GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, first of all, I think we have cause to thank Mr Blokland, the Commission and the Council for the cooperation there has been in connection with the directive. We all know that it has been a long and very difficult process putting together the requirements for the incineration of both hazardous and non-hazardous waste. I want to draw attention to just three important objectives we can achieve by means of the directive. First and foremost, a significant contribution has now been made to reducing discharges of hazardous and polluting substances produced by incineration – substances which are very harmful to people’s health and which damage the environment. This is to happen by means of the operational requirements made in connection with incineration plant and also by means of the emission limit values we have now established for heavy metals, dioxins and other substances. I also think, however, that it is very important to emphasise that it is now no longer merely a question of discharges into the atmosphere but also of discharges into the water and the earth. The second thing I want to point out is that, as Mr Blokland too mentioned, people are now to be given more information about emissions from incineration plant in the form of the annual reports that are to be prepared. I think this is a very important result. People are entitled to be told about these things. Finally, I want to emphasise that, by establishing the common requirements which everyone must now fulfil, we can presumably get rid of a significant proportion of so-called waste tourism. It will no longer be so financially attractive to export waste to other places in the Community where waste handling requirements are less strict. As Mr Blokland mentioned, incineration is, of course, far from being the ideal way of disposing of waste. It is important for us to continually invest in better production methods, recycling and re-use. This ought clearly to be given priority ahead of incineration. It is nonetheless good that we have now obtained tighter rules covering waste incineration. I believe this will prove to be a significant contribution to improving the environment.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I vigorously endorse what Ms Oomen-Ruijten has said. Commissioner, you cannot take an infinite amount of time over this. I too expect that the Commission will state its position on this issue by 9 October. You said that there are no objections of an ethical nature, but that you will study the question of the field of protection for inventions. However, you have not answered the question put to you by myself, Mr Blokland, and others on whether Article 5.1 now applies in this context or whether Article 5.2 should take priority. I believe that many Members of this House expect the Commission to clarify this serious and very important issue.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, for centuries, Belarus tended to see itself as part of Central Europe and had a close relationship with what is now our Community, but the twentieth century dealt it some appalling blows. First there was the imperialism of Greater Russia, then Stalinism had a particularly cruel effect on it and on the Ukraine, then came Nazi occupation with its crimes – for the war affected White Russia particularly badly – then renewed Soviet colonialism, Chernobyl, the effects of which were particularly felt there, and now, at length, Mr Lukashenko. Mr Lukashenko is a scourge on this country, and has become – thank God, one has to say – a figure unique in modern-day Europe. Since Milosevic fell from power, Mr Lukashenko has in fact come across as a relic of an age which has – thank God – come to an end. It is precisely for that reason that we must do everything possible to support Belarus' democracy movement, which has been suppressed, to act to bring about the release of persecuted journalists, and intervene in defence of the rule of law, democracy and freedom of opinion. We are dealing with one of the last tyrannical regimes in Europe, which must be overcome by peaceful, democratic and lawful means. I therefore consider it right that we turn our attention to this country a second time within a very short period, and we will not cease from doing so until this country is in actual possession of the things we enjoy, namely democracy and the rule of law in accordance with European standards, until this country has also returned to the community of free European peoples. In real terms, this involves us supporting civil rights campaigners, supporting – as Mr Belder pointed out – the independent media, and making it our concern that the spirit of freedom should not be smothered by tyranny, but that that same spirit of freedom should prevail in Belarus as elsewhere. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
I think that before Mr Dupuis gets so excited and starts making such exaggerated accusations he should first verify what has actually happened. The fact is that the Napolitano report was not available in all the languages 24 hours before the debates and before the vote, as required by Rule 115. In order, therefore, to safeguard the Rules of this House and the Rules governing every Member, to ensure that Members have the rights they enjoy under these Rules, the Socialist Group and the , with the support, as was announced earlier, of the EPP Group, requested that to make sure we were in conformity with our Rules, Rule 112 on urgent procedure should be applied. This will be put to the House tomorrow morning to vote on. It will be a sovereign decision of this House to decide whether we can apply urgent procedure to this report. There is nothing undemocratic about that. It respects the Rules of Procedure and it respects what the majority in this House wants. A question I think one could ask is about the motives of those who have tried to filibuster this report from beginning to end, of those who have tried to block it, of those who have tried every trick in the book and everything in the rule book to try and have it postponed. I wonder what it is that makes them fear OLAF having the right to verify that Members are conducting their affairs properly in this House.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, once again we have a paper from the Commission on the table, on which I merely wish to say that I am astonished time and again by the consummate skill with which Commission officials can fill twenty-eight pages without saying anything of real substance. This at least has the strategic advantage of ensuring that they cannot subsequently be compelled to honour their commitments. May I say, Commissioner De Palacio, that these remarks naturally do not apply to the chapters for which you are responsible but to other chapters in this and other papers. Nevertheless, this is what we have now, and so I believe we ought to comment on it. As far as the single market is concerned, I can say on the basis of my experience of past years in this House that we are still far from having a single market which works truly effectively in every area. Major deficits still exist. I believe that the Commission should focus on the elimination of these deficits as one of its top priorities for 2003. In the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, we have just been debating the Directive concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services at second reading stage. It has emerged once again that insurance services are one of those areas in which there is still no functioning single market but only compartmentalised national markets. As I said, there are still considerable deficits. The Commission’s reports have shown that we have the same problem in other sectors of the economy too with the implementation of freedom to provide services and freedom of establishment. We have a report from the Commission that has already been discussed in committee and will no doubt soon have further repercussions, a report which deals with specific deficits in the realm of freedom to provide services. Time does not permit me to go into the various specific examples, but I would urge the Commission to continue the systematic pursuit of this approach and to ensure that we ultimately have a genuine functioning single European market. Let me mention one last point that was also discussed this morning at the meeting with members of the national parliaments. In January, Parliament adopted a report on further steps towards convergence in the realm of civil and commercial law. May I ask the Commission, and especially the Commissioners with the relevant portfolios, to forge ahead with these efforts and to present a Green Paper or White Paper as soon as possible to give us a firm idea of the direction in which we are heading. This, I believe, is quite crucial as a means of ensuring that the single market not only exists and operates to the advantage of big business but that consumers and smaller businesses also have the opportunity to make full use of the options offered by the single market. We are building the single market first and foremost for the people of Europe, not for the sole benefit of large companies. Hence my plea to forge ahead with increased vigour and increased energy, even in the face of the opposition which, as experience shows, is always encountered in some Member States.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would first like to apologise for having arrived late. Secondly, I would like to welcome the work done by Mrs Riis-Jørgensen, with whom I have had an excellent and constructive relationship. And obviously, Mr President, although my opinion refers to the Commission’s 29th report on competition policy, it is inevitable at such a time that we will look to the past, but for no other reason than in order to learn for the future. It has been said – and I am only going to pick up on what has been said so far – that competition is presently the big word in our society, it is the great catalyst for the development of our society, particularly of our European society. In short, we see that industry entered into competition following the Treaty of Rome, that this competition was also extended to services on the basis of the single market and that, with the euro, it extended to financial services. We see that now, driven by international competition and by the new technologies, the large telecommunications sector is being dealt with. Finally, even royalty sectors, the real enclaves of sovereignty, of State royalty activities, are coming under competition policy. Therefore, Mr President, we need to recognise that, with Member States that are ceasing to be producers and becoming regulators, the Commission policy needs to change, and in this sense, this report is part of that important development. In its opinion, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market did nothing more than highlight something which has been said and repeated: that we need clear rules, because this is the only way of knowing what the rules of play are. We cannot leave everything to the market with no regulation at all. What we need are clear rules and – I stress – rules that are of a sufficient level or category. In any event, interpretations or interpretative communications are no good. And also, of course, that the Commission’s policy, which we welcome and support in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, should not be shaped, in this process of decentralisation, to the detriment of small and medium-sized businesses, to the detriment of the citizens. I will end with a phrase from John Rawls, the philosopher of law: inequalities are always justified when they increase the level of the system and support the weakest without affecting fundamental rights. Commissioner, knowing how far this goes in the universal service, in public service, is the great challenge for the Commission.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I would, of course, like to thank all rapporteurs. I believe they have worked very hard. Every time, it is a feat of strength if the budget can be brought to a good close and I believe congratulations are in order here. A budget is always more than a mere juggling with figures. Behind each figure, behind each budget line, behind each allocation, there is a policy to be adopted, there are political goals, huge expectations and, more than anything, people. I was able to experience this first-hand over the past two weeks when, during a trip in the Western Balkans, I visited Kosovo and Bosnia. And I happened to be in Pristina when President Kostunica was welcomed in Biarritz with the necessary pomp and circumstance and was handed EUR 200 million in the form of winter aid there and then, no strings attached. Ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, that was a political act which was not particularly received well by the Albanian Kosovars. I was asked why the Union does not seize the change of power in Serbia to put permanent pressure on the new regime, even if it was to set those 914 people free who are imprisoned in Serbian gaols forthwith? And I am telling you loud and clear: Kostunica must be given his chance here and I therefore hope that he will give amnesty in the next couple of weeks or months, but meanwhile, I do want the introduction of those two new budget lines, democratisation and reconstruction, to be accompanied by political conditions, both from a political and budgetary perspective. As far as I am concerned, Serbia should not receive any funding without giving us the guarantee of more stability and absolute respect for the rights of the Kosovars, the Montenegrins and for respect of the Dayton Agreement of November 1995. For it is true that my visit to Bosnia taught me that the situation there is very problematic indeed. All the people I talked to over there applauded the switch of power in Serbia, but they all feared a reduction in the financial resources at the same time. A euro can only be spent once and may this serve as a caution to both you, ladies and gentlemen, as well as the absent Council. There is a great deal to be done in Bosnia. Just think of the return of the refugees and the clearing of mines. I have visited the project. Those people need funds urgently for if the mines are not cleared, the houses cannot be rebuilt and the economy of this very fragile state cannot be made viable. A reduction in the financial resources translates in less stability in the Western Balkans. I therefore back all efforts, together with Mr Lagendijk, to inject maximum funds in the Western Balkans. If necessary, category four should be broken down in our view and the financial perspective should be reviewed. Ladies and gentlemen, I do not want to see Europe remain a political dwarf and I certainly do not want another war in the Western Balkans, at less than 1 500 km from here. Let us therefore, in the capacity of budget authority, assume our political responsibility.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, the point at issue is that the wording in the compromise is ‘studies currently in progress’, and I stressed in my speech the fact that these things have not been researched before. If our new directive leads industry to consider requesting a study, is it possible that it is only now that I would commission one? That was the question – not whether current studies would be taken into account, but whether it is possible that future studies will be.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I would first of all like to thank the rapporteurs of both these reports for their hard work. There are many types of behaviour which infringe or could infringe the rules of the common fisheries policy, and it is a fact that actions constituting infringements may be somewhat hazy both due to the lack of information by the Member States and the lack of points of reference and possibilities of comparing markers, and also to difficulties in interpreting and reading information, given the lack of data on infringements proposed, fleet size, most effective control mechanisms and resources, etc. While accepting the need for a certain amount of flexibility in interpreting rules and assessing behaviour, I believe now is the time to back reinforced cooperation between the various national inspection authorities, in order to provide information on penalties for infringements committed and also to back truly dissuasive, efficient, effective penalties, equal treatment and also to back a brave decision to prevent the entry of the products of illegal fishing into the European Union. The most serious infringement procedures concern illegal, undeclared and unregulated fishing, which is detrimental to the protection of fisheries resources and also penalises fishermen who do not commit infringements, the perpetrators of which – I mean the illegal fishermen – are undeterred by the pecuniary or monetary fine and still make a profit from their illegal activity, and are not discouraged from continuing to fish illegally. In conclusion, we must achieve an effective control, application and notification system, as stated in recital A, but this system will inevitably require of the Member States a spirit of mutual trust and accountability and an equal commitment to notifying infringements securely and effectively. Commissioner, taking the opportunity to reform the CFP to this end would make European Union actions more transparent and effective.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I voted for Mrs Gebhardt’s report. I am, naturally, in favour of any fight against injustice, and the effects of organised crime constitute a serious injustice. Citizens should be protected by European judges, and let us hope that soon there really will be European judges. For this to happen, however, there has to be a European criminal code, Madam President, which I have often called for. Once again, then, I insist that there should be a criminal code and a European code of criminal procedure, otherwise there is no point in having European judges.

Political group: PPE-DE
I would like to specify, given that not everyone has necessarily been able to follow this case, that this is a flight which had all the required authorisations but which was cancelled at the last minute for reasons that are unclear. Whatever the case, to remove any doubt whatsoever, the people that I know personally who were going to take part in this flight had absolutely no intention of giving Sadam Hussein’s authority any kind of endorsement – he is still our sworn enemy – but only of doing something , and this is important, to draw the attention of public opinion worldwide to the genuinely tragic situation which the embargo is causing for the civilian population of the country, particularly children. That is why I would like to support this motion. (Parliament rejected the proposal) President. – I shall now put the request to replace the item on ‘Macedonia’ with an item entitled ‘Tragedy of the Greek ferry Samina’ to the vote. (Parliament rejected the proposal) I have received two requests both wishing to add a fifth item. The Rules of Procedures, as you know, only allow us five items. If the first proposal is accepted, this will render the second null and void. So, first we have a request from the Group of the European People’s Party/ to add a new point at item 5 entitled ‘Tragedy of the Greek ferry Samina’. (Parliament approved the proposal)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I should like to request your assistance. We have a rule in this Parliament that smoking is prohibited in certain places – that includes the Chamber. We are going to debate the whole issue of tobacco in a few moments. I came in here today to be greeted by huge wafts of smoke, courtesy of Mr Brok. This is not the first time. In the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy – as Chair of that committee – he sits there smoking. This is not acceptable. It has a knock-on effect. In the last Committee on Foreign Affairs meeting that I attended, other members of the committee also started to smoke. In the interests of everyone, the rules should be respected, irrespective of the person concerned. It is extremely important that the no-smoking rules are complied with. That includes the Members. It is very disrespectful of them not to take this into account. We have some Members in this Chamber who are immediately affected by tobacco smoke, for example, Mrs Lynne, who frequently complains. Please urge the Members – in particular the Member I have mentioned – not to smoke in areas where it is forbidden.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, when considering the report we are now discussing, on the future of cohesion after enlargement, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities unanimously approved the following fundamental principles: - firstly: cohesion policy, as defined in the Treaties, is a crucial pillar for the future of European integration and must not, therefore, be renationalised; - secondly: the active promotion of a policy of equality between men and women is a prerequisite for achieving real economic and social cohesion; - thirdly: the fact that disparities between the richest and poorest regions are predicted to double following the planned enlargement to a further ten countries and a significant fall in per capita income makes it crucial that the sum currently spent by the Union on cohesion polices is at least 0.45% of GDP, and for the sake of coherence, this amount must be increased. I should also like to draw your attention to the objective laid down at the Lisbon Summit of achieving, in the European Union, in 2010, a 60% rate of female employment, because this increase in women working is essential not only in order to increase the European GDP, but also to finance the future of social security and to bring about an increase in tax revenues. I therefore ask the Commission to consider gender equality as an integral part of the Community polices that contribute to economic and social cohesion; to include the aspect of gender and equal treatment between men and women in cohesion policies and assess, on the basis of precise indicators and quantified objectives, the contribution that economic and social cohesion makes to achieving the Community strategy for equal treatment and opportunities between men and women.

Political group: PSE
The Belgian Socialist MEPs have abstained from the vote on the resolution concerning the preparation of the Feira Summit. The adoption of an appeal to the Heads of Government to review their attitude towards the Austrian Government has left the doors wide open to the extreme right wing in this government being trivialised. This is unacceptable to us. The Belgian MEPs of the Group regret that, for these reasons, they were unable to assent to this otherwise sound resolution.

Political group: PSE