GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I would like to thank both the Commission and our rapporteur for their work on this issue. We have already said a great deal on this subject, and so I shall keep this very brief. We have been able to ascertain that a modal shift has taken place in recent years, although the manner in which, and the extent to which, this has taken place has been very low-key to date. We want to give this trend a huge boost. That being the case, it is important that the modalities themselves, specifically rail, internal and coastal navigation, are booming and that political freedoms have been granted too, in the form of liberalisation, interoperability and a number of other things which the sector can use to seize its opportunities. Yet we would also like to increase the number of opportunities available to SMEs, in particular, although this sometimes entails financial assistance. That is precisely why we have tabled an amendment for forms of state aid to SMEs, also for environmental purposes. Incidentally, I am not in agreement with the advantage enjoyed by the Galileo project in these matters, but that is something we should discuss on another occasion. I would point out that the alarming increase in transport, also as a result of e-commerce, means that unfortunately, intermodal transport is just a drop in the ocean at the moment, but will have to make headway in the future.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I too should like to congratulate the honourable Members Mr Méndez de Vigo and Mr Seguro and point out that the Spanish contribution to the future of Europe is, first and foremost, the result of dialogue and proper political compromise. It is true that the Nice Summit and the Treaty of Nice contain numerous contradictions and a great many lacunae, especially as regards the role of the European Parliament within both the future of Europe and the institutional framework on the basis of which Europe is to move forward from now on. However, the questions which we need to address from now on, as Mr Méndez de Vigo and Mr Seguro have clearly stressed in their report, are important questions such as the separation of powers, the role of the European parliaments, the constitutionalisation of the Treaties and the future of the common foreign policy; questions which we shall be addressing between now and the Summit in Laeken and beyond, questions which will link future summits with the outcome of Nice. I listened very closely to the President-in-Office and I have to say that I am not bothered about fora or websites one way or the other. They are all extremely useful. What I am bothered about, however, is the fact that we have not yet said ‘yes’ to the need for a convention at which all the political forces in Europe can express their official, coordinated views and can conduct an official, coordinated dialogue on its future.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to sincerely thank Finland's former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Väyrynen, for his admirable work. On 7 February this year, the Swedish Presidency commented on the general situation in Ukraine and, at that time, highlighted the disappearance of the journalist, Georgiy Gongadze, whose fate touches us all. Ukraine will soon be a neighbour of the EU. Mr Väyrynen's report deals with our immediate neighbours once the EU is enlarged. We can see a similar development in Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus, with increased political unrest, antidemocratic tendencies, economic recession, increasingly authoritarian regimes and reduced political pluralism. As the first Vice-Chairman of the European Parliament's delegation to these three countries, I am concerned about this development. I have had the opportunity to meet various representatives in the country, for example the young mayor, Natalia Gnatyuk, and the leader of the young people's movement of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, Andriy Yaniv. Their message to us was: do not forget the importance of ethics and religion in our country's development. I would like to direct two questions to Commissioner Patten, who is doing an excellent job for the EU as regards foreign policy. Firstly, I wonder how the Tacis programme and the partnership and cooperation agreement can help to strengthen ethical and moral principles, particularly in the areas of commerce, politics and civil society – something that is necessary in a country like Ukraine. Secondly, I wonder whether, in light of the fact that both countries are developing in the same direction, it is tenable or reasonable in the long term to treat Ukraine and Belarus as differently as we are at present. Can we isolate one country, but not the other?

Political group: PPE-DE
We have voted in favour of the report on checks at the common borders but have certain reservations concerning Amendment No 4 through which the police would, in certain circumstances, be given the ability to carry out identity checks and provisionally arrest people in the territory of another Member State. We also wish to highlight Amendment No 1, which would give the police from another Member State the right to continue surveillance if the receiving Member State were not in a position to do the same. The national police force’s monopoly on the use of force is a basic rule in a democratic society. As is also stated in the Schengen Convention, police should only have the power to take action in another Member State in very special circumstances. Giving foreign police the right to take over surveillance or make arrests in another Member State obviously means that the work concerned can be done more efficiently. At the same time, it is important to point out that, when it comes to action taken by foreign police, the legislation of the receiving Member State reigns supreme. The regulations and traditions of the Member States vary, especially where procedures for identity checks and arrests are concerned, and they should not be subject to harmonisation. It must be ensured that the right of the police to carry out surveillance of suspected criminals outside the police’s own Member State is not abused and that local legislation and regulations are fully complied with. There must also be guarantees that all the requirements of the Schengen Convention are observed in their entirety before foreign police take action in another Member State.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the Commissioner stated that the Commission is very cautious in its relations with reproductive health programmes. How will the Commission, however, ensure that women in less developed countries also enjoy an essential human right, the right to make decisions about their own bodies and the right also to make choices regarding abortion? In other words, how will the Commission support NGOs that protect such alternatives as these and their projects in developing countries? I think it is very important that women in less developed countries also have a right to abortion and a right to consider it an option.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I am against postponing the report, and I question the way in which this House works. The report was adopted in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development by a good majority and with only two votes against. We are now embarking on a discussion about the release directive 90/220, which is inappropriate. We are referring here to the release directive, and according to the conciliation procedure, that is precisely what the speeches will focus on. We are doing exactly the same as we have already done in the case of forest and plant material, i.e. we are making reference to the horizontal directive. Not voting on the report will lead to delays. It will obstruct the trade in vine material in Europe, and so I believe that in the interests of the single market for Europe’s vine propagators, we must vote on our report. (Parliament rejected the request) Relating to Tuesday:

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Brussels Summit was above all about enlargement of the European Union. The British Conservative Party has argued strongly and consistently in favour of the enlargement eastwards of the EU since the Berlin Wall fell some 13 years ago. Indeed, the manifesto on which I and my colleagues were elected in 1999 states quite clearly the reasons why we support this process so enthusiastically. It stated that enlargement is an historic opportunity to advance the principles for which Europe should stand: free trade, free markets, deregulation and cooperation. It would also mean more trade, more stability and more prosperity for the existing Member States of the European Union. Furthermore, the European Union simply cannot ignore the moral duty that it owes to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. At Brussels, significant progress was made towards achieving agreement on the entry of 10 applicant states at the Copenhagen Council in December. My party warmly welcomes this. Europe will be a better place as a result of enlargement and I congratulate the Danish Presidency on the skill and the commitment it has displayed in reaching this point. However, given the fact that we have waited 13 years for this historic moment, I want to reiterate that there must be no foot-dragging, no more delays and no more last-minute vested interests should be allowed to stand in the way. On no account should we allow budgetary discussions to be derailed by reopening issues that have been long settled, in particular, the continuation of the British budgetary abatement, which was agreed unanimously by heads of government at Berlin in 1999. This budgetary abatement is both fair and justified and any attempt to use it as a smokescreen to disguise unwillingness to reform the CAP must be dismissed as political opportunism. I regret the fact that those Member States which most actively promote CAP reform, including the British Prime Minister, were so comprehensively out-manoeuvred at Brussels. I hope they recover their negotiating skills by the time we get to Copenhagen. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I just want to ask that, in the letter to the Council, you inform them that an error has crept in to the German version of the Common Position. In our negotiations with them, we succeeded in prevailing upon the Council to replace the term ‘high-speed sea routes’ by the term ‘motorways of the sea’, as we also want to promote slower ferries as well as high-speed ones. I therefore ask that the communication to the Council should make reference to the linguistic error that has found its way into the German version as regards the term ‘motorway of the sea’. I believe that view to be shared by the House as a whole.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, with the Rothe report – at least with the interventionist aid system for renewable energy sources that it describes – we are about to make mistakes in energy policy, which will have a very serious impact on Europe in the long term. That is why I rejected the report. Energy policy must look to the future, be sustainable and respect market principles. What the report seeks is precisely the opposite. The policy of constantly subsidising wind, biomass and solar energy is mistaken and purely symbolic. Billions are paid out in subsidies to the few who are ruining the countryside with their wind turbines. We now have a plant with more than 60 rotors, taking up as much land as 1000 football pitches. standing are the consumer and Europe itself, for this policy undermines all the advantages of our policy of liberalising the electricity markets.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to thank the President-in-Office for this reply and I am very satisfied that the eVote initiative is also to continue in one way or another during the Italian presidential term. One part of this initiative was that the opinions the public expressed via the Internet were directly visible at summit meetings. Today here in Parliament my fellow Member, Jo Leinen, introduced an initiative such as this, where the Intergovernmental Conference would also be conducted transparently, with the public able to send in messages to our representatives there. For example, certain sittings of the IGC could be held openly over the Internet and people could comment on issues whilst our heads of state were in attendance there. What do you think of this idea? Would this be possible and are you able to take the matter further?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to add to Mr von Wogau's amendment an oral supplementary amendment which reads: 'this is to be in the form of a protocol to the constitution, and adherence to this protocol shall be a matter for the sovereign competence of each Member State.' (Parliament objected to tabling the oral amendment) - Before the vote on Amendment No 19:

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I would like, once again, to express my full support for the Commission’s proposal, which combines in this regulation the five existing directives on the biodegradability of surfactants, and to express my appreciation of the work of the rapporteur, who has helped to make the proposal more cohesive, preserving a very constructive relationship with the other groups, which means that the final product we are submitting for the vote in plenary has broad backing. The key aspects of this regulation are health, consumer safety and the protection of and respect for the environment. The amendments retabled on behalf of my group are intended precisely to provide greater guarantees of the achievement of these objectives and of the objectives based on the three principles which are the basis for the work of the Committee on the Environment: the precautionary principle, the ‘polluter pays’ principle and the substitution principle. The fact that the scope of the regulation has been confined to the biodegradability of the surfactants contained in detergents does not limit the application of these principles. Indeed, I believe that anaerobic biodegradation, the biodegradation of principal organic ingredients other than surfactants and the biodegradation of phosphates should be regulated specifically, for this would complement the regulation of detergents. Moreover, I agree with the principle that the possibility of introducing legislation on individual products should be provided for, with a view to imposing more stringent requirements in the field of safety, use and environmental protection than those already laid down by horizontal legislation. That is why we are all calling upon the Commission together to present a new legislative proposal seeking to phase out these substances or to limit specific applications within three years of the entry into force of this regulation. Lastly, I believe that it would be appropriate to provide for a single labelling system for these kinds of products in daily use, for that would allow the consumer to recognise and the producer to promote products which are less harmful to the environment.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office, it does seem that Belgium has found an institutional solution to its diversity. It is a solution that you are pleased with and I welcome this. For those who are not directly involved, Belgium’s constitutional structure is of a complexity that pays tribute to the ingenuity of your public law specialists, but it is a solution which I would describe as bespoke. As you know, I support independence for Catalonia and I do not think this is a viable solution for Catalonia, for instance, within the Spanish State. The question I have, therefore, is very simple. Constitutional regions aside, although I recognise that these present some difficulties, could we not include, in the future European constitution, a right that, in my view, is elementary, which is the right to self-determination. Do the Catalan people not have the right to self-determination, will they not have the right, one day, to their own State within the European Union? Given that Slovenia will soon be a member of the EU, why should Catalonia not be a member as well?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the directive on environmental liability was the missing link in an effective environmental policy. Given a strong and courageous directive, we could reduce environmental pollution and damage, and make the polluter pay. Will this proposed directive face up to the challenge? After a gestation period of twenty years, the proposal is disappointing, but it can be greatly improved by the amendments put forward by the and the . For how can we protect the environment while excluding nuclear activities and GMOs? To try and protect and remedy biodiversity with a directive which establishes liability for only 13% of our territory is unacceptable. Yet the worst thing is the hypocrisy of certain Member States on the issue of environmental liability. French conservationists, who take umbrage at the level of the IOPCF payments, would do well to ask Mr Chirac, who takes pride in his environmental charter, to change the position of his government, which is campaigning in favour of exceptions to permits and against compulsory insurance. This is totally at odds with a real environmental policy, because with permits and without compulsory insurance we can expect dozens of disasters like the Prestige and the Erika. We refuse to accept this. That is why we are asking everyone to vote in favour of our amendments.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I should like to repeat a question which I asked Mr Moscovici last week in plenary. Perhaps he had too many questions to deal with to be able to answer me then. Perhaps you could answer me in these more intimate surroundings this evening. It is about the role of the European Parliament's in-trade policy, which is the spirit of Mr Newton Dunn's question. Do you think that it will be possible for you, me or anybody in Europe to advocate greater transparency and accountability in the WTO in-trade policy as long as this place has no formal and serious role in scrutinising and vetting trade policy decisions taken by the Council of Ministers and the European Commission? To cite my dear friend, Mr Newton Dunn, perhaps the best way to answer this is: yes or no.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, having worked for over thirty years for one of the major international pharmaceutical companies, I can tell you that the main concern of this industry, whether European or otherwise, is neither people’s health – and especially not the health of people who cannot afford to pay for their medicines – nor the well-being of its employees, whom it does not hesitate to make redundant by the thousand whenever a merger or concentration takes place in the sector or to drive hard, day and night, even the women, in manufacturing and packing medicines. These practices are all the more scandalous because the pharmaceuticals industry is one of the most profitable of all. The sole concern of this industry is the financial well-being of its shareholders. Before bringing out a new medicine, the major companies first undertake marketing studies, which determine whether research in the field is continued or stopped. This means that companies are only interested in illnesses that generate money. Too bad if a growing number of men and women find it harder and harder to look after themselves; too bad if in Africa and elsewhere, children are still dying in this day and age of easily curable diseases such as measles, and too bad for those people suffering from malaria or other diseases that affect the populations of poor countries. The only decision that could satisfy both the employees of these companies and patients – in rich countries and in the developing world – would be for this industry no longer to be a private industry in which only the interests of a minority count, and for it to be placed under the control of the people, for the benefit of everyone.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to echo the words of thanks to the Commission for the present proposal. It cannot be emphasised enough that the proposal is important for, among others – and this is sometimes overlooked – the developing countries, and that sufficient resources must be made available. I should also very explicitly like to thank the rapporteur, not only for the volume of work, but also for the excellent work he has done, and for the political courage he has displayed in making a few observations with regard to the Commission proposal. I am also somewhat taken aback by the reactions in this House, where the divide is once again apparent. The MEPs to the right claim that we can apply the Protocol to the letter, but if we do, we must do it properly. At the same time, we must ensure that science can carry out its research unhindered. Those are the goodies. The other side of Parliament is represented by those who are always frightened of God knows what and who want to impose restrictions on everything. This is the wrong way to view the situation. It should be viewed within the framework of the general debate surrounding GMOs, in terms of the consumer's right to freedom of choice and of the precautionary principle. We still have no 100% certainty about this technology. We must therefore ensure that at least the consumer has the choice. This must be included in the Protocol. This is also what we should now have the courage to vote in favour of. I therefore wholeheartedly support the rapporteur's political courage and his observations. I hope that tomorrow's plenary will adopt the same stance.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, firstly I would like to compliment the Commission on its approach. I think it is extremely useful to open up the communication channels with the citizen at an early stage. This did not really happen for the Treaty of Amsterdam or the Treaty of Maastricht and this has only led to a great deal of mistrust. I have two questions. Firstly, you mentioned that you will start a two-way dialogue with the citizens and I am already making a start with the 700 placement students at the European Commission. Do you intend to address the citizens via the media as well, that is to say via the television and Internet? My second question is of a critical nature. The European Commission has just issued a proposal on transparency. If I compare this with the transparency proposal which pertains to legislation in the Netherlands, then the European model is vastly overshadowed by the Dutch model, and that proposal has met with a lot of criticism in the Netherlands. My question is really: how do you intend to organise transparency with regard to the IGC, because the present directive is not a good example of this.

Political group: PPE-DE