GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Honourable Members of the Court of Auditors, Mr Karlsson, Mrs Schreyer, on behalf of my group, I should naturally like to echo the words of thanks which my fellow MEPs have already expressed. I have started to wade through this tome. I have to admit that this 24th Annual Report seems superior and that more names are included than before. In other words, this Annual Report is simply a better read, it has to be said. It also becomes clear that you are sending out a message, namely an urgent request for simplifying legislation. Indeed, if legislation were simplified, fewer mistakes would be made, fewer irregularities would occur and this would probably result in less fraud. When I read what was happening with the own resources and when I saw the results of the database, which gives an overview of all cases of fraud and irregularities established since 1996, amounting to EUR 1.5 billion, I appreciated the significance of what we are doing. On the basis of the Court of Auditors report, the OLAF reports, the work carried out by the rapporteurs and also our own studies, we will need to explain to the European taxpayers how their money is being spent. I am delighted with the fact that the Annual Report devotes much attention to the role of the Member States. Indeed, they do not sufficiently inspect the Community programmes which they manage in conjunction with the Commission. Neither do they fight fraud satisfactorily when they collect their revenue. The VAT carrousels are a prime example of this. Finally, as Mrs Morgan has already stated, the Member States fail to implement legislation adequately. In this connection, I should once again like to haul my own country over the coals. In the Blak report, Belgium was attacked for not yet having ratified the 1995 agreement. I have exchanged correspondence in this respect with the President of the Belgian Parliament, and four months ago, I was promised that this agreement would be ratified during the Belgian Presidency. That has not been done to date. That is an outright scandal, and I am grateful to the Court of Auditors for once again giving us the necessary ammunition today to ensure that the Belgian government and the Belgian Parliament carry out their tasks at long last. It is a disgrace which we must continue to denounce in public.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Mr Radwan’s oral amendment is incorporated in the compromise amendment AC55 which, in my view, should be voted on before Amendment No 44 as it includes the following amendments. Therefore, since the usual order is that we firstly vote on the amendments that deviate the most from the committee’s report, I would propose that we now vote on AC55, which includes Mr Radwan’s oral amendment, as per the discussion we had yesterday at 5 p.m., and which also includes Amendments Nos 44 and 33.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, this is my first budget. I should like to begin by thanking Mr Wynn and Mr Bourlanges and the other two rapporteurs for simplifying a very complex process for me. I believe that the European Union is changing. The institutions are having to become more representative. In that spirit, we should be trying to bring the European budget closer to the electorate. It is crucial for the citizens of the EU to know what their stake in the EU’s policies and operations really is, what they are paying and what they are paying for. Increased transparency will be the key to the future success of all EU institutions. That means assessing every budget line to see how it benefits the citizens of Europe. Given the commitment in the Treaty of Amsterdam to incorporating the interests of consumers into all other policy areas of the EU and the derisory level of the consumer budget, which stands at a quarter of one percent of total EU spending, there is a need to begin by making sure that valuable programmes such as the school milk scheme are safeguarded. This is not the case in the draft budget as my colleague, Mr Hyland, said earlier. The draft budget for the school milk programme throughout Europe has been reduced by 50%. This cut is a drastic measure for a programme that has benefits for both consumer and producer alike. The reason I feel strongly about this budget line is that it has an impact on the long- and short-term health of people, it addresses social deprivation issues and it impacts on the economy and jobs in my region. I do not have any difficulty with the reform of the CAP if it means cheaper and safer products for the consumer. I know that people are concerned about paying for subsidies that increase prices for them as consumers. The response I had from the Commission in the Budgets Committee was initially quite disappointing. They said that social issues are not within the original remit of the programme. But it now emerges from the Trialogue meeting last week that the Commission will be proposing an increase of EUR 31 million. I welcome this. I must say that I am disappointed that the Council is not here because I would like to know if they will support this. People out there are not concerned about the finer points or headings of the subsidy. What matters to them is the impact and the positive benefit of policies, such as this one. I accept totally the need to streamline and introduce efficiencies in the management of this scheme and others and to improve value for money, but a more effective way in terms of amending the budget would be to outline improvements and provide an implementation plan for the future. The Commission, in estimating spending, should look at funding in its totality. I call on Members to support this endorsement and amendment in Thursday’s vote.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this is an extremely bad directive. First of all, as my colleague Mr Bowis has pointed out, it is retrospective and that is wrong in principle. Secondly, it dumps huge costs on the European motor industry which would damage competitiveness and damage employment. In this Parliament we constantly talk about the need to promote employment and jobs in Europe and yet we constantly pass measures which will have the effect of reducing employment. I suggest to you that the directive is bad in another respect, which has not been examined well enough in this debate. It is like so much European legislation. It is far too prescriptive. It sets in stone one particular model of recycling. The production line was invented about a hundred years ago, I believe, by Henry Ford and what we are proposing to do here is to create a sort of nineteenth century production line in reverse – to dismantle vehicles, to take the pieces apart and seek to recycle them. One thing we should stop and think about is the fact that there is a very uncertain market for recycled plastic bumpers of cars. The plastics industry for the most part does not want to take these things back and cannot economically do so. There is already a very successful industry out there which is shredding cars, recovering metals and recovering energy by the incineration of the non-metallic parts. This is a very environmentally reasonable approach. It is just as good environmentally to burn old plastic as to burn new oil for energy recovery. This method of disposal of cars carries no cost and so would eliminate the whole issue of who pays because the “dead” car would actually have a small value going into the recycling and reclamation process. I would oppose this directive on the basis that it is too prescriptive, it ignores what is actually going on in the car recycling market at the moment and it sets in stone methods which are not necessarily the best environmentally, and are certainly very damaging economically.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I respond to an invitation yesterday afternoon by the President of the House to speak on behalf of my group on a matter referred to in the Minutes. I refer to item 11 on the order of business. Firstly, I believe the issue raised by the President of the Socialist Group yesterday about the reinstatement of the debate with the President of the Commission on the five-year strategic programme was sufficiently important for other speakers who wished to comment briefly on that matter to have been accommodated. I wish to express that view even if I respectfully disagreed and voted against the proposal of the President of the Socialist Group. The second point I would like to make – and which I would have wished to make yesterday before the vote – is that this Parliament, as other speakers remarked yesterday, can only really have an effect if it works in close cooperation and synergy with the European Commission. We should also have the humility to recognise that, if we wanted to have a strategic debate accompanied not just by a presentation and elucidation by the President of the Commission, but also by a five-year programme, we should have the mechanisms in place more than just a week in advance of the debate in this House, so as to be able to discuss and convey in due time to the Commission what our wishes were. There is one basic lesson I would like us to learn from this. When there are major set-piece debates scheduled between this House and the European Commission in the future, we should clear all of our lines on what are our mutual expectations at least one full working month in advance. There needs firstly to be clarity between all of the groups of this House and then between this House and the Commission. We should not find ourselves late in the day in the unfortunate position where the one or other institution creates an unnecessary fracture in institutional relationships. Looking at some of the press reports of last Friday, I believe that the Commission and its President exercised commendable self-restraint in the way they commented publicly. That is something for which I have a deep appreciation. I hope that we will learn the lessons and not repeat this unnecessary exercise which I believe was founded on a misapprehension as to what was expected rather than any bad faith on the part of either of the two institutions. It should not be dramatised into something more than that. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, as you may well expect, we will not enter into a debate between French and British beef producers now. However, I have two questions to ask. Firstly, could the same checks be carried out for Parliament in Brussels? Secondly, in accordance with the precautionary principle, can Brussels continue to be a place of work for Parliament since it is not equipped with air purifiers?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, since the Barcelona conference and now on the eve of the Marseilles conference, as has already been said, a great deal has taken place in the Mediterranean region. It is true that this Conference is going to take place in a context of violence and of a peace crisis as a result of the conflict in the Middle East, but it is also true that holding the conference will enable us to keep the flame of the Euro-Mediterranean process burning and that it should not be contaminated by the tragic conflict. There are many common problems that are currently affecting the Euro-Mediterranean area: illegal immigration, poverty, foreign debt, human rights, drought and terrorism, which mercilessly destroys the lives of innocent individuals and families, as we are tragically experiencing in Spain, Algeria and the Middle East. Now more than ever we need to proclaim that only regional cooperation, dialogue with civil society, economic and cultural exchange, solidarity and mutual understanding can make the two shores of the Mediterranean a prosperous and peaceful area. The Commission and the Council need to urgently undertake what was agreed in Feira and they need to make a common policy for the development of the Mediterranean region viable. We cannot and must not waste our human resources, our agricultural, industrial or traditional craftsmanship resources which, along with such vital products as oil, gas and new technologies, should be basic tools for the development of a Mediterranean society that is much more balanced, fair and competitive than at present. Mr President, I will come back to the conflict in the Middle East; not two months ago, the Presidents of the Israeli Parliament and the Palestinian Assembly united in this House with the President of the European Parliament, in a plea for peace and harmony, and we all joined in hearty applause for that gesture. When weapons replace words, dialogue and understanding, the foundation and substance of democracy that is Parliament fails, and this is also our failure. It is a warning call to the European Union to play a much more active role in the Mediterranean area, which historically and culturally has enriched our European continent. It would be an error not to take on the leading role that history requires of us. In addition, I also think, Commissioner, that the borders that geo-politics demands should serve to prevent the free movement of those who make a way of life out of organised crime, the trafficking of arms, drugs and human beings and particularly terrorism, a way of life that is condemned by all civilised countries. Let us make borders a real filter for crime and criminals, and not a barrier to development, culture or the prosperity of peoples. The European Union needs a new culture of immigration and a better management of migration flows. The European Union is jointly responsible, with the countries of origin, for immigration and for organising those migration flows, which are so necessary for the development of the region.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr. President, over the previous decade the European Coal and Steel Community has borrowed money from the markets and in turn has loaned funds for research activity in the coal and steel sector. With the Coal and Steel Community now ceasing its operations, it was found during the winding-up proceedings that it still has a surplus of 1.1 billion euros. Now, rules of the game are being created to govern how the yield on this money will be used for research activity in the coal and steel sector. I regard the setting up of the Research Fund as a positive thing, while on the other hand the ending of funds for use in combating social ills is a bad thing. According to the Commission proposal, the management of funds investment activities is being handled and research projects are being prepared by an army of about thirty officials, the maintenance of which will cost three and a half million euros; this gives the impression of an oversized bureaucracy, and therefore Parliament must take another look at the matter when it discusses the questions of releases of liability. According to the revisions contained in Mr. Linkohr's report, a special European Research Foundation should be set up; the activity of the Coal and Steel Research Fund should be extended to other areas; and funding from the private sector should also be accepted. Mr. Linkohr, this is a dubious proposal. We already have the EU's Joint Research Centre and a framework programme for science and research. I understand Mr. Linkohr's positive approach to research activity, but we must not create a new bureaucracy. It is necessary to set up a Coal and Steel Research Fund, since the ECSC is winding up its operations. It is justified that its funds be ploughed back to the sectors from which they were accrued, but the idea of a Research Foundation which would be funded by the money of the EU's taxpayers and of firms will increase the amount of inefficient bureaucracy. It would be better for Parliament to demand the codecision procedure for the science and research sector, and to leave all aspects of implementation of the programmes to the Commission. We do not question Mr. Linkohr's good will towards science and research.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, on a point of order, yesterday some colleagues will recall that during the vote on the Herzog report I suggested that the President look at Rule 130a. We had a mass of amendments to vote on. Before that, we had voted on amendments to a report drawn up on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. To make voting easier, however, these amendments had been arranged in blocks. Rule 130a states quite clearly that where there is a mass of amendments, the committee involved should try to sort them out before they are put to the vote in plenary. I would like the Bureau to have a proper look at Rule 130a so that Parliament's services can be instructed to ensure that the committees observe that Rule.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Nigeria, the largest African country with 120 million inhabitants, seems to be under permanent threat of implosion. This oil-producing country, where the extreme wealth of a tiny minority contrasts with the extreme poverty of the population, is once again the scene of religious confrontations which, last month, caused 20 deaths when a village was attacked in the state of Plateau, a state principally inhabited by Christians. For a long time, this region has been plunged into a genuine conflict between Islamic and Christian fundamentalists. It is a conflict that has already killed more than 100 people in the region since February. These sad events once again show that poverty and the social divide, added together, constitute the ideal breeding ground for all fundamentalists. Today, Sharia law is practised in 11 northern states out of the 36 states of the Nigerian Federation. In order to react to the Islamic threat, governors of the South, where animists and Christians are in the majority, have created a forum for the Southern states. There are reports that in all areas, including in the institutions, mechanisms that could lead to a new explosion in the country are being put in place. Today, faced with this spiral of violence affecting a battered population, we are anxious strongly to condemn any type of intolerance and religious violence. Since 1999, thousands of people have perished following inter-community confrontations. At the time, the detonator had been the introduction of Sharia law in several northern states. We are therefore calling on the Nigerian Government to take the necessary measures and find a practical solution designed to bring this ethnic and religious violence to an end as soon as possible. We hope, moreover, that this will not just be one more debate in our institution.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I think there is every reason to thank both the Commission and Mr Arvidsson: the Commission because, in spite of criticism, it has come up with a proposal in this area, and Mr Arvidsson because I think that, with his report, we are obtaining a responsible framework for the use of phthalates in toys. Phthalates are, of course, a group of chemicals there is every possible reason for being on guard against, not only in connection with toys but also more generally. We know that they are suspected of possibly causing cancer, as well as disturbing the balance of hormones. I am therefore in favour of banning all phthalates in toys designed for the smallest children. If we were not to make use of the precautionary principle in this case, I find it hard to see when the principle might be applied at all. There are some who have argued that banning the use of phthalates in toys would have an adverse effect upon the plastics industry and upon employment in that industry. We also heard this argument in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. I think the argument is completely unacceptable. If it were in fact to be accepted, then any restriction at all upon the use of dangerous chemicals, not merely in toys but also in foodstuffs and other products, would be prevented. I personally should like to see the ban we are now devising extended to cover toys designed for children of between three and six years of age. That would be the ideal situation, but I am inclined to vote in favour of the present proposed compromise whereby, as a first step, there should be a warning label on toys for that group. I also think it would be sensible to review the directive in no more than a couple of years’ time against the background of new scientific knowledge, including knowledge which can tell us for certain whether we should also intervene in the case of phthalates in products other than toys. I think that would be a sensible health policy.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, the third Commission report to the Council on the situation of world shipbuilding has once again confirmed that Korean shipbuilders continue to sell ships at prices that do not cover costs and repeatedly violate the WTO’s antidumping code. The disguised cross-subsidies of the Korean Republic, its monetary depreciation and its accounting systems, which are not transparent and do not respect internationally agreed principles, continue to harm the whole of the world market and equally affect Japan, the United States and Europe. On the other hand, the international agreement in the form of an agreed minute between the European Community and the Government of the Korean Republic has not persuaded Korea to fulfil its commitments, since the mission of antidumping experts sent by the Commission has failed. Therefore, and while these Korean violations continue, as well as condemning the situation to international bodies such as the WTO, the OECD and the IMF, we ask the Council and the Commission to either once again extend or implement state aid linked to contracts, or to urgently establish other adequate mechanisms, in order to slow down our continuous loss of jobs and in legitimate defence of our shipbuilding industry. This must be done now. It is all very well to negotiate, but the best way to persuade the other party to take us seriously is by making it feel that we are able to defend our interests and are prepared to do so.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, two minor drafting errors have crept in here. The first error is in Amendment No 48. It should say 'the competent authorities', in the plural; there was not any disagreement between the Council and Parliament about this, it was just an error in the wording of the amendment. Similarly, we made a small error in Amendment No 52, in which two words have been omitted from the written version. However, in the case of Amendment No 52 in particular, this goes a long way towards meeting the wishes of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. I would therefore ask you to approve the two oral amendments and to vote accordingly. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE