GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I welcome Mrs Gröner's report very much. Despite a belated start, the YOUTH programme has proved to be an invaluable programme. Why is this programme valuable? It is important because one of its main objectives is to include a higher proportion of disadvantaged young people: individuals, groups, or organisations, which otherwise would have no access at all to any kind of European funding. There has been some criticism, of course, concerning the high administrative costs, as the programme comprises so many small projects, which are naturally therefore more expensive to administer. I have been fortunate to have worked closely with a disadvantaged youth group from Wales, my own nation, who received funding under the programme. The young people involved gained so much and to see them speaking here in Brussels, some of whom were previously young offenders, highlighted to me the importance of this programme. The inclusion of worthwhile projects with disadvantaged youth groups, I assure you, is worth every penny of the expenditure. We must safeguard the programme and protect its main objectives of targeting disadvantaged young people.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Parliament has, in the past, adopted a two-track policy with regard to Russia, and it has done so with total conviction. This translates, on the one hand, into cooperation, where possible, across the board, particularly in all the areas where it can help bring about the cultural change in Russia in order to move towards a constitutional state and more democratic relations. This also, however, entails criticism, where necessary. This is why we must state our opinions in no uncertain terms. This policy, therefore, embraces not just one, but both elements. Listening to the President-in-Office of the Council, I have to say that we in this House have already achieved many of the things he lists, and now they are again included in the resolution. Why is it that you now sound so very different from what we remember from the summit? What strikes me in particular, is that you have specifically mentioned Moldova, and the timeframe for the withdrawal of the troops. You have also spoken about Arjan Erkel. I am very indebted to you for raising this issue and bringing it here today. That is extremely important. From the press and your statement, however, it seems that Chechnya has not been given much attention. You have given a justification for this. Yet, this is very dangerous, for the public at large is interested in your summit meetings and wants to know what is on the agenda, whether the ideals and values of our European citizens have been mentioned and have determined your conduct. This is why I would have preferred what you have stated here to also have been included in your statement. We would probably also have responded in a slightly different way. I have to say that I find the Commissioner’s approach very clear. For a very long time, the Russians have insisted on a very specific and practical approach, preferring cash on the nail to grand ideas. I think that the Russians are right in this, and that we, while continuing to adopt our two-track policy, can tackle very specific issues, particularly in the area of contacts among scientists. Cooperation with Russia in that field has not always been easy. In my opinion, however, this scientific cooperation is extremely important in the light of Russia’s cultural change. I hope, therefore, that the Council will continue along these lines and that the impression that has been created by a few personal remarks will soon change, for otherwise your presidency will be placed in a bad light.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, after careful consideration, I have the following to say about this report. This Murphy report, which is a very important report, was adopted in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy last Monday evening here in Strasbourg. That means that, as you all know, we are voting here in plenary in the same week. I would like to point out that this leaves too little time for proper discussion by the groups of the results of the vote in committee. In specific terms, this means that if the committee tables proposed amendments, for example to points 18 to 22, and we in our group, and I assume that the procedure is the same in the other groups, are unable to discuss them before today and would like to take a separate vote on the various points, then we are stuck from a procedural point of view, i.e. we can no longer request a separate vote. Our group therefore takes the very decisive view, and I shall argue this in the Conference of Presidents, that we should only finalise reports here in Strasbourg which have already been dealt with during the normal session week of the committees in Brussels, so that the groups have sufficient time to discuss the reports. (Applause) This is in the interests of all the groups. I submit this point here because I do not only want to argue it behind the closed doors of the Conference of Presidents. I do not wish to criticise the Committee on Industry or its Chairman, that is not my intention. On this matter we say, nonetheless, that our group will jointly vote in favour of the proposed amendments on which we must vote jointly, in the interests of small and medium-sized enterprises, so that we have a result for the conciliation procedure. I would ask, Madam President, that we deal with this request once again at the Conference of Presidents this afternoon, so that we have a procedure here in the European Parliament which allows each and every member of the groups to influence the decision-making process here in the European Parliament. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, I believe that we all agree on the importance of sport, its specific characteristics, its social function and the many areas in which we use it in the fight against racism and xenophobia. It serves to bring people together because of the enjoyment it gives, of course, but also because of its educational role in relation to our young people. Since we are very clear about this, both in Parliament as well as in the Commission – as the Commissioner has demonstrated on many occasions in her work in favour of sport – I would like her to continue working and convincing people so that sport may be included in one way or another in the Treaties and, thereby, we will be able to work for sport, in this Parliament and in the Commission, and we will have specific budgets for it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Euro-optimists often declare that there was an enormous increase in the powers of the European Parliament in the nineties. This is true as regards the number of subjects where codecision applies, but not as regards final decisions. In a normal parliamentary democracy, the parliament has the right of initiative and also the last word on legislation, budget and the forming of coalitions. This proposal clearly reveals the democratic deficit within the European Union once more, now that the increase in the ceiling for Euratom loans, from EUR 4 000 million to EUR 6 000 million, appears not to fall within the competence of Parliament, but only of the Council. The most positive element in this proposal is the extension of action to improve nuclear safety from just the Member States of the EU to Russia, Ukraine and Armenia. A difference of opinion remains over the form this action should take. Some want nuclear power stations that are more modern; others want these closed down for good. I agree with the rapporteur, Mrs Breyer, that the purpose of loans for the financing of nuclear power stations should no longer be to expand nuclear power, but to abolish it. The vote in the specialist committee has practically reversed the direction of this report, and, as a result, I, like the rapporteur herself, can no longer support it.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, we are debating the own-initiative report on the management of regional policy and the Structural Funds presented by Mr Pohjamo, whom I would like to thank for his good work. The Group of the has tabled five amendments because we want to highlight some of the aspects relating to the issue we are dealing with. Firstly, while we agree that cooperation with other agents – other than State and regional governments, that is to say, with local communities, NGOs, private bodies, etc. – is beneficial in terms of achieving the economic, social and territorial cohesion of the Union, we do not believe that that cooperation has been satisfactorily respected in all the Member States, but that it has been applied in an unequal fashion. We therefore affectionately urge the Commission to try to ensure that socio-economic and environmental cooperation be applied equally in all regions receiving Community Funds and to ensure that the programming of projects is subject to consultation with the parliaments and governments of the constitutional regions which have legislative powers. We also demand the creation of clear indicators intended to assess the application of this cooperation principle. Furthermore, within the framework of the guidelines for the intermediate evaluation of September 2002, we want the Commission to define indicators for the efficient allocation of the reserve which, as well as financial management, take account of other aspects of management, such as cooperation, additionality and the quality of expenditure. At the same time, we ask that, in the event that unspent resources are reallocated, the appropriations which are not used be directed towards the least-favoured regions which are most active and innovative, as well as measures in favour of sustainable development. Finally, in support of the rapporteur’s idea – with regard to including the quality aspect in the annual monitoring of programmes subsidised by the Commission – we propose an assessment of their contribution to the implementation of the Union’s strategies relating to sustainable development and employment. We hope that our amendments will receive the majority support of Parliament, since they will serve to improve our Community economic and social objectives.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I wish first of all to express my surprise at the question asked by the President-in-Office of the Council. I personally feel, as I am sure do all the Members of this Parliament, that an enlarged Europe will be a political Europe, with more democratic institutions and a Constitution, a fairer Europe, with greater internal solidarity, a Europe which takes its place in the world as a power, a force, a Europe of peace and solidarity, a Europe that improves the European Union, contributing to the historic unification of the continent, but not a Union that is institutionally different or new. Its name must be the European Union then, a name that is furthermore clearly pleasing to the ear and appropriate. With this in mind, I would ask, what then is the meaning of Mr Giscard d'Estaing’s proposal – which the President has just implicitly accepted – that the European Union’s name might be changed? Is this a desire on his part to play a leading role; vanity? Could this be a sign that the Chairman of the European Convention is attempting to reduce the Union’s political power? Can you give us a straight answer, Mr President, as to what you really think about this?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, like my colleague, Mrs Thorning-Schmidt, I was looking forward to a midnight speaking slot, as this is a health and safety issue! It is quite symbolic that we are speaking about this matter at a reasonable time because it goes so much further than just health and safety. This morning in the United Kingdom, in our flagship news programme, the Today Programme, unusually the question of asbestos was raised at another reasonable hour. It was raised because of the matter that Mrs Thorning-Schmidt raised, namely the implementation of this directive. So effective has the work been on this particular directive and matter, and so effective is the way the debate has gone and the agreement between the political groups that Member States are now looking carefully at the way we implement the directive. This morning the Health and Safety Executive set out for the United Kingdom exactly how this directive would be implemented, the way that even small- and medium-size enterprises would find a way through this health and safety legislation. It is important; it has huge agreement, but we must also understand the real dangers. Not only will the Member States start to implement this – and we must monitor it carefully – but candidate countries are using asbestos at a level we can only estimate, but it is quite a dangerous level. So we must set the tone through implementation of this directive, pay tribute to the way Parliament has discussed this and ensure that we in the EU Member States and the candidate countries make something of this directive to reflect the level of debate in this House.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on a point of order. Perhaps we could just settle that point of order now. Lord Bethell is, and remains, firmly a member of the British Conservative Group.

Political group: PPE-DE
We are broadly in favour of so-called flexible integration. By allowing a group of countries to go ahead and deepen cooperation within a particular area and, at the same time, preventing one or more Member States from curbing flexible integration, then integration throughout the European Union can go forwards. As long as the European Union’s common objectives are promoted within the framework of flexible integration and as long as no Member State is excluded from participating, we believe that this is a positive solution and ought to be developed. If, in a future EU with 25 to 30 Member States, the situation is to be avoided of a Europe à la carte in which the unity of the Member States is in danger of disintegrating, we nonetheless believe that at least half of all Member States must participate in flexible integration. We are also opposed to creating duplicate defence structures within the EU and consequently to flexible integration within the EU’s foreign and security policy. Following the EU’s failure in the Balkans, it is incredibly important that the EU as a whole should have the ability to act in its own immediate vicinity and be able to make personnel and resources available in time for conflict management and peace-keeping measures. The WEU’s institutional and operational structures ought to be fully integrated into the common security policy. The EU must acquire a credible foreign policy. We cannot rely upon the United States forever more. At the same time, it is important to retain the United States’s continued commitment, and we do not want the EU to develop a parallel mini NATO. Still less do we wish to see a limited number of Member States go further within the framework of flexible integration in this area. It is therefore important to retain the transatlantic link, even if there might, of course, be better coordination and a better distribution of labour. We believe that, in the future too, a credible common European foreign policy must be developed within the rules that apply at present. Decisions ought to be taken by majority vote, but the option of a constructive veto, whereby a country may choose to remain outside a particular process but not prevent others from pressing ahead, ought to remain.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I am prompted to say ‘How cold it is!’ This is the second report in which we take an interest in warming up people in our Community. Earlier on, we were thinking about warming up the drivers of articulated lorries, and now we have this report – I voted for it – which seeks to improve energy efficiency in the European Community. It also covers all forms of energy saving such as district heating in cities – something I hope for warmly, the right word in the circumstances. In fact, a lot of energy can be saved with district heating, because a single boiler can heat the homes of ten, twenty, a hundred, a thousand city dwellers. So, with this system, there could also be more heating in the houses of pensioners, who are often cold because of their modest pensions.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I am very pleased that the debate on climatic change in Europe and throughout the world has given us the opportunity to recall the cyclone that struck a large part of Europe. Christened Josephine by the German meteorologists, this cyclone struck north-west Italy, especially my region, Valle d’Aosta, causing tremendous devastation. In three or four days, between 500 and 700 mm of rain fell over a total area of 10 000 km2, which is roughly equivalent to the entire rainfall for one year. Terror struck Valle d’Aosta and the other regions and countries affected, which this terrible ordeal has placed in a veritable state of emergency, facing a long, costly list of damages. So, why does the European Union exist, if not to make us change our lifestyle and, above all, to understand the cycles that modify climatological conditions, to harness the necessary European funds to respond to the demands meet the acute need for intervention in the mountainous regions of Europe. If we do not intervene, we unfortunately run the risk that these floods will recur.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I must start by expressing my surprise and regret and, if I may, by making a formal protest at the fact that such an important subject and such a demanding report are being debated in an evening sitting under these appalling conditions. This way of doing things does not meet the need, which we reiterate so often, to make the most of the opportunity afforded by Parliament’s plenary sessions for competent political debate. (Applause) The resolution we are debating this evening, drawn up on the basis of Mr Lamassoure’s report and the specific analyses contained in the justifications, sets forth the path which we call upon the Convention to follow as well. This is a path of balance and rigour, which takes into account both the demands for enhancement of the Union’s role – as you can see, the same watchword as that of the Spanish Presidency, ‘More Europe’, is used – and the demands for greater clarity, streamlining and decentralisation of the Union’s functions. I feel that we need to be very determined in defending the Union’s current competences and also in extending them, first and foremost, to the common foreign and security policy – as boldly suggested in paragraph 20 – not least because that is what is being demanded by citizens across Europe, who want to see Europe more united and stronger in its actions in critical situations and on major issues of peace and justice in the world. Furthermore, the time has come to put the institutional framework in order, distinguishing between the various forms of Union interventions and decisions that have been piling up over the decades with one treaty after another. We have to acknowledge that there are concerns in the areas of respect for the principle of subsidiarity and also the distinction between legislative and executive powers and responsibilities, which is not always clear, and the absence of a hierarchy of acts. Well then, the Lamassoure report puts forwards solutions that will bring greater consensus in all our countries on the further development of European integration. I would mention, by way of example, the new wording of the criteria for initiatives and decisions at Union level, the three criteria of relevant scope, synergy and solidarity. I would then mention the effort made, for example, with regard to the issue of respect for subsidiarity, to strengthen the Commission’s political responsibility – paragraph 28 – but also to provide an additional channel at jurisdictional level. Mr President, after paying Mr Lamassoure so many compliments, I trust that Parliament will not adopt amendments tomorrow which might upset the balance or detract from the innovative nature of the report.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, last week, we had an excellent Parliament for the Disabled. I would, in fact, like all of us, as much as possible, to try to act on the recommendations that this Parliament made. Despite the fact that a large proportion of the policy for the disabled – particularly its medical component – is national policy, it is, however, the case that employment policy, social exclusion policy and internal market policy are of key importance to people with disabilities. I therefore hope that the Commission will give this due consideration. The main reason why we are here today is, of course, as various speakers have already mentioned, this specific directive. I believe that we should really go ahead and adopt it. Mr President, there is something I fail to understand. The Commission has, after all, always referred to the fact that this directive would be too controversial at this point in time, but, Commissioner, you yourself adopted a draft directive two weeks ago that is much more controversial than what we have here. By so doing, you have, in effect, totally undermined your own argument. If you are prepared to table very controversial directives in another field, then I applaud this, for I am always pleased when the Commission is brave. However, you should at least commission the studies so that it is possible to submit this proposal as soon as possible. That is, after all, what we have asked for. Finally, as you indeed already indicated, we will need to give a great deal of attention to the new Member States. I think that it will be some time yet before we know precisely how policy is conducted over there. I found out this week that certain categories of people with disabilities in some countries are not even entitled to identity cards. A great deal still needs to be done there, but this also applies to the current European Union, because people with disabilities are still too much the invisible citizens whom we forget all too easily.

Political group: PPE-DE
The trade in synthetic drugs is often a case of organised crime. Enough reason to fight it and to coordinate and intensify the investigation activities at European level. That is why the Group of the European Socialists has voted for Mrs Cederschiöld’s report. However, a number of members of my Group were less satisfied with the underlying Swedish initiative proposal. Its highly technical content rendered it particularly impenetrable; it is also insufficiently clear how this very detailed proposal now fits in with the EU strategy on drugs policy as a whole. Why should we send the confiscated samples criss-cross through Europe if we can exchange analysis protocols? Little else has been clarified on the coordination front of the proposal with the Commission activities. It is also regrettable that it appeared impossible to use the laboratories in question for quality control from the point of view of preventing health risks for the users. These members of my Group would like to see a few changes in future. Nevertheless, in this highly technical policy proposal, they did not want to create the impression, by voting against, that they back the problems surrounding the synthetic drug. - Nuclear safety

Political group: PSE