GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I am sure I speak on behalf of other colleagues when I say that this has been one of the most intriguing and perplexing issues I have ever had to follow. For non-specialists like myself it became at times an impenetrable mass of acronyms and technical details, and Mr Glante and Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca at times seemed to be speaking a language that sane, normal human beings could not possibly follow. I never knew, for instance, that something called the Protermo method could produce as much heat and fury as it did in the debate in our committee. It is a pity we did not combine that heat in our committee with some power while we were at it. Still, even for those such as myself who were not able to follow every twist and turn, my group is certainly extremely pleased with the outcome and looks forward to supporting the rapporteur in the vote tomorrow. We are particularly pleased that the two approaches represented by the differing sides of the debate in our committee – on the one hand wishing to retain a methodology to distinguish cogeneration from other forms of generation, and on the other hand wishing to maintain an accent on energy saving – have been retained in the famous Annexes two and three, and that some accommodation between those two perspectives has been reached. We are also extremely pleased to support the measures in this directive which protect and promote micro-cogeneration, which we feel to be an essential component in the development of CHP and also of course – I speak on behalf of my group and that of others – we are very keen to try to use tomorrow's vote as a starting point to have a serious though no doubt tough debate with the Council on maintaining and pursuing real rather than just symbolic targets. My final note is one of caution. There are a number of amendments tabled. I would urge colleagues from other groups to refrain from supporting amendments which disturb this very delicately constructed compromise. It would seem, at least to us in my group, to be a shame to jeopardise a compromise which took so long and was frankly so painful in its birth. IN THE CHAIR: MR PUERTAVice-President

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, has the Commission ascertained on which issues and in which countries these invasions of the public sphere by ecclesiastical powers are taking place? Secondly, I would also like to ask the Commissioner whether he would be prepared to schedule information campaigns to increase awareness of the advantages and benefits of the Community acquis for women. I have also heard references, Commissioner, to the existence in certain Parliaments of departments in which ecclesiastical powers carry out controls and monitoring of the activities of parliamentarians. I would be grateful if this could be verified.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, as well as thanking the Commissioner for what he has just said, I would like to ask the presidency, in order to reinforce the gesture we have made by means of this debate, to allow us to vote on the Watson report first, not last, as is currently planned.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, if the European governments are unable to arrive at a common position – and the Greek Presidency’s painstaking efforts here do it credit – then we must raise a loud, clear, united voice in the European Union against this war for oil and against unilateral intervention which flies in the face of international law, the resolutions passed by the UN and global public opinion. Yes, Mr Solana, we must give the UN inspectors what they are asking for: time, money, resources and information. We must give peace another chance. Unfortunately, war and violence are your preserve, the preserve of the men who rule in the decision-making centres, while the victims of war are mainly women and children. We in the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities have repeatedly emphasised the need for conflicts to be resolved by peaceful means. War with Iraq will not only signal the resounding failure of diplomacy and policy, it will also mean that we have betrayed our values and our culture. It will mean that old Europe has no new, alternative standard to raise against the philosophy and culture of violence being promoted by the USA. The rulers of Europe have a huge responsibility at this crucial stage.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I give such a reduction in journey time my wholehearted support. As far as I am concerned, eight hours must be the absolute maximum.

Political group: PPE-DE
I support these measures which introduce tough new recycling rules allowing consumers and retailers to take back waste electric and electronic goods free of charge and encouraging manufacturers to take responsibility. The aim of these rules is to encourage consumers getting rid of old, worn out electrical and electronic goods to return these items through new local public collection points or retailer take-back schemes, rather than to throw away their old hairdryers, fridges and TVs. We live in a throw away society, with worn out computers, kettles, fridges and freezers flooding into the waste stream at an unprecedented pace. Consumers across Europe must play their part in stemming the tide of waste from electronic goods. All this means is a small change in people's daily habits. Taking old radios and hoovers back for recycling will be like going to the bottle bank or collecting old newspapers, rather than dumping them in the bin. For manufacturers, it means financing recycling schemes with public collection points, retailer take-back schemes and treatment, recovery and disposal systems. Responsibility does not begin and end with the production of electronic goods, but electronics manufacturers should undertake responsibility for the after-life of their products. Such a scheme is an important step towards greening up the European Union. Yet again, this is proof of Europe's commitment towards creating a healthier, safer environment for our citizens. - Breyer report (A5-0135/2001)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the rapporteur clearly explained the meaning of the text in the sense referred to by Mr Imbeni. You have read the English version of the text, which is accepted by the overwhelming majority of those present. I really must ask you to allow us to continue the vote, especially as these little semantic games always come from the people who take no part in the technical work in committee. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, first of all I should like to welcome the Commissioner, while at the same time, without wishing to give offence to her, regretting the fact that Mr Monti or Mr Bolkestein is not facing me across the Chamber, because they are of course the ones most directly concerned with this question. We have discovered, in effect, that in the Commission’s work programme for 2003, it was intending to submit a directive on postal services which would seek to separate legally, in other words to turn into subsidiaries, the commercial activities on the one hand and the public-service activities on the other, without consulting Parliament or the Council, in other words by using the procedure laid down in Article 86(3) of the Treaties. This method of procedure therefore amounts to breaking away from what has always been the legal basis for discussions about postal services within the Union, in other words Article 95, which is essentially a codecision procedure and therefore makes any decision on the matter the subject of a democratic debate. If this assumption were to prove to be true, it would of course be a recourse to force which we would be unable to accept. We have examined several postal directives which all form part of the gradual process of opening up the market, and we do not see any reason for resorting to force in this way, which I repeat would be intolerable. I should like to ask you, Commissioner, whether the Commission intends to confirm this assumption, in other words to change the legal basis so as to avoid any democratic debate before the Member States and before the representatives of the people. Secondly, I should like to know what the content of this draft is, since you have given us, very precisely, during this debate, the opportunity to do so. In fact, since we know that the area concerned will gradually disappear between now and 2009, we do not see how it could be the subject of subsidiary creation or legal separation. Finally, we should like to know the motivation behind this draft text which at the moment seems to us to be extremely confused.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, firstly I would like to express my sincerest thanks to Mrs Neena Gill for her excellent estimate of the European Parliament’s revenue and expenditure for the year 2004. It is difficult to make estimates because parliamentary elections are to be held during the year and the EU will enlarge. In general, with parliamentary elections half the Members change, and next time it will perhaps be more, as the old Member States will have 56 fewer seats. At the same time we will have 162 new Members from the new Member States. Both these factors will increase Parliament’s expenditure, and at the same time they cause uncertainty with respect to estimates. The aim is to keep Parliament’s share of administrative expenditure below 20%. The target is an ambitious one because a further EUR 46 million is to be budgeted for the Statute of Members. This expenditure item is new. For that reason exceeding the ceiling by this amount may be justified because it would not actually alter the old way costs are distributed between the EU and the Member States, as the Member States have been responsible for salaries up till now. The rapporteur is trying to improve services to Members in core activities, which is to say those duties that relate to legislation and the budget. The focus is the right one. Likewise, the rapporteur is calling for improved planning of meetings to avoid overlapping. This would cut costs, for example, through a simultaneous reduction in the number of interpreters needed, which would make interpreting arrangements for the new Member States easier in particular. At the same time that would allow Members to participate more in the work of all their committees. For that reason, the appropriateness of the constituency weeks must be assessed more precisely in the future. In this connection, however, we have to view new benefits for Members with some reservations. For example, there will be no possibility of expanding transport services, not at least before we have some definitive experience of the other new areas of expenditure. Extending the health insurance scheme to apply to former Members does not seem justified and my group is not in favour of this. Each Member State has been responsible for its previous Members’ social security matters when salaries have been paid. If Parliament applies the health insurance scheme to the current Members it is only reasonable, as they work outside their own countries and it counts as occupational health care. This argument does not apply to former Members, however, and it would be just another, somewhat covert, privilege. Multilingualism will increase in Parliament, as the number of official languages will grow from 11 to 20. This means that the practice of using two separate interpreters to translate what someone is saying will increase. We should investigate whether we could impose special obligations to translate many languages directly into the ‘big’ languages, such as English, French and German, in which case most of the Members of Parliament would be able to listen to a speech that has been translated by just one interpreter.

Political group: ELDR
The proposal we are today debating and voting on, revising the guidelines on the Trans-European Energy Networks, provides for a redefinition of priorities for the Trans-European Networks (TENs) and identifies, amongst the projects of common interest, the priority projects of European interest, to which priority will be given as soon as funding is decided under the regulation on granting financial support to the TENs. The category of priority projects encompasses a range of energy network projects with quite a significant impact on the completion of the internal market and which are designed to improve the security of supply. I wish, however, to highlight the strategic importance of the TENs as a crucial tool for overcoming the constraints of geographical remoteness in countries such as Portugal. This is all the more relevant in the case of the outermost regions such as the Autonomous Regions of Madeira and the Azores. This fact explains why I have been advocating a differentiated treatment of these regions, given their inability to link up with the European electricity and gas networks. I therefore feel it is crucial that we support energy production projects based on renewable energy sources in the context of the local supply of each of these regions and their place on the priority axes.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we cannot overemphasise the importance of EU-China relations, which have developed significantly in recent years, as we all know, specifically in the areas of political dialogue, trade relations, and scientific and technological cooperation. We must now step up these relations and extend them to other areas in a way that suits both parties. The Commission communication, which warrants the support of Parliament, presents a strategic framework for such a process and proposes elements for practical action. Along these lines, we also hope that account will be taken of the ideas put forward in the excellent report by our colleague, Mr Vasco Graça Moura. Because of the limited time available to me, I shall emphasise only three aspects: in addition to cooperation in the fields of trade, industry and technology, made possible by China’s recent accession to the WTO, cultural dialogue between Europe and China must be stimulated. For example, the development of exchanges at university level is something we can easily achieve, specifically by extending the scope of the TEMPUS programme. Secondly, I wish to state that Macao and Hong Kong, in addition to being particularly important points of international contact in the economic and financial spheres, could also become centres of intense cultural exchange. The success of these two autonomous regions will benefit China, but would also be important for Europe. Apart from anything else, it could provide a good example of what can be achieved when international relations are geared towards peaceful interaction. Lastly, the issue of human rights is still a matter of huge concern if we wish to deepen cooperation with China. As the rapporteur states, we hope to see some more positive and more significant indications by China so that, by the time the 2008 Olympic Games are held, China’s image on the international scene will be an entirely positive one.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the previous speaker made a comment. I think that Mr Rothley attacked me personally. I would like to make it clear once again that the European Patent Office does not have a court. It has a Board of Appeal. That is a significant difference. I say this so that our colleague is properly informed. It is quite clear that the patent refers to genes – indeed, to mutated genes – and to the analysis procedure, for the sake of accuracy. I would recommend that any Members of this House who are interested should visit the website of the Institut Curie in France – the prestigious research institute which has initiated an opposition procedure – as this describes the situation in detail. It is indeed a fact that only an invention may be patented, not a discovery. On Ms Thors' objection regarding the urgency: the deadline set for instituting proceedings against the first patent expires on Tuesday. This means that we cannot wait for the Fiori report, which will not be discussed until the October II part-session. What Mr Rothley says is also incorrect. We are indeed a legislative body, but his own Minister of Justice in Germany, Ms Däubler-Gmelin, once applied this procedure. Even the Federal Government once appealed against a patent which had been awarded by the Patent Office in 1999.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, Mr Rübig's paper certainly is a fine document, which we support. The Commission's document is also commendable, and makes enjoyable reading. So, now innovation is to form the basis for know-how – a knowledge-driven economy. While eEurope was still at the discussion stage, we were in an information-based economy, and so we learned to perfect ourselves all the time like candidates in a beauty contest. The next stage is of course the civilised society to which we all, whether engineers or singing teachers, are striving. Of course it is true that bureaucracy is one barrier in this work of innovation; we ought to have programmes which act like fast lanes for innovations – this is the first requirement. Secondly, creating a creative and rewarding atmosphere is of the essence, and this will be difficult. Thirdly, the operational programme should incorporate aid specifically to innovative firms or corporations in the SME sector, since – as already stated – 80 percent of taxes and 60 percent of jobs come from this sector. Fourthly, protection of the creative input of employees must be up to scratch, so that barriers to such input do not arise, and the same goes for reward. Allow me once again to repeat that this creative leadership is very important, and it is not very common. Creative leadership demands – within firms as elsewhere – equality, trust and fairness. It would also be a good idea to set up ‘innovation banks’, from which firms and other players could purchase and acquire innovations for practical application, and to which inventors and innovators could transfer them. Such activity would be one way to accelerate the exploitation of innovations, and would create this type of good and rational framework.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I believe that the motion for a resolution contained in Mr Hernández Mollar’s report considerably enhances the Commission’s Green Paper on procedural safeguards, thanks, not least, to the contribution of numerous amendments by all the political groups. I would therefore like to thank Mr Hernández Mollar for his work. As I have said, it considerably enhances the report, not just because the resolution contains a clear call for the adoption of a framework decision on common minimum standards, and not just because it also points out the elements still lacking – as the Commission, itself, recognises – in the building of a complete system of common minimum guarantees securing the basic European rights ensuring a fair trial. The list of these rights must be extended to the issues related to admissibility and weight of evidence, to the criteria for pre-emptive detention, to the actual conditions of detention, as well as to the right of appeal, which is important especially in terms of individual freedom. The principal contribution made by the draft resolution is the detailed identification of the specific content of the rights already examined by the Green Paper: legal assistance and defence, which must be free of charge for those who need it and be provided by expert professionals; the guarantee of full, adequate interpreting for speakers of other languages; the right to consular assistance and to adequate protection for vulnerable persons, especially – but not solely – minors. Then, particularly innovative and of particular interest is the proposal for a written letter of rights stating the rights of suspects and defendants, to be handed to the defendant or suspect at the first contact with the authorities in proceedings concerning them and which must be detailed and available in several languages. As we know, all the Member States are bound to abide by the European Convention on Human Rights and the Court of Justice, with its elaborate case law, monitors respect for the Convention, but that is not enough. The irreconcilable differences between the systems, procedures and legal traditions themselves raises concerns that undermine the confidence that the European citizens must be able to place in the Member States’ legal systems if the necessary cooperation based on mutual recognition of the judicial measures of the different countries is to develop in a territory which no longer has internal borders. To this end, there is an urgent need, in order to ensure both the freedom and the security of the citizens, for minimum common standards to be introduced to establish at European level the high standards of procedural safeguards which Europe prides itself on guaranteeing to all – both citizens and non-citizens – who come into contact with its legal systems. I can therefore inform you that my group is going to vote for the Hernández Mollar report.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, a Committee chairman can only feel great satisfaction at seeing colleagues congratulate each other, as Mr Rothley and Mr Lehne have done, on work carried out under his guidance. I am genuinely pleased because we have been working on this project for years. In actual fact, when I had the honour of taking on the chairmanship of the committee, I found areas of strong disagreement which it has only been possible to resolve through debate. As you can see from the speeches, we have worked together harmoniously, never losing sight of two important things: on the one hand, our desire to support the constituent process which is to give shape to a Parliament, its rights, responsibilities and privileges, and, on the other, the fact that the provisions of the Treaty are antiquated and obsolete, as Mr Rothley explained clearly, dating from the sixties, when Parliament was just a consultative assembly. Mr Rothley’s draft, which we are about to adopt, seeks to lay down a new legal framework for the European Parliament and rules governing the exercising of its mandate. I too want to stress that it really is a Statute for a genuine Parliament, which covers not just the financial side of things and, if I may be so bold as to mention it, remuneration, which were fairly minor issues on which the debate in committee had reached an impasse, but the structure and organisation of Parliament’s function, role, characteristics and mandate as well. I would like to be able to quote a major point of a report dating from 1986, which was tabled by Mr Georges Donnès, a great liberal. As far back as 15 years ago, this report stressed that the European Parliament was an institution destined to play a crucial role in the Community’s activity and in the process of producing Community documents, and that there could therefore be no opposition to changes deemed to be necessary for the Community bodies. Even then, it was clear that some bodies would have to undergo a process of change. As regards the possibility of genuinely equal conditions of immunity for all the Members of Parliament, the author of the report wondered whether it would not be possible to define a position of genuine autonomy and immunity for Members of the European Parliament as such, for as long as the current distinction made in Article 10 of the Protocol – which we are now attempting to amend – was preserved. It can be inferred from the report I have just mentioned that such equal treatment is necessary not just to avoid the negative psychological effects of there being first and second class MEPs, but also because it is the fulfilment, a good sixteen years later, of a dream, a plan: making the Parliamentary institutions independent of other powers through the protection of the individual Members. This protection concerns our work and the image we want to give Europe of MEPs who, after many years, first and foremost after this Parliamentary term, through and under your presidency, are establishing a firm point of reference, which, not least, can only benefit enlargement by giving MEPs the effective role they should have.

Political group: PPE-DE