GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, the Sixth Conference of the Parties on Climatic Change is meeting at the moment in The Hague. This is a summit which intends to slow down climate change and at which the Kyoto Protocol will undergo its ordeal by fire. In addition, the latest conclusions reached by scientists on the intergovernmental panel on climate change alert us to its alarming effects. Energy from renewable sources will not be a panacea that will solve this problem, but nobody doubts that it can contribute greatly to alleviating it and also to diversifying our sources of energy and reducing our dependence on hydrocarbons, which indeed would not be a bad thing. I want to point out that the Commission and the Commissioner in particular have hit the mark in proposing this directive to promote renewable sources of electricity. We trust that the directive will help these as yet incipient forms of energy to develop and become competitive and that the Commission will soon present us with a similar proposal on biofuels. I also wish to recognise Mrs Rothe’s hard work and congratulate her on it. Implicit in the report we are to vote on tomorrow is Parliament’s decisive support for this initiative, and I ask the Commissioner to transmit this support to the Members of the Commission because it is in that institution and not here in Parliament that this directive – and others that may follow in the same laudable vein – may find their principal detractor. I am referring specifically to the proposed guidelines, i.e. aid for the environment. This document is unacceptable because of the way it proposes to treat operating aid for renewable energy sources and cogeneration, since it does not recognise the different degree of competitiveness between these renewable energy sources and conventional ones. Neither does it recognise the external costs that are avoided with these types of energy. In addition, it is inconceivable that the Directorate-General for Competition should move to regulate this kind of aid without taking into account the results of negotiations pertaining to the directive we have before us, and at the very least it can be seen as a snub to Parliament. Therefore, I wish to say that both documents need to be dealt with in conjunction with one another. We consider that, if these guidelines are not modified, the environmental impact they will cause will be highly negative. In the specific case of my country, Spain, these guidelines would be responsible for an additional 225 billion tonnes of CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere between now and 2010 and for our being unable to meet the Kyoto targets. The directive on renewable sources of energy represents a belief in the future and an investment in the environment. Investments in the environment are neither cost-free nor do they come into the field of competition.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I object to mountain regions being labelled as disadvantaged regions, at least as a generalisation. The mountain regions are rich in a number of different kinds of resources – environmental, economic and human – but they need direct, practical aid to enable these resources to be successfully harnessed. According to the statistics, 30% of Europe is taken up by mountains and, with enlargement, this specific feature, this specific characteristic, will account for over 40% of the territory. However, the mountain regions are sparsely populated – inhabited by only 5% of the Community’s population – which means that political pressure from that quarter is relatively ineffectual. It is therefore up to us to lend a hand. It must also be said that not all mountain regions are the same and that the reform of the Structural Funds, with the abolition of Objectives 5a and 5b, has created considerable confusion. Objective 2 is too all-embracing and too flexible, it includes too many items and lumps together the needs of regions which are essentially different. Simplification is not always the best path to take if the rigour of scientific accuracy is lost along the way. In the mountains, there are areas which have priorities common to us all. There has been an example of this just recently: it is in the mountains that we protect ourselves against floods and drought, by safeguarding water resources and territorial integrity. This is an example of how the mountain regions are directly relevant to the interests and needs of all. Well then, what can we do? Commissioner, we must have the courage to provide direct aid, with regard to which the rules governing state aid and competition must be made more flexible; we need to have the determination to safeguard man’s life and presence in the mountain regions as a guarantee of genuine cohesion; we also need to muster the courage to recognise this specific feature of Europe in practical terms, not just in words. How? Maybe by extending the application of Article 158 on islands to mountain regions too. IN THE CHAIR: MR PROVANVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
I should like to place an oral amendment in the last sentence of Amendment No 6 and it should read : '... Member States shall accept an equitable proportion of the costs of aviation security on the basis that security threats against aviation are a manifestation of threats against the State'. (Because more than 12 Members were opposed to taking the oral amendment into account, it was not put to the vote) Regarding Amendment No 20

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Karlsson, today you are presenting your annual report as President of the Court of Auditors, together with those Members of the Court still in office. This is the last time you will present the report, as you are leaving office, as are a number of other Members of the Court. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you and the retiring Members of the Court both personally and on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control for the years of excellent and effective cooperation and mutual trust under your presidency, and also under the previous presidency of Professor Friedmann, who is also retiring. There have occasionally been differences of opinion, but I believe that we have always managed to cooperate well, and we have, above all, performed a control function that has ultimately benefited the taxpayer. So once again, many thanks. The Annual Report of the Court before us today also demonstrates that we have made some further progress. I only want to highlight a couple of points. The most striking point is the large surplus of own resources: EUR 11.6 million or over 14% of the budget has not been spent. The finance ministers are, of course, delighted, as this means that they will have to pay less to the EU next year, but we in the Committee on Budgetary Control are concerned to know which of the objectives that we have set ourselves have not been achieved. I believe that the Commission would be well advised – and I understand from the press that there will be surpluses again this year – to get to work on supplementary and rectifying budgets so that the money available is really spent on achieving objectives. The complex and cumbersome nature of the legal framework and the extent of the controls therefore involved are also a matter of concern both for the Parliament and for the Court of Auditors, and, as Commissioner Schreyer has just said, for the Commission too. We need to work to simplify things as a matter of urgency, so that the public can also obtain funding, rather than say, ‘It is so complicated. I do not want any money from the European Union’. Controls need to be proportionate but also to be effective, to lead to positive outcomes and to have a preventive effect. My last point is the positive statement of assurance, the SOA. Anyone looking for concrete figures or percentages in relation to payments will be disappointed. Once again, the Court has not mentioned any concrete figures. This House had actually pressed for that. The Court now wants to bring forward a refined method of producing this positive statement of assurance. We are more than happy to cooperate on this, but we also have to look and analyse where errors are due to the Member States and where they are the Commission's responsibility. The Commission is ultimately responsible, and it must accept this responsibility. I would like to thank you once again, Mr Karlsson, for your excellent cooperation, and I would like to wish all the retiring Members and you personally all the best for the future. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to start by congratulating Mr Bushill-Matthews on this major report. I also have to say that I am extremely grateful to him for having accepted the amendments I proposed which supplement the main part of the report on certain points and certain basic issues. In my opinion, it is extremely important to be focusing on the development of small and medium-sized businesses and what that involves, in order to offset the unemployment in large businesses, apart from anything else. Europe must, therefore, make it a priority to support businesses, create a favourable climate for their establishment and development, encourage research and, above all, encourage the leading sectors. It is also of primary importance that the European Parliament succeeds in monitoring both the projects and the results made possible by European funding. This would appear to be of extreme importance, together with the fact that small and medium-sized businesses in the small craft, trade and tourism sectors – as I pointed out – and other services will also benefit. We must take on board the fact that the era when people stayed in the same job all their lives has passed, that we must change our perception of employment and that the sector of small and medium-sized industry and craft trades will provide increasingly realistic job opportunities for our young people and for the future European citizens. It is vital for Europe to focus on these factors and we must continue to have confidence in this approach.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I have often, in this Assembly, had the opportunity to quote from the excellent Norwegian handbook for mountaineers. The eminently simple message is that, in the event of discrepancies between the map and the terrain, it is the terrain which should be followed. There are many examples, both in this House and in the European Union as a whole, of this fundamental rule’s not being taken note of. Life goes on behind a veil of illusion, and the most striking example I have experienced is probably, in fact, this debate. None of the fundamental problems of what is termed eastward enlargement has been solved. On the one hand, there is no doubt that the economic realities will entail our maintaining the tradition, going back many years, of Western European exploitation of our Eastern European neighbours, involving differences in wages, differences in capital and so on. On the other hand, the adjustment taking place is an expression of the demand for an infrastructure, which was referred to by my fellow countryman Torben Lund and which is a long way from being in place. What is required is simply unfeasible. Let me just add that our excellent Minister for Europe is a terrific songwriter but that songwriting ability is not enough in this context.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The European Parliament calls in this motion for a resolution for the Treaty on European Union to be revised in order to give the European Court of Justice powers to investigate if Member States are honouring their commitments under European legislation in this area. That Parliament does not want to confine itself in this resolution solely to EU legislation and wants to include the instruments of the European Council is both Utopian, as things now stand, and extremely difficult to implement from a legal point of view and would be a dangerous precedent which would give rise to a great deal of confusion and legal uncertainty in the future. The idea of imposing sanctions against Member States who are not efficient enough in complying with letters rogatory grossly contradicts the fact that many of the instruments adopted in Title VI of the Treaty on European Union are not binding. A careless attitude towards sanctions against EU partners is a worrying development, giving rise to fears that our Europe of Law will slowly turn into a Europe of the Law of the Jungle. Finally, I should like to point out to the rapporteur and the Members of the House that the first two main concerns listed in the explanatory statement as regards the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg no longer apply since the law passed on 8 August last year. - O’Toole report (A5-0005/2001)

Political group: PPE-DE
The compromise that came out of the conciliation procedure, the final legislative stage, is the result of hard negotiations between the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. Far from being satisfactory, I see it merely as a first step, although it does, in some respects, go in the right direction. While I welcome the figured objectives that have been set (by 2006, 85% of the weight of vehicles produced after 1980 is to be recycled, re-used or recovered, and 95% by 2015) I regret the hypocrisy of some of the provisions advocated by the and supported by the Socialist and Governments. The Council of Ministers has, in fact, remained inflexible about allowing the owner to return his end-of-life vehicle free of charge. That is a demagogic provision. It may well be based on goodwill towards the consumer, but it is totally unrealistic. In fact, the directive stipulates that the cost of treatment will be borne entirely by the producers. The latter are bound to pass on at least part of these costs to the purchase price of new vehicles. So, far from encouraging the purchase of a new generation of less polluting vehicles, this measure is a hidden bonus for those who own the most polluting old vehicles. The Council of Ministers finally responded to the wishes of the MEPs, who had been calling since the first reading, for vintage vehicles to be expressly excluded from the scope of this directive. The amendment I tabled and supported has, in fact, been fully incorporated into the final text. In wider terms, this directive is not ambitious enough. For example, it says nothing at all about the problem of the dumped cars that disfigure the landscape. Despite the polluter-pays principle, it is the taxpayers who bear the cost of removing them. It is a pity that neither this directive nor the directive on the disposal of waste has concerned itself with this problem, which, after all, has disastrous environmental effects in much of Europe. - De Roo report (A5-0218/2000)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, a number of amendments with regard to the re-structuring of administrative expenditure and the technical assistance offices will now follow. The question is whether this should be dealt with here, i.e. after a discussion in the Committee on Budgets, or whether it should be discussed as part of an extensive debate about the re-structuring of the Commission as a whole in all the relevant committees. We are concerned that a whole spate of amendments will not actually benefit the management of the Commission. My group will therefore vote against this amendment but many subsequent amendments will also contain this particular issue. I therefore want to point out that, as of today, we will only vote on the additional points in those amendments and that our vote, as far as this aspect is concerned, will remain unchanged throughout the voting procedure, because otherwise, I would have lumbered you with more than twenty split votes. – Relating to Chapter B1-400 President. – We shall now move on to chapter B1-400 which requires a majority of 314 votes. I shall immediately give the floor to the rapporteur, Mr Bourlanges, who, I believe, wishes to make a compromise proposal.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I welcome the fact that amendments that I voted for have been incorporated into the resolution opposing any multilateral military action in Iraq, asking the UN to note the consequences of the embargo for the Iraqi civilian population and demanding that the European Union consider resolving the conflict in the Middle East as an absolute priority. But the resolution as a whole remains ambiguous. It passes back to the UN Security Council the possibility for further action, including military action, after a complete evaluation of the situation? This is why I abstained on this text. The mobilisation of public opinion should curb the mindset of war that is developing day by day. I therefore join in the call from the Porto Alegre social forum for an international demonstration day on 15 February. With or without the UN, we need to reject this war!

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, we have spoken here of the fact that the Council has decided to speed up the entry into force of ports of refuge – I believe that this is a correct and necessary measure – and that it has not taken a decision in relation to the European coastguard service. I would like this service to be set up as soon as possible, as well as a compensation fund for pollution accidents similar to the one they have in the United States. I would like to ask him specifically whether he believes that, for this type of disaster, we also need an emergency pilot plan at European level. Do you not believe that we should have a European rapid reaction force for this type of incident, including volunteers? Do you not also believe that we should identify particularly sensitive corridors, so that we can have an emergency plan in each case?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, you have a major task ahead of you and nobody is more aware of that than the Budget Control Committee. The number one priority must be the reform agenda. If you fail to deliver on this then we will all judge you very harshly and will in fact all suffer as a result. But as Mr Kinnock said yesterday, you will be judged on your deeds and not on your words. On behalf of the Socialists in the Budget Control Committee, I would like to comment specifically on Mr Kinnock’s presentation at the hearing. Mr Kinnock’s record within the Commission is second to none and we accept fully his commitment to accept collective responsibility in terms of past problems whilst agreeing that he bears no individual guilt. Performance and management of the transport directorate has been exemplary and we believe that with his experience of modernising the Labour Party in the UK, he has the relevant qualification to undertake this work. If you can turn the Labour Party around from the lamentable state it was in the 1980s to getting us to a position in the 1990s where we swept everything away, then you must really be able to perform miracles. We note the Commission’s commitment to the reform agenda and, in particular, Mr Prodi, your commitment to consult the European Parliament on the reform programme. We expect this to be before its presentation in February. We note the commitment to consult us on the reform of the Staff Regulations which addresses some of Mr Elles’ concerns, the new commitments given to whistleblowers and the need to develop new disciplinary procedures. The idea of giving legal effect to the codes of conduct once established is also something we welcome and the overhaul of the Commission’s management and control systems. We expect active consultation with Parliament at all times and we have no doubts that the Commissioner will fulfil his commitment on that score. We do have concerns that the Commission must respect the independence of OLAF. We will not allow you to play budgetary games on this issue. This is the beginning of the reform process and we now look forward to some action.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to address my remarks on languages to my fellow Members, of course, but also to our interpreters, who enable this Parliament to function, to the rapporteur, of course, not for his work as rapporteur but because he is also a poet in this Parliament and, moreover, as I have discovered, one who speaks my mother tongue perfectly. What better rapporteur could there be? When one is a new Member of the European Parliament, as I am, one finds oneself dealing with all sorts of things: chocolate, end-of-life vehicles, the qualified majority, dried beans, Spanish lentils, anything and everything. Then, suddenly, one finds that one is going to have to deal with something that gives Europe its historic and cultural depth, namely its languages. And when one looks back at the great periods in history, and I am thinking here of the Renaissance, that great age of trade and commerce, what remains of that era today are the cultural achievements, the artefacts of our heritage, and thus will it ever be. In terms of languages, Europe has known times when a single language predominated: Latin, and also French. Now it tends to be English. So what are we to tell our fellow citizens for this year 2001. Let me just briefly mention a few points. Firstly, that European unity may not mean linguistic unity. Next, that every language is deserving of respect and deserves to be promoted and defended. This is applicable to any amount of things: monuments, objects, you name it. Why should it not be the case for mankind’s best and most lasting achievement, i.e. his method of communicating with his neighbour? And then, all languages are learnt within the family first of all. This is why we call them “mother tongues”, and no State, whatever it may be, may have the direct, indirect, explicit or implicit goal of destroying one of its mother tongues, or of allowing it to disappear. Furthermore, finally, without linguistic diversity, there is no Europe, because this is also one of the few, and perhaps the only, parliament in the world which operates in eleven languages, to the extent that occasionally we speak in this House for the purpose of being interpreted and not to be heard in the original. It is up to us to construct this dialectic of European unity and its linguistic diversity.

Political group: PSE