GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, on behalf of the Group I welcome the report and I congratulate the rapporteur. I agree with the criticisms made of the Commission's report and many of the points made in relation to support that SMEs need, both by the rapporteur and by other speakers here tonight. But the report does not deal adequately with the crucial issue of whether jobs were actually created by these financial instruments. The amendment by my group makes explicit reference to this. The stated intention of the SME guarantee facility is to stimulate job creation by supporting the investment activities of SMEs within the EU through increased availability of loan finance. The estimate for job creation is an average 1.3 new jobs per SME over 2 years which is described as substantial. But we do not have a cost/benefit analysis and enough concrete information. I would ask colleagues to support this report but also to support the amendment which makes this point clear.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I fully concur with what the chairman of our committee has just said. I have presented the entire discussion and the entire dispute surrounding the regulation. In the last two lines I expressed my personal opinion, with a great deal of chagrin, so as not to have to take the floor again as a speaker. For the rest, I should like to assure our chairman that I have a great deal of respect for procedure, perhaps more than many other fellow members, both on this and other matters.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Commissioner, on behalf of the Committee on Development and Cooperation I would firstly like to thank the Commission for their communication on the promotion of human rights and also congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Díez González, on her excellent report, which complements and strengthens the already positive proposals put forward by the Commission in their communication. The European Union’s commitment to the defence of human rights and democratic principles needs effective, and above all coherent, action; if there is no coherence, there is no credibility, and without credibility there is no authority to promote and demand respect for human rights. For this reason I support the strategic and comprehensive approach proposed by the Commission with regard to integrating human rights into EU foreign policy and ensuring that all policies, all Community programmes and projects, take this issue into account. Finally, I support the approach geared towards humanitarian aid based on human rights, because of the importance it can have in terms of conflict prevention, and I believe that Country Strategy Papers should propose specific measures for the promotion of human rights, which should be treated as a priority. The struggle for human rights cannot be disassociated from the fight against poverty and development cooperation policy, inasmuch as both promote the establishment of the economic and social conditions necessary to guarantee peace and to ensure that everyone can live in dignity; conditions without which the respect for fundamental rights is no more than a pipe dream. For this reason I would make a particular request to the Commission that, in the context of political dialogue and the discussion of the Country Strategy Papers, universal access to education should be considered as a priority issue, because education is indispensable for the development of populations, and without development it will be very difficult for us to talk about full respect for human rights. IN THE CHAIR: MR PACHECO PEREIRAVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to begin by saying that I am from the Lorraine area of France and I would also like to pass on my condolences to the families affected by the rail disaster. I would also like to reiterate that I remain a fervent supporter of the railways. Commissioner, my first point relates to the nuclear industry. I am rather surprised that we were able to read the various proposals you have outlined in Le Monde before you came to present them to the House. This is a matter of some regret, all the more so because, personally speaking, I am far from convinced – and I have the impression that you yourself are far from convinced – by a number of your proposals, particularly your proposals regarding deep land disposal. You are well aware that this is a key issue. You know that, for the time being, no solution to the problem of waste management has been found, that there are currently no techniques which will enable us to reduce the radioactivity of radioactive nuclear waste. And yet, in 1974, when France launched its major nuclear energy project, anyone who would listen was told that, in thirty years’ time, these waste problems would be resolved. Today, 30 years later, these problems have still not been resolved. For my part, I feel that your proposals are – to an extent – misleading the public. Ultimately, you are trying to suggest that, with these decisions, you are going to make nuclear energy in Europe safe. Yet this is completely untrue. Lastly, Commissioner, how do you justify the fact that further financial assistance is being given to the nuclear industry – when, for example, the nuclear industry has already cost the average French citizen a great deal of money – and when no solution to the problem of waste management has yet been found, and when we know how difficult it is to find even limited resources to spend on renewable energies?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, it used to be said that war is too serious a business to be left to generals. I fear that today defence is too serious a business to be left to politicians. It is my fear that in an understandable but misguided wish for the European Union to have its own defence capability, politicians are forging ahead with plans that are at best wishful thinking, and at worst dangerous. If the plan is to mirror the position of the EMU in relationship to the EU, then I foresee that the ESDP is going to inhibit NATO from functioning efficiently and properly. I have read Mr Brok's report, and while there is much in it – especially in the original draft – that I find interesting, I fear its proposals will create more problems than they solve. Let us be honest, Europe's armed forces have a woefully depleted capability. Europe's national governments have no coherence or agreement when it comes to military operations. None of the experience and sophistication that has been so painstakingly and carefully developed by NATO on both the political and operational fronts is apparent in any of these proposals. Without an increase in defence spending that would be unacceptable to our electors, Europe's armed forces cannot mount and maintain any major operation outside the immediate area. Nobody can deny that NATO's record is what we should be seeking to protect, not to undermine. It is time that Prime Minister Blair stopped dallying with other concepts. He should make it clear that Britain and the other European states that are NATO members have a future only within NATO. Defence policy is literally a matter of life and death: the death not of politicians, but of soldiers, sailors and airmen. They cannot be put at risk for the sake for closer European political integration.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I taste sweet victory for British chocolate producers in our vote today in their fight to have good British chocolate recognised across Europe as the delicious, high-quality product that it is. The victors are not just British chocolate makers but chocolate consumers right across Europe who will now be free to wallow in the delight of Dairy Milk, Galaxy and Milky Way at will. Clear labelling will enable consumers to choose and enjoy the chocolate that they want. Their taste buds will no longer be deprived by Europe's chocolate police. Developing countries are also the victors. This legislation takes account of the needs of the world's poorest farmers. Those vegetable fats permitted will be of tropical origin, and there will also be a review of the impact of the directive after three years. Best of all, the directive will increase chocolate sales overall, thereby increasing the market for developing countries' exports. So chocoholics can now munch safe in the knowledge they are doing their bit for the Third World. I am sure you will agree that the EU, in the past, has got itself into a right Twix on this matter. Some governments have got their Snickers in a twist trying to protect their chocolate industries. For them, however, Crunchie time has come and they now have Creme Egg on their faces. It is high time the European Parliament gave two Cadbury's Fingers to the chocolate snobs.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the amendment to the 2002 Budget also contains a number of administrative expenses, which I will disregard. What is remarkable is the Court of Auditors’ proposal for self-protection against terrorism. The Court of Auditors is following Parliament’s lead in this. We too have stated that we are not prepared to go along with the absurd increase in premiums by the insurance companies which, following 11 September 2001, actually refused to cover the risks of any future attacks. I naturally hope that our refusal will motivate insurance companies to enter into negotiations with us. After all, if self-protection becomes an issue for the medium or long term – there is also enlargement to include various institutions to consider – we will need to re-examine together how we can effectively cover and spread the risks that are related to this for the EU Budget. Mr President, Mr Podestà spoke a moment ago about the enormous surplus in last year’s European Union Budget: EUR 15 billion remained unspent. I am not exactly in favour of wasting money or spending it for the sake of it, but we must ensure that we actually honour the promises we have made to our citizens and those in other countries. This surplus is not a one-off. This will also be the case next year. As you know, the largest surpluses were found in the Structural Funds. This is logical, since these are major programmes that need time to get off the ground. Funnily enough, some Member States will argue that it is beneficial to have such an illogical framework as we have now, because they can then expect higher refunds at the end of the year, which is very advantageous to the net contributors. I think that the same line of reasoning is applied to the Commission’s civil service. The European Union is accumulating an increasing number of tasks, a larger territory and ever more work. However, if more officials were recruited, this would also mean that the work actually got done, that money was actually spent, and I think that this is not the intention of a number of Member States. In my view, especially the net payers are all for making pledges, having too few people in service to carry out the pledges, blaming the Commission for this, and receiving a few billion of this back at the end of the year. Mr President, I should like to finish off with a comment on the Färm report. I should like to congratulate Mr Färm warmly on his work and wish him every success in all the work he is yet to do. Needless to say, it is still a general resolution and the ultimate choices are still before us. I can say that my group will be verifying the final Budget against at least three items. Firstly, an assessment of the mid-term review of the agricultural policy. Mr Färm now has the courage to refer to the word ‘reforms’, and rightly so. Secondly, enlargement and thirdly, category 4 - external expenditure. Both of these are concerned with whether we fulfil our promises. If it was up to my group, we would. We do not need any cheap seats in the front row, as long as the ultimate performance is worth watching.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is very important that after more than ten years of deliberations at EU level the important question of the minimum harmonisation of take-over law can be regulated by a useful framework directive, although, as Mr Lehne said, the final proposal raises a few technical problems as also problems of content and we assume that unfortunately this proposal can only be improved through the conciliation procedure. But it should be pointed out that the situation has definitely changed since the first reading. Foreign investment within the EU doubled between 1997 and 1998 and cross-border mergers and take-overs have reached record levels. Hitherto we have not had binding rules on take-overs either in Community law or in the legislation of a good number of Member States. The directive on take-over bids therefore seems necessary to ensure fair competition and for reasons of legal certainty. I am in the fortunate position of being able to say that since 1 January 1999 Austria has had its own take-over legislation. Austrian take-over legislation, and in particular its implementation by the take-over commission, has more or less proved its worth since it entered into force. Here in the European Parliament we are chiefly concerned with finding minimum European rules to regulate the major fields of tension in take-over law, for instance the boards against the shareholders, large shareholders against small ones, companies against the stock market. Furthermore, it is essential for the Member States to have the possibility, in accordance with the overall objectives and in the framework of the directive, to adopt useful, further-reaching rules, such as for example the provision on the promotion of equal treatment of all shareholders that we have in our current Austrian take-over law, by ... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too should like to congratulate Mr van Velzen on an excellent report. I totally support his emphasis on the need to protect the European consumer. We must at all costs ensure that the revolution in technology benefits everyone equally and that we do not create an information underclass. We also need more transparency, especially in roaming and international tariffs. I believe we should be looking at making invoices much clearer, for example, so that the consumer can tell whether he or she has chosen the right tariff. Where I differ with the rapporteur, however, is with his concerns on spectrum auctions. Auctions are a fast, transparent, fair and economically efficient way of allocating the scarce resources of radio spectrum. Governments should not be trying to judge who will be innovative and successful. Industry, not government, is best placed to judge the opportunities offered by third-generation mobile telephony. In the debate today and in committee criticisms have been levelled at allocating spectrum through auctions. It has been suggested that auctions are simply a device to provide extra money for governments. That is wrong. The fact that they raise money is subordinate to other aims such as fairness and economic efficiency. A well-defined auction with well-informed bidders ensures that licences are awarded to operators that can generate greatest economic benefit. It has also been claimed that licence costs will just be passed on to the consumer. I do not believe so. Auctions allow the market to determine the commercial value of scarce radio spectrum. More importantly, they give greater opportunities to new market entrants. Beauty contests often favour incumbents with established track records. Auctions are fairer than picking winners, which can be more subjective and less transparent. To conclude, what we are trying to do is to ensure that the EU maintains its position as the world leader in mobile telephony. The only way to maintain the EU's global lead in this sector is by maintaining a balance between regulation and innovation and not ruling any option out. I believe this report will help us reach this goal.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this morning the press tells us that you complained that you had to get up at 4 a.m. in order to get to Strasbourg to do business here. I do hope you think it is worthwhile getting up that early. I would like to know on behalf of my colleagues who have just taken the memorial last flight from London Gatwick to Strasbourg what you are doing about this situation? Baroness Ludford has already raised this matter. You have no doubt been in touch with the mayor of Strasbourg; many of us have written to the Mayor of Strasbourg. If Strasbourg is to be taken seriously as a place where the European Parliament does business, and welcomes not only Members from that Parliament and new Members but also business people and the press of the world, then it has to do something about the flights to Strasbourg from London. What is happening? Will we in fact find ourselves on the memorial last flight from Strasbourg to London on Thursday? If so, that is very sad, not least for Strasbourg itself, which has absolutely no hope of getting the backing of any British Members in its future role as one of the places where the European Parliament meets. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we want to guarantee the safety of animal feed and human foodstuffs, and to that end we need a workable European regulatory framework. The crises of recent years have made everyone, including ourselves, more keenly aware of the situation. One thing must be clearly emphasised: the dioxin crisis was the result of criminal infringements of the existing rules and regulations. The time has come for a review of the directives on food safety. In all our deliberations, however, we must be mindful of the entire supply chain; in other words, we need what Mr Glavany, the French President of the Council, has called a quality pact between society, industry and agriculture. The correlation must be seen, from natural production via industrial processing to marketing. When setting maximum values, we must remember that nature has its own set of laws, that harvests vary from year to year and that farmers are ultimately harmed by environmental effects over which they have no control. For that reason I call on the Commission and the Council to create liability provisions which protect farmers and their land, by which I mean that they must make the compensatory regimes workable and ensure that the provisions are based on the polluter-pays principle. The 1999 Directive was well thought-out, and it has already scored its first success by demonstrably reducing pollution levels. For that reason, I am starting to wonder whether we actually need tighter rules. What I think we really need is action against criminal offences. I should like to inform the House that Amendments Nos 41, 42, 43 and 44, which the Group tabled, have been withdrawn. What is new in the present proposal is that it gives Member States scope to operate with action thresholds, which would enable them to use their own discretion as long as the established ceilings were not exceeded. In the context of a necessary European regulatory system, such discretionary scope surely entails a risk to producers as well as jeopardising trade and transactions. There are dangers, and from this dangers in the internal market as well. A prescribed European regime must therefore lay down the line that we all have to follow. It is absolutely imperative that undesirable substances which are extremely toxic should be neither traded nor used in mixtures, and the withdrawal of the amendments does nothing to alter that position. Farmers have a right to flawless animal feed. Their economic success depends on healthy livestock. No rules can achieve anything if they cannot be strictly and comprehensively enforced. That is why the Group advocates effective controls, and we echo the rapporteur’s call for the food safety auditors in the Commission to be able to conduct unannounced on-the-spot inspections in close and constructive cooperation with the inspectorates of the Member States.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to begin by congratulating the Commission on this initiative and acknowledge the excellent work Mr Lisi has done by means of the different parliamentary process we have seen. I do not believe that anybody disputes the importance of the air sector, but I am from a country for which the air sector is of great strategic importance. I believe that those countries with a high level of tourism have a greater interest than anybody in the air sector being more solvent and having greater capacity, since vital elements of development depend on it in numerous European countries. But it is true that this is perfectly compatible with passengers being compensated for the harm done to them. What is the harm done to a passenger when they are delayed? Is it simply that they are made to wait two, three or four hours in the departure hall? When there is an overbooking, what harm is done to the passenger? It would be very difficult to evaluate that harm, but I am absolutely certain that it is a harm which goes much further than the compensation which we are establishing here, at times without any possible comparison. We must therefore deal with it. I believe that this Parliament has carried out a very important and interesting exercise with this report. I would therefore like to thank Mr Lisi for the care he has taken. Parliament has moderated – and even reduced, in some cases – the proposals presented to us by the Commission and the Council. We have taken account of the objective interests and the survival of companies, which does credit to this Parliament and, naturally, it seems to me absolutely essential that we stop classifying many of the specious arguments that companies frequently give passengers as ‘extraordinary circumstances’. I believe we have begun an interesting process. Let us hope that it is extended to other forms of transport and that we go further in this direction.

Political group: PSE
I shall rephrase the question, because it is essential for the Council to reply in political terms. I do not need to be reminded of European Union procedures for adopting decisions of this kind. I think we are all familiar with them. The Council’s decision to include Colombia in the list of countries whose citizens require visas to enter European Union countries is not simply useless in the fight against the organised crime some Colombian citizens might be involved in. It also forces ordinary citizens to bear the additional cost of obtaining a visa. Furthermore, this decision clouds relations between the European Union and Colombia unnecessarily. In addition to myself, many Colombian intellectuals, led by none other than Mr García Márquez, have stated how close Colombia is to us. It has come to my notice, for instance, that Mr García Márquez did not travel to Spain to take part in the recent celebrations marking the twenty-fifth anniversary of the founding of the newspaper El País. This was to comply with the undertaking given by those intellectuals who stated that they would not travel to the Union, at least, not to Spain, until this rule is withdrawn. I would ask you please to reply to my question and I hope the reply will be in the affirmative. Will the Council review this decision in the near future, having first consulted the Colombian authorities and Colombian society?

Political group: PSE