GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I want to thank Mr Huhne for an interesting report containing a number of important clarifications. Among other things, he points out that the European Central Bank is altogether too secretive, that the meetings are held in camera and also that the current President, Mr Duisenberg is against the minutes from the Bank’s discussions being published. There are a lot of people who have taken up this point, so that Parliament is expressing a strong opinion on the matter. Mr Huhne complains in his report that the European Central Bank does not display the same openness as the central banks in the USA, Japan and England. Olle t talks about the Bank of Sweden’s publishing the minutes as soon as two weeks after the meetings concerned. Why should not the European Central Bank be able to do the same? There are various arguments in favour of this culture of secrecy. One of these which has been put forward is quite startling, I think. This is an argument to the effect that the Bank’s leading personnel will be better able to withstand pressure from lobbyists and individual governments if they have a duty of confidentiality imposed upon them. I think that, in this way, an amazing lack of confidence in these people’s strength of character, integrity and independence is being expressed. They are mistrusted, which shows that it is not only ourselves, who are among those critical of the EU, who are mistrustful. Instead, I would maintain that distrust of the Bank’s leading personnel is written into the Bank’s own statute. Finally, I also want to associate myself with Mr Huhne’s understanding of the goal and significance of monetary policy. I want to go a step further and say that the ideology concerning stability is just that: an ideology. If we look at what has happened in Europe in recent years, it appears, rather, that the policy of stabilisation merely stabilises unemployment.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I do indeed believe that this debate is extremely useful inasmuch as it allows us to discuss a number of difficult issues, including funds, in a general context. What some people seem to be suggesting is completely unfair, namely that fraud would be involved in funding that goes unspent, for that is the problem with commitments outstanding. The problem lies in the very fact that it goes unspent, which is an entirely different issue. I also think that too much blame is being apportioned to the Commission and not enough to the Member States. I myself come from a Member State which is very much to blame for not spending the necessary resources properly and promptly, and I hope that this situation will improve in future. This is a good example, though. In my view, the system is flawed on two counts. Firstly, we have a new fund each time, which means that each time, we lose a year. This is exactly what happened now and seems to be inevitable. I would ask the Commission to examine whether this can really be done in this way, for this is an inherent problem. Secondly, I wonder whether we will ever be free of these commitments outstanding. Is it not possible, or conceivable, instead of simply leaving these, to conclude an agreement at a given point with a Member State that fails to manage to spend that money? We could, for example, say that we will channel this money back to the general resources, and this Member State will receive a reduction on their contribution, which has to be paid anyway. I think that this Member State could be very happy with this proposal, and indeed that everyone could be, as it allows money to become available for those who need it. Needless to say, this should be done on a voluntary basis; if not, the system would never work and Member States would never agree to it. Maybe, though, it is possible to solve this issue relatively quickly and pragmatically. I fear that it might be too pragmatic, for everyone likes to claim that funds should be spent, only to place many obstacles along the way should this then appear necessary.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, during the conclusion of my contribution in the debate on company restructuring yesterday I pointed out to the Vice-President presiding at the time that there was an anomaly in the joint resolution which we will vote on later today. The resolution which I signed on behalf of my group on Tuesday included in the final paragraph a reference to Michelin. The text has now been distributed and while the English and Spanish versions include that reference to Michelin it appears to have been removed from the other language versions. One explanation I have had from the Sessional Services is that someone from the EPP Group had been in touch to say that point had been withdrawn. Madam President, the authors of the resolution, the signatories of the joint resolution, were not consulted. As far as I and the other signatories are concerned, that reference should remain in at the vote today. (Applause from the left)

Political group: PSE
Despite all these fine words, the European Parliament remains under-informed and, above all, under-consulted. We are unable to exercise parliamentary control. What value do meetings involving confidential documents held behind closed doors have? How can we accept this lack of democratic debate where neither national parliaments nor the European Parliament are involved? The Commission is relying on a general mandate pre-dating Seattle that has been rendered null and void. It therefore has no legitimate right to impose its decisions. Through aggressive demands directed at third countries, concerning the water sector, in particular, the Commission is undermining any genuine efforts to address the needs of the people of the countries involved. Other values must be promoted over the profits of multinationals, trade for its own sake and the rationale of privatisation: particularly the need for strong public services, which are essential to social cohesion and equality. We must ask ourselves why it is so difficult to assess the consequences of liberalisation. Modernity lies in the ability of governments to guarantee fundamental rights and not in a determination to satisfy the financial markets. I join with more than 150 other French elected representatives in demanding transparency and the suspension of the negotiations in order to prevent an irreversible GATS.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I would like to appeal to my colleague Mr Poettering and also everyone else who planned the successful postponement of the reading of my colleague Mr Wuori’s human rights report. When this Parliament addresses human rights this is always done at a very theoretical level but when something really could be achieved people want to delay it. I would request that Mr Poettering consider that my colleague Mr Wuori’s report not be removed from the agenda and that a short discussion be held nevertheless on the Irish referendum in addition to the discussion we are going to have on the Gothenburg Summit. It would be a pity if the undeniable high point of the week, my colleague Mr Wuori’s report, were now suddenly to be taken away. None of you wanted this last week. We should perhaps have realised that the Irish referendum would arouse discussion but we did not.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, we must not lose hope. The hopes raised in Algeria and throughout the world by President Bouteflika’s civil concord initiative must not give way to the disenchanted view that there is really nothing that can be done in this country to eradicate violence and establish the rule of law. In the same way that we have made a commitment to supporting those who, in the Basque country, have rebelled against indiscriminate terrorism, it is our duty to do all we can to support those in favour of concord and reconciliation in Algeria. It is Europe’s duty, and it is also in its interest. It is in Europe’s interest to extend the area of peace and stability which it has succeeded in establishing within Europe to the southern Mediterranean, by continuing the Barcelona Process. It is in Europe’s interest to listen to the appeals it receives from the whole of the continent of Africa to re-establish forms of cooperation which will easily turn a page on the painful history of decolonisation. We Europeans must become aware that we have as much to gain as to offer in getting this off the ground. Our own future will depend on the way we succeed in assisting the continent of Africa to emerge from poverty and chaos. I am resolutely opposed to the temptation to seal ourselves off in a Fortress Europe which would be bound, one day, by its very nature, to find itself under siege. That is why I shall support the joint motion for a resolution which will be put to the vote in this House shortly. On this occasion, I would ask our Algerian partners to understand that we certainly do not want to look like we are sermonising out of some sort of feeling of superiority, but as people of goodwill, determined to assist them, if they so wish, in putting an end to their current tragic plight and to re-establishing with them, in future, the bonds of friendship which have linked us throughout history.

Political group: PPE-DE
The Convention, which was instructed to draw up the draft Constitution for a Europe of 25, published its report at the beginning of the summer. Although the lack of change on some issues is to be regretted – and is this not inevitable – on others, we can only welcome the progress made by the Convention. Promoting territorial cohesion is now one of the European Union’s main objectives and, as a Member of the European Parliament representing an overseas territory, I am bound to welcome this fact. Those who saw the work of the Convention as an opportunity to consign Article 299(2) of the EC Treaty, concerning the outermost regions to the dustbin were seriously misguided. The desire to see the content of this article feature in the future Constitution, is indeed legitimate but there was no guarantee that it would happen. I believe that this new development demonstrates the desire to build a Europe that is united in its diversity, a Europe that is willing to provide assistance, a Europe that cares about the development of all citizens and a Europe that provides itself with the legal means to achieve all this! This is what I have been fighting for, together with others and I am thinking in particular of Mrs Pervenche Berès and Mr Olivier Duhamel, who are both representatives of the French Socialist delegation to the Convention and I should like publicly to offer them my thanks. (Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: PSE
Mr Blak’s report contains many points of criticism with regard to the European Union’s expenditure and the responsibility for this. According to his recommendations, a great deal needs to change yet. Further to this justified criticism, the logical conclusion would be for Parliament once again to vote against the discharge of the previous budget year. Voting against is Parliament’s only means of exercising power in order to bring about change and to challenge the Council’s and the Commission’s arrogance. Voting in favour, following a series of pleas, is not such a powerful weapon. That would be a mere signal that everything can simply stay the same, even if there is little or no change ultimately. Does approval mean that, after a few demands and critical remarks, we will turn a blind eye to a number of fraud cases, such as the fraud case in Spain on which an OLAF report has been published recently? I will not grant approval until these instances of fraud have been resolved, the perpetrators penalised and the money concerned paid back. Until such time, it is not wise to trust to the good intentions of the new European Commission which took up office in the autumn of 1999. To my great surprise, the otherwise so critical rapporteur now proposes to grant approval. I do not share his view on this.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I would also like to express my support for the motion for a resolution. I do not believe that there is any political justification for failing to follow our debates by a resolution, when a political debate has been held in the presence of the Council and Commission. The groups will negotiate the content of the resolution. Therefore, if some groups do not want us to discuss the violence at Genoa, that is their right, but they will show their opposition by voting against any proposal made in this direction.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I would first of all like to thank Mr Grosch for his efforts in the context of this report and his efforts to gain, within Parliament, real support for the approval of certain amendments or for their withdrawal. It looks as if compulsory professional training for drivers will soon become a reality. It is high time professional drivers took and were obliged to take follow-up training in addition to passing their driving tests. Road safety for drivers and other road users is important. Unfortunately accidents involving lorries often result in fatalities. It would be nice if we could reduce this percentage in future. The vote on this directive tomorrow will give a significant impetus to driving as a profession. Experience in the Netherlands has taught us that drivers who undergo professional training see their job satisfaction levels increase substantially. Driving a lorry is a profession with its own challenges. It is important for the sector that people who decide to become professional drivers remain in the industry. This continuity will increase if drivers become aware of the great social significance of their profession. The sector is itself looking for good professional drivers. After all, without transport, the economy will grind to a halt. I myself had submitted two amendments to this report on behalf of the Group of the European Liberal, Democratic and Reform party, relating to control of the quality of training and the opportunity to train in other EU Member States. I am withdrawing these amendments out of my concern that certain Member States will use this to follow a mediation procedure after all. I think that the fact that the report will be accepted tomorrow and will in fact be implemented is much more important. I hope that it will be possible to put it into force quickly. My proposals now simply go too far. Like Mr Grosch, I hope that the vote at the plenary session tomorrow will be favourable.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, it is always comforting to see the same few faces at every fishing debate and I would like to reassure the Commissioner and colleagues and friends that we may be small in numbers but we all have an active interest in fishing and no matter how late the debate is, rest assured we will be there. The reform of the CFP and the forthcoming launch of the Green Paper mark a critical time for the fishing industry. On the one hand all of us here in this Chamber want to see the existence of the fishing industry, not least because we enjoy eating the product; but on the other hand we are faced with grave scientific evidence of depleting fish stocks, so much so that certain species may no longer exist in the future. In Scotland, as mentioned this evening by many of my Scottish colleagues, the issue of cod is dominating the news agenda. Some say that even before the launch of the Green Paper there could be little left of the Scottish fleet because of cuts in TACs, quotas and the proposed cod recovery proposals. Others say that in order to have a fishing industry at all we need to conserve, they hark back to the 1996 article in Nature warning of the collapse of cod stocks. I really do not know how you square the circle, but by the end of 2002 we must. From talking to people in the industry, those involved in scientific research and those involved in conservation, it seems there is a willingness to be involved and a need for greater participation of all those concerned. In Scotland, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the WWF have joined forces and suggested a better way of working. The proposal for zonal management and greater regionalisation of the CFP is a serious one that has the support of fishing and conservation groups alike. In other countries there are also suggestions. This can only be good for debate. In conclusion, this year and next will provide an opportunity to get the CFP right. I look forward to debating this on future Tuesdays in Strasbourg.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, a rhetorical question often rhetorically asked is: which came first, the chicken or the egg? In the case of new clean air technology, it is usually the case that government must first lay the legislative egg from which is hatched the technology to give us cleaner cars or lorries. In the case of this report, however, the situation is reversed, because in the main the technology is available to clean up the small engines which, as Mr Lange says, can produce more pollution in one hour than a car travelling 150 km. In many cases cost is the only reason for which we do not have cleaner engines already. In fact, Honda can produce overhead valve four-stroke engines that easily meet these requirements. However, there are some important exceptions to this general rule. I am pleased that Mr Lange has withdrawn his suggestion that the small-producer exemption should be set at 10 000 units per year – which would not have covered any European manufacturers – and supported the Commission's position of 25 000, which covers 7 manufacturers. However, we have some particular problems with this piece of legislation, and in particular with chainsaws and the like. These are machines which have to be light because they are carried by people; they cannot be hot, to avoid burning the user; and they have to be multi-positional – in other words they have to work when upside down. For those particular uses, two-stroke technology is the only viable option. We remember seeing those Trabants and Wartburgs coming across East Berlin; these types of two-stroke engines are dirtier but, in the case of chainsaws, there is no alternative. The solution put forward by the Commission is to use a system of averaging and banking, whereby dirty engines can be set off against clean engines and clean technology can be saved up for the next year and used to produce some dirty engines the following year. I do not like this system. In many ways it is dishonest, because people will be buying engines which they think meet the regulations, when in fact they are dirtier. Only the big manufacturers who produce a wide range of engines can benefit from this. This system should not be supported. However, we need protection for these particular applications and that is why I have tabled my amendment – No 29 – giving a detailed list of exemptions: strimmers, chainsaws, brush cutters, machines for drilling holes in the ice and so on. I am very disappointed that Mr Lange has not seen fit to support that amendment, because without the protection of this detailed list of exceptions, Mr Lange's amendment – No 30 – does not go far enough, relying only on some technical committee, some Commission assessment of the alternatives. Mr Lange should think very carefully about my amendment, and then we would have a deal that both sides of this House could accept. IN THE CHAIR: MR PUERTAVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on a point of order. Having heard the Commissioner and the budget spokesman, I am happy to withdraw my objection. (Parliament agreed to urgent procedure) * * * Report on the proposal for a Council decision amending Council Decision 1999/733/EC providing supplementary macro-financial assistance to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [COM(2001) 613 – 2001/0213 (CNS)] Proposal for a Council decision amending Council Decision 1999/325/EC providing macro-financial aid to Bosnia-Herzegovina [COM(2001) 610 – C5-0558/2001 – 2001/0250(CNS)] Proposal for a Council decision amending Decision 2001/549/EC of 16 July 2001 providing macro-financial aid to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia [COM(2001) 612 – C5-0520/2001 – 2001/0251 (COD)]

Political group: PPE-DE
Even if we sympathise with the idea of regulating the European production and export of arms politically, we are sceptical about the Titley report, mainly for the following reasons. There is no link between the development of the arms industry and EU cooperation in the area of military policy. The EU has decided to develop a joint military capacity in order to fulfil the so-called Petersberg objectives (crisis management and conflict resolution outside the territory of the EU), but it has no common defence policy. The individual EU countries are members of NATO and the WEU, or else are non-aligned. Policy on arms exports must start from that point, and a distinction must be made between supervising an arms industry developed for political reasons (namely crisis management) and arms exports for purely commercial reasons. In our view, such exports ought to be kept to a minimum and, in the long term, completely abolished. We are particularly opposed to the wording of Paragraph R and Paragraph 1 d) and e) of the report, to the effect that the development of arms exports should lead to the development of a common defence policy and the establishment of a defence identity within NATO, and that the arms industry should benefit from the EU’s developing a common code of conduct on arms exports.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, perhaps Mrs van der Laan meant a separate vote for each paragraph and not a split vote. That is different to a split vote.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, it is surprising and amusing that many of the details mentioned, which have been called into question and for which proof has been demanded, are given on the Mediaset Internet site. Can it be possible that Mediaset is lying? Then again, the facts that have been presented to us regarding the risks to freedom of information in Italy are so obvious and serious that it would be pointless to repeat them. I should like, instead, to offer some comments and thoughts on them. It is not wrong to state that there is still freedom of expression in my country, but the space for freedom of information has been greatly restricted. What we see happening, in fact, is something that is spreading to a dangerous extent these days. The lack of plurality of information in Italy is today becoming a lack of information, full stop. Even the case of a Member of the European Parliament who is facing criminal charges for colluding with the Mafia has been met with silence in the media. The breaches are so numerous and so frequent that they make one think of a closed, self-referential system tenaciously pursuing those antidemocratic objectives that were at the root of the revival plan of Licio Gelli and his breakaway masonic lodge, P2, one member of which was Mr Berlusconi, whose card number was 1816. How much space would be devoted in another European country to news of a Mafia trial involving the premier’s right-hand man, the co-founder of his party? A law to resolve the devastating conflict of interests of the Italian Prime Minister – and many of his ministers into the bargain – is now absolutely essential. We have all seen the obstructionism that has been deployed against the Boogerd-Quaak report in the last few days. They want to prevent it from being discussed in this House so as not to indict an information system designed to produce only approval for the person who owns or controls it. It is never pleasant to speak ill of one’s own country, but the most negative aspect is represented by the events occurring in Italy. We must speak out against them loud and clear, in reproach and condemnation.

Political group: ELDR