GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, as the authority of the European Union increases, so too does the importance of the European Court of Auditors, which has been an independent body of the Community since the Maastricht Treaty. However, the quality of a body or an institution stands or falls with the people who bear the responsibility in it, which is why it is particularly important that candidates with the right specialist skills who are strong and independent of character be elected as members of the Court of Auditors. Because the task of the Court of Auditors is not always a pleasant one. The members of the Court of Auditors must monitor careful spending of European funds and be ruthless in pointing out irregularities. As far as spending by the European institutions is concerned, the confidence of the citizens of Europe has gradually been shaken in the past. It is, above all, thanks to the Court of Auditors that shortcomings have been uncovered. Now, however, we need to restore the confidence of the citizens of Europe in careful spending by the EU. The work of the Court of Auditors and its members will therefore be even more important and difficult over the coming years than ever before. All the challenges – enlargement, international competitiveness, sustained high unemployment – are linked to the question of funding and the remit of the Court of Auditors could change as a result. I think that its preventative work will increase. In my view, the eight members who were interviewed long and hard in the Committee on Budgetary Control have the qualities needed to carry out this work to the satisfaction of all concerned. I hope that you have the courage and strength to touch unerringly on sore points in the future, should it prove necessary. A strong Europe also needs a strong Court of Auditors. However, I make no bones about the fact that the Court of Auditors is weakened because the proportion of women is not high enough, let alone representative. This is a considerable fly in the ointment of the composition of the Court, even though the present candidates include a very impressive lady. The appeal to the Member States to propose women for this job therefore stands. It must have got out even in Europe that women too can count and they certainly have no problem in pointing out shortcomings!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, you promised when you were appointed, Commissioner Kinnock, that the Commission would become the world’s best administration. I have confidence that you are the right person to tackle that task successfully. The issue of giving employees equal rights, irrespective of their sexual orientation, is a crucial step on the way. In the last twelve years, there has been a very positive trend towards enabling homosexuals to be granted the same rights as heterosexuals. In 1989, my own country, Denmark, was the first country in the world to introduce legislation on registered partnerships for homosexuals, corresponding to marriage, and a number of other countries followed suit. I would mention the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Germany and Finland. Other EU countries have implemented legislation which approximates to marriage to rather more limited degrees. Within the framework of the EU too, the trend is now in the right direction. Allow me to mention four very important points. Non-discrimination against minorities is now written into the objectives of European cooperation. On the legal basis of Article 13 of the Treaty, discrimination in the labour market on the grounds of sexual orientation has now been tackled in practical terms. The Charter of Fundamental Rights expressly states that there must be no discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. Finally, Parliament has recommended on several occasions that same-sex couples be guaranteed the same rights as heterosexual couples and that the Member States recognise registered partnerships. There have been very positive developments in recent years. Now is the time for the EU’s own institutions to comply with the same standards. I would therefore very much welcome your proposal. You have the key to nudging things in the right direction, Commissioner Kinnock. This proposal would enable homosexuals to be accorded full rights if there were partnership legislation in their own countries. I have a couple of questions in that connection. Since it is to varying degrees that the Member States’ partnership legislation approximates to the marriage laws, I would ask you to explain which countries’ citizens will be given full rights. Where will the Commission draw the line? Moreover, the Commission is paving the way for cohabiting heterosexuals to be given certain rights, for example the right to health insurance covering their partners. That is progress, but I should like to ask whether the arrangement also covers cohabiting homosexuals in all the Member States. For example, are cohabiting homosexuals from Britain and Italy entitled to these limited rights? Finally, a question on the timetable: when do you anticipate its being possible for these new staff rules to come into force in the institutions of the EU? Over the years, many Commissioners have promised the earth in this area, and nothing has happened. They have, however, set things in motion. They deserve full recognition for having done so, and I hope you can give a positive answer to the question we have put to you in this House today.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, waste is a major problem throughout the European Union. If we take municipal waste for example, what we produce is far in excess of the targets set in the Fifth Environmental Action Programme. The prevention of waste is one of the ways of tackling it, because the disposal of waste – whether through landfill or incineration – causes health and environmental problems. Many people in the European Union are trying to tackle the issue of landfill sites situated near homes or the fact that incinerators are being planned in some countries, including my own to try to deal with the waste problem. That is the wrong road to go down. The Commission's communication is a first step towards having a strategy that covers prevention and recycling. We welcome the fact that the report has included some very important things, such as compulsory waste reduction plans. It is all very well to say we will have them, but this is meaningless without some effort to ensure that happens, so it is essential that they are compulsory. The promotion of re-use is extremely important and particularly respect for the judgment of the European Court of Justice that waste incineration of municipal household waste is disposal and not recovery. It was regrettable that the review of the packaging directive did not deal with this properly. The judgment was clear in itself, so how could anyone consider that the incineration of household waste was the same as recovery? We regret that we were unable to change the whole pro-incineration approach to a pro-recycling approach. This is essential because, by following the road of incineration, any incentive to reduce and look at alternative ways of dealing with the reduction of waste is destroyed.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe it is clear that, in the medium term, the budgetary landscape is full of uncertainties which are of concern to hundreds of thousands of citizens. To date, half of the Council does not accept the Commission’s proposals on the future CAP nor has there been any clarification of the funding of the reform of the fisheries policy whatsoever. In the conciliation in July some problems were cleared up, but some very important issues were left open. As has already been said, this Parliament – and my group in particular – has maintained that there is a need for a reform of the Commission which is in line with the ambitions of the European citizens of the twenty-first century. It has done so and will do so not through speeches, but through committed decisions and, therefore, in previous years it has provided the Commission with the posts it had requested. For next year new posts have been requested for the purposes of preparing for enlargement, which is an objective which nobody calls into question. But it is also a legitimate and unquestionable objective to have precise information on the real progress made and data which confirms that we have a more efficient and transparent administration which is more guaranteed to be able to confront the future challenges. The difficulties in the funding of external actions, covered by heading 4, have become standard during every budgetary procedure. I am not going to talk about figures, but I want fundamental principles to be respected. Firstly, that throughout this period we maintain the principle of geographical balance in the annual allocation of resources and respect the political priorities of this Parliament. Secondly, that the Council abandon this pernicious double-speak of making commitments in word without adding new resources. And, thirdly, that the Commission provide regulatory instruments which guarantee genuine equality in the conditions for implementing expenditure. With regard to the shared concern to solve the problem of the outstanding commitments, essentially the abnormal RALs, I would like to ask a question: does the Commissioner believe that the cut by the Council of EUR 500 million in payment appropriations is compatible with its execution objectives for next year?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is now some three months since Hurricane Lothar caused devastating damage to forests in Europe, and in particular France and Baden-Württemberg. In Baden-Württemberg alone the accumulation of storm wood runs to about 25 million solid cubic metres. This equates to three times the average annual felling and this has already led to 30% lower timber prices. Just the cost of remedying the damage in Baden-Württemberg, the area for which I can speak as the delegate, runs to about DM 1.5 billion, of which DM 300 million are needed simply for reforestation. However, Hurricane Lothar is not a problem specific to Baden-Württemberg. France and other EU States have also been greatly affected. Nevertheless, the Commission has so far refused to make additional budgetary allocations available and prefers to cite, in this instance represented by Mrs Schreyer, the fact that final agreement has already been reached in the European Parliament on Budget 2000 and that the requirement for additional funds should be covered by the Member State in question from the funds already allocated. However, the redistribution of funds was made subject to approval and this approval has not yet been given. I consider the argumentation of Mrs Schreyer to be somewhat cynical when you consider that, only a few days later, she announced that the additional financial requirement of EUR 300 million for the EU Balkan commitment, which is undoubtedly important, would be covered by EUR 300 million from the agriculture budget without the farmers noticing it, and this includes forest owners. I would like to stress once again that we are dealing here with extremely long-term damage which may also have ecological implications. Tidying up, storage and reforestation all involve intense physical work. Commissioner, I know what I am talking about. I am a farmer. I have seen how the hurricane took the roof off our stable and I have seen the state our private woods are in. We were able to put things right ourselves but, by and large, this is not the case for all areas, all persons, all communities. You can see that. But that this is done quickly and efficiently and, above all, is sustained long term is an ecological necessity. During his visit to the Black Forest on 16 February, the Commissioner for Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries, Dr Fischler, indicated broad flexibility within the existing financial framework for measures for rural development. He indicated, as you have today, Commissioner, that you are willing to give consideration to, to help ... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to congratulate the Commission and the Council because we have one year before the euro is introduced for real and this economic policy coordination, which we have been hoping and praying for since we changed over to the euro, really needs to take shape. I do not know when or how the Commission and the Council would be able to use this procedure in Article 99, and paragraph 4 in particular, if not on this occasion. Imagine that they had to do this next year. I do not think that would be possible. They have both been guardians of the Treaty as well as guardians of the general interests of Europe. As a consequence, economic policy coordination has not yet been achieved. Commissioner Solbes Mira has just presented a document that has been adopted by the Commission and which we shall study very closely; in other words. It is a document which will enable us to forge ahead in those areas. We would like to thank him in advance and we hope that we will be able to improve the system on this basis. Perhaps what we should be criticising is the gap between BEPGs in the budget, rather than the recommendation that the Commission has just drawn up. When BEPGs, the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines, are set out, everyone is gathered around the table – Ireland, Germany, Italy, France, Portugal, and so forth. The issue that we are coming up against today is that once BEPGs have been adopted, everyone goes home again and adopts their own budget, almost completely forgetting what was established collectively, among equals. The problem today is that the Commission is dismissing a budget that the Irish Parliament has already adopted and it is assessing the outcome of internal debates held in Ireland, France, Germany and Italy after the fact. I would, therefore, like to congratulate the Commission once again for having adopted this resolution. Mr von Wogau wonders if the Irish economy may really has such an impact on economic and monetary union. Of course it does not, but you must go back to Article 99(4). It says that the Commission must make these recommendations and the Council must adopt them when the proper functioning of economic and monetary union is in jeopardy, and also when the economic policies of the Member States are not consistent with those that have been defined collectively. This is certainly the current scenario. Let us move on to the question or whether a large or a small country should have been reprimanded. Do you think that one day the Commission could have criticised a larger country which was sending out negative messages that might weaken economic and monetary union if it had not previously responded in this way to a smaller country? – I still do not know the difference between a larger and a smaller country, but never mind. – I do not believe so and I therefore welcome the decision taken by the Commission on Monday.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I speak on behalf of the draftsman of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, Mr Valdivielso de Cué, not because he does not support the report, but because he cannot be here today. The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy supported the proposals put forward by Ms Randzio-Plath by a very substantial majority: 39 votes in favour to 9 votes against. The intention is to send out a clear signal against South Korea's dumping policies, which in recent decades have driven European shipbuilding to the brink of collapse by maintaining subsidies and benefits for companies in receivership. For a year now, we have pursued a policy which aimed to reach agreement with South Korea. A protocol to this effect was drawn up on 5 June 2000. South Korea did not honour it. In December 2000, we agreed to appeal to the WTO panel. South Korea did not respond. For this reason, the Commission quite rightly decided in July that temporary assistance of up to 14% may be paid by the national authorities, not from the European purse, for a specific number of ships until the end of 2002. This is the issue today. In line with Ms Randzio-Plath's proposals, we want to extend the categories of ships to include ferries for trains, persons and road vehicles, as well as natural gas and petroleum gas tankers, and we want to extend the term until 2003; in other words, we are in favour of a two-year period. We ask you to endorse this draft report and clearly reject the Liberals' motion which calls for the entire draft report to be dismissed. South Korea has the solution in its hand. None of us wants long-term subsidies. However, this is our only opportunity to exert pressure on behalf of the European shipbuilding industry on this difficult issue.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, firstly I wish to congratulate Mrs Napoletano on her excellent work. I am pleased that in her report she has treated the east and the south equally. It is and must be in the interests of the EU to have balanced neighbourhood relations along all its external borders. A major challenge for us is that we do not build a fortress around us whilst strengthening shared values and the workings of the internal market. That is why the approach outlined in the communication on Wider Europe, with its emphasis on interdependence, is especially welcome. We must not limit growth in prosperity just to the area within the Union’s borders. Promoting democracy, good governance, human rights and sustainable development in its neighbouring countries works to everyone’s benefit. On a practical level, border region cooperation will open up new opportunities for investment and innovation on both sides and will reinforce direct cooperation between people. This will increase regional prosperity and stability. We should follow the example set by forms of cooperation that work, such as that which exists between Finland and Russia, and for neighbourhood policy to actually get some wind in its sails we have to set aside adequate resources.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner, you made it quite plain: we remain vulnerable. Energy is not cheap. It is a scarce commodity. We seem to have forgotten that, once upon a time, we paid as little as USD 10 for a barrel of oil. We did not ask ourselves the questions which we probably should have asked and which we are asking ourselves today. Commissioner, you also mentioned that we have seen prices rise for the past eighteen months. I wonder why the European experts and powers that be did not meet sooner to establish, when prices first started to rise, how things would develop, how this could be prevented from continuing and how we could avoid getting to the point where we are today. Commissioner, you also stated that we should respond as a united front but we now see that every country has caught “the French flu”. There is a lack of internal coherence, both in the reactions to the protests – protests which I can often understand very well – and in defending the currency, as well as a lack of external coherence in our attitude to OPEC. We have to admit that a price of USD 10 per barrel of oil is just as abnormal as one of USD 35 and you are well aware that, while a price of USD 10 may be attractive to ourselves, it is not viable globally. These are facts which we all seem to have forgotten for the time being. I believe we ought not to do this in future. You have listed the main strands in your communication which you published in the first week of September. They are sound, and cover transport policy, energy policy and environmental policy. I hope that, this evening in Luxembourg, you will manage to persuade people to adopt the same line because we need to emerge from this crisis now. We need to ensure that the next crisis is not as deep and can be held off for longer than we might anticipate. At any rate, initiatives should be tabled at European level and a minimum level of cooperation guaranteed in order to help the most needy, as you stated yourself. This is why I believe that a cut in the general tax burden, as proposed by my party in Belgium, is to be preferred to a specific tax burden on fuel. What we must not do, whatever happens, is to say to people that energy could become cheap, as this would be the wrong message altogether. IN THE CHAIR: GERHARD SCHMIDVice-President

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Mr Commissioner, I applaud this document and welcome the fact that Mrs Montfort has had occasion to bring to our attention the important role played by small and medium-sized businesses in Europe. In fact, I wonder how much longer we will have to wait until the European Union is empowered to amend the regulations that govern small and medium-sized businesses throughout Europe and above all, when we will see a change in a climate which in 45 years of left-wing or predominantly left-wing government has dampened the entrepreneurial spirit of European companies. In many of the Member States, people who set up their own businesses, rather than being viewed as having created at least one job – their own – are sometimes held to be delinquents, profiteers, thieves or tax evaders. New companies should be granted exemptions from taxes and charges for a period of at least five years, and we should provide for support to be given to young people setting up in business by an older person who can contribute their experience. Concerning the aspect with which I am most familiar – that of pensions and social welfare – entrepreneurs working on their own account should receive as much as people employed by others. In many of the 15 Member States, persons working on their own account have lower pensions, lower levels of mutual assistance and less industrial injury insurance. This is unjust and I therefore support this report. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am not speaking as one of the authors of the motion, because the Group of the does not support this compromise proposal. What exactly are we talking about here? Are we talking about Eurotunnel’s loss of earnings and the disruption to traffic under the Channel or are we talking about what should be the subject of this afternoon’s debate, human rights and, in this particular instance, the rights and the human tragedy of the Sangatte refugees? The refugees in Sangatte are not illegal immigrants. They are living in a centre opened by the French government, managed by the Red Cross and subsidised by the French state. The refugees are Kosovars, Kurds and, nowadays, mainly Afghans. All the people who feature in today’s headlines are flooding into Sangatte. If we want to talk about human rights, then let us do so and stop talking about money and the safety of traffic under the Channel. There is something obscene about confusing the two. This centre was opened thanks to important work by the associations who wanted to respond to the emergency, and to close it would be a humanitarian catastrophe. We know what Calais and Sangatte are like without the centre. We have seen the refugees risking their lives to get to Great Britain, wandering the streets of Calais with their children in the pouring rain, with the associations doing their best to get food to them every day. Is that really the sort of situation we want to revert to in a debate on human rights? Frankly, this debate has got off to a very poor start, which is why the do not support this motion and call on their fellow members to do likewise, because there is something improper about it. The Group of the , having taken the view that the French Government was demonstrating a measure of bad faith regarding the right of these people to demand asylum in France, supported the publication of a document, in collaboration with the associations, which is in huge demand among the refugees in Sangatte. What does this document say? It simply tells the refugees how to demand asylum in France and what rights asylum seekers have in France. This is the road we should be going down, obviously in the long term, with our sights set on a European refugee statute, in order to deal with this situation.

Political group: Verts-ALE