GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Ireland does not in general have a problem with stricter ELVs for new plants, as these can simply be incorporated into IPC licensing and will help achieve national emission ceilings. However, we must question further tightening beyond the common position and whether it will bring any significant additional environmental benefits. The common position was developed in tandem with the proposed NEC directive and represents a coherent and balanced approach to achieving environmental objectives over time. The proposed amendments are not justified in terms of environmental benefits and associated costs and other impacts and would disturb the balance achieved. Further tightening would increase costs and reduce Member State flexibility in meeting agreed national targets and accelerate increased dependence on natural gas with attendant fuel security concerns for electricity generation, particularly in countries like Ireland. Additional restrictions on existing LCP are not justified in the context of Member State commitments under the NEC directive to reduce overall emissions and the impending application of the IPPC directive. Some amendments will even have a perverse effect. For example, stringent and uneconomic ELVs for small plants will hinder combined heat and power development and others do not support an integrated approach to the environment. Proposals to tighten ELVs are not proportionate regarding costs and benefits and fail to recognise that the common position is a balance between improving environmental performance and avoiding excessive costs and other impacts. No cost-benefit analysis is provided for the further reduction of emissions from plants with already low emission concentrations. One amendment I have difficulty with is the proposal to reduce NOx emission limits from 650 to 200. It is technically feasible but will require the installation of costly end-of-pipe controls. This will require more energy input and result in increased CO2 emissions, the use of more raw materials and the production of hazardous waste. The Council's proposed ELVs could be met by primary means at a much lower cost. As noted previously, these additional costs will ultimately be borne in high electricity prices. However, it is not at all clear that the benefits in additional NOx emission reductions outweigh the associated environmental and economic costs, i.e. this is not consistent with an integrated approach to the environment as a whole.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it was a good thing, Mr Prodi, that you attended the Committee on Budgetary Control this morning, and it is important to say so. As a matter of principle, I would like to draw attention to the Group’s concerns about the Eurostat affair, but about other issues as well. It is not good if the Commission always needs a new scandal before it takes a further step along its road to reform. This is constant grist to Mr Bonde’s mill – if I may be so bold as to name names – and he makes political capital out of it. That is one lesson the Commission should learn. Let me now turn to some individual points. I greatly welcome your announcement this morning that the information channels between OLAF and the Commission are to be reviewed. That is necessary. However – and let me speak plainly – this must include answering the question how the Commission deals internally with information from OLAF, so that this information is not simply buried in the files without anyone knowing about it while everyone has their knives out for the Commission. I also welcome the fact that when asked, you clarified to the Commission on Budgetary Control that your proposals on the reform of OLAF do not imply that you are questioning or restricting OLAF’s responsibility for internal investigations. That is very important, for it would have resulted in a major clash with this House. We want to see OLAF as an independent agency, especially in light of the internal investigations, and so I welcome your clarifying this point to the Committee on Budgetary Control and urge you to continue along this course. Let me comment on the issue of political responsibility. We have always adopted the position that the Commissioners should also be able to exercise this responsibility. Based on your statement this morning and the fact that a supplement to the Code of Conduct has again become necessary – describing how the Commissioners themselves should ask questions and how the services and the Directorates-General should be obliged to inform the Commissioners about problems, or landmines – I can only assume that this has not been set down on paper or been common practice. That was how we analysed the situation in July. However, the time has come to learn lessons from this. We want a radical reform of the relations between the Directorates-General and the Commissioners, and we will scrutinise your proposals to see whether they match these requirements. IN THE CHAIR: MR PACHECO PEREIRAVice-President

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the right of individual Members to demand that the outcome of a vote be checked is a matter of good practice in this House. It can indeed happen that a President – and we assume that all Presidents and Vice-Presidents have a good overview of things – from time to time asks whether a check is what the individual Member really wants. Earlier, though, there was Amendment No 4, when so many Members asked for the result to be checked, that I do not think it was proper of you to ignore their requests. I continue to regard this amendment as still outstanding and ask you to have a check carried out.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr Antonione, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to express my appreciation of and full support for the content of the report under discussion. We would obviously have preferred the text proposed by the Convention to be more advanced in terms of the process of integration but we realise that the compromise reached is the only one possible, and it is this that we need to admit by agreeing with President Giscard d'Estaing’s statement when, opening the work of the Convention, he said that our unity is the reason for our existence. I believe that a text that has such broad backing cannot easily be modified by the Intergovernmental Conference, except in some minor aspects. There is, however, only one issue, the most important issue, on which we need to put pressure on the Intergovernmental Conference, namely the rules for the revision of the Constitutional Treaty. If every single amendment to the Constitution is to depend on the unanimity of the 25 or 27 – or, in future, even more – Member States, then the risk is that this great step in the history of Europe will ultimately serve to constrain on Europe’s future and put an end to its hopes.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, misuse of rules of origin must result in repayment of duties. If this does not take place, we shall have not only a fiscal, but also an ethical problem. My question is as follows: has the warning notice to importers had any effect on the Member States that have a rather casual approach to the rules of origin? After all, we are shaping a common market, and access to that market has to be properly regulated.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I would like to express my thanks to Mr Oostlander for his report, and to the President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Yiannitsis, and Commissioner Verheugen. I feel that the Oostlander report is very well-balanced and frank. The European Union is a Union of shared values. Thus, all the countries which have become Members in the past and those which are joining the Union now share these values and, in order to join the Union, have brought their institutional, political and economic systems into line. This is the bottom line. It is not the European Union which wants to become part of Turkey but Turkey which wants to subscribe to these shared values. We must respect the diversities which make up the rich heritage of the European Union, but the limits are defined by respect for the Copenhagen criteria, for the principles of democracy and the rule of law, and these criteria and principles must not just be proclaimed but enforced and lived. I would venture to say that the countries which intend to share our European culture may become part of the European Union. Turkey is applying to join. We are not opposed to this in principle. We are waiting for the country to complete the process of adopting our cultural values. The Erdogan government must be encouraged in the process of moving Turkey closer to the values of the European Union. The ideological NATOists believe that Turkey’s role in NATO could be its trump card when it comes to joining the European Union. That might have been so in the past, but we now believe that NATO, with the participation of Russia, will gradually have to assume, with a slightly more effective contribution from the European Union, an international policing role, serving a United Nations which has been reformed to safeguard human rights and democracy in the countries of the world. I hope that Turkey will be able to act on these proposals, to resolve the Cyprus issue and to establish good neighbourly relations with all the countries on its borders, resolving longstanding conflicts.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it has been agreed with the rapporteur, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten, that when it comes to Amendment No 2 of Paragraph 6, we should regard this amendment as an addition to the original paragraph. This means, therefore, that if Amendment No 2 is approved, the original paragraph will also have to be put to the vote.

Political group: PSE
The own-initiative report that we have been discussing today seeks to persuade the European Commission to “give an EU research initiative on the next-generation Internet and new communications infrastructure (and associated electronic communications) a high priority in the 6th Framework research strategy”. As rapporteur on this subject, I had an obligation to speak and I wished to emphasise that the European Commission’s proposal on the new FPRTD has taken account of this requirement, since the second priority, of the 7+1 priorities, focuses on technologies for the Information Society. It was clear that a sector that represented such considerable progress would be given a prominent place in this multi-annual programme. I largely approve of the report’s requests, whilst at the same time deploring their excessively liberal tone. The rapporteur often forgets that these new technologies must exist, first and foremost, to serve the public. He is right to say that EU and Member State resources should focus on pre-competitive projects, with the objective of ensuring a powerful EU presence in the global development of next generation Internet and new communications infrastructures, reinforcing the EU's role in Internet governance. In this context, I would point out that our Parliament voted, in the part-session of March 2001, for the Carraro report, which focused on the place that the Member States and the European Union should occupy within ICANN [the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers] – a private, non-profit company that has produced several key Internet systems – and which recommends opening up this system to developing countries. I am delighted that the Harbour report takes up these two points again. Like Mr Harbour, I support the strategy of seeking to promote the 'centres of excellence' referred to in the Commission’s proposals for creating a European research area, even if, I repeat, this concept needs to be clarified. I think it is a good idea that one of these centres should specialise in electronic communication, but we have not yet reached that point! With regard to the rapid creation of a super fast trans-European research network with a capacity of 100 gigabytes per second, this is, of course, an essential prerequisite to achieving an economy that is competitive, dynamic and knowledge-based, as defined in Lisbon. I shall take this opportunity to repeat insist on the fact that super fast Internet must benefit all strata of society. This is what I would have liked to see in my report on Universal Service and the new communications networks. Unfortunately, my amendments on this subject were rejected, largely at the behest of Mr Harbour!

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I wish to speak on a completely different subject, but as this Parliament knows, the Convention entrusted with the task of drafting the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union has just completed its work, and this is cause for satisfaction. Yet, while our own institution has done so much to ensure the successful completion of the work of the Convention, particularly by, on many occasions, making its premises available to the Convention, I am sorry that today, as our plenary part-session in Strasbourg is opening, it was not possible to organise the formal hand over of this Charter here in Strasbourg, in conditions worthy of it, now that the work of drafting it has been completed. In my view, this would have been a powerful, symbolic act for our institution, and I think it is a pity.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to carry on from the point at which the rapporteur stopped in his report, for which I thank him, and point out once again that, compared with the plethora of resolutions which do not equate with the priorities of this House, increasing foreign reserve assets is an important resolution. What is the legal basis for today’s debate? According to Article 3 of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks, owning and managing official foreign reserve assets is one of the tasks of the ECB. This task is carried out in parallel by the ECB and the national central banks, whereby the national central banks transfer part of their reserves up to the equivalent of 50 billion euros to the European Central Bank, in accordance with Article 30.1 of the Statute. It was decided at the time, in Article 30.4 – which is why today’s discussion comes as no surprise – that the ECB could call up further foreign reserve assets beyond the limit set in Article 30.1. This call must be issued in the form of a regulation by the EU Council. The ECB is currently calling for a further increase of 50 billion euros. We, the Group of the European People’s Party and the entire Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, as the rapporteur has already said, welcome this proposal. The reasons are set out in detail and time is already marching on, but allow me to say that we consider that this increase is needed. First, because it will help to increase the financial independence of the ECB, and the independence of the European Central Bank is instrumental to the stability and unassailability of the currency. The return on the capital paid up so far and the official reserves currently represents the ECB’s only source of income for financing its operations. We know that it sustained a loss in 1999. We must therefore admit that a lack of funds robs the ECB of the ability to formulate an independent and transparent policy. Its financing requirements must be covered so that its independence cannot be called into question. Secondly, we are in favour of this increase because it will help to foster the credibility of the ECB on the markets. If the ECB is financially independent and self-sufficient, this will increase its credibility on the international markets and, by extension, strengthen the euro en route to the third stage on 1.1.2002. Thirdly: this increase will enhance the ability of the ECB to react and adapt. In the event of a serious imbalance on the markets, possibly doubling its reserves gives the European Central Bank the potential to carry out its task in the form of a stability policy more effectively. It gives it the possibility to react more flexibly because it has the necessary funds at its disposal. Our report also introduces an additional model for strengthening the transparency of this procedure and I would therefore ask that you vote in favour of increasing the reserves. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I wish to thank Commissioner Byrne for his answer. Approximately 60 of the 75 people sentenced and imprisoned in Cuba following summary trials have received prison sentences of more than 20 years. They feel, quite simply, that their lives are threatened. Sentences as tough as these have not been handed down in Cuba for several decades. My follow-up question to the Commissioner is about how we might follow up the protests in terms of practical politics. Can we act within the world community – within the UN – by trying to persuade the Red Cross to take action? Can we act through churches or in some other way? By means of various types of sanctions, can we put pressure on the Cuban regime? We are concerned here with people who have had to pay a very high price for the sake of democracy.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I hope that Mrs Lalumière’s sterling report will this time not only meet with widespread agreement in Parliament but will also be heard in the Council. But all too often the Council puts to one side what has been decided within the European Parliament, by consensus or not, as the case may be. European unification is born from a desire for sustainable peace. This is a leading concept which recurs in many interventions. The Common Foreign and Security Policy should therefore forge a unity between political decision-making, conflict prevention, crisis management, possibly military action – only if need be, and ideally not – plus a plan to return to peace afterwards and to keep this peace. I am not only thinking of Kosovo, which has been so important to us as an eye-opener. The failure throughout the former Yugoslavia has shown that European helplessness and fragmentation between the different governments do not lead to a prospect of joint peace. This peace is communal and it should also be maintained communally.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to express my thanks for this excellent report. The Internal Market facilitates the existence of mergers, as does the single currency, enlargement of the Union and globalisation, actually a type of merger, and helps put global control of the economy and communications in the hands of the few. Convergence itself has led to a situation where the IT sector, the media and the telecommunications sector are actually one inside the other, with the result that there exist enormous concentrations – mega-powers, in fact – in which economic and industrial power, the power of communications, and, in many cases, political power, are in practice concentrated in the same hands. The media is also decidedly centralised, and I have not seen the Commission interfere very much in that. The situation in Italy reminds one of Russia, although the Russian leadership at least does not own television channels. There will perhaps soon be only a few companies or operators left in the telecommunications sector, and although they might not attain a dominant market position in one, two or even three countries, it might come about globally. A company will thus have a considerable market share in a group of ten countries. I do hope the Commission will address the situation and assess the globally important market position. Companies that have benefited from economies of scale can manipulate markets. The Union’s binding principle of social cohesion requires that the business interface takes account of social welfare and labour law, and let us also mention the rights of shareholders, which is also part of the social cohesion system we have decided to embrace.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it was with great pleasure that I voted for the report against the experimentation of cosmetics on animals, tabled by Mrs Dagmar Roth-Behrendt. Why did I vote for the report? I must say that fish, which I have helped and supported for a long time with regard to reports concerning them, have spread the word that Mr Fatuzzo helps and listens to animals, and consequently the news has spread from them to many other animal species. So many of these creatures have asked me to ensure – in my own small way with my vote – that these experiments, which they do not look on kindly, are ended. They also asked me to try my best to stop fur coats being made from their pelts: another important achievement which I hope will come about soon. In the meantime, we have obtained what I voted for, contained in the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee in the Roth-Behrendt report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the situation of poverty in the world is perfectly well known, as is the deep gulf that separates the northern and southern hemispheres. Nevertheless, and despite several declarations of good intentions, the formal 1974 commitment to attain the objective of public aid for development at a level of 0.7% of GDP and despite the fact that the World Bank recently found it necessary to double the resources earmarked for public aid, the truth is that it is no higher than 0.22% in the OECD countries, the lowest level ever, having fallen by around 25% in the last decade and not currently exceeding 0.32% in the Member States of the European Union. Against this backdrop and with Johannesburg on the horizon, the Monterrey Conference is taking on an undeniable importance. It is truly time to reverse past actions and negative trends, to look at the problem of the development of poor countries in a different way, a way that demonstrates greater solidarity and to adopt practical and binding measures. We respect the Council decision of 8 November, but it is crucial that the Spanish Presidency and the Commission spare no effort to ensure that Monterrey results in objective and scheduled commitments that guarantee some progress, even with the awareness of the retrograde and unacceptable positions of the American administration in this field, which cannot impose conformist positions on others, and even with the awareness of the weaknesses of the so-called Monterrey consensus itself. Monterrey must also result in guidelines that put an end to the devastating effect of foreign debt on the development of developing countries, by putting forward mechanisms that do not hold back the Highly Indebted Poor Countries initiative and which are primarily founded on global recognition of the principle of debt relief. The appalling situation in which the developing countries find themselves cannot remain as it is and the European Union and its Member States must not only not content themselves with being the largest donor but must also adopt a clear position which helps these countries to find a way out of this situation.

Political group: GUE-NGL