GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Mr Martin has invested a great deal of time and effort in this report, for which I wish to express my utmost appreciation. The rapporteur and I also had some good discussions. The granting of discharge is Parliament's most important prerogative as a monitoring body when it comes to the assessment of how the budget has been managed by the executive – that is, primarily, by the Commission. This is a political act and not only the closure of the accounts, important as that is. Using the reports of the Court of Auditors and other information, some, incidentally, from the Commission itself, we look to see if the objectives set have been met with proper and economic use of the funds allocated. We highlight weak points in order that they may be rectified and also avoided in the forthcoming budget. Where the three discharge options, which the rapporteur has elucidated – grant, deferment, and refusal – are concerned, I think it right to specify time periods, so that there will not be two discharge procedures running in parallel, as often happened in the past, but so that one procedure is concluded before the beginning of the next, and so that the two stages can function. Mrs Schreyer, I believe that the timeframe is indeed sufficient – if the time taken up by the summer recess is included – for constructive solutions to be arrived at in due time. I have to tell the rapporteur that I cannot, however, accept that discharge should be deemed to have been granted if, in April, the plenary rejects a proposal from the Committee on Budgetary Control that it be deferred. Such a refusal may have contradictory motives behind it and does not express Parliament's unambiguous will. I might add that the Legal Service's opinion says the same thing. Granting discharge would be the wrong answer to the question put, and, for those to be given discharge, it would be a second-class discharge, being granted en passant. I would therefore have liked the proposal, in its three parts, to be sent back to the Committee on Budgetary Control. Should the discrepancies between the resolution and the result of the vote, as described in paragraph 3 of the new Article 5a, occur, the Committee on Budgetary Control should be given the task of removing them and submitting the resolution to the plenary for a second time. However, as has already been mentioned, my group's amendments have been withdrawn. I must therefore rely on my own experience when I say, as I have done before, that, although there is in the report much that I can accept, I do not feel able to vote in favour of it if no other way is found of dealing with the issue of suspension and hence of the grant of discharge.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, according to a recent poll conducted by Eurobarometer, over 70% of Europeans do not want to eat GMOs. There was, therefore, a need to provide European consumers with a response, by adopting legislation on labelling, which should enable everyone to choose what they eat. I do, however, have several reservations. The first concerns the 0.9% threshold. Why, when a lower presence is technically detectable – with a threshold of 0.5% being accepted for non-authorised GMOs – are we refusing to be less demanding? The situation would be different if a 0.9% presence becomes a reality before the moratorium is even lifted. My second reservation concerns consumer choice. Will this choice be guaranteed in future, when we do not envisage any binding legislation on the subject of coexistence and instead leave it to Member States to adopt appropriate measures? Perhaps we already know that coexistence is impossible, that we can regulate neither the flight of the bumblebees nor the direction or strength of the wind and that planting GMOs is irreversible? If this is the case, we are taking a considerable risk for Europeans, because we cannot make the issue of GMOs solely one of consumer choice, turning a blind eye to public health and environmental problems. Lastly, no one has to date been able to produce powerful, irrefutable and convincing arguments that prove the benefit and the harmless nature of GMOs. GMO crops and biotechnologies are too frequently lumped together, but GMOs are only one of biotechnology’s many applications. Refusing to extend the use of GMOs in Europe does not mean that we are against progress, or against gene therapies; it simply means that we are choosing the precautionary principle over the trial and error of the sorcerer’s apprentice. Everyone is well aware that what still counts the most in this field is economic and financial interests and that the EU’s agricultural and environmental future will be shaped by pressure from the United States and from WTO negotiations. This is most regrettable, because it should not be forgotten that the United States has still not ratified the Cartagena protocol. I have the feeling that all of these debates and our votes tomorrow are preparing us for agreeing to raise the moratorium without too much argument. Our vote will, therefore, be much more political than it appears to be and we would be failing the citizens if we did not demand, before any decision is taken, to be better informed about the real risks that GMO crops will entail for the environment and for people’s health. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, essentially I can endorse what previous speakers have said. We have here a good example of a Europe which is close to the people. I should like to say quite clearly that the changes resulting from the transposition of this directive will ultimately benefit all the people of Europe and will also be experienced by them firsthand; they will not – as is often the case with other legislation – perhaps constitute an indirect benefit or not be entirely transparent. This is a problem which it is highly probable that everyone in the European Union will experience once at some stage in their life, and then they will obviously benefit accordingly from the directive. I think that this also needs to be mentioned explicitly here. I should like to express my thanks to Mr Rothley, the rapporteur, for preparing this report so thoroughly and for taking the initiative – it was of course also Parliament from whom the initiative came at that time – but I would, however, also like to thank the Commission and the Council for agreeing to this in principle. I do not, however, understand why the problem which has been mentioned here should continue to exist, because so far I have not heard one single comprehensible argument against accidents involving EU citizens in third countries being included in this directive. So far every argument against this has been unsatisfactory. Sometimes it is simply incorrect information – this also became clear in the last debate in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, as far as the attitude of the insurance industry is concerned. I would simply ask the Commission and the Council to make an effort in this matter and go along with Parliament's position. Since the trialogue's preliminary discussion was inconclusive, at present we simply have no choice but to insist on our good and reasonable amendments and to adopt them once more here at this second reading. This will then give the Council and the Commission the opportunity to be more shrewd in the conciliation procedure. They should use that opportunity!

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I am sorry to have to request your attention for a moment. Once again, on the agenda. With the decision that we have now taken, that is to say, to place the Napolitano report on the agenda, there is a problem for the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. We have on the agenda the report by Mr Pirker on Eurodac, a report that is extremely controversial and which yesterday gave rise to controversial discussions in the Social Democratic Group, which led me to request the rapporteur, Mr Pirker, yesterday evening, to agree to the vote being adjourned until Brussels. Understandably he did not agree to this. With the decision that the plenary sitting has now taken, i.e. to place the Napolitano report on the agenda, it is foreseeable that we shall neither be able to complete the discussion of the Pirker report nor therefore will we be able to vote on it today. That would mean that we would have to vote on such an important report a) extremely controversially and b) with a very small number of Members present. That is not appropriate for the subject of this report. I would therefore ask you, Madam President, to support my proposal for a vote that we remove this report from the agenda today in view of the situation and adjourn it until the December part-session in Brussels. (Noise)

Political group: PSE
co-rapporteur. – Mr President, the process of enlargement is one that we all broadly welcome. While making great demands of the candidate countries, it is a pity that the European Union has not already put its own house in order. In particular I am thinking of the need for reform of the common agricultural policy and the Commission's financial management. It still seems incapable of properly accounting for the massive public funds put at its disposal by our taxpayers. I also hope that, once the candidates have overcome their first flush of unquestioning enthusiasm for the European Union, they will begin to adopt a more sceptical attitude to many aspects of the European Union project. After all, since most of them have rejected the ghastly communist experiment that so distorted and corrupted their countries for the past 50 years, I hope they would wish to oppose inappropriate intrusion on their national sovereignty and the tide of leftist political correctness that is too often generated by European Union institutions. Speaking now as the rapporteur for Bulgaria, I especially welcome the parliamentary delegation from Bulgaria. I recognise the enormous progress that Bulgaria has made in economic, political and social reform in recent years. Its ambition to join the European Union by 2007 is realistic and we should say so. We must give it every assistance to achieve this ambition. Bulgaria has made great strides in recent years. There is now a properly functioning market economy and progress has been made on privatisation. The proposals for reforming the civil service and for tackling corruption are also an essential basis for political and economic change. So much needs to be done in so many areas. There is a vast grey economy and there is high unemployment, features not entirely unknown in some of the countries that are already European Union Member States. Macro-economic progress has yet to trickle down into tangible economic benefits for the population at large. There are still major areas of poverty. This applies not just to the Roma population, where more vigorous action is required, but to Bulgarians more generally. The most vulnerable element in any population are the children and I have drawn particular attention to the need for more resources, including Community funds, to be targeted in bringing about major improvements in child welfare and childcare. I must mention the Kozlodvy nuclear power plant and in particular the closure dates for units 3 and 4. Strong opinions have been voiced on this issue and unfortunately it has become a symbolic argument, with people digging in on both sides. Safety considerations must always be paramount when dealing with nuclear power. But there seems to be no good reason on safety grounds why closure should not take place in 2008, rather than 2006, if this would make a significant difference to Bulgaria's economic situation. The EU peer review, conducted under the auspices of the Council, should make this decision, taking account of the results of the IAEA mission in June and an objective analysis of the economic consequences of closure.

Political group: PPE-DE
We have voted in favour of the request to place on the agenda a debate on the Tobin tax because we are convinced that its application, even on a limited basis, in Europe would be a first step towards greater social justice and towards a redistribution of wealth. We nevertheless are under no illusions that this tax, alone, could remove the very causes of poverty which are associated with the economic and financial system that dominates the planet. We are voting for everything that is associated with the request to the Commission to examine the feasibility of the Tobin tax. However, we are not voting for the recitals of the compromise resolution, tabled by the s, the , the and the Liberals, who aim to defend and regulate the dominant economic system and “to ensure the operation of the globalised financial markets, even rid of their excesses.”

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I say ‘yes’ to strong links between Europe and Algeria. The Algerians are practically alone in having suffered the barbarity of fundamentalist terrorism since before 11 September 2001. The European Union, for its part, must strengthen its links with the southern Mediterranean basin by freeing itself from its ideas of domination. This would be one way of countering the unilateralism of an American superpower that is more and more interested in Algeria and the wealth that lies beneath it. Although the association agreement shows the will to establish privileged links between the Union and Algeria, it also raises questions, starting with the lack of prior consultation, as denounced by Algerian independent trade unions and associations. Our resolution rightly emphasises human rights first and foremost, and the resolution must keep this aspect. Like others, I in turn would like to express my concern over the situation in Kabylia, where tomorrow’s local elections are already marked by calls for a boycott, for strikes and for the police to take control. Why has no credible solution for overcoming this crisis been put forward by the Algerian Government? Why have no legal proceedings commenced against those responsible for the oppression perpetrated in what has become known as the ‘black spring of 2001’? When will lawsuits cease against representatives of the citizens’ movement? Most of all, are these not signs of a deep malaise within Algerian society as a whole, but in particular among young people? The increasing number of lawsuits against journalists and the persistent refusal to repeal the family code, problems over which, to my great surprise, some Members wish to draw a veil in the resolution, can only stir up despair and tension. The future of Algeria, however, would be more secure under the existing potential for democracy than under a new resurgence of fundamentalist ideas. I also believe it is important to take account of urgent social issues. There is a tremendous need in terms of employment, housing, public infrastructures for health, education and water, while inequality and foreign reserves have never been so high. Unlike the rationale for free trade, which encourages liberalisation and deregulation, this situation, on the contrary, requires a true cooperation measure, for example in the field of public services. Europe therefore has a responsibility. Will the serious concerns of many players in the Algerian economy over the establishment of a free trade area be heard? What will our assessment be of the economic, social and environmental consequences? In conclusion, I would like to call for vigilance with regard to respect for the free movement of persons and equality of economic, social and political rights for Algerian nationals on European soil.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, yesterday's Minutes state quite correctly that I asked you to supply all the MEPs with the preliminary draft by the Committee of the Wise Men, if such a draft exists. The Minutes state that your response to me was that you would take the steps necessary to achieve this. Madam President, have you, from your position of importance, had the time to take any action in this matter yet?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, this budgetary procedure has shown throughout that the European Parliament, together with the Council, can work constructively and observe good budgetary discipline. The last few days and hours have shown, in particular, that we have a sense of responsibility when attending to the European issues we have in common. I would especially like to thank the chairman of the Committee on Budgets, Mr Wynn, and the main rapporteur, Mr Bourlanges, for their excellent, constructive and patient cooperation in achieving our common objective. Similarly, I wish to thank Mrs Siimes, President-in-Office of the Council, and Michaele Schreyer, Commissioner responsible for this area, for their excellent show of cooperation with Parliament. Finally, I would just like to express my thanks also to all the officials on the Committee on Budgets, who have had to work very long hours and, at the same time, I thank Parliament as a whole and my own group in particular for their steadfast and energetic support at every stage.

Political group: ELDR
Thank you Commissioner for that comprehensive answer. I do not want to pre-empt the Commission's June 2004 communication, but would like to ask the Commissioner's personal view on whether he is hopeful that, within that communication, some progress on the links between Member States and the European Union and sending countries will be established. He may know that the issue of managed migration is now coming to the fore of the agenda in the European Union, partly due to his work and that of many others. I would like to ask his personal opinion on whether he thinks, when the communication is finally published, that he or anyone else will have some positive news to give us on the issue of managed migration and the specific partnerships between our countries and others. He may know of examples concerning the United Kingdom and the Philippines, which has sent health workers, and issues of that nature. Does he have anything to say about that?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I wish to begin by congratulating Helena Torres Marques on her excellent report. Mr President, the euro is already the second most important currency in the world. The actual introduction of the euro from 2002 will dramatically increase the demand for euros. Although the euro has depreciated over the last few months in relation to the dollar, this is not only due to the current difference in the dynamism and the performance of the American and European economies. The fact that, for the moment, the euro is only a representative currency and will not become a paper currency until 2002, also explains the certain lack of interest among the European and international public in this new currency that you cannot yet feel or touch. Nevertheless, the financial markets in general have welcomed the euro. Since it was introduced at the beginning of this year, the volume of private bonds issued in euros has increased by over 50%. For the first seven months of this year on the international capital markets, issues in euros represented 27% of international issues. Meanwhile, issues in dollars over the same seven month period fell from 57% to 50%, which shows that there is already a very strong real demand by the markets. There is another problem, to which I should like to draw the attention of this House, and that is the huge money supply of Deutschmarks, French francs and other European currencies circulating outside the frontiers of Europe. According to a report by the German Bundesbank, over one hundred billion Deutschmarks are used as a daily reserve currency by the citizens of Eastern Europe. There are also billions of French francs circulating in French-speaking Africa and all this money must be changed into euros. For the moment, the people holding these banknotes are trying to move towards the dollar, which also perhaps explains, to a certain extent, the fluctuation to the detriment of the euro. I should like to ask the Commission whether it should not take the initiative in drawing the attention of the Central European Bank and the national central banks to this problem, that is to say, the necessary exchange of all the European currencies that will disappear in 2002 with the actual introduction of the euro. I believe that there is a real problem here which has not been adequately discussed and in respect of which the Commission would be well advised to take an initiative in order to organise this exchange with dignity.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should just like to ask why the sudden change of mind by the members.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for his explanation. In these circumstances, we can withdraw Amendment No 3 and can also announce that Amendment No 2 will be replaced by Amendment No 4. (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0172/2004) by Mr Goodwill, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on certain fluorinated greenhouse gases (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0190/2004) by Mrs Korhola, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on the application of the provisions of the Århus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to EC institutions and bodies (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0189/2004) by Mrs Schörling, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on access to justice in environmental matters (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0177/2004) by Mr Sjöstedt, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the management of waste from the extractive industries (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0173/2004) by Mrs Korhola, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision making and access to justice regarding environmental matters (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0209/2004) by Mr Radwan, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on the proposal for a Council Regulation on the establishment of structures for the management of the European satellite radionavigation programme (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0214/2004) by Mrs Paciotti, on behalf of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a Council framework decision on the European Evidence Warrant for obtaining objects, documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal matters (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0091/2004) by Mrs Hazan, on behalf of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, on the initiative of the Italian Republic with a view to adopting a Council Decision on the organisation of joint flights for removals, from the territory of two or more Member States, of third-country nationals who are the subjects of individual removal orders Before the vote:

Political group: Verts-ALE