GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, let me say to Mr McMillan-Scott that a spectre is haunting Europe, the spectre of economic efficiency and one wonders why it is still so evasive despite all the great efforts that liberalism has put into it. It is a question of strategy really. (EL) So what is the strategy for making a success of this incredible economic transformation Lisbon is promising us? It is a strategy which is radically innovative. All those who have endeavoured to tackle the problem of the European economy so far have done so within the context of the old economy. Guterres decided that the problem was practically insoluble in this context and, rather than having to contend with the deadlocks of the old economy, he decided to circumvent them altogether. It is what you might call a great inspirational strategy which proposes that Europe put all its effort into the new economy, into information technology and into telecommunications in the hope that, as this new economy develops, the old economy will take a new direction in its wake. The most basic example is employment. Europe currently has 16 million unemployed whom it cannot absorb. At the same time, there are 800 000 highly-skilled jobs in the new economy which cannot be filled due to a lack of skilled human resources. Some say these figures are set to reach 1.6 million next year. If Europe does not learn its electronic lessons fast, these unfilled jobs will multiply and the economy will slump. And even if we do fill these 800 000 jobs, there will still be a further 15 million unemployed. We do not appear to have solved any problems whatsoever. However, the new technologies can, with our support, lead to competitiveness and cost reductions in all sectors. And as all the other sectors become more productive, thanks to the impact of the new economy, they too will create more jobs. This is the simple yet great idea of Lisbon. The question is whether this idea will work in practice. And whether or not it will work in practice depends on whether or not we are capable of a new financial perspective in Europe. All these years, Europe has been convinced that investing taxpayers’ money into the old-style economy was a waste of time. This is where all the zero deficits, stability plans and so forth come from. It is debatable just how much of ECOFIN’s die-hard approach was totally justified, but perhaps we are now in a position to leave this behind us. Lisbon may well have shown us how to leave this behind us because, if we are to attain its objectives, we need public investment in the new economy. We need to build information highways, on which private enterprises can of course then create and run their own vehicles. However, these highways can only be built by the Member States, by the public sector and by the European Union. Lisbon will be judged on this, i.e. on whether or not we are capable of integrating the public and private economies in an original and enterprising manner.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. Alas, I sit here between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, I would and should recommend, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism too, that the Commission be discharged due to the satisfactory take-up rate of the budget lines which affect us, despite numerous critical comments. On the other hand, I cannot in fact recommend discharge due to unclarified incidents at the Commission which are beginning to threaten the very existence of regional project agencies and which, as the representative of my home region, I have been fighting to have clarified for months. It is not enough for the present Commission to acknowledge the errors of the old Commission without finding a solution. However, this is not the place for such personal experiences. Allow me rather to highlight the causes for criticism as the representative and draftsman of the RETT Committee. Firstly, certain measures dating back to before 1989 have still not been completed. Secondly, the irregularities identified by the Court of Auditors refer mainly to errors in relation to proof of expenditure which are signed by Member States, and for which they are responsible. The Commission is indirectly and to some extent jointly responsible here insofar as it should have issued clear rules for grants and aid. Thirdly, delayed payments by the Commission which unsettle and, sometimes, ruin our citizens, as the result either of transgressions or inefficient bureaucratic structures and cover-ups or liquidity problems following cuts in payment appropriations by the Council. The conditional postponement of the discharge suggested by Mrs Stauner is to be welcomed. I personally would like to have better facilities for quality control, in situ, of how EU funds are used.

Political group: PPE-DE
Although this Community initiative, LEADER +, follows on from previous initiatives, it has some unique features. One of these of course is the reduction by around one half in appropriations made available even though they will cover a longer period. Nevertheless, new objectives have been included, specifically the financing of the Nature Network 2000, for which all rural regions will be eligible. In spite of the fact that this Community initiative is aimed at rural development, it does not address the issues of agriculture and agricultural production in a consistent way, and this is unacceptable. Without agriculture, the rural world will disappear. This means that any strategy for rural development must be based on agriculture’s internal potential while at the same time developing as many other activities as possible in order to prevent the desertification of the rural world. This is why we considered it essential to improve the report by means of our proposals deliberately to include agricultural activity and farmers in the strategy for rural development and to request more appropriations in order not to threaten the survival of the programme in those rural regions which were covered before. We also want to ensure that the new programme continues to prioritise the less-favoured regions.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we wish we could be considering a perfect and polished Commission working paper on the settlement of consumer disputes, specifically those requiring cross-border solutions. Nevertheless, and the rapporteur, Mrs Wallis, makes this point very well, the best always arrives late and is often the enemy of the good, which appears in the meantime. We must, therefore, express our satisfaction with the Commission’s limited initiative. This indicates a possible way forward for the rapid and inexpensive resolution of often low-value consumer disputes. What is required, as we know, is the creation of a European Extrajudicial Network, which is capable of resolving these disputes by means of the credibility, probity, transparency and technical expertise of organisations that have arisen from the free association of consumers and which are able to form a chain of control that protects consumer rights and the average quality of life of Europe’s citizens. This would enable us to move towards regulating the protection of the economic rights of private individuals and removing the burden of bureaucracy imposed on them by the cumbersome traditional legal machinery. Unlike the invisible hand, the internal consumer market is, in this case, organising its own self-regulation, which will be coordinated and supported by the European institutions, thereby enhancing the credibility of the Union itself and its closeness to the citizens. Mr President, the way ahead is clear; Mrs Wallis has explained how we must now progress and my group will therefore vote in favour of the report we are now debating.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to make another comment about Poland. The Polish people believe that the country will be ready for accession with effect from 31 December 2002, and Poland has certainly made great strides since the accession negotiations started in March 1998. There are already a number of progress reports available to us, and Parliament, which plays an important part in this process, has repeatedly made its feelings known on the subject. Parliament supports the Commission’s strategy, according to which, each candidate state should be dealt with and assessed on the basis of its own progress and merits. However, there are also problems requiring a cross-border solution. In Mr Gawronski’s report, the Commission is urged, by the rapporteur among others, to examine measures for furthering development and for strengthening the synergy between Poland, Lithuania and the Russian region of Kaliningrad. I feel it is entirely reasonable to ask this of the Commission, and that the Commission’s response should be to put forward a proposal. I have already made this point once this afternoon, on another occasion. All in all, when it comes to the question of how positive people are about the enlargement process, it is worth pointing out that opinion polls in several candidate states show that enthusiasm for accession to the EU is on the wane. Not in all countries but in several. That comes as no surprise, because a whole decade has passed since the historic turning point of 1989/1990, and there is still no comprehensive information and communication strategy for the people. Mr Verheugen said the same this afternoon. Now, all hopes and expectations are pinned on France. Above all, the Nice Summit must clarify whether, and how, the EU, for its part, can get itself completely ready for enlargement in good time. When the current Intergovernmental Conference finishes, institutional reform should create the necessary institutional conditions for an enlarged EU, i.e. for a Union comprising 25 Member States or more. It is absolutely essential for an enlarged European Union to be able to function effectively and have the capacity to act. Not only does the success of the French Presidency depend on it, the progress of the entire enlargement process is at stake for all concerned, including Poland.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we all know from our own experience that there is really no such thing as an internal market in pharmaceutical products in the European Union. There are price differences of as much as 400% between Belgium and Germany, and you cannot simply explain that away by different VAT rates! I am afraid that these reports concentrate too much on approval. I hope, however, that the transparency that we have flagged up here and that we are calling for will in future make it easier for consumers to understand why there are such great price differences between individual Member States. It is not acceptable for Europe's internal market so obviously not to include the pharmaceutical industry. I hope that by achieving transparency the links between public research and industrial research will also become clearer, and that databases will also make it easier to see who has been involved in given clinical tests and to what extent public research receives external funding. I too am pleased that we managed to leave advertising out of the equation, because that would have simply raised expectations on the part of patients that could not be met. We are talking about better and more favourable prices, not about more advertising.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to make three points regarding this directive, and the consultation, on which I should like to congratulate our rapporteur. I think she has managed to come up with a reasonable balance within our committee in what almost became, on occasions, an ideological debate. In your proposal, Commissioner, you quite rightly exclude a number of sectors, and we can only be pleased at this. Secondly, as our rapporteur pointed out, I should like to draw attention to the fact that the jurisdiction of Member States in this field must not be disregarded. At the present time, there is no definition of services of general economic interest at European Union level. We must therefore bring subsidiarity into play, and we are well aware that in such areas, national sensibilities may be expressed in diverse ways. I can therefore only urge you, Commissioner, to show as much drive and determination in making full use of all the terms of the Treaty, particularly those which, following the Treaty of Amsterdam, grant you new scope for action, especially with a view to defining the ability to provide services of general economic interest. I would urge Mrs Peijs to read again the latest version of the Treaty with regard to what she considers to be the last word on the law on competition within the European Union. My third observation, Commissioner, is on public broadcasting services. Once again, I cannot ignore what we incorporated into our Treaty when we amended it in Amsterdam. This sector is very clearly covered by specific conditions. This shows the determination of the Member States to treat this sector as a sector in its own right falling outside the rules of competition which exist in other areas. I therefore feel that the proposals on transparency that you are putting forward cannot be applied to that sector under the same conditions. I think it would be rather difficult in such a sector to implement the notion of separate accounting systems making it possible to draw a distinction between competitive activities and public service activities in the broadcasting sector, especially as, I might mention in passing, there is no single harmonised European accounting system.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am keen to follow the line taken by our rapporteur, Mr Maaten, and would like to ask you, fellow-Members, to do the same. Tobacco is no ordinary product of course. We are familiar with the fatal risks associated with tobacco, we know the statistics which have already been quoted here today. We also know about its addictive effect. Typical use of cigarettes is extremely dangerous, life-threateningly so. You can be unlucky and have a car crash, or abuse alcohol, but with tobacco, the life-threatening aspect is always there. I very much welcome the emphasis which Mr Maaten placed on the dangers of passive smoking. A tobacco ban would be inefficient and socially unattainable at present. But it still remains clear that those who market cigarettes should not be allowed to do so. The product is far too dangerous. What can we do as regulators? First of all, we need to realise that we are in an extremely absurd situation, straddling enormous state revenue on the one hand and enormous expenditure in health insurance on the other. We should be able to admit to this. European policy on tobacco is not very logical, to say the least. We as regulators should at least try to practise damage limitation. We should compel producers to make the warnings to users as clear as possible. It may be bureaucratic, but if you see how producers deal with other requirements, then I have to say that it is necessary to spell out our regulations very clearly. Later on this week, Parliament will be discussing phthalates and PVC softeners, and when I see how very circumspect we MEPs are, how very careful we are in dealing with these products, if I compare this with the little we are asking with regard to a dangerous product such as tobacco, I have to conclude that this Parliament can be very selective in its indignation.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I yield to no one in my desire for peace in Sir Lanka and in my condemnation of all violence. However, I say to Mrs Foster and Mr Heaton-Harris that they want to check their stories and sources because it needs both sides in a conflict to be committed if a lasting solution is to be achieved. I know Sri Lanka, I have been there. I can give you examples of what I have seen. I have seen Tamil men being harassed on the streets by government troops. I know that Tamil people need 11 pages of documents just to travel from Batticaloa in the east to the capital, Colombo. And like everyone here in this Parliament, and all European journalists, I have been unable to go to Jaffna recently, nor have I seen any television coverage of the battle at Elephant Pass. I have seen the fighting in Sierra Leone, Chechnya, Kosovo but nothing from Sri Lanka because the Sri Lankan Government does not allow press coverage. That goes back longer than last May. This is a government whose defence budget has risen by 11% in a year and which, one day, will have to answer allegations of involvement in the assassination of leading Tamil figures and other human rights abuses. Let us have a peace for all Sri Lankans, based on citizens’ rights, humanity and in which government resources are directed at building communities, not helping to destroy them.

Political group: PSE
I agree with Mrs Boogerd-Quaak and Mr Cappato. The Council is wrong in trying to say this is the Commission's responsibility. It was quite clear yesterday in relation to another issue, Guantanamo, when Commissioner Patten said 'We cannot do anything without the Council'. Mr Cappato asks, 'When will the Council raise this issue with the competent US authorities?' The Council is trying to wriggle out of its duty here. It is not just an issue for the Commission, it is an issue for the Council. Surely it can be raised at the forthcoming EU-US summit and also during the ongoing negotiations in relation to this issue. It is completely unacceptable that European citizens and their rights to privacy are not being protected. That is a responsibility for the Council. The Council should at least answer that part of the question.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, industry and transport cause the earth’s atmosphere to warm up artificially. If this global warming continues, then part of the territory of the EU Member States will become sea or desert. We will need to drastically alter our economy if we are to keep the world and Europe habitable on a permanent basis. Parliament has recently pronounced itself in favour of a number of steps that will take us in the right direction. The European position during the climate conference, which ended – and evidently broke down – in The Hague last Saturday, was characterised by two sharply conflicting views. One view is that we should stick closely to the 1997 agreements in order to reduce emissions by a generous 5%, as compared with 1990. It is felt that we should now honour the Kyoto commitments already entered into, and that a willingness to compromise with America represents a betrayal of Europe’s commitment. The other view is that the Kyoto obligations have never been feasible because there is too much opposition from America, Japan, and Australia, and the only way to reach an international agreement now, would be to reduce their commitments to take action. Creative accountancy would enable us to give the impression that they have already fulfilled a substantial number of their obligations. The European Union made an error of judgement where the second view is concerned, because the green Environment Ministers of France and Germany were not prepared to forget Kyoto. We will still need to find a compromise of this kind at the follow-up conference due to take place in May 2001, in Bonn. My group favours the first view. It is important for Europe to stick with a position taken up previously, even though it means that the United States will not be in a position to subscribe to an agreement of this kind for the period of the Bush administration. Taking the long-term view, it is important that we convince the American public of the dangers of the do-nothing option, rather than agreeing a compromise with our opponents. The United States produce the largest amount of pollution per capita. As yet, American public opinion has not given a great deal of credence to the notion that the deserts will expand and there will be an increase in hurricanes. They have a high standard of living over there and the price of petroleum products is low. The people feel that any actual changes will be to the detriment of industry and consumers. It is therefore unlikely that an international agreement would now be able to gain approval from the US Congress. Finally, the Third World is only in the very early stages of industrialisation. Poverty has forced these countries to sell their CO2 emission rights to rich countries, which want to use them to reduce their own obligations. At the end of the day, these countries will not give up their rights to progress. The emission of greenhouse gases will increase dramatically as a result. That is why we need to keep these realities in mind in the follow-up to the climate conference. A compromise cannot mean forgetting what was agreed in Kyoto.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is time for support under the Marco Polo instrument to be made available to European actors in the field of freight transport; the sense of urgency with which this is awaited is demonstrated by the large number of applications submitted in response to what was a small-scale announcement. By precisely targeting specific objects of assistance, the support programme aims to bring about the transfer of goods from the roads to more environmentally friendly means of transport. As part of this project to transfer traffic, for example, it was possible to give support to a barge service taking cargo to the Czech Republic from Magdeburg or from Hamburg. The catalyst actions call for particularly creative responses to structural obstacles. In my view, they should trigger huge demand, above all in rail transport, where – as is well known – the obstacles are numerous. This means that Marco Polo is a good addition to the railway packages that we have introduced. In view of the urgent need for cross-border consultation on common priorities for the removal of obstacles, I could well imagine the third area for support – common learning actions – including the corridor conferences that Parliament has been demanding for so long. The fact that there is demand from so many quarters shows, of course, that the money will not be sufficient, and nor are we likely to achieve the objective of stabilising the 1998 modal split. It is fortunate that our request, that projects from the future Member States be included already, has been complied with. One does not have to be a prophet to be able to foresee the re-emergence of the issues of environmental compatibility and sustainability on the transport policy agenda at the time of the forthcoming elections.

Political group: PSE