GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Mrs de Palacio, pollution abatement is a noble but difficult struggle, a delicate balance between economic prosperity and human welfare. Nevertheless, health and the economy are inseparable companions in the long run. For that reason I too am pleased with the approach proposed by the Commission. Noise should be reduced where that is needed most. There is no real need for noise reduction at airports located a long way from where people live, so if a straitjacket were to apply in all situations there would be a slowdown in the economy for no good reason, and it is always the poor who are the first to suffer. I am also pleased that we were able to get the committee to approve some useful adjustments. It has to be made clear that the directive cannot apply to small aircraft, because nothing would be gained by banning them, although I am sure the radicals would like to protect deer and wild boars too from the sound of aircraft. Mr Jarzembowski has once again done a very professional job. He has had to negotiate with the Council and the Commission under heavy pressure. Not all my colleagues, however, have taken such a responsible view of the matter. There were many amendments tabled despite the fact that we are in danger of a trade dispute with the United States of America if we do not use this directive to quash the hushkit regulation before its entry into force. I strongly condemn the new US steel tariffs, but, in spite of that, Europe must not pick a quarrel. We, for our own part, can set a good example of how to manage trade policy. May President Bush learn a lesson from it. I believe we have found a good compromise, and we should proceed from that. The best way to bring down noise levels, however, is by an international agreement on a reduction in aircraft noise. A totally silent world is hardly possible nor even desirable. One day, though, a jumbo jet or the new and large – by European standards – Airbus will be emitting less noise than a flock of crows. There is no reason for us yet, however, to prescribe limits for the noise made by crows.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the purpose of annual reports is to carry out analyses over a limited period and draw conclusions from them. This 11th Annual Report on the Structural Funds relates to a year which is undoubtedly very important for the development of the European Union's cohesion policies. My group supports the rapporteur on some of the proposed measures and options to improve the management of the Structural Funds, such as speeding up the implementation of approved measures, concentrating assistance in areas whose development is lagging behind or improving on-the-spot checks to combat what is still a very high level of fraud. However, we also have some criticisms. We should point out that we do not endorse some of the conclusions drawn by the rapporteur, such as the overly negative assessment of the Structural Fund results during the planning period and the failure to meet the regional policy objective of harmonising living conditions, which has supposedly only been achieved in part. I would say to the rapporteur that he has adopted the wrong approach to European structural policy, whose task is solely to reduce disparities and which I believe has generally achieved this goal. In fact, there will always be a discrepancy between living conditions in the rich and poor regions of the EU, and even within Member States. We are daydreaming if we expect harmonisation from the structural policies. We should not confuse achievable goals with a wish list here. My second point of criticism is that despite all the significance of 1999, the 11th Report is an annual report and not a storehouse catalogue in which all the concerns and problems faced by the European Union in the past, present and future have to be rolled out yet again. If reports are to achieve anything, they must focus on specific priorities, as we all know from our years of practical experience here in Parliament. This is precisely what this report does not do. As I said, the rapporteur's conclusions are not necessarily wrong, but much of what is included in the report really does not need to be there. That is why we believe that some of the points raised in the report need to be amended by the plenary.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the French version of the Minutes for yesterday’s sitting state, on page 14, that we were to come back this morning to my request to postpone the voting on the Villiers report. I think the time has now come to do so. I proposed that we vote on the Villiers report in Brussels in November, because there are a number of rather sensitive amendments that I should not like to see voted in by random majorities.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for the pertinence of his comments and for his many proposals. Out of the 34 poorest countries in the world, 20 are involved in a conflict. This situation is giving rise to instability in entire regions. Mr Morillon is right to highlight the question of poverty, the eradication of which is one of the objectives we set when we met with the ACP countries. I think that today we cannot afford not to think about debt cancellation and the structural adjustment policies which push these countries off course. I think that we must stop fixing the prices of raw materials ourselves and that we must sell triple-drug therapies and medicines at cost price. I am convinced that this is where a certain number of solidarity measures must be put in place. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as I am talking to you I feel I must spare a thought for all democrats and for the people of the Ivory Coast and, in the name of democracy, to ask for the departure of the military junta and General Gueï. We know that, if he stays, this will mean the balkanisation of Africa. His power is based on ethnic divides which we cannot accept. I therefore believe that, to go in the direction outlined by the rapporteur, we must have extremely clear things to say to the European taxpayer and to the ACP countries. We must make a commitment to tell the military junta in the Ivory Coast, and all dictatorships, that we will never issue them with visas or give them protection. We will also freeze their assets and, in addition, we will give our full backing to all democrats. It is simple and powerful phrases like these that will allow us to understand each other.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I ask that the following change be made to the amendment on which we are currently voting. The last line reads: '...the work of private operators'. I ask that the word 'private' be deleted, so that it will then read: 'the work of operators'.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, apart from its costs, the common agricultural policy makes it difficult to allocate small farmer support to countries like Portugal, where 75% of farmers are small-scale. Simplification of the direct support scheme has become essential, and so it is important to make progress in this field, even if only experimentally. Parliament’s report improves the Commission proposal by broadening the scope of the simplified scheme to include farmers who get up to 1500 euro per year and also increasing aid by 20%. However, given the characteristics of the agricultural sector in Portugal, we would have preferred the threshold of the scheme to be put at 2500 euro, as Friedrich Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf had proposed, which would ensure that many more Portuguese farmers would enter the scheme. I therefore regret the proposal by Arlindo Cunha to reduce this threshold to 1500 euro. Yet we must be careful that this simplified scheme is not used by the Commission to achieve other objectives, that is, in connection with a reform of the CAP: clear conditions for access to the simplified scheme must be defined in collaboration with the national governments with a view to guaranteeing that agricultural activity is maintained. In any case, I support the report presented by Parliament.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, over the past few days, the debate on a European economic government has gained momentum once again in different quarters. It is evident that more economic management is required at European level, but it is not so evident that only the 11 euro zone countries or the Ecofin Council will need to take on that coordination. At the Lisbon Summit, a decision was made precisely in favour of a wider socio-economic approach in which employment, economic reform and social cohesion are seen as being interrelated. In my opinion, the key conclusion that was reached at that summit was that the European Council will itself adopt an active, guiding and coordinating role. Each spring, our government leaders will discuss the socio-economic policy on the basis of an integrated progress report from the European Commission. Unfortunately, spring had already started this year. The text for the broad economic guidelines for 2000 had already been drafted, very much along established lines. Why did the Commission not take more time and, in line with Lisbon, draft the guidelines in an interdisciplinary manner, as prepared by the different DGs? Why do we not let the Commission continue with, and further develop, this type of cooperation, which also typified the preparatory work for Lisbon, in a socio-economic field? That seems to me a highly interesting challenge for the Commission’s new Secretary General, David O'Sullivan. I would suggest taking into account conclusion 29 of the present report, which advocates a drastic renewal of the intellectual apparatus behind economic policy-making to bring it in line with the Lisbon conclusions. I would also like to make reference to the conclusions of this Parliament’s Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, compiled by Mr Cocilovo. He proposes the drawing up of a single annual report on the economic and social state of the Union, and one set of annual guidelines for sustainable growth, employment and social cohesion. One additional suggestion I would like to make is to include the socio-economic forum, which is scheduled for next month, earlier on in the annual cycle, i.e. at the very beginning of the year. At the moment, it is just tacked on at the end. Finally, I would like to draw the attention of the Members of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to the consensus-oriented cooperation which we have enjoyed in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs in this sphere and add that we in this Parliament should break though the compartmentalisation and endeavour to rise above the hobbyhorses of this or the other side and to have an input in, for example, next month’s forum, precisely on that basis.

Political group: PSE
Mr Busquin, thank you very much for your Communication, which shows that you are being very swift in giving effect to the proposals for guidelines that you have set out with regard to the common research area. I would like to ask you whether you consider that it will be possible to launch, as early as 2001, pilot actions regarding the preparation of the Sixth Framework Programme, and, in particular, the networking of research that you have talked about. I would also like to ask you to award particular attention to the relations between the STOA Unit and matters that concern your Directorate for which you have responsibility, because problems exist in this regard. Many research-related matters selected by the STOA Unit are then poorly received by the Commission departments. This issue should therefore be discussed with you, particularly in connection with the Joint Research Centre (JRC). Lastly, I would like to ask you whether we could quite rapidly develop research activities within a Euro-Mediterranean context, since you recently had a meeting at Capri with the Research Ministers of countries from both sides of the Mediterranean, and because this is an issue of great concern to Parliament.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The discussion about the Charter of Fundamental Rights shows the lack of legitimacy and transparency in the construction of Europe, for today the laws of competition and profit are quite evidently taking precedence over human rights. We prefer a different approach, under which economic aspects must always come second to the satisfaction of human and environmental needs. The Charter should be drafted on the basis of a broad public debate among all the people, including those in the candidate states, and also involve the unions, the associations, the women's movements and the unemployed, in a constituent process. A Charter of this kind should be based on the most progressive acquis and combine social and democratic rights. A radical reduction in working hours which must lead to more recruitment and not flexibility; a ban on redundancies; requisitioning empty housing; equality and the right to choose for women; the right to vote and freedom of movement for immigrants: that is what should have featured in this text. A Charter of that kind would offer support to all those men and women who are fighting against a Europe that lays off workers or expels immigrants who do not have the proper identity papers.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to make it clear that, if this is an addition, my group will agree to it. (Approval)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, there are many aspects to this debate: better drafting, wider consultation and so on, and we are making progress on a number of these. However, the issue I would like to address is what I would call 'horizontal subsidiarity', it is not vertical subsidiarity that Lord Inglewood just addressed in his comments about the level of government - European, national or regional. It is about whether or not you should legislate, whether you should leave it to self-regulation, co-regulation or no regulation at all. There too we need a hierarchy; we need an onus to prove the need to intervene. It may be that you do not need to regulate in certain matters or on certain subjects. If you do, it may be that self-regulation is enough, and if that is not enough, that co-regulation is enough. However, when it is not enough – and only when it is not enough – then we should intervene and adopt legislation. The question is, as with vertical subsidiarity, who decides? It is right that the legislative authority should decide. Those who are accountable to the population as a whole, rather than to certain sectoral interests, should take that decision in the first place. That is why I welcome the interinstitutional agreement and the Frassoni report – and I congratulate Mrs Frassoni on her report. This interinstitutional agreement does not contain an enormous amount, but it does contain recognition that to co-regulate you first need authorisation from the legislative authority. That is a very important principle and is something we have achieved in this interinstitutional agreement. I should just like to add a word about interinstitutional agreements in general. We now have a large number of them, many of them overlap, some repeat the same subjects using different wording. We will soon have to come back and codify and simplify the various interinstitutional agreements that we have into a single, clear, concise text. It is one of the first things we should return to once we have settled the issue, hopefully soon, of adopting our new European Constitution. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, normally a scientific and technological cooperation agreement is straightforward, very welcome and an occasion for optimism, especially if it is the successor to earlier agreements on which good scientific work has been done. Sadly, this agreement cannot be straightforward. From the scientific point of view, collaboration with Israel is no doubt useful in the Sixth Framework Programme. It is a strong scientific country and, as we have heard, some very useful Mediterranean-wide projects, including research into water treatment, have been carried out and could be carried out in future. However, we are not discussing a normal country or a normal part of the world. Israel is not a normal country because many of the present government's actions are completely unacceptable: building a fence, occupying territory, breaching human rights, using repression. Despite some joint scientific work with Palestinians, I have had complaints regarding barriers to some of that work. Our Group considered very carefully whether to vote in favour of this agreement. There are two perfectly valid, tenable points of view. One could say – as some will – that signing or ratifying this agreement will be perceived as giving the green light and an encouraging signal and endorsement to the actions of the Israeli Government. That is certainly not the intention. In the past the European Parliament has very successfully asked for scientific cooperation to be frozen. Some Members advocate voting against this agreement and indeed taking much further action to show the Israeli Government our disapproval. A second alternative – and the one that I recommend – is to consider that science and research are positive, that the results of that work are of benefit to human beings and that this allows dialogue and provides an opening for work with Palestinians. Other points can certainly – and probably will – be made in political dialogue. There may be cause for action elsewhere. We have had long discussions and have come to the conclusion, in majority – although not unanimously – that the second alternative, to put faith in the possibility that the scientific dialogue, without any endorsement of the Israeli Government's actions, will bring some progress. We have great reservations. We want Palestinian participation without barriers or handicaps. Of course we want no nuclear, military or dual-use research. We want a very close monitoring of the situation. We want the EU-Israel Research Committee to report regularly so that we can see whether this act of faith in the value of science has been worthwhile or has been misinterpreted by a government whose actions we condemn.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we are all familiar with the socio-economic problems facing the European Union, which are creating misgivings amongst the citizens of most Member States, and this is particularly true for my country, Portugal, where unemployment continues to grow, where we are in the midst of economic recession and where the gulf that separates us from the EU average is still increasing and the Commission is providing no investment to solve the problem of the deficit. This is why it is crucial to revise the policies responsible for this situation, and consequently the Commission and the Council need to clarify three issues that I believe are fundamental and require immediate resolution. First of all, are these institutions willing straightaway to set about making the necessary adjustments to the economic and monetary policy guidelines, with the aim of replacing the Stability Pact with a Social Progress and Employment Pact, in line with the aims of full employment, economic development and economic and social cohesion, in order to guarantee further public investment, more and better employment and greater social inclusion? Secondly, are they going to ask the European Central Bank to reduce interest rates in order to support economic growth and exports, a key issue for countries with weaker economies such as Portugal? Thirdly: are they going to approve a moratorium on liberalisations, review the Lisbon Strategy and undertake an in-depth study of the consequences of what has already been implemented in the various economic and social sectors, specifically in terms of employment, the quality and universality of service provided, the degree of user satisfaction and in terms of extending the democratisation of the operation and management of services, without overlooking the problems and shortcomings in most enlargement countries? Unless these measures are adopted, it will be impossible to implement a policy to boost the economy and to sustain demand in the short- and medium-term. What is needed, therefore, is a re-evaluation of production and labour with a view to promoting economic development, employment and social cohesion, based on a steady increase in national and Community public investment, particularly in basic infrastructures, in education, in qualifications and vocational training, in research and innovation, in the environment and in support for small- and medium-sized enterprises. These are the real priorities, which the men and women in our countries hope to see addressed before the European elections of 13 June.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, allow me to begin by congratulating the Finnish Presidency on what has, on the whole, been a good six months. I should like to thank you, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, for enabling the EU’s foreign and security policy, including its military capability, to be discussed so thoroughly today. The EU can now, within the framework of the Amsterdam Treaty, increase its credibility where commitment to freedom and peace in Europe are concerned. The Helsinki Summit is, in that respect, a test for Europe’s present leadership. Is there the will and the courage to get together to formulate, and give depth to, a policy which enables the people of Europe to see that there is force and not only words behind the desire to prevent human catastrophes such as that in Kosovo? Just as important a test of leadership is that involved in guaranteeing that the enlargement of the European Union can be carried out with the first new Member States acceding to the Union during the present term of office. In Helsinki, the preliminary values are being laid down for the Intergovernmental Conference which is to solve any remaining questions of power. We must have a European Union with the power to take decisions. Wishes for the future ought not, however, to be allowed to outstrip the historic task of taking advantage now of the historical opportunity to unify the whole of Europe. The Finnish Presidency and the Summit must hand over the baton to Portugal with one unequivocal goal: to conclude the Intergovernmental Conference in Paris with a view to making an open, cooperative Europe, united in a common purpose, into a reality and one which will make place great demands upon leadership, the capacity for change and the willingness to quarrel less over national and short-term interests.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Parliament’s Rules of Procedure must be enforced! It seems that in this House there is a claque supporting Mr Schulz in the public gallery, although in this House, as in all parliaments, members of the public are forbidden to applaud or call out in support of one argument or another. I therefore ask you, Mr President, to enforce the Rules of Procedure and perhaps have spectators removed if they are supporters of one side and do not intend to watch the work of Parliament but just want to cheer someone on.

Political group: PPE-DE
Our amendment relates to the issue of knowing whether or not we approve the European Central Bank’s policy. Last week, this policy changed between the time when the report by Mr von Wogau was written and the time when our amendments were written. Clearly, we disapproved of the policy the European Central Bank issued the week before last and not the policy that was issued last week. I would like Mr von Wogau to clarify whether he supports the policy issued this week or the policy issued the week before.

Political group: Verts-ALE