GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I am sorry that Members are getting a bit nervous, but I consider it important, in view of our strange new Rules of Procedure, that I should say what this is all about. It is certainly not technical! Economic and monetary union has been a reality in the eurozone since 1999, and what the Commission is now putting before us is an attempt at getting better statistics, to prevent the European Central Bank from making the wrong decisions on the basis of inadequate and bad ones. The draft regulation before us aims to improve the quality of these statistics, firstly by cutting the time period for the transmission of the main aggregates of the quarterly national accounts from four months to seventy days; secondly, by suspending various derogations granted to the Member States; and thirdly by having the employment data transmitted in one unit, namely the hours worked. These changes are necessary if we are to have the most exact statistics on GDP at our disposal without delay. The banks' economists have been warning for years that inadequate economic statistics could result in mistakes being made in monetary policy. Mr Eugenio Domingo Solans, a member of the European Central Bank's Executive Board, told a German newspaper that there had to be statistics relevant to the Euro area. It is in the interests of decision-makers in European business, of the financial markets, and, finally, of the citizens of the Economic and Monetary Union. There is still much to do, though. Nowadays, for example, the Commission is compelled to use incomplete data when drawing up the initial estimates of GDP for the eurozone and the EU, which could well undermine the reliability of these indicators and have a detrimental effect on the financial markets and, especially, on the central banks, and Mr ... (The President cut the speaker off) (Parliament adopted the text) *** Report (A5-0232/2002) by Robert Goodwill, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directives 70/156/EEC and 80/1268/EEC as regards the measurement of carbon dioxide emissions and fuel consumption of N1 vehicles (COM(2001) 543 – C5-0516/2001 – 2001/0255(COD)) Before the vote:

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Madam Minister, just as the Minister did in a part of his speech, I am also going to use the second Finnish national language. The agenda of the Finnish Presidency does not contain any great surprises; it is balanced, and is focused on the most important challenges to the Union. The agenda actually emphasises those problems which earlier Summit Meetings have agreed that we should solve in Helsinki. I am very glad that the minister tackled the problems concerning the work of the Council of Ministers so frankly for I am of the opinion that they have not been discussed sufficiently, and there remain for us many tricky problems to be solved. Precisely for this reason, many issues have also been delayed until Finland's Presidency. We emphasise in the agenda a strong and open Europe, which is correct. A strong Europe is a Europe in which the institutions are strong, not where some strongmen solve Europe's problems. Unfortunately we have witnessed the tendency that some problems have not been solved in the institutions, but by individual persons. This is not in the spirit of Monnet. I hope that the Finnish presidency will succeed in its aim of making the EU act unanimously for a common policy and with common will. A strong Union is also a Union which is able to create stability in its neighbouring regions. For this reason, it is important to also build up a comprehensive and clear strategy of involvement, which includes countries such as Albania and Macedonia, by means of successful expansion and through credible crisis management. Regardless of all the work carried out with a view to stabilisation, there are nevertheless risks that the streams of refugees might increase. In this regard, I think that the Finnish agenda could have been more ambitious, in particular in light of the Kosovo crisis. We certainly must not find ourselves once again in a situation of unreadiness as was the case when we had to find a solution to the distribution of payments. I finally wish to stress that I sincerely hope that Minister Halonen, who knows the situation in Slovakia personally, is going to fight for an end to the discrimination, for instance against the Roma population, which exists there as well as elsewhere.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, should the introduction of communication technology take priority in the developing countries? At first glance, the answer is no. After all, the fight against poverty is the main issue. If one fights for one’s daily bread, one will not be concerned with e-mail. In order to develop, however, it is necessary to have economic growth, and hence competitiveness, and developing countries will lose this competitive battle if the digital divide with the rich countries is widening rather than narrowing. That should not happen. In addition, there is the threat that, in poor countries, the distance between the informed elite and the population will lead to greater power inequality than is already the case. If anything could benefit the spread of information and power, or democratisation in a word, then it is the ICT revolution. That is why a European strategy must be developed. Mrs Dybkjær has drafted an excellent report on this matter. The public and private sectors are both crucial in this. The government is vital for drafting sound legislation, for administrative guidance and promotion. ICT will need to be included in the sector programmes, and a strategic selection of target groups will need to be made. These are primarily the most important government bodies, but also education and health care could become far more efficient by using the new technologies. In addition, ICT can contribute to better environmental management and to saving energy. All of this will not be easy, and it will take some time but, ultimately, the new technology will prove to be vitally important in the fight against poverty and in making development possible.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, on behalf of the liberal group, I can say that we broadly support the Commission's proposals. We find the new system better than the old system, which was more or less a system of deficiency payments. We also find the amounts specified by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development excessive. We will therefore support Mr Garot's and Mr Adam's amendments, which are slightly more modest but which do in fact provide a good negotiating position in respect of the Council. My group has submitted new amendments which relate to the identification of the animals. We consider it to be of the utmost importance that when money is being distributed – animal premiums and suchlike – the control system is spick and span and there is very little wrong with it. The Commission should therefore introduce a new identification system as soon as possible. Finally, and I am saying this on behalf of the group, I have tabled amendments stating that dikes and salt marshes in Europe will also be regarded as least favoured areas.

Political group: ELDR
We have today voted in favour of the Van Hulten report for it contains a lot of good recommendations regarding reform of the Commission. We especially want to emphasise the radical reform of staff policy, as well as the reform of financial control so that this is efficient and decentralised. There are, however, a number of points on which we have chosen to vote against the submitted proposals. We have voted against establishing a European Public Prosecutor’s Office. We think that extended intergovernmental cooperation on research in criminal matters, as proposed at the Tampere Summit, is a better idea. There is, moreover, a more urgent need for reform of the staff regulations since only a few matters have consequences in criminal law. We have voted against completely abolishing ex ante financial control. A certain amount of ex ante control should be retained. It is not enough merely to exercise control on a spot-check basis once the money has been spent. Instead, control should be reformed and decentralised. We have voted against limiting Parliament’s access to information. Parliament ought to be entitled to all the material which the Commission made available to the Committee of Independent Experts. We have also voted against establishing a number of experts’ committees. It ought to be the competent committee in Parliament which undertakes investigations and proposes reforms. The danger with committees of experts is that you can end up undermining Parliament as an institution elected by the people.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, a positive assessment of the Valencia Ministerial Conference must be considered within the context of the tragic situation in the Middle East. It was not obvious whether the Conference could take place, whether the Arab members of the Barcelona Process would agree to sit down with representatives of Israel, whether the representative of the Palestinian Authority could attend, etc. We should not simply express our satisfaction with the results, but we should also try to explain the reasons for them, which to me are clear. Firstly, the process has acquired its own logic, and there is an awareness of shared interests and a common destiny. Some years after Barcelona this seems absolutely clear. But I would like to stress the second reason, because the European Union’s external policy is so often criticised that we should sometimes stop and consider to what extent the success of the Ministerial Conference in Valencia is due mainly to the perception our Mediterranean partners have of that policy: their perception that our horror at the tragedy in the Middle East is sincere, their perception that we have not backed away in the face of this problem, their perception that our position is not unilateral but coordinated, and finally their perception that we are not indulging in empty posturing in the face of the current problems. As Commissioner Patten said in a comment to the Conference, which is not entirely original, but which is brilliant, the European Union wants to be tough on terrorism but also on the causes of terrorism. We have earned interest on this policy and I am perfectly happy to congratulate Mr Solana, Mr Patten and many others on these good results, although I am not in favour – naturally – of personality cults. However, this satisfaction should not blind us to the great fragility of the Barcelona Process. Poor people – and there are many in the Mediterranean – always have enormous patience as long as two conditions are in place: the first is that they feel that next year is going to be a little better than this one or the last one, that the situation of their children is going to be better than that of their parents and that their grandchildren are going to go to university; the second condition is that they do not feel humiliated. These are the two basic challenges of the European Union’s Mediterranean policy. Barcelona, as Mr Piqué, President-in-Office of the Council, has said, has survived in Valencia, but it will not survive unless we meet this twin challenge.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, drugs are a problem common to all Member States, and there is clearly, therefore, a need for the fight against drugs to be given a European dimension, which we have already seen at work in actions ranging from adopting legal instruments to combat the manufacture and trafficking of drugs, to cooperating with producer countries and promoting measures to prevent drug addiction and to combat this phenomenon. Parliament is being consulted a second time, now that the Council has finally reached agreement, following two years of negotiations. The rapporteur, Mr Oostlander, proposes that no amendments should be tabled because, since it has taken the Council such a long time to reach agreement, it would be preferable if we adopted the text as proposed. I agree with this opinion; the fact that an agreement has been concluded on this matter is useful in itself. At least we have taken one step forwards, albeit a small one – a step that is crucial because it could provide an incentive for the European Union to achieve judicial cooperation in criminal matters. I know that my own country, Portugal, welcomes this draft framework decision, which does not raise specific difficulties as regards our own legal system. The definitions used in the framework decision are based on already-existing UN Conventions on the fight against drug trafficking, and cannot be described as particularly tough; they constitute the lowest achievable common denominator. All types of trafficking, production and sale will now be punished. Furthermore, the sanctions envisaged by the Member States must be effective, proportionate and act as a deterrent, and should include custodial sentences. To conclude, the level of sanctions will increase in line with the quantity and nature of the drugs that are trafficked, and according to whether the offences are committed by a criminal organisation. On the other hand, we must attempt to dissuade the phenomenon of drug tourism, and we can only welcome the news given by the Dutch Justice Minister that his government is seeking to do just this, by tightening up legislation to restrict sales in ‘coffee shops’ to residents.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, very briefly, this is a very sorry story. It has been a bad story for some time and it is particularly embarrassing if you are Belgian, of course, or indeed anybody visiting Brussels, because the city of Brussels is one of the cities which has been in breach of this directive for the longest period. My questions to the Commissioner, which she might like to consider answering either now or later at some time, are, first: does she not agree that the situation in this directive proves the need for a much more thorough impact assessment to accompany legislation such as this? I recall that when the urban waste water directive went through, the impact assessment was very feeble and never really gave any figures as to the likely costs. I am told that in the United Kingdom between 1989 and 2005, GBP 26 billion will be spent on upgrading the water system to deal with this directive. That figure was not known at the time when the directive was brought through – not in my country and not in any country; so the question is: can we obtain better, more effective impact assessments? Not just cost-impact assessments in terms of a global figure, but impact assessments as to the disadvantage of doing nothing set against the advantage of doing something. Secondly, I wonder whether I might ask the Commissioner to be very bold, because this really does come down to the question of Mrs Wallström's debates with the Council of Ministers. One of our problems is not only that the Commission does not produce impact assessments, but that the Member States are not honest about their capacity to put in place what they sign up to. What we really need is a system whereby each Member State is asked at a Council meeting whether or not it can comply with the legislation that its ministers are about to sign up to. A very good place to start would be the new directive on packaging waste. I am sure that every Member State wants to send its minister to Brussels to agree to environmental directives; that is just our problem. They agree to far too much; they do far too little; and this waste water directive illustrates the problem. I would like to congratulate Mrs Sornoza on doing this report so well. We had many problems getting the information out of the Commission, for the simple reason that the Commission did not have the information because the Member States had failed to furnish it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, to speak for only one minute on a report which we have been concerned with for such a long time will be difficult. Thank you, Commissioner, for your proposal; it provides a basis to work on. Happily, this Parliament will separate after working on that basis. You know that we support the ambitious concept with which you began, that of total harmonisation, but we can see how difficult it will be to push through. Perhaps we should do more work around that concept, in order to achieve real consumer protection, which is what we are interested in. As for the clarity and efficacy of this text, it seems to us that what Parliament is actually proposing on the subject of harmonised rates is a useful path to follow. We retain only one rate, the overall effective annual rate. That will make things much simpler for everybody. Let us bear in mind, however, that consumer goods are goods for which credit is a particular kind of credit, inasmuch as, as soon as that credit is contracted, the goods are no longer the subject of credit but rather, in a way, of a debt, since the goods lose their value as soon as they are purchased. There are two points to which my attention has been drawn in particular, Commissioner, and, of course, these concern the scope of this directive. As you are aware, practices and conventions vary within the European Union, so that between mortgage credits, between personal loans, and between credits allocated there are very different balances from one Member State to another, and we have to face up to the reality of the mechanisms and risks of dumping which exist as a result of different national practices. Clearly, if you remove mortgage credits from this directive and move them to another directive you will be opening up the field to the banks, which will take advantage of mortgage credits to attack other consumer credit markets. I do not think that that is the objective sought by this directive which should, first and foremost, protect all forms of consumer credit.

Political group: PSE
The Schmitt report is aimed at establishing greater control of cash movements equal to, or above, EUR 15 000, which is the lower limit in force in European financial institutions. As the rapporteur partly acknowledges, a requirement, such as he proposes, for greater transparency regarding the origin of funds would make no difference. Indeed, it would not prevent large sums being laundered, as long as they were below the amount specified. Nor would there be anything to prevent a proliferation of transfers of a lower amount, a practice common to money launderers across the globe. This amounts to saying that Parliament has no real desire seriously to combat money laundering. If it did have, it would propose removing commercial and banking secrecy. Since, however, the majority of Parliament is committed to protecting the sacred cow of private property and, consequently, to maintaining such secrecy, this choice on its part favours a situation that leaves scope both for illegal trafficking and for corrupt practices. That is why we have abstained from voting.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, representative of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, please allow me to begin by saying that, following the events of last weekend, and what has already been said here this afternoon, the main virtue of this 2004 budget, for an institutionally very complex year, is the mere fact that it exists at all. The budget offers stability and confidence, key factors if enlargement is to be a success. It is therefore essential that the Commission and national administrations respond effectively. This Parliament has offered its support for the reform of the Commission and its request for posts, because we believe that the Union’s budget is synonymous with credibility, and there can be no credibility when in the last three financial years the average use of available payment appropriations stood at 85%, according to the European Court of Auditors. The agreement between the Council and Parliament has once again been in the interests of the citizens. Once again, Parliament has demonstrated flexibility in the negotiations, without relinquishing its political priorities. The work of the rapporteurs, of the chairman of our committee, Mr Wynn, and of the Members who have participated, has been of great merit, because, amongst other things, the agreement allows us to maintain a level of spending which is in line with the efforts of the States to achieve a balance in their public accounts, to deal with the Union’s basic commitments in processes of institutional crisis – I would remind you that next May there will be a Latin American-European Union Summit, and it is important to stress that, from a budgetary point of view, the creation of a solidarity fund has also been promoted – and, finally, give value to Community policies which have, and will have in the future, a fundamental role. I am talking, for example, about the financial support for programmes such as Argo, which is essential to the common management of migratory flows and the control of external borders, as well as the approval of a Community initiative in favour of the victims of terrorism, which, beyond the sums which have been directed towards them, demonstrate to the citizens that the Union is involved in the fight against terrorism in any of its forms.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am very pleased that we are moving forward in terms of better lawmaking. As a pro-European I find it extremely frustrating that we bring forward legislation in this place that is not properly thought through and that not only damages this Parliament: it also damages our credibility. We also need to look at current legislation to see whether it is being implemented across each Member State. If it is not being implemented, is this because it is unworkable? If it is unworkable, why do we not just repeal that legislation, instead of simply bringing forward further legislation in the same field, as we appear to do at the moment. We also have to look at whether it is really necessary at European level in all cases. If it is necessary then we have to go for comprehensive impact assessment, based on up-to-date scientific and medical evidence in some areas where it is applicable, such as health and safety legislation in the employment and social affairs field. We must also take into account the situation in each Member State. The accuracy of impact assessments really must be improved – I must say that I do not believe that they are very good at the moment. They must also be available at a very early stage so that we can have genuine consultation. That consultation should include the actual instrument which is most appropriate for that specific subject area. All the outcomes and all the contributions should be put into the public domain. I am very pleased that Mr Medina Ortega has agreed to refer back his motion. It is right that he should do that. I congratulate him on all the work that he has done but his motion has, of course, been superseded by the interinstitutional agreement.

Political group: ELDR