GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
The main function of the European Investment Bank (EIB) is, in conjunction with the European Investment Fund, to support capital investment that promotes sustainable development and economic and social cohesion. It provides financing for small businesses (45% of the overall total of loans), for research, for environmental protection and for basic infrastructure. Of course, these projects go hand in hand with the Community regional policy, but the EIB also supports the implementation of the Lisbon neo-liberal agenda. For the first time, the EIB is to present to Parliament its Supervisory Committee’s report, which complements its annual report, and this is something that we welcome. We must, however, look carefully at the doubts raised as to the competence of the bank’s management and at accusations of a lack of transparency at the EIB. Parliamentary control must be strengthened. We therefore welcome the decision to hold a public hearing in Autumn 2004 into the EIB’s activities and political guidelines. I am unhappy that the information published by the EIB on its website is presented in only three Community languages. Given the range of the EIB’s work, information on it should be available in all of the Community’s official languages. - Joint resolution: Eurostat (B5-0218/2004)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I want to begin where Mr Chichester left off, that is that we cannot proceed fast enough with opening the energy markets. I believe we in this Parliament have been united on that for quite some time. May I remind you that last year, after more than two years’ intensive work, we adopted directives to accelerate the opening of both the electricity and the gas markets in Europe. I must say, however, that I and a few others, too, were then rather surprised at how quickly this follow-up proposal for a regulation concerning gas transmission networks has come. We are surprised because the time allowed for the Member States to implement the directive has not yet expired – it will do so in a few weeks’ time – and also because we have set a very ambitious timetable for the Commission to submit an evaluation report on the application and implementation of the directive; it was to happen in 2006. So much for the background. I want to raise three points which, I fully admit, have left me rather sceptical. Firstly, the compatibility between this regulation and the directive we adopted. Secondly, the justification the Commission has given, which I have not exactly found in the text, namely that the emphasis should be placed on cross-border trade. The third point that has made me rather sceptical was the proposal for a very wide-ranging comitology procedure. Now, after a long discussion, as the rapporteur said, we have agreed to continue working on the Commission’s approach. We have therefore proposed a number of amendments in the three areas I have just mentioned. So far as my group is concerned, the outcome is that we support the package as a whole. That is not the end of my group’s work, however. We are waiting to see what the Council does and then there will be the second reading, but we shall continue to back here in plenary these 42 amendments that were adopted in committee, and we hope that this will bring us a little further forwards in the opening of the energy markets.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on a point of order. I welcome the recent acquittal of the British and Dutch plane-spotters on spying charges in Greece and the fact that the appeal court had the integrity to put right the original miscarriage of justice that the conviction represented a year ago. I recall that it took many years to right similar wrongs in cases in the United Kingdom in the 1980s, so I am pleased that, although a year is an ordeal for the defendants, it was no longer. But the fact is this prosecution should never have happened and the way it developed raised a lot of concerns about the treatment of defendants and trial standards. It is therefore essential that we progress the agenda for ensuring high minimum procedural standards of justice for persons accused in criminal proceedings which the Commission will be putting forward in a proposed framework decision next year. We also need to put flesh on the bones of our human rights commitments in the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Political group: ELDR
I would thank the Commissioner for her answer. My question in the first place concerns the opportunities the disabled have to take advantage of freedom of movement in Europe. It is quite an expensive business if you are to travel from Gothenburg to somewhere else in Europe on holiday or on a study visit if you are in a wheelchair and also need to have a personal assistant or carer with you in order to manage. I am grateful for the fact that the Commission has adopted an action plan. It is of course a prerequisite, however, that there be financial resources and means of actually crossing the borders physically if you have a disability. It would be interesting to hear whether the Commission is also prepared to set aside financial resources for those who have disabilities, so that they too might venture further out into the world than merely to where their wheelchairs take them.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on behalf of my group, I wish to withdraw our support for Amendments Nos 68 and 69. This was a joint motion by the rapporteur and myself on behalf of our respective groups, which we tabled out of a desire to be accommodating to the Council, which wanted an immediate resolution, albeit one contrary to the line taken by the Committee. The Council, however, did nothing to meet us halfway, and my understanding of the codecision procedure is not that it involves conceding negotiating points at first reading stage without getting anything in return. We will be voting against both amendments. (Applause) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0216/2002) by Mr Wieland, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, on the proposal for directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on machinery and amending Directive 95/16/EC [COM(2000) 899 – C5-0035/2001 – 2001/0004(COD)] Before the vote on Amendment No 13:

Political group: PSE
This resolution is a sort of liberal social charter maintaining a basic illusion as to the extent to which liberalisation and regulation can be combined. In actual fact, the hardline neoliberal programme is being affirmed once again in two major areas. The first area of focus is the continued privatisation, deemed to be “essential” starting with postal services, savings banks and financial services in general, as well as the railways. The second is the continued reform of the labour market, and there are even plans to extend this further. Such guidelines represent a step backwards for civilisation, seeking nothing more and nothing less than to convert the provision of all social needs into saleable commodities, subject to the rationale of profitability. This is, apparently, a “careful liberalisation process”. That is something that the victims of the Paddington rail disaster will appreciate. Reform of the labour market tends to always go the same way, elevating flexibility and social insecurity to consider them the economic ideal. This report, in thrall to liberal orthodoxy, illustrates the cynicism of property owners and the miserable submission of reform policies to their lead. I had no hesitation in voting against this resolution. - Soares Report (A5-0017/2001)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we have heard that progress was made at Biarritz on closer cooperation. I congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Gil-Robles, on a clear lucid report setting out Parliament’s position. My British Conservative colleagues support moves towards greater flexibility. We have reservations on the abolition of the veto and progressive elimination of the pillared structure so we shall be constrained to abstain on the overall vote. Minister, it is recorded that on the eve of the Bolshevik Revolution – an event that was to have such desperate consequences throughout the world – the Russian Orthodox Church was engaged in complex discussions on the design of vestments during Lent. This is an apocryphal story to illustrate the dangers of dwelling on the detail of technical matters to the extent of obscuring the massive challenges to be faced. I hope the Treaty of Nice is achieved and seen to be a success and that closer cooperation is included as a welcome move in the direction of flexibility. But will it be sufficient to ensure that enlargement takes place within the timetable envisaged? (FR) Mr Moscovici, will the Nice Treaty really be welcomed and acclaimed in Warsaw, Prague, Budapest, Tallinn and Ljubljana? Unless this is the case, it would not be a victory, merely another missed opportunity. I hope that the French Presidency will find a more efficient and imaginative way of assuring the candidate countries and the public throughout Europe that we are not only addressing important technical issues but above all the political necessity to provide our continent with stability through the certain and guaranteed enlargement of our European Union.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I would especially like to thank you for your kindness in inviting the Members present to listen to my 17 – which are actually 16 – explanations of vote, apart from anything else because an anti-Fatuzzo amendment has been tabled in the document amending the Rules of Procedure, which seeks to limit the number of oral explanations of vote delivered during voting time to a maximum of three. I am therefore very pleased to accept your invitation to the Members to listen to Mr Fatuzzo’s explanations of vote, the first of which today concerns the Watson report on the role of the European Union in combating terrorism. The Pensioners’ Party, in the person of myself, voted for the motion. It recommends that, in order to genuinely combat terrorism, absolute silence of the press and television in matters of terrorism should be established. The terrorists want their crimes to be publicised and the media must refuse to satisfy them. Directives must be adopted which lay down absolute silence of the press and television where terrorist acts are concerned.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as a Member of this House elected by one of the outermost regions – Madeira – and since it is impossible in the time allocated to address all of the issues that this report raises, and which the rapporteur, Mrs Torres Marques, whom I shall take this opportunity to congratulate on her excellent work, has dealt with quite thoroughly, I wish to focus my speech on three points that directly concern the outermost regions. Firstly, I should like to emphasise the importance of tourism in boosting the economic activity of the outermost regions, and as a means of combating underdevelopment. This sector is the main activity in these regions in terms of the wealth it creates and makes a major contribution to the task of bringing these areas closer to the more developed regions of the European Union. It is, therefore, crucial to recognise the value of the role played by tourism and the potential for economic development that it represents. We must not, however, forget that these regions cannot remain dependent on tourism alone, an activity of whose vulnerability we are all aware. We must, therefore, support work on economic diversification by making use of the opportunities provided in Article 299(2). Secondly, I should like to highlight the need to develop efficient and sustainable transport infrastructures, with the aim of making access to the remote and island regions easier. The increase in tourist flows and the consequent development of the sector depend on measures that improve accessibility, which, combined with a proper policy of promoting and making the best use of environmental, historical and cultural resources, could be an instrument of crucial importance to the development of these regions. Thirdly, I would highlight the special fragility and environmental wealth of territories such as the outermost regions, which are on the one hand a determining factor and tourist attraction, but which on the other require sustainable tourism. Unless this happens, the very development of the economy and the tourism of these regions will, in the medium term, be irremediably compromised. IN THE CHAIR: MR VIDAL-QUADRAS ROCAVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
We are opposed to terrorism on the grounds of the measures that it uses and also because those committing acts of terrorism often seek to impose an oppressive regime on their own people. We are, however, disgusted by the hypocrisy of the report, which, despite criticising terrorist groups, dismisses state terrorism from its area of concern, where this type of terrorism is, or has been, carried out by states that call themselves democratic and which are now part of the European Union. To take the case of France as an example, where army generals claim that acts of torture and assassinations perpetrated during the war against the Algerian people were to prevent them from freeing themselves from colonial oppression – is this not legitimising terrorism? Or must we dismiss these disgraceful actions, albeit only by maintaining our silence, on the pretext that these acts of terrorism were committed openly, if not on the recommendations of the highest state authorities? And how many acts of terrorism were committed by the United Kingdom in India or in Kenya before these countries were decolonised? How many acts of terrorism are being committed now by the United Kingdom in Sierra Leone? The report makes no mention of state terrorism, which is as bad as the terrorism committed by smaller groups. On the other hand, however, the report is cynical enough to include ‘extremist ideological conceptions’ or ‘intellectual assistance’ in the list of areas to combat, which obviously opens the way to attacks on the freedom of opinion itself. We therefore voted against this report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I should first of all like to extend warm thanks to Mr Roche for his brief from the Council, and particularly for what he said about older workers. It is my belief that we could achieve the Lisbon objectives in the field of employment if we were to succeed in creating a better labour market for older workers, so I was very disappointed to note that the Commission talks only about abolishing the financial instruments for them. We might as well deny them the right to vote. What the Commission states is wholly unacceptable. We need to create a labour market capable of offering scope, one that will also make such arrangements less necessary than they currently are. Secondly, I should like to turn to the legislation itself. The Commission was right to point out that legislation on the internal market must be introduced swiftly. It too, of course, has come up with its own proposals, although you cannot help wondering whether they will contribute a tremendous amount to employment. I fear that the reverse might sometimes be true. I am also concerned that in the field of financial services, as was the case in the takeover directive, there is the temptation to emulate what we think is happening in the United States. I think we should carefully consider what effect all of this has on employment. There is also the environment, of course. It is indeed the case that in the assessment of existing environmental laws, and the drafting of new ones, far more consideration should be given to the employment effects than has been the case to date. It is too easy to trivialise this, as Mr Langen has done. My final point concerns productivity, an issue that I think is still very much being underestimated. Productivity ties everything together. If we improve productivity, we can do more, we can obtain better jobs. Often, though, it is the other side of this House that stands in the way of improving productivity because there is too much consideration for old ideas for which there is little sympathy in this day and age.

Political group: PPE-DE
My question would have been almost exactly the one raised by Mr Purvis, but I would like to press the point further. Granted, as you say, that excise duties lie within the prerogative of Member States, nevertheless the use of that prerogative in a way which is unfairly discriminatory against producers in one part of the Community versus others might still conflict with the single market principle. For example, if we take what Mr Purvis and I would be thinking of, the malt whisky producing parts of the Highlands – a very peripheral part of Europe, very hard-pressed, a whole farming community as well as a distilling community dependent upon it – a general practice of taxing the alcohol in Scotch whisky, Dutch gin or Danish aquavit more than the alcohol in beer or the alcohol in wine, seems to me to be discriminatory and a discriminatory use of something which is admittedly within the prerogative of the Member States.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, allow me to begin by congratulating Mr Brok warmly on his excellent report. Along with the just focus on Europe and surrounding areas, and on the transatlantic dialogue, Asian relations should form the third pillar of the EU’s foreign policy. We cannot afford to leave Asia in the care of the Americans, despite the fact that their military presence is far more conspicuous. We have not reached that stage yet. Irrespective of the geographical distance and cultural differences, there are major political points of discussion. Fortunately, these are high on the agenda in the ASEM process. The EU does well to continue to underline the human rights issue, even in cases of social abuse. We do not believe in the universality of “Asian values”, and these are increasingly consigned to the background in the region itself, which is evident from the democratic breakthroughs of the past decade. However, that does not eliminate the causes of conflicts, such as poverty and ethnic and religious conflicts. I would refer to Indonesia, but also to the need for permanent intervention in the Korea issue. We welcome the fact that the European Union is committed. Alongside the US, Europe must claim a more global role. At the same time, we should not punch above our weight, for then we will remain bogged down in fine words. Asia is large, and Asians will mainly need to solve their problems themselves. The ASEM process, preferably enlarged to include a country such as India, must be more than a discussion forum. We must strengthen the mutual interests on the basis of equality. That will bring Asia and Europe closer together. Those interests are mainly in the economic field. That is where Europe can be of most significance, and there is great potential, given the interconnectedness of the world economy. We would also call for a far more intensive cultural exchange to prevent the ASEM process from remaining an elitist affair. If we draw in the reins more tightly, Europe will be able to better embed its expectations in permanent political dialogue. The emphasis in this connection is on democracy and human rights. However, we should not neglect the safety aspects. Preventing the proliferation or spread of nuclear weapons also springs to mind, for example. However, the ASEM process is not an alternative to sound bilateral relations with Asia’s major countries. Asia cannot be compared to the European Union. It is unclear which country will in time be at the helm in that region. There are major paradoxes. China is developing fast, but is not a democracy. India is large, but vulnerable, and the Japanese engine is misfiring. Europe can help improve regional perspectives, but that should not be at the expense of the direct involvement of the countries in that region. Direct criticism pertaining to special situations should not get lost in multilateral declarations. The region is not served by organised silence.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner, I think that the Union should learn the lessons of this failure in Cancún, in order to avoid making the same mistakes in the future, and should rethink its strategy in order to prepare the indispensable initiatives for relaunching multilateralism. First, with regard to the emergence of these new groups of developing countries, I think that President Prodi was right, in Bologna last week, to stress that the nature of G21 and the will to make a political affirmation which it expressed were underestimated and misunderstood. I think that to seek to divide it or to set other developing countries against this group was wrong. It was useless and it diverted us from the indispensable political dialogue and trust which we needed to try and re-forge with it. Of course, the emergence of these groups, such as the subsequent G90, will make discussions and negotiations more difficult for us within the WTO. This is a challenge for the European Union, but it is also the pledge of a fairer trade system which responds better to the concerns of all the continents, especially of those who have not so far been the winners from the establishment of the WTO. Secondly, on the Singapore issues. I think that the negotiations were already fairly complicated on agriculture and the other questions which come under the jurisdiction of the WTO. There was also the outstanding balance of the commitments which were made in Doha and not respected, especially the deadlines which were not respected, not to mention the issues which we knew the majority of developing countries did not want. This was too classic a bargaining approach between defensive and offensive issues which did not match the situation and demonstrated, here too, a poor understanding of the deep-seated refusal to deal with these Singapore issues. I think that, if we want to save multilateralism today, it is only conceivable if we propose an in-depth reform, not only of the working of the WTO – this Parliament has made proposals for which I had the honour of acting as rapporteur – but also of its rules, of its priorities and of its doctrines, as previous speakers said. I think that we have to reinsert the commercial rules, in order for them to be better accepted by everyone as a whole, into a concept of world governance. Without doubt we need to replace the WTO in the system of the United Nations, because what Commissioner Prodi said earlier about relations with the other agencies comes down to that, perhaps under the control of an ‘economic and social security council’, as proposed by the former president of the Commission, Jacques Delors.

Political group: PSE