GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, I would for once prefer not to talk about the level of finance requested but about the financing method which has been put forward. Indeed, the Commission is proposing a very strange method of financing the estimated needs. Instead of setting aside funds within a budget line, it suggests finding the necessary finance from money which was originally intended for other purposes but which was not actually spent. As the rapporteur, with whom I worked extremely well, has already remarked himself, this is an extremely peculiar financing method, and I can think of at least three reasons why this is so. Firstly, the safety of current and future generations cannot be made dependent on the fact that there may be some money left over somewhere. Secondly, it is giving the Commission a very ambiguous message. Indeed, the budget authority decides on how much money should be spent on certain matters, but hopes at the same time that some money will be left over for something as important as decommissioning nuclear plants. Finally, this financing method is also at odds with the principle of transparency. Indeed, it is not made clear how much money is reserved for decommissioning activities. The rapporteur claims in his report that the nuclear plants in question have been operated for decades with a view to providing direct support to the nuclear industry, which has been able to make use of the results free of charge. Is it a coincidence that there is little transparency in such a contentious area of policy? The Committee on Budgets has rejected this working method. As already indicated, it proposed to convene a trialogue and to include the solution which emerges from this exercise in the budget procedure for 2001. Moreover, this trialogue can also serve to plug a democratic hole. Indeed, the budget instrument can serve as a big stick in order to secure a say in the programme content. I hope that Parliament can support this proposal made by the Committee on Budgets.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I shall not respond immediately to Mr Tannock, but will begin by stating dispassionately that the notion of human rights, including the right to a fair trial, is the highest priority for all the parliamentary groups. Terrorism and terrorist groups have won when the rule of law is set aside. Mr Camre, the rule of law is not an enemy, but the basis of a civilised society. When you discard it, you discard your civilised rights. One has to look at the charges brought against these individuals. If charges had been made, then they would have the right and the opportunity to defend themselves, but no charges have been made. Three of my constituents are amongst those about to be released. What of their families? What of their concerns? What of their human rights? I start, as I believe everyone in this House starts, from the notion that people are innocent until proven guilty. The two previous speakers would seem to accept the opposite. The calls made in this House are not anti-American. Indeed, we have asked the United States to uphold the rights of the free world which are at the heart of its own constitution. Here we come to the crux of the matter: the argument that somehow these people are outside US national jurisdiction. They are not, and it was on this basis that the Supreme Court petitioners called for the releases of detainees that we have seen recently. They should be subject either to US law or to the rule of international law: legal representation, a fair trial and the right of appeal. It is in exceptional circumstances that the unexceptional, normal and rational rule of law is most needed. Mr Camre, I cannot agree with you. You have denounced these people and even you will not give them a fair trial. We must never forget that 11 September altered the American psyche forever. Hence the actions that have been taken. This House has therefore chosen a noble route: not to condemn, nor to cast out those who have been detained – perhaps in horrific circumstances – but to ask quite simply that the rule of national or international law be upheld and fully respected. I, the Group, the Group and other Groups will uphold those principles. It is a sad day when all the Members of this House cannot do the same. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
I voted for the Mastorakis report, Mr President, because it is genuinely important and commendable for Europe, and therefore for Parliament too, to help the poorest regions to become wealthy regions, which, in turn, will thus be able to help the regions which are currently rich regions but will in the meantime have become poor. I must point out, however, that it would be appropriate for Europe to define what a region is. We know, for example, that, in many countries of Central Europe – countries which will become European Union states as of 1 May – regions do not exist. There will be territorial boundaries marked on paper which are figurative, invented, not uniform de facto geographical realities. Therefore, greater consideration needs to be given to defining what a region is in Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, although I was not the speaker, it was Mr Katiforis, I see that in the Minutes, he is reported as having said that the Turkish authorities had also drawn up a list of Greek people living in Turkey. He did not say that. He simply said “of Greek citizens”, in other words people who are resident in Greece. I say this because Mr Katiforis is not here and so that the Minutes can be corrected accordingly.

Political group: PSE
Each year, thousands of deliberate discharges take place through waste and cargo residues, including chemicals and oil, being dumped in the sea. The need for common legislation within this environmental area is therefore indisputable. It has not, however, been demonstrated, and still less proved, that the most suitable and effective method of coping with these breaches of the law is to set up a further European agency or common EU coastguard. Better coordination between the Member States, together with increased accountability on the part of respective countries’ governments may prove to be just as effective. For that reason, I voted against Amendments Nos 6 and 22, which were however adopted (by, respectively, 382 ‘yes’ votes, 82 ‘no’ votes and 20 abstentions and 392 ‘yes’ votes, 71 ‘no’ votes and 33 abstentions). - Poignant report (A5-0413/2003)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I shall begin by congratulating the rapporteurs, Mrs Hermange and Mrs Randzio-Plath, but shall confine myself to commenting on Mrs Hermange’s report. Although the recent reforms of the employment guidelines were a positive step, it now seems clear that the European Union will not achieve the Lisbon goals set for 2010. The employment rate at the moment is 64%; achieving 70% by 2010 would entail creating 22 million jobs in the new 25-Member European Union. Only through the development of competitiveness and growth potential will Europe achieve this rise in employment and productivity. The 2004 Spring Summit therefore drew up employment recommendations with the aim of highlighting priority areas for action by each Member State and underlining the need to strengthen the exchange of good practice and experience, which have a fundamental role in European employment strategy. I support Marie-Thérèse Hermange’s excellent report, which highlights the need to make more effective use of all available instruments, the effort to implement what has already been agreed and the mobilisation of all the players involved. My country, for instance, Portugal, is well on the way to meeting the Lisbon employment objectives, even though it has recently seen its unemployment rate go up, mainly because certain multinationals have pulled out. Even so, the unemployment rate is below the Community average. As for the objectives of promoting the employment of women and older workers, Portugal has exceeded them. Let us not evade the issues, however: the economic environment we have in Europe today is very different from the one that formed the backdrop to the Lisbon Summit in 2000. The economic and financial situation in certain Member States demands tough policies to curb public spending and, most of all, structural reforms as a precondition for economic growth and job creation. Those Member States that remain courageous enough during this economic slowdown not to give in to easy solutions and undertake the necessary reforms of employment legislation, social security schemes, and so on, deserve not reprimands but encouragement and incentives for their ability to reform. I am certain that without structural reforms Europe will not achieve the levels of growth needed to implement the Lisbon objectives.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am certainly now unsure as to whether we have all read the same report. As far as I am concerned, practically all measures pertaining to proactive economic and employment policy have recently been dropped from the draft report by Mr Katiforis. It might still bear his name but it no longer bears his hallmark. I believe that in the face of such an unfortunate coalition in the Committee on Economic Affairs – allow me to use the term “aberration” – in the face of such an aberration, the facts, as presented by the Commission, speak for themselves. We have an employment reserve in the European Union totalling not 15 but 30 million people, who would be more than happy to participate and get involved. According to the Commission, this employment shortfall costs the European Union between 12 and 20% of its GDP every year. Ideological questions of the ‘should there be more or less state intervention’ variety have no place in situations of this kind. In such situations, there is a need for joint efforts on everyone’s part to overcome this deplorable state of affairs and to translate proactive ideas into action. There is sound evidence as to the accuracy of this theory. Ladies and gentlemen, those of you who voted against the Katiforis report in its original form in the Committee on Economic Affairs, please take a look at what the Commission put forward itself last Monday in the way of proposals for the Extraordinary Summit in Lisbon. What will you find in the Prodi paper? If you read these proposals – I have read them too, Mr Karas – if you follow them carefully, Mr von Wogau – unfortunately, Mr Gasoliba i Böhm has now left – then that is where you will find the things you voted against, namely concrete targets for increasing employment levels to 70% by 2010. This is precisely the logic that Katiforis used. You will find concrete targets for reducing the unemployment rate to 4%. That is exactly what Giorgos Katiforis wanted in the original wording of his report. You will find a clear statement to the effect that full employment is not one issue amongst many but the core issue of European economic policy. That is precisely the intention behind our proposed amendments. Hence, we would hope to receive the broad support of this House, for Parliament should not go back on something the Commission has already recognised with regard to Portugal.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would firstly like to congratulate the rapporteur on being open to dialogue on all areas connected to the report and to the amendments. I think we must consider all matters related to renewable energies to be extremely important, bearing in mind the fact that we want to leave behind us a world which future generations will find inhabitable. It is curious that we are slowly killing ourselves and yet the earth’s contamination is not causing the alarm bells to ring. What can we do about it? I think that first we must seek out all renewable energies and take advantage of them, encourage them, promote them and provide the appropriate incentives to make them viable, and at the same time penalise energies that contaminate. I know that this is all easy to say and difficult to do, but unless we act immediately, within a few generations, we will be stretched to the limit. My opinion is that we should start by differentiating between compensation and subsidies. It is common knowledge that most traditional sources of energy, apart from those using water, wind etc., cause a great deal of serious environmental damage, in many cases, such as CO2, acid rain, oil slicks etc. This damage is usually repaired by public administrations, by means of programmes for restoring and caring for the environment. In the case of renewables which do not cause any harm to the surrounding environment, I believe it would be reasonable to compensate them while there is no tax on emissions of polluting particles such as CO2. Therefore, as long as public administrations continue to take responsibility for repairing the damage caused by thermal or nuclear power stations, we will be subsidising these sources of energy at the expense of renewables. I would finally like to mention the establishment of an appropriate legal framework for this kind of energy, which would foster its rapid development, bearing in mind that, in the long term, renewables must become predominant.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what I would like to say, as draftsperson of my Committee’s opinion, is that, where regional policy and the Structural Funds are concerned, most of the countries should, by the time they accede, already be in a position to transpose core areas of the acquis. It is to be regretted, though, that all of them need to make greater efforts in such important areas as financial management and financial control. In the transport sector, it is the failure of the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary to make progress in road transport that is most disappointing of all. Further decisive action has to be taken to raise safety and environmental standards and to ensure conformity with the acquis. As the trans-European transport networks are of great importance to the whole of Europe, not only the accession states, but also the Fifteen in the EU, need to be urged to regard the TENs not merely as a means of realising national priorities, but as making a contribution to European cohesion and to the integration of a reunited Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioner, the next trade round in Seattle should enhance and reinforce the basis for fair and free world trade in the next millennium. We have to grab this unique chance with both hands to tackle the problems of the future. This is why it is important not to restrict ourselves in the negotiations to two topics only, namely agriculture and services. There are other important topics which require a solution at international level. For example, we need stricter rules for the environment and labour, an effective competition policy should be drafted and it is important that appropriate measures be taken regarding food safety. This is why I fail to understand why some take such a sceptical, or even hostile, stance regarding this coming trade negotiation. This may well be down to an inadequate policy which lacks in transparency. It is therefore time that the World Trade Organisation asserts itself and underlines its significance as the World Trade Organisation. Free trade is not a dirty word. Trade liberalisation based on equal and fair conditions gives globalisation a human face. After all, fair and correct trade at world level implies attention to ecological and social aspects and takes into account all the players involved, thereby including the developing countries. As such, I only hope that the EU negotiators stamp their authority on the discussions, thus immediately authenticating the WTO’s fundamental right of existence as an international organisation now and in the future.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I believe that we would do well to be satisfied – I would say very satisfied – with the result that we are achieving. The Members who have followed this railway package will remember that there have been moments when we doubted that we would succeed in the endeavour to close such a complex chapter. The first result that we must be proud of is, therefore, that of having reached the destination and of having achieved the result. The second is that, objectively, apart from some things that may not convince all the respective political leanings – as we have also heard this evening – we must recognise that we have achieved a balanced result. In these four proposals – for which the rapporteurs must, of course, be thanked for the great work that they carried out – we have a balanced mixture of, on the one hand, the urgent need to open up this market and modernise it and, on the other hand, the need to give us guarantees, both in terms of security and in terms of the ability and experience that the workers in this sector bring, which we want to safeguard. More than anything, what I want to do is say thank you. I would just like to make one observation, because I have heard comments that I am struggling to understand. When talking about this liberalisation, which some are demonising, I would like to call for us not ever to forget that our focus and our objective are the users of this service. No one has the key to liberalisation as such. We must ensure that, by using competition opportunities, we, on the one hand, effectively improve the service for many users who are, primarily, workers – the commuters on this service – and, on the other hand, ensure that this takes place safely and also makes good use of workers’ professional skills. I believe that we have achieved this objective. Since this is my last speech of this parliamentary term, I will take this opportunity to thank my fellow Members. For me, this has been my first parliamentary experience and to have had it in this committee has helped me to understand on many occasions that more is done to build Europe in this difficult, regulatory work that has a direct effect on people’s lives rather than in the many, often pointless, debates on the future and meaning of Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, forgive me but, initially, in the meetings aimed at reaching a consensus, the title we agreed on was ‘regional and lesser-used’. But furthermore, Mrs Pack, there is another problem with your proposal: if we only talk about the ‘lesser-used’, my language would simply not be included since it is not ‘lesser-used’, but regional. Therefore, firstly, that is what we agreed on, and secondly, to be precise, we must say ‘regional and least-used’ because that is what we are talking about. There is no other option.

Political group: ELDR
Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, amongst its main objectives, the White Paper proposes giving priority to sustainable development, relaunching maritime and rail transport, fostering intermodality, anticipating the impact of traffic flow generated by enlargement and improving accessibility in peripheral regions. I fully support modal rebalancing, which should be achieved by means of a series of measures combining a review of the charging system with the revitalisation of alternatives to road transport and targeted investment in the trans-European network. We must, however, at all costs not lose sight of the fact that, pursuant to the Maastricht Treaty, transport policies must be designed to serve cohesion and that, in this regard, the trans-European transport network must be an instrument of economic, social and territorial cohesion within the Union. Extremely specific analyses must be carried out on service provision to the peripheral regions, in particular the island regions and outermost regions with, in particular, the establishment of a public service obligation relating to the need to guarantee the principle of territorial continuity and to ensure the best possible operating conditions. There is a genuine lack of decision when the role of transport in the regional development of the peripheral and, a fortiori, the outermost regions is raised, even though the Treaties recognise in this case the need for treatment that can derogate from common transport market rules. The particularly worrying situation of the provision of air services to the French overseas departments following the dismantling of Air Lib, an airline partly specialising in these flights, is a perfect example of the current gaps that I have just mentioned. It also illustrates the urgency of a joint vision of the future of development in the outermost regions, within which the transport regulation policy would meet the regional development policy. I am not sure that the White Paper, which, in particular, addresses this matter from the point of view of introducing more flexibility into the Community framework on aid for regional purposes in the field of transport services, in particular where links with the peripheral regions and the small islands are concerned, has fully appreciated the importance of this crucial matter for the European peoples concerned.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I should like to draw your attention to a case in which this Parliament has consistently shown an interest. It is the case of Alexander Nikitin. All of us here are pleased that the courts have acquitted him and made it clear that in Russia, too, access to environmental information is a constitutional right. Now, however, he is to go before the courts once more because the public prosecutor is appealing. We know, and we have stated as much in very many resolutions indeed, including specifically during the last plenary part-session of last year, that this is not solely a legal case and that it is wrong for Alexander Nikitin to be accused of criminal activity and treason because of our involvement as the beneficiaries of his findings. These findings form the basis of the European programmes to protect the Barents Sea, and that is why I would ask you to examine a draft letter setting out the most important facts and to make Parliament's position, as expressed in the resolutions which it has adopted, clear as far as Russia is concerned.

Political group: Verts-ALE
We voted in favour of Amendment No 21, and more specifically paragraph 3, of the report because we agree with the rapporteur that the European Parliament and the national parliaments within their respective areas represent the people of the EU. However, we do not believe that increased parliamentarisation of the EU requires the European Parliament’s powers to be extended where all the EU’s decisions are concerned. It is important to remember that intergovernmental cooperation takes place between governments controlled by the national parliaments, which also demand accountability. We voted in favour of paragraph 7 of the report because we agree in principle with the rapporteur’s view that it would be an unfortunate development if the governments were to go overboard in developing new instruments for exercising power that exclude the parliaments’ influence. At the same time, we would emphasise that – in spite of its being insufficiently rooted in parliamentary procedure – the open coordination method has been, and remains, a successful and welcome method of achieving increased integration, cooperation and results in areas not considered suitable for more supranational forms of decision-making. We voted in favour of paragraph 8 of the report because we agree with the rapporteur that it cannot be regarded as legitimate – in terms either of the practicalities or of providing representation – for MEPs to have a double mandate, that is to say with seats in both the European Parliament and a national/regional parliament. Where seats in regional parliaments are concerned, we are nonetheless proceeding on the basis that the rapporteur is referring to such parliaments as have independent legislative power and not to such parliaments as have delegated decision-making power, such as the Swedish county councils. It should be possible reasonably to combine a seat in the latter type of parliament with a seat in the European Parliament.

Political group: PSE