GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, a little more than two years have elapsed since Tampere and the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam. It is important to point out that major progress has been made but that, on the other hand, there are still many obstacles to be overcome. The Union is proud, and rightly so, of its constant defence of respect for human rights in the world and within the Community. The recently proclaimed Charter of Fundamental Rights reinforced our commitment in this regard and the area of freedom, security and justice only makes sense if all three of these elements are taken together and if no one of them prejudices any other. The tragic events of September 11 and the intensified attention to safety measures cannot detract from this fundamental approach. Since it is necessary to meet citizens’ expectations in terms of fighting terrorism, special care must be taken not to fall into excesses or exaggeration, that is to say, ‘everything for security’. The Member States’ commitment to building an area of freedom, security and justice was once again reaffirmed at the last Justice and Home Affairs Council. It is vital that within this area citizens may enjoy the right to express themselves, demonstrate and meet freely and peacefully, provided that they do so in a way which does not constitute a threat, either to their own safety or to the safety of other citizens and property. Here too, we must not exaggerate. Any individual or group of people wishing to take part in legitimate demonstrations should not be blocked at the borders, that is, they cannot be denied the right to cross frontiers, i.e. they cannot be denied freedom of movement, which is a fundamental right granted to all citizens of the Union by the Treaty. Because security is merely an instrument to ensure freedom. Security loses its meaning when it prejudices freedom. Security without freedom is tyranny. In this festive season, my best wishes to Commissioner António Vitorino for the continuation of his excellent work.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, when I arrived in this Parliament, 18 years ago, in a situation very different from the one that is allowing me to speak now, and even before financial perspectives were discussed, there were already arguments about own resources and the Spanish Socialists were already fighting for idea of a citizens' graduated tax system. Therefore, in the vote on the report by Mr Wynn, Chairman of the Committee on Budgets, I voted with the French Socialists and with the Spanish Socialists in favour of the idea that, before enlargement, the Committee on Budgets – and this Parliament also – should have promoted the idea that to finance this Union, this Community, the easiest thing is to do it on the basis that everyone must pay, under a tax system which the citizen understands and which is not based on the tax-paying capacity of the States, but on the incomes of each of our fellow citizens.

Political group: PSE
Following negotiations with the Council and the Commission, the rapporteur tabled amendments to her recommendation for second reading, in order to ensure that the Erasmus Mundus programme would be equipped to achieve its desired ends. This programme is an essential instrument for exchange and cooperation in the field of higher education. Any measure enabling it to be effectively implemented, therefore, deserves our support. Erasmus Mundus Masters Courses should be synonymous with quality. They should, therefore, be selected on the basis of the quality of the training on offer, as well as the hosting provided for students. One of the principal objectives of this programme is to promote linguistic diversity. While attending a Masters Course, students should have the opportunity to use the languages of at least two of the countries where the institutions involved in these courses are situated. The financial framework for implementing the programme is essential to its success. The Council agreed on a budget of EUR 180 million. This amount, however, is insufficient and that is why we support the request for appropriations totalling EUR 230 million.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in my speech I shall focus on the practical implementation of regional and structural policy, which is a key element in successful enlargement as well as preparations for it. The Commission and the applicant countries must prepare for enlargement in a way that avoids needless delays in the start-up of programmes and so that the money set aside for these preparations can be used effectively. The Structural Funds must also be used in a way that is as uncomplicated and efficient as possible. There is much room for improvement here, which is evident, for example, from Mr Turco’s report. Aid must be allocated and staggered so that the funds get to the local players as directly as possible and primarily to the poorest regions of all. Structural work must adopt the principle of phasing in increased batches of aid. It is reasonable to use the Cohesion Fund in the early stages, but in the future the programme-based financing share must be increased. Skills, know-how, new technology and good levels of networking between SMEs and regional players are essential in implementing effective regional policy and promoting the positive impact of enlargement. The particular challenge is not so much the adoption of Community legal provisions but their implementation and monitoring.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, on one side of the coin we read that economic growth and employment figures are up, the e-Europe action plan is in the pipeline, unemployment is beginning to drop slightly and the economic and employment forecasts are good. On the other side of the coin, we read that there are still 15 million unemployed, the telecommunications and Internet services sector is underdeveloped, there is a widening skills gap in information technology, structural long-term unemployment, too many state monopolies and fetters, competitive disadvantages vis-à-vis the USA and shortcomings in the implementation of European innovations. Lisbon aroused expectations as far as rectifying these shortcomings is concerned. And anyone who arouses expectations must be measured by his or her actions, must introduce consistent benchmarking, carry out regular follow-ups, formulate ambitious goals, draft a master plan in every country as to how these goals are to be implemented and, above all, quickly follow words with deeds. We shall measure the Member States, as represented by the Council, by when each school in Europe has Internet access, by when electricity, gas, telecommunications, the postal and transport markets are fully deregulated, by what the charter for small enterprises really says and by when the incorporation offensive is implemented. We shall measure you by when the financial services internal market is complete and by when the quantity and quality of innovation and its implementation makes Europe the most competitive and dynamic economic area in the world. Allow me to say in support of Mrs Raschofer that, because of our experience with you, we shall measure you by your conduct vis-à-vis Parliament and the Commission during this process and by when a sustainable reduction in unemployment is actually achieved. Our eco-social market economy model is the basis for our action and we call for it to be developed further. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
I have already received an answer from the Secretary-General, but it does not answer my question. All I want is an answer. Why should a question that was listed as No 3 in February become No 22 in March?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the report on the stabilisation and association process for the countries in eastern Europe we are debating today attempts, and I believe successfully so, to formulate a stable political framework with which to address the Balkan tragedy. Now is not the time to pass judgement past events and situations. Today, let us take it that with this report we are taking a step towards the future and creating the platform for a first successful substantive European Union policy, in a way the first successful action of the CFSP. Here, however, we must pay attention to certain issues. So what are these issues? It is an open secret that interests are being expressed in the Balkans by many sides and many people, who often do not have common strategic aims. In all circumstances this must be stopped by non-negotiable political answers given in every direction. So what are they? Firstly: absolute compliance with the UN’s decisions on the area. Secondly: the boundaries of the states in the area are non-negotiable, even if it proves necessary in critical cases to adopt flexible forms of administrative autonomy and greater decentralisation. I note that if there are some who think solutions will emerge either by creating new states or by redistribution between states, they are making a tragic mistake. That would lead to continued and lasting tension with no foreseeable end. A domino effect. Without exaggeration, at the beginning of the 21st century we would have a new thirty-year war, 10 years of which, in any case, we have unfortunately lived through. Thirdly: our policy must concern the peoples, and only them. That is what is also in Europe’s interests. Fourthly: the issue of economic and institutional reconstruction is an urgent priority. Positive results will emerge through development, democracy and prosperity. For the first time you are passing judgement on a complex problem at the very periphery of the European Union. The EU’s political credibility and competence must prove successful. It is a bet which must be won. I hope that the strong convergence of support for the Lagendijk report achieved in the Committee on Foreign Affairs will find the same response in Parliament, and thereby express the desire of us all for a positive and stable outcome.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, I wish to begin, of course, by expressing my solidarity with the communities that have been affected. On these occasions, we must focus on what is most urgent: the need to mobilise technical and financial resources in order to minimise environmental damage, to regenerate ecosystems and to support the economic activities that have been affected by this accident. There is, however, a debate which, although not quite as urgent, is nonetheless of the utmost importance: that of responsibility. In this matter, the ‘polluter pays’ rule must be enforced, by investigating, prosecuting and punishing those responsible. We must, however, go beyond looking for someone to blame. We must determine the responsibility, firstly of those who should have inspected but did not and of those who did inspect but did not act. Secondly, we must determine the responsibility of those who managed the crisis, in particular, we must clarify the reason why the EU as a whole was not involved in managing the risk from the very outset, given that it was known that the consequences of the accident would easily move beyond the confines of one country and would affect the entire natural heritage of Europe. As for the future, I hope that the Member States will heed the well-drafted call and the leadership of Commissioner de Palacio, with a view to immediately implementing the ‘Erika I’ and ‘Erika II’ packages and give a boost to the creation of the European Safe Seas Agency.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, first of all may I say that I have much sympathy with the remarks that have just been passed by Mr Harbour. He has spoken very clearly and I am sure that Commissioner Bolkestein has listened carefully to what he had to say. I take this, however, from a slightly different tack. The position of the Data Protection Supervisor is of enormous importance. The Charter of Fundamental Rights which I helped to prepare states that everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her and the Amsterdam Treaty called for the establishment of an independent supervisor by 1 January, 1999. This deadline is, of course, well past and our main priority, therefore, is to create this post as soon as we possibly can. The urgency of the matter should not in itself be an excuse for us to rush it through without proper discussion. Indeed, the salary of both the Data Protection Supervisor and his assistant has resulted in numerous discussions within our committees. Many people, myself included, were unhappy about the unreasonably high salary of the supervisor, which will of course be comparable to that of the Ombudsman. But I contrast this discussion with the kind which one might have in a national parliament where, frankly, the issue itself is of such dramatic importance to the establishment of this role that it ought perhaps to be dealt with not in this particular plenary but elsewhere. We are not as flexible as I would like. Most of the matters relating to the post have already been laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and published in the Official Journal. I know that the Secretariat has also declared a number of the amendments to be out of order for various reasons and this has caused concern among many colleagues. Internal politics has also been a feature of this debate. It is unfortunate, that there is no single data protection instrument for all the pillars. As a member of the Future of Europe Convention, I do hope, indeed I might even anticipate, that at the conclusion of the work that we shall be doing, it may well be that the protection of the private citizen and the interests of the private citizen, both in terms of the work of the Ombudsman – which I highly value and respect – and also in connection with data protection issues, will be spelled out very clearly as something in need of development in the future. I hope, therefore, that whatever we decide – and I do hope that we decide to proceed with this post when we vote on this week – we will return to the matter and at an appropriate moment, perhaps, during discussion of the next Treaty or before then, we will look at ways of endorsing the position of citizens and making sure their relationship with institutions in Europe is a properly balanced one.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am sorry to hear that the Commissioner is ill this evening. I think her remarks addressed earlier to Mrs McNally were actually intended for me, but I am very happy to see that she is not symbolically sporting a headscarf in solidarity with Islamic fundamentalists. I would be appalled at that, but I am sure it is something she would never do. Your proposals, Commissioner, are totally misleading. Whilst superficially proposing to increase nuclear safety, they hide their true purpose which is to revitalise a totally defunct nuclear industry. The nuclear package represents a coordinated effort to prepare for further development of atomic power in an enlarged European Union and it has been stripped of all meaningful safety requirements. It will receive no support from my Group. Commissioner, you may have bitten off more than you can chew, but that is for you to decide. As an Irish MEP I would strongly urge non-nuclear countries like Ireland to take a stand against this nuclear package and I am sorry that it has not so far done this. I will be urging it to adopt such a position as this directive is not a first step in the right direction, but in fact a giant leap backwards. It is a recipe for a bureaucratic nightmare with zero safety gains. Regarding safety, the draft directive claimed that it would introduce common safety standards, but this directive, as drafted, does not set out those safety standards. It only sets out basic obligations and general principles. In fact it calls for pre-arranged reviews of nuclear safety authorities, rather than a proper inspection of nuclear facilities, and that is clearly nonsense. The current draft will not lead to an increase in nuclear safety in the EU or the accession countries, because all nuclear states in the EU and the accession countries are already parties to the International Atomic Energy Agency's Nuclear Safety Convention and must already report on the safety of nuclear power stations. Some inspectors think that it will actually have a negative effect. On the particularly thorny question of reprocessing, we have high level waste that needs to be made safe much faster than is currently the case, and this processing should be continued. Where is the justification for this directive? It is illogical given the huge variation in size of nuclear programmes. We need to exclude the exportation of waste and indeed, as has already been said, the timetable is way out of line with what the Member States can achieve. Think again, Commissioner. This is a bureaucratic nightmare and a nonsense.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I should first of all like to concur with Mr Kuhne on the subject of the transparent and open way in which we cooperate. I could be asking my fellow MEPs a whole string of questions today. I could question the considerable budget surplus of EUR 15 million; I could ask why, for the umpteenth year in a row, no positive Statement of Assurance has been issued; I could ask about the Commission's accounting system, about the shortcomings of the Member States which, all in all, already manage 80% of European subsidy policy; about pre-accession policy, or about Sapard, where only 9.2% of the resources have been used. These are all important questions, which we will be addressing together with the rapporteur, Mr Casaca, over the next few weeks and months. In my view, there is only one important question left today. Members of the Court of Auditors, you know that I am on good terms with the Court. I like working with you and we work well together. However, according to OLAF's annual report, allegations have been made by an MEP to OLAF with regard to possible misappropriations by a former member of the Court of Auditors. You will be aware that I am that MEP. When I heard about those allegations, I passed them on to OLAF. I specifically did not want any publicity at the time. I wanted to see whether OLAF would do its job, and I have to compliment the OLAF investigators on doing a sterling job. A few weeks ago, they submitted a dossier to the Court of Justice in Luxembourg. They also submitted a dossier to the Court of Auditors itself with a number of recommendations. One of those recommendations was to mount a disciplinary inquiry against a former member of the Court of Auditors and against someone who used to be one of its temporary officials. I understand that a request has also been made for a financial reimbursement to the tune of EUR 28 000. Members of the Court of Auditors, I should like to ask you for your official reaction to the OLAF inquiry. Will you be taking on board the recommendations that the Court of Auditors has made? Can you also give me permission to examine this OLAF dossier myself? Thirdly, can you assure me that the case involving Mrs N is an isolated one and that it is not common practice within the Court of Auditors? Members of the Court of Auditors, it is a crucial question because we will shortly be debating not only Parliament's discharge, the Commission's discharge, but also, among other things, the discharge of the Court of Auditors itself. I think that an honest and open answer from you is very important in terms of the Committee on Budgetary Control’s, or Parliament's, ability to decide whether or not to grant you discharge with respect to the year 2001.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, on behalf of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, I must indicate my complete and categorical condemnation of the terrorist attack on 22 February in Vitoria which took the lives of the MP and spokesman in the Basque parliament, Fernando Buesa, and his bodyguard, Jorge Díez. In a country governed by the rule of law and which is a member of the European Union, it should be possible for all ideas and options to be defended, provided that this occurs democratically and with respect for the rights of the individual and the principles and values of justice, freedom and economic and social progress on which the Union is based. The transgression of these principles is simply not acceptable, as clearly indicated in the Treaties. There is no justification in our society for terrorist acts such as the one which took the lives of Fernando Buesa and Jorge Díez, particularly when the former was a freely elected representative of the Basque people. We pray that these are the last victims in a process which, as you said, Madam President, has seen much barbarism. We pray that a way forward can be found which will allow the Basque people to live together in peace. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, we are debating the regulatory framework for future contracts and tripartite agreements between the Community, the States and regional and local authorities. I would like to stress how necessary it is for the intra-State administrations to collaborate, increasing subsidiarity, in order to achieve the objectives which we have set in the majority of programmes and projects stemming from the European cohesion and environmental policies, and also in order to guarantee sustainability. I am thinking of the FIFG funds and programmes for the fisheries sector, or LEADER + for agriculture for the target regions of FEDER or the URBAN and Interreg projects, amongst others, in which the participation and responsibility of the territorial bodies is so essential. I am also convinced, however, that the fact that a significant proportion of the important Community resources which are budgeted for are not used – the so-called RALs – is due to the fact that the regional and local autonomous governments, which execute the majority of projects, have not so far been able to participate in the early phase, either in the drawing up of policies, or in the adoption of strategies, or in the identification of legal obligations prior to drawing up of the respective European programmes. It is time to put things right, to come down from Mount Olympus and to share decision-making with the other institutions which are closer to the reality on the ground and the reality of the citizens.

Political group: Verts-ALE
We have seen a report concerned with water quality in Europe transformed into an instrument of commercial war. We all agree that ensuring water quality is a hugely important objective, above all, given the adverse effects of developing a model of accelerated industrial growth on the natural environment. It is clear that this model’s logic of private profit has been harmful, and therefore the ‘polluter pays’ principle is a suitable way of dealing with these consequences. However, apart from these principles, there is the consideration that water, as a common resource, cannot be subjected to the rules of the market. Surprisingly, I imagine with the best of intentions, this ecological objective has become an instrument of commercial war by making consumers, and especially the agricultural sector, responsible for the price of installations and the procedures for ensuring water quality. In fact, water becomes simply one more product subject to the laws of the market. This means that the neoliberal model now reigns in the field of water. By failing to distinguish countries and regions where water is abundant, and is therefore not a problem, from regions where drought and low rainfall make it a scarce commodity, stifling the chances of any economic and social development, we are perverting the ecological principle and turning it into a weapon. In the same way it is somewhat ironic that we are hindering the possibility of sharing this commodity, which is scarce in some areas, while regions where there is abundant water are giving advice on austerity with regard to its use, to those who live in drought areas. As a result of this lack of sensitivity and solidarity, my vote has been consistent with what I have said, as an MEP from one of the dry Mediterranean agricultural regions – although one with prospects – namely, the Region of Murcia.

Political group: PSE