisation, and procedures are lengthy to administer; then there is concern, the result, in some cases, of anger and disappointment, on the part of the citizens when they are informed of this situation. These, therefore, are the reasons for our – differing but united – votes on the issue.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, with regard to cotton and tobacco, I am bound to begin with a reference to these proposals by the Commission. A quick reaction to them would be that their objective is simply to ensure cultivation of both these crops is discontinued. The implication seems to be that the whole sector is expendable, along with the thousands of agricultural workers involved who reside in the most disadvantaged areas of southern Europe. In addition, the fact that in the Acts of Accession of Spain and Greece the Member States undertook to protect cotton production in those two countries has been completely disregarded. Due to the penalties imposed pursuant to the 2001 cotton reform, the area under cotton in Spain has already suffered a 20% reduction. Further, it does not make sense to use cotton as a bargaining counter in WTO negotiations with third countries, as the Commission would like to do. After all, the European Union only accounts for 2.5% of world production. In addition, at global level exports are dominated by the United States, whereas the Union accounts for a mere 1.5%. This is not therefore a valid argument for reducing aid to cotton. The further reform proposed amounts to an additional turn of the screw. The very survival of the crop is now under threat. The proposals for both cotton and tobacco will also cause serious large-scale damage to the entire socio-economic structure based on these crops. I can provide some specific instances drawn from Spain. The cotton picking and ginning industry represents 2 000 jobs. A further million jobs are directly linked to the sector. There are also 600 motorised harvesting machines used exclusively to gather cotton. They would all have to be scrapped. The situation is even more serious in the case of tobacco. Tobacco production involves up to 2 200 hours of work per hectare. I shall take the town of Talayuela in the Extremadura region of western Spain as an example. It is the leading producer of tobacco in Spain. Five thousand of its 10 000 inhabitants are employed in the tobacco industry. The livelihoods of over 20 000 families depend on tobacco in Extremadura alone. It has to be said that the report adopted by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development does substantially reduce the level of decoupling of aid proposed by the European Commission. It goes some way towards lifting the threat to the survival of the crops. It is vitally important for the House to support this report. That will send a clear message to the Council of Ministers, namely that Parliament is in favour of retaining these particular sectors that generate so many jobs in disadvantaged areas.

Political group: PPE-DE